A moot point, as it has nothing to do with veneration of the saints as we know it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Even so, we have a church historian who characterizes it as such, when the argument is that I'm arguing against history.Sam Lowry said:That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.Sam Lowry said:This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.
Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....
Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.
And you're missing the entire point - this is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church was tainted by pagan idolatry, despite claims to the contrary.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
747,840 Views |
6593 Replies |
Last: 1 hr ago by Oldbear83
I understand that he can do that. You're the one who seemed to suggest it was "union with sin."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You understand it "differently", as in incorrectly. You didn't understand how God could forgive our sin, and be reconciled to us even if we were not yet sanctified. You saw that as God having union with sin. You didn't understand the perfect atoning sacrfice of Jesus that was absolutely necessary to make that possible.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
Ok, good one.Oldbear83 said:Maryland?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:So what is Mary sovereign over?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:curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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
I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and you required that God violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree with, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
The leftover paganism of saint "offices" or jurisdictions, statues, bowing to and kissing the statues, mother goddesses, prayer beads, etc. have nothing to do with the Roman Catholic practice of veneration of the Saints which involve all of these?Sam Lowry said:A moot point, as it has nothing to do with veneration of the saints as we know it.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Even so, we have a church historian who characterizes it as such, when the argument is that I'm arguing against history.Sam Lowry said:That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.Sam Lowry said:This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.
Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....
Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.
And you're missing the entire point - this is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church was tainted by pagan idolatry, despite claims to the contrary.
No, you said that God can just "forgive" us of sins and reconcile with us without requiring blood sacrifice, that God can choose it that way, which means his holiness was just a choice and could be violated. Your beliefs led you to a fundamental misunderstanding of the atonement. Do we really need to rehash it all out again?Sam Lowry said:I understand that he can do that. You're the one who seemed to suggest it was "union with sin."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You understand it "differently", as in incorrectly. You didn't understand how God could forgive our sin, and be reconciled to us even if we were not yet sanctified. You saw that as God having union with sin. You didn't understand the perfect atoning sacrfice of Jesus that was absolutely necessary to make that possible.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
It's a non sequitur. I would just suggest that if you want to have a productive discussion, you might stick to explaining your own beliefs and let others explain theirs. Too often you distort Catholic theology based on logic that is, shall we say, questionable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and require God to violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
That's what it means in your opinion. Many if not most theologians throughout history would disagree.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, you said that God can just "forgive" us of sins and reconcile with us without requiring blood sacrifice, that God can choose it that way, which means his holiness was just a choice and could be violated.Sam Lowry said:I understand that he can do that. You're the one who seemed to suggest it was "union with sin."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You understand it "differently", as in incorrectly. You didn't understand how God could forgive our sin, and be reconciled to us even if we were not yet sanctified. You saw that as God having union with sin. You didn't understand the perfect atoning sacrfice of Jesus that was absolutely necessary to make that possible.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
You and I are working with what are known as different premises. Different premises may not logically require the same conclusion.
No, it is NOT a non sequitur, nor is it questionable. It's plain deductive reasoning. If we assumed your beliefs were true, then the logically necessary conclusion was that God's attributes were not eternal and were merely the result of his choosing to be that way temporally, instead of him having to be that way eternally. You came to the conclusion yourself! It's all on record. As far as productive discussions go, you can't really be more productive than that.Sam Lowry said:It's a non sequitur. I would just suggest that if you want to have a productive discussion, you might stick to explaining your own beliefs and let others explain theirs. Too often you distort Catholic theology based on logic that is, shall we say, questionable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and require God to violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
We worked with the same premises, and I got you to come to the conclusion yourself. It's not an opinion, it's logic and right now you're just trying to BS your way through this. Come on, man, that's not going to work.Sam Lowry said:That's what it means in your opinion. Many if not most theologians throughout history would disagree.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, you said that God can just "forgive" us of sins and reconcile with us without requiring blood sacrifice, that God can choose it that way, which means his holiness was just a choice and could be violated.Sam Lowry said:I understand that he can do that. You're the one who seemed to suggest it was "union with sin."BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You understand it "differently", as in incorrectly. You didn't understand how God could forgive our sin, and be reconciled to us even if we were not yet sanctified. You saw that as God having union with sin. You didn't understand the perfect atoning sacrfice of Jesus that was absolutely necessary to make that possible.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
You and I are working with what are known as different premises. Different premises may not logically require the same conclusion.
