How To Get To Heaven When You Die

747,826 Views | 6593 Replies | Last: 34 min ago by Oldbear83
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.
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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

curtpenn said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

curtpenn said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

curtpenn said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:



You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).
Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

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


Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.
First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

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


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

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

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


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

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.
No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.
Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.
Sam clearly understands. Too bad you are so anchored to something so stupid. Carry on, Pharisee.
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).
Don't worry about me. He actually convinces me even more that what I'm saying is true.
That's what worries me.
Well, thanks, but I'm the least of your worries. Let's worry about what's true for now. Speaking for myself, if someone as nasty and obviously overcome with hatred as him supported what I'm saying, someone who calls a person a "Pharisee" because they insist that Christians place their salvation in Jesus' hands only (that's called Christianity), then I might second guess what I'm saying. But you use your own judgement.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.

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.
Dude, you are moving the goalposts (again). You set the date with your 4th century claim that "Romans" adopted pagan practices. I demonstrated and provided evidence that veneration and intercession took place in the late 1st and 2nd centuries.

You are correct about one thing, God hates idolatry. There is no idolatry here.


Is there anything wrong about making statues? No, most cultures have statues of people they admire.
Is there anything wrong with kissing an inanimate object? No, we see this happen with many sport figures kiss their medal or trophy.
Is there anything wrong about asking saints for intercession? No, many people speak to their relatives that have passed on.

Catholics know what worship and isn't. We've been around for nearly 2000 years. It's amazing that you know what is in the heart of every Catholic. Maybe you should be a priest if you can read souls. It would help in confessions.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Statues in churches, especially near altars, of people who are not the Christ, are indeed off course per Scripture.

Praying to those humans is also a very bad idea.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Just mere months ago (anti?) Pope Francis said essentially all or many religions lead to God. A totally heretical statement
No, he did NOT say this. This is false and I've detailed this here before.

(Social)Media spun his statements WAY out of context to fit their personal narratives.

When this so-called statement was made, he was speaking to youth about inter-religious dialogue. He wanted to make sure that students understand that it was not good to get in fights and arguments about religion. He wanted these students to be respectful and peaceful when discussing religion.

He stated that all religions are paths to God. His meaning was that there are many ways that people try to pursue God. Not all of them are equal. And he didn't mean that all people would get the correct understanding of God.

Pope Frances had always stressed ecumenism and mercy.

Finally, I say this as a person who wasn't the biggest fan of him. I appreciate him extending mercy; however, I questions several of the things that he did. Give me JPII or Bene XVI any day of the week.

The doors to the Conclave are now sealed. I am praying for a more conservative Pope. Actually, I am praying for the Holy Spirit to inspire the Cardinals to choose the best man possible.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Statues in churches, especially near altars, of people who are not the Christ, are indeed off course per Scripture.

Praying to those humans is also a very bad idea.
Where does scripture say that we SHOULD have statues of Jesus in churches? Then show me where we shouldn't have statues of others in churches.

Praying (smh) - How many times have we stated that praying does NOT mean worship? Why is that so difficult for so many on this site? I seriously wonder if those who post have any interest in learning.

Sam's mentioned this a few times recently. You may not agree with the Church but at least understand what she does and doesn't do.
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Statues in churches, especially near altars, of people who are not the Christ, are indeed off course per Scripture.

Praying to those humans is also a very bad idea.
Where does scripture say that we SHOULD have statues of Jesus in churches? Then show me where we shouldn't have statues of others in churches.

Praying (smh) - How many times have we stated that praying does NOT mean worship? Why is that so difficult for so many on this site? I seriously wonder if those who post have any interest in learning.

Sam's mentioned this a few times recently. You may not agree with the Church but at least understand what she does and doesn't do.


So when you put an image in a church, it has no importance to you who it is or what it represents?

Sorry, I respect the woman who gave birth to Jesus, but she ain't the Lord in any way that we should be praying to her
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.
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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.

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.
Dude, you are moving the goalposts (again). You set the date with your 4th century claim that "Romans" adopted pagan practices. I demonstrated and provided evidence that veneration and intercession took place in the late 1st and 2nd centuries.

What goalposts were moved? The early veneration of martyrs and saints in Christianity was just "veneration" in the sense they were merely being held with high respect. That "veneration" then morphed into blatant idolatry when Catholicism compromised with pagan Rome. Praying to saints started around the early 300's AD (the fourth century) right around this time of the compromise. Whatever 1st or 2nd century references to praying to saint for intercession you're talking about, the evidence is virtually absent that they were accepted by and part of the church, and you still have never, and never can, trace the practice back to Jesus and the apostles. There were 1st and 2nd century references to Gnosticism and other pure heresies. It does not mean they were accepted in Christianity.