Again, different premises. I don't assume that God would violate his eternal attributes by choosing a path of salvation other than sacrifice. If anything I would argue that you're denying his sovereignty.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is NOT a non sequitur, nor is it questionable. It's plain deductive reasoning. If we assumed your beliefs were true, then the logically necessary conclusion was that God's attributes were not eternal and were merely the result of his choosing to be that way temporally, instead of him having to be that way eternally. You came to the conclusion yourself! It's all on record. As far as productive discussions go, you can't really be more productive than that.Sam Lowry said:It's a non sequitur. I would just suggest that if you want to have a productive discussion, you might stick to explaining your own beliefs and let others explain theirs. Too often you distort Catholic theology based on logic that is, shall we say, questionable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and require God to violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
Anyway, we have a difference of opinion. Catholics believe the sacraments are effective for their purpose. But the sacraments are made for a holy life, not the other way around. When life comes to an end, they're no longer needed by the thief on the cross or any of us.
I could find very little about this professor. I would like to read the readings in a greater context to better understand his argument. I'd like to also read Jerome's and Augustine's source writings on this topic to better understand the context.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
I was able to find a writing from him that did discuss how Christianity significantly bettered the lives of the poor, women, and children.
Having said that, for the sake of your argument, let's take his words at face value. We know that veneration and intercession of the saints is much older than Constantine, Augustine, and Jerome.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp (AD 156) includes references that honor and venerate martyrs and reflect early veneration.
Inscriptions found in 2nd century catacombs often include inscriptions for invocations that read "Pray for us."
Irenaeus and Tertulian discuss martyrdom and honor due to martyrs, indirectly supporting veneration and the practice of seeking intercession.
With respect to adopting "pagan practices", the Church fully admits that she has taken some pagan concepts, baptized them, and made them Christian.
Do you wear a wedding ring? Pagan
Put up a Christmas tree? Pagan origins
Drink coffee? Coffee beans taken from ships after the Battle of Lepanto which saved Europe from the complete spread of Islam
These are just a few of the many things that all Christians do that have pagan origins.
Did I miss your response to Ignatius of Anitoch's claim about the bishops and the Catholic Church?
This is precisely the source of your fundamental misunderstanding of the atonement. God's attributes NEVER exist as a "limited necessity". God's justice, his holiness - they are absolute necessities to his personhood. That's why a perfect atoning sacrifice was the only thing that would suffice. God could not have simply chosen a "lesser satisfaction" to be sufficient, as you asserted. Doing so would have violated his absolutely necessary attribute of holiness. Your idea of "limited necessity" to God's attributes is nothing short of pure heresy.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
I see that I have failed to better clarify my point with you. It's not necessarily about the age of his Church. They Catholic Church was founded by Jesus nearly 2000 years ago.Oldbear83 said:
"How old is your church again?"
Well then,by that logic we should give place to Judaism, Baal worship and whatever was going on in Sodom.
THOSE are far older than Christianity.
Of course, from his arguments we see Coke Bear was unaware of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the draconian punishment meted out by popes with far more cruelty in their hearts than Christ, so maybe I should not be surprised he thinks Jesus established the Roman Pope as a kind of mini-me (glowing version) who was is and shall forever be perfect, by the power of Mary, through whom he prays
(/Sarc)
I don't know who founded his church. He will not say. I can only assume that it was started by some non-dom in a house or strip mall. I can assure you this, it was not created by Jesus. It was probably created by some American less than 50 years ago.
Your argument was that "lesser satisfaction" could have been sufficient if God chose for it to be so. That most certainly would make God violate his own eternal attribute of holiness, not to mention it gets atonement completely wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's sovereignty too, apparently. Sovereignty does not mean God has the power to violate his own character.Sam Lowry said:Again, different premises. I don't assume that God would violate his eternal attributes by choosing a path of salvation other than sacrifice. If anything I would argue that you're denying his sovereignty.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:No, it is NOT a non sequitur, nor is it questionable. It's plain deductive reasoning. If we assumed your beliefs were true, then the logically necessary conclusion was that God's attributes were not eternal and were merely the result of his choosing to be that way temporally, instead of him having to be that way eternally. You came to the conclusion yourself! It's all on record. As far as productive discussions go, you can't really be more productive than that.Sam Lowry said:It's a non sequitur. I would just suggest that if you want to have a productive discussion, you might stick to explaining your own beliefs and let others explain theirs. Too often you distort Catholic theology based on logic that is, shall we say, questionable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and require God to violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
Anyway, we have a difference of opinion. Catholics believe the sacraments are effective for their purpose. But the sacraments are made for a holy life, not the other way around. When life comes to an end, they're no longer needed by the thief on the cross or any of us.
Forgive me here. I really don't know what you are saying. Are you an engineer by trade? I don't mean that with disrespect. I once had a teacher that stated that engineers tend to speak like everyone understands their thought process.Oldbear83 said:
So ... You say the Romans were the entire Church not because Christ said so, or the rest of the churches said so, but because you found some Romans who said so and you liked that.
I'm not following what you're saying or referring to. I would suggest that you copy the excerpts from my (and other's posts) to make your point more clearly. I truly say this with all respect. I want to understand your point to maintain the discussion.
Just looking at your first sentence, I never meant to imply that the "Romans were the entire Church." It's obvious that Christianity had spread to Africa, Asia, Asia Minor, and Europe by the 4th century. The bishop of Rome was respected as the leader of those churches.
So you have made yourself Pope and magisterium in one.Oldbear83 said:
I will stick with the words and instructions from Christ.
No Popes needed.
You are declaring that you have interpreted the bible infallibly and know exactly what He wants us to do.
Early references to martyr/saint veneration and intercession (that are found nowhere in original apostolic tradition) and the like are a far, far cry from having statues of saints, kissing them, praying to them, having feast for them, and designating "offices" to them - practices that all stemmed from the pagan compromise in Rome that are infused into Roman Catholic Church worship practices today.Coke Bear said:I could find very little about this professor. I would like to read the readings in a greater context to better understand his argument. I'd like to also read Jerome's and Augustine's source writings on this topic to better understand the context.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
I was able to find a writing from him that did discuss how Christianity significantly bettered the lives of the poor, women, and children.
Having said that, for the sake of your argument, let's take his words at face value. We know that veneration and intercession of the saints is much older than Constantine, Augustine, and Jerome.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp (AD 156) includes references that honor and venerate martyrs and reflect early veneration.
Inscriptions found in 2nd century catacombs often include inscriptions for invocations that read "Pray for us."
Irenaeus and Tertulian discuss martyrdom and honor due to martyrs, indirectly supporting veneration and the practice of seeking intercession.
With respect to adopting "pagan practices", the Church fully admits that she has taken some pagan concepts, baptized them, and made them Christian.
Do you wear a wedding ring? Pagan
Put up a Christmas tree? Pagan origins
Drink coffee? Coffee beans taken from ships after the Battle of Lepanto which saved Europe from the complete spread of Islam
These are just a few of the many things that all Christians do that have pagan origins.
Did I miss your response to Ignatius of Anitoch's claim about the bishops and the Catholic Church?
Wedding rings, Christmas trees, drinking coffee - none are incorporated into worship practices. We don't venerate/worship or pray to wedding rings, trees, or coffee. Come on, man, think. It's like you and Sam can't grasp the essence of what idolatry is and why it's wrong, and why God hates it.
I answered your question about Antioch.
Well, the words of St Paul in Phil 2:12 as state:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally quoted the apostle Paul in Romans. No interpretation. He literally states that "righteousness comes from faith to all those who believe". That it is a "gift that is received by faith". That "to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."Coke Bear said:You are presenting YOUR fallible interpretation of YOUR Biblical belief.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.
There just isn't a way you can finagle works into what Paul is saying here. To say that my belief is fallible, is to say that the apostle Paul's belief is too.
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," indicating an active participation in the process of salvation.
Matthew 25:31-46 - in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus speaks about the final judgement that those that who do acts of mercy like feeding the hungry and visiting the sick are blessed and welcomed into enteral life.
James 2:14 - "What good is it, by brothers, if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"
James 2:17 - "Faith, by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:24 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Catholics, too, can use Paul's works without "finagling" what he meant. I don't believe you can.
Finally, much ink has been spilt on this topic for 500 years. Pope (future doctor and Saint) Benedict XVI did say that there is a way that Catholics can agree to a "faith alone" doctrine as long as he understood that the faith being active in love.
It's not God's holiness that's in question. It's whether his holiness absolutely required the Atonement. Theologians have disagreed on this point. It's not a matter of heresy.
That wasn't the question at all. The question wasn't whether his holiness required a blood sacrifice atonement. The question was whether atonement (or any alternative process as God's "choice" to reconcile with sinful man) can involve God violating his holiness (or any other eternal attribute) while conducting that atonement (or other process).Sam Lowry said:
It's not God's holiness that's in question. It's whether his holiness absolutely required the Atonement. Theologians have disagreed on this point. It's not a matter of heresy.
You're trying to answer the dilemma of God having to act unjustly or inconsistently in a sacrament system for salvation by arguing that since a blood sacrifice for atonement was not an absolute necessity for God in the first place, it's possible for God to act unjustly and violate his holiness, because his justice and holiness don't necessarily have to be absolute either. This is a completely incongruent argument and the suggestion is indeed heretical.
Oldbear83 said:Sometime, take a look at how Jesus speaks to Peter and acts towards Peter.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:"shall not prevail against IT"Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:"It".Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:"Pope" is an RC title.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
You might want to keep in mind that Peter was the Church leader in Jerusalem, while Paul founded the one in Rome.
It's a comforting fiction that the Roman Catholic Church was THE Church, but it's a myth.
I guess it's a sensitive subject. It was literally all there was. Hence the name. In fact the first Pope was who again?
Obsessing on Peter as if he led all of the Church is as wrong as imagining Paul is all of the New Testament.
You yourself quoted James, for example, and there were many important people who laid the foundation for the first century of the Church, and none of them were called a "Pope".
You're choosing incorrect words. If Jesus called Peter the rock it's good enough for me. I'm only smart enough at best to repeat what Jesus said.
How is that obsessing?
Again, Peter was first as Jesus named him first and the progression of priests extended from there. Which leads to confession etc etc etc.
that's the logic of all of it. Not just something made up. Written down from the beginning. Not my opinion or whims.
Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.
Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.
I don't know what junior messiah is but all I know as do you that:
In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to Peter, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
As in Peter's faith.
And you might consider that Peter's denial of Christ and subsequent reconciliation matter in this question.
You think when Jesus said it" he refers to Peters faith? Meaning Peter would go to Heaven and not hell?
Faith, not the person.
If you pay attention to the rest of the Gospel, this is very clear.
Stop and consider:
How many times did Jesus praise faith, point to it, tell us to build it and protect it?
That is a fascinating perspective. Thanks for sharing. I guess for 1600 years those guys were wrong. But again if you go back to the original Greek etc and writings of the people of that time, that will be an impossible case to make.
I wonder why Jesus didn't say anyone else was the rock. For some reason he only mentioned it about Peter.
Jesus is using Peter to illustrate a human quality.
Remember when Jesus praised Peter for recognizing Jesus was the Christ? Jesus immediately pointed out this was because the Holy Spirit was at work.
Just a few minutes later, when Jesus told Peter 'get thee behind Me, Satan', Jesus was pointing out how Satan will try to corrupt even the most sincere believer.
You should not conclude from those two verses either that Peter was a better disciple than, say, John, or that Satan had control of Peter.
Similarly, in that verse where Jesus calls him Peter for the first time, Jesus is clearly speaking of FAITH, just as Jesus does over and over throughout the Gospel accounts. Jesus praises people over and over for their FAITH, and this is what is happening here.
It would be ironic for Jesus to mean Peter was himself the Rock, since Peter would deny even knowing Jesus later on. Jesus was absolutely speaking of Peter's faith in Christ, which is great, but it is wrong to promote Peter to more than being ONE of the many early leaders.
The trouble is that some RC scholars fell in love with making Peter their spiritual version of Iron Man, and completely missed the point, especially as it applies to Jesus' guidance for us all to grow our faith.
If you want further evidence, consider how Jesus points out that Jesus will build His Church 'upon this rock'. Do you really think Jesus built His Church on one man aside from Himself, and not the faith upon which every confession and reconciliation with God depends?
Been overseas a few days getting back to this. I take it you are making the case that when Jesus said "….peter ajd upon rhis rock I will build my church" that Jesus is not referring to the person Peter.
Assuming my understanding of your point is correct, can you point to any other verse in the Bible where Jesus makes a statement remotely appointing a leader of his church going forward?
Coke Bear said:You can keep telling your self that, but it don't make it true. You are arguing against history. The early church had bishops, priests, and deacons. It performed baptisms and celebrated the Eucharist.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
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.
In 107 AD, St Ignatius of Antioch said in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Ch 8:
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.
Has the Church grown and developed in 2000 years? Absolutely! Just like when you and I have developed from when we were born many years ago. Christ even mentioned this in the parable of the Mustard seed. The smallest seed became the mighty tree or the largest of plants.
Edit - Addition:
Of course, the Church is going to look different in 2000 years. It has grown from 120 people in the Upper Room to 1.4 billion today.
One thing we know for sure, Jesus Christ founded one church, not 45,000, upon rhe Rock (Peter / Petros) that was universal hence the term Catholic
Anything derivation invented after that is a 2nd or 45,000th derivative of what Jesus Christ breathed into existence in Matthew 16:18.
Oldbear83 said:Coke Bear said:What did they claim for themselves?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.
Second question, if Jesus founded the Catholic Church, why would one choose any other version of Christianity?
Jesus did NOT establish popes, basilicas, Latin liturgy or any of the other trappings of Roman Catholicism.
It is the height of dishonesty to pretend the RC denomination is the complete or perfect version Christ envisioned.
Christ would never have approved of all the money held by men who were SUPPOSED to set the example for charity (something some Protestant clergy are also guilty of).
Christ never established temporal power on this earth the way RC clergy did for centuries.
Christ never commanded an Inquisition be set up to punish, even kill, those who offended popes .
And Christ never commanded we should kill in His name, the way Popes did for centuries.
The clear fact we see in Acts and other chronicles, is that after Christ's ascension His followers spread the Gospel at great cost and suffering, and for the first two centuries the Church was as much Jerusalem and Damascus as Rome; a family of common condition and status.
After Constantine decided to show favor to the Roman church, the corruption began. The Roman church was tempted with money and power, and many of them fell to that temptation.
Now today the RC denomination has many believers with strong faith who are devoted to the Lord, just as you can find people of great faith as well as false followers in every group. It is vital to not fall prey to pride just as we must resist envy, greed and the other wiles of Satan.
1) some Protestant clergy? I mean it's their job. And they live very well indeed. Name a single priest that does?
2) Jesus established a leader (Peter) and if you understand where the word pope comes from it all is crystal clear. Then deriving from that apostolic succession which Jesus established, that is exactly what the Catholic universal church has done for 2000 years.
3) Christ is God who absolutely had people for millennia kill in his name or directly by his own hand
Some of what you seem to be wandering off into later in your post is like suggesting the way the men running the Catholic Church handled pedophilia by a very few or Protestant preachers committing sexual assault and rape etc is somehow in the name of God. Don't think anyone would argue to support that so it's a non sequitur to rhe argument.
Just mere months ago (anti?) Pope Francis said essentially all or many religions lead to God. A totally heretical statement
Oldbear83 said:Just checked my Bible again. Pretty flat org chart there, no mention at all of Archbishops, Cardinals, or Popes.Sam Lowry said:That is MacMullen's characterization, not an actual quote from Jerome.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Supports his postion? Hard to make that case when MacMullen says that Jerome supported worship of the saints, when that's what he's been vehemently denying they're doing.Sam Lowry said:This actually supports Coke Bear's position. Jerome was very much in favor of intercessory prayer. He opposed things like making sacrifices to the saints. Those are the pagan rites and ceremonies in question, which vanished long ago. The passage also notes that both the creed and the organization of the Church remained as they were in the 1st century, untouched by Constantine.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
And the pagan rites have NOT disappeared. The assignment of saints to certain "jurisdictions" (patron saint of mariners, etc) still in existence today comes directly from the fusion of pagan practices and Christianity in Rome during this time. Statues (i.e. idols) of the saints and Mary, prayer beads also still exist - other remnants from the pagan world. It's really curious how you can make this claim.
Oh goody, the creeds and church organization remained the same - never mind the taint of its practices and beliefs from its compromise with pagan idolatry. That never invoked the ire of God....
Church organization presumably includes Church hierarchy, priests, bishops, popes, etc.
Again, Peter. The first pope / father / leader of Christs church here on earth and so it began.
If you just have angst over the word pope call jt leader as Jesus designated Peter. If good enough for Jesus good enough for me. Written in black and white in the Gospel
Matthew 16:18
Coke Bear said:I could find very little about this professor. I would like to read the readings in a greater context to better understand his argument. I'd like to also read Jerome's and Augustine's source writings on this topic to better understand the context.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Here, start with this one: On page 100 of this thread, I presented the following:
Ramsay MacMullen, Emeritus Professor of History from Yale University in his book, Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, describes the situation in fourth-fifth century Rome after Constantine made Christianity the official religion.... certain rites and ceremonies of paganism involving the dead persisted, and even started to infiltrate the practice of Christians in that time. MacMullen's study revealed that even though such pagan practices were frowned upon by church fathers, they found it impractical, even impossible, to completely forbid Christians from partaking in them. So they often acquiesced by allowing a "Christian" form of it: for example, instead of petitioning the pagan gods, they could petition Christian martyrs and saints.
Here is an excerpt:
"The creed that was the true heart of the Christian community in the first centruy of two of its existence was retained untouched by the inflow of new members after Constantine. Church organization, too, showed no effects. But in the ideas and rites just described a large area of new loyalties opened up. Augustine called the sum total of imported paganism among his congregation their "mother," while what he himself would teach them was "the father." They must choose; or he hoped they would. But he could not make them do so. He conceded that they must be allowed some latitude in their manner of worship. At just about the same time, toward the beginning of the fifth century, Jerome made the same acknowledgement: better, worship of the saints in the pagan manner than none at all."
Can you Roman Catholics seriously argue that there is no historical evidence that Roman Catholic practice was tainted by paganism?
Go ahead, debunk an Emeritus Professor of Church history from Yale, who wrote the book on the topic.
I was able to find a writing from him that did discuss how Christianity significantly bettered the lives of the poor, women, and children.
Having said that, for the sake of your argument, let's take his words at face value. We know that veneration and intercession of the saints is much older than Constantine, Augustine, and Jerome.
The Martyrdom of Polycarp (AD 156) includes references that honor and venerate martyrs and reflect early veneration.
Inscriptions found in 2nd century catacombs often include inscriptions for invocations that read "Pray for us."
Irenaeus and Tertulian discuss martyrdom and honor due to martyrs, indirectly supporting veneration and the practice of seeking intercession.
With respect to adopting "pagan practices", the Church fully admits that she has taken some pagan concepts, baptized them, and made them Christian.
Do you wear a wedding ring? Pagan
Put up a Christmas tree? Pagan origins
Drink coffee? Coffee beans taken from ships after the Battle of Lepanto which saved Europe from the complete spread of Islam
These are just a few of the many things that all Christians do that have pagan origins.
Did I miss your response to Ignatius of Anitoch's claim about the bishops and the Catholic Church?
Never heard of that guy. Anyone wanting to understand the relationship of pagans and Catholics in the early church should start by reading City of God by church father Saint Augustine. He devotes several "books" within that book to this topic. And he walked amongst the pagans. Not some guy from Yale 1500 years later.
That would be a much better use of time than reading someone employed by Yale unless just wanting pure entertainment or their interpretation of what they want you to think Augustine meant. Just go to the source.
Yale. That's funny.
You are still ducking the point, Coke Bear.
You are arguing every minute item as if the Roman Catholic denomination was and is perfect.
There are certainly good believers in the RC, a great many, but your group has also done great evil over the years. Pretending those crimes did not happen because you are unhappy hearing about them won't fool anyone who knows history. I am not saying there have not also been great crimes by some Protestants (and like the RC there are many great servants of Christ who were and are Protestant).
Paul advised we see through a glass darkly, which is why believers sometimes disagree on a minor point. But we all do better to see God's wisdom ahead of our own cleverness, and to ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us rather than trust to our own desire to win an argument.
Jesus is not Roman Catholic. He is also not Southern Baptist. And neither is Peter either of those things. The proud pretense that Rome was first or best among the churches is simply focusing on hubris and not our Lord
You are arguing every minute item as if the Roman Catholic denomination was and is perfect.
There are certainly good believers in the RC, a great many, but your group has also done great evil over the years. Pretending those crimes did not happen because you are unhappy hearing about them won't fool anyone who knows history. I am not saying there have not also been great crimes by some Protestants (and like the RC there are many great servants of Christ who were and are Protestant).
Paul advised we see through a glass darkly, which is why believers sometimes disagree on a minor point. But we all do better to see God's wisdom ahead of our own cleverness, and to ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us rather than trust to our own desire to win an argument.
Jesus is not Roman Catholic. He is also not Southern Baptist. And neither is Peter either of those things. The proud pretense that Rome was first or best among the churches is simply focusing on hubris and not our Lord
Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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, that is not what I'm arguing.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't the question at all. The question wasn't whether his holiness required a blood sacrifice atonement. The question was whether atonement (or any alternative process as God's "choice" to reconcile with sinful man) can involve God violating his holiness (or any other eternal attribute) while conducting that atonement (or other process).Sam Lowry said:
It's not God's holiness that's in question. It's whether his holiness absolutely required the Atonement. Theologians have disagreed on this point. It's not a matter of heresy.
You're trying to answer the dilemma of God having to act unjustly or inconsistently in a sacrament system for salvation by arguing that since a blood sacrifice for atonement was not an absolute necessity for God in the first place, it's possible for God to act unjustly and violate his holiness, because his justice and holiness don't necessarily have to be absolute either. This is a completely incongruent argument and the suggestion is indeed heretical.
LOL. I'm sure Sam would rather not have your endorsement - it'll likewise anchor him to something so stupid.curtpenn said:Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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?
And yes, Sam and CokeBear clearly understand - they understand it is idolatrous. They just know they can't say so, because if they do, they'll undermine their entire religion. What we're witnessing is the equivalent of MSM defending Biden saying that it's not what we think, he's really sharp as a tack and the best they've ever seen.
Likewise we are all responsible for our brother's fate to the extent our words lead him to the truth or drive him away. That's one reason why he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).curtpenn said:Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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?
^^^ X infinity.Sam Lowry said:It's a non sequitur. I would just suggest that if you want to have a productive discussion, you might stick to explaining your own beliefs and let others explain theirs. Too often you distort Catholic theology based on logic that is, shall we say, questionable.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I took you down the logical path of your belief.... you ended up having to deny that God's attributes are eternal and require God to violate his holiness in order for your beliefs to work. Which are both heretically erroneous, which I think you agree, thus your beliefs CAN'T be true. That is NOT interpretation, sir, that's a logical proof.Sam Lowry said:I understand the Atonement differently from you, but the difference is a matter of interpretation -- not logic. Catholics (and indeed, logicians) understand the distinction between what is absolutely necessary and what is necessary only in a limited sense.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You can deny it all you want - but logically I proved that if you say sacraments are "necessary" for salvation, you MUST believe that sacraments are absolutely required for salvation. Your defense led you to actually deny God's eternal attributes and suggest that God can have union with sin. I would have thought that this would have proved it to you, but I am learning that you Roman Catholics here aren't really interested in what's true, you're only interested in preserving your tradition. I was very surprised that you don't seem to understand the atonement at all.Sam Lowry said:I'm talking about all the things you imagine the Church "must" believe.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Again, it's hard to call it "imagining" when it's just presenting what's right there in black in white on the pages of the Bible. I would like you to explain how you could possible include works into what Paul was saying in those passages in Romans.Sam Lowry said:You presented some Scripture and some interpretation, which is fine. We've covered the topic of sola fide (or non sola fide, to use the biblical phrase), so there's no need to go over that again. My point is simply that it behooves you, and all of us, to understand Church teaching for what it is and not what we might imagine it to be.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.Sam LowryHe 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: said:Those are your beliefs. Catholics believe somewhat differently.Quote:
"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."
Noted. That said, I'm a fan of plain speaking.Sam Lowry said:Likewise we are all responsible for our brother's fate to the extent our words lead him to the truth or drive him away. That's one reason why he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).curtpenn said:Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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?
- "Work OUT", not "work FOR".Coke Bear said:Well, the words of St Paul in Phil 2:12 as state:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I literally quoted the apostle Paul in Romans. No interpretation. He literally states that "righteousness comes from faith to all those who believe". That it is a "gift that is received by faith". That "to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness."Coke Bear said:You are presenting YOUR fallible interpretation of YOUR Biblical belief.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I literally presented the Biblical belief. You are saying that Catholicism believes differently from the Bible.
There just isn't a way you can finagle works into what Paul is saying here. To say that my belief is fallible, is to say that the apostle Paul's belief is too.
"Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," indicating an active participation in the process of salvation.
Matthew 25:31-46 - in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus speaks about the final judgement that those that who do acts of mercy like feeding the hungry and visiting the sick are blessed and welcomed into enteral life.
James 2:14 - "What good is it, by brothers, if someone says that he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?"
James 2:17 - "Faith, by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."
James 2:24 - "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."
Catholics, too, can use Paul's works without "finagling" what he meant. I don't believe you can.
Finally, much ink has been spilt on this topic for 500 years. Pope (future doctor and Saint) Benedict XVI did say that there is a way that Catholics can agree to a "faith alone" doctrine as long as he understood that the faith being active in love.
- In the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus isn't talking to his believers. His believers are the "brothers of mine" he referred to, and they are not being judged among the sheep and goats. This parable is dealing with eschatology, as you'll note that the sheep and goats are not people who died and are being judged, they are people who are still alive on the earth after the tribulation when Jesus returns to set up his literal millenial kingdom (if you're not an amillenialist). Jesus' church is already with him and are already glorified, except for the ones who became believers during the tribulation (they're not part of the sheep and goats either). This is a judgement of non-believers.
- James 2:14 is making my point. James is implying that it's faith that saves, but it's only true faith that saves.
- "Faith without works is dead" is not saying that our works is what saves us or that works are required for salvation.
James 2:24 is a commonly misinterpreted and misused verse. "Justification" in the sense that James is using it is different from the "justification" that Paul speaks of. Paul is referring to the justification that makes one righteous with God, thus saved. That kind of justification is imputed to us through faith apart from works. James, on the other hand, is using "justified" in the sense of "vindication" - when someone's professed faith is proven to be true through his works. God doesn't need that proof, though, he knows true faith from the beginning, apart from and before one's works, just as Paul said about Abraham in Romans (Abraham was justified before circumcision and before placing his son on the altar, and before the Law was even given to the Israel). In other words, we are justified by true faith, a faith that in time will manifest works. The important point is that one does not have to do works to MAKE one's faith a true faith, which is what the "works requirement" people are implying.
I heard a good analogy on this thread somewhere - it's like boiling a pot of water. The temperature is like faith, and the bubbles are like works. It's reaching the right temperature that saves, the bubbles are the visible evidence of that temperature. But there might be a situation where you reach the temperature, but the bubbles do not form (i.e. high atmospheric pressure, high solute content). God knows you reached that temperature, so you are saved, even though the bubbles didn't form. We however, can't tell you reached the right temperature unless we see the bubbles, so you're not vindicated. The temperature of the water is the "justification" that saves, and that's what Paul is talking about. The bubbles are the visible evidence of that temperature, and that is what "justifies" the temperature as being the right temperature, and that is what James is talking about. The bubbles are not the effecting agent that saves, the temperature is. We are saved on "temperature alone" (Paul). But we are not "vindicated" by temperature alone (James).
This is why someone can die right after coming to faith (temperature) before they're able to do a single work (bubbles) and be saved. What you "works requirement" people are saying is that you need the bubbles to be there or you're not saved. If that were true, then it necessarily means that the person who comes to faith in Jesus but dies before being able to do a single work is NOT saved and is in Hell. Is that what you believe? If you don't, then your whole argument and belief fails.
Don't worry about me. He actually convinces me even more that what I'm saying is true. Jesus didn't say we'd be loved if we spoke the truth like he did.Sam Lowry said:Likewise we are all responsible for our brother's fate to the extent our words lead him to the truth or drive him away. That's one reason why he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).curtpenn said:Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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?
That's what worries me.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Don't worry about me. He actually convinces me even more that what I'm saying is true.Sam Lowry said:Likewise we are all responsible for our brother's fate to the extent our words lead him to the truth or drive him away. That's one reason why he who calls his brother a fool is in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5:22).curtpenn said:Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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:No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.curtpenn said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!curtpenn said:Quote: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.Quote:Quote: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.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).
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.
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.
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?