Don't lose track of the argument: Roman Catholicism compromised with pagan Rome. You haven't debunked anything about this history. Let's remind ourselves of that.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.
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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
Then either you're not being honest because you know that your beliefs won't work unless you think that way, or you are being honest, which means, then, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature, and the God you believe in is not the God of Christianity.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

Coke Bear said:

Oldbear83 said:

Statues in churches, especially near altars, of people who are not the Christ, are indeed off course per Scripture.

Praying to those humans is also a very bad idea.
Where does scripture say that we SHOULD have statues of Jesus in churches? Then show me where we shouldn't have statues of others in churches.

Praying (smh) - How many times have we stated that praying does NOT mean worship? Why is that so difficult for so many on this site? I seriously wonder if those who post have any interest in learning.

Sam's mentioned this a few times recently. You may not agree with the Church but at least understand what she does and doesn't do.


So when you put an image in a church, it has no importance to you who it is or what it represents?

Sorry, I respect the woman who gave birth to Jesus, but she ain't the Lord in any way that we should be praying to her
Glad to see you stand up for Jesus' honor.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
Then either you're not being honest because you know that your beliefs won't work unless you think that way, or you are being honest, which means, then, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature, and the God you believe in is not the God of Christianity.
Yikes! I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

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.

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.

Is there anything wrong about making statues? No, most cultures have statues of people they admire.
Is there anything wrong with kissing an inanimate object? No, we see this happen with many sport figures kiss their medal or trophy.
Is there anything wrong about asking saints for intercession? No, many people speak to their relatives that have passed on.

Catholics know what worship and isn't. We've been around for nearly 2000 years. It's amazing that you know what is in the heart of every Catholic. Maybe you should be a priest if you can read souls. It would help in confessions.
There is EVERYTHING wrong about making statues if you believe the person is a glorified being in heaven to whom you petition in the same way you petition God for supernatural intervention, and you have them in church. What would you say to a church that has a golden statue of Trump in it, to whom they bow to and kiss, and they say, "hey, we just admire the guy". Do you honestly think that's ok? Do you honestly think God wouldn't have a problem with it?

When you kiss a trophy, you're not kissing it because you believe the trophy is a glorified being in heaven worthy of your love and praise, and to whom you petition for supernatural intervention, just like you do with God.

When you "ask" for intercession from a departed saint, you are praying to them (i.e. spiritually communicating to them as you would God/Jesus), thus engaging them in a way we are only told to engage God, and you're conferring attributes upon them that are divine, which again, you were never told of by God.

It's simply stunning how you Roman Catholics here simply can't grasp this. It's evidence that you aren't really regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You aren't true believers, it's as simple as that. This isn't to insult you, this is to warn you.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
Then either you're not being honest because you know that your beliefs won't work unless you think that way, or you are being honest, which means, then, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature, and the God you believe in is not the God of Christianity.
Yikes! I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.
If only the Spanish Inquisition was merely telling people the truth.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
Then either you're not being honest because you know that your beliefs won't work unless you think that way, or you are being honest, which means, then, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature, and the God you believe in is not the God of Christianity.
Yikes! I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.
If only the Spanish Inquisition was merely telling people the truth.
In any case, my beliefs don't depend on this question because I agree with you that God is the effective cause of our justification. The sacraments are just the instruments.

Calvin had to believe sacrificial atonement was an absolute necessity, although for the record he didn't invent the idea as I suggested earlier. He revived it for reasons that I alluded to (I'm not a theologian, so I still have plenty to learn). I try to explain Catholic beliefs as best I can. Coke Bear may be able to clarify or correct some of what I say. What your view overlooks, though, is that God answers to no higher standard of justice. If I do wrong to you and a human judge lets me go without making restitution, you could say he has done you an injustice. If I do wrong to you and God forgives me, can you say the same? No, because God forgives whom he will.

It's an interesting debate, but as I said it's not a matter of heresy, much less not believing in the God of Christianity. All we really need to know is that Jesus gave us the sacraments.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

Just mere months ago (anti?) Pope Francis said essentially all or many religions lead to God. A totally heretical statement
No, he did NOT say this. This is false and I've detailed this here before.

(Social)Media spun his statements WAY out of context to fit their personal narratives.

When this so-called statement was made, he was speaking to youth about inter-religious dialogue. He wanted to make sure that students understand that it was not good to get in fights and arguments about religion. He wanted these students to be respectful and peaceful when discussing religion.

He stated that all religions are paths to God. His meaning was that there are many ways that people try to pursue God. Not all of them are equal. And he didn't mean that all people would get the correct understanding of God.

Pope Frances had always stressed ecumenism and mercy.

Finally, I say this as a person who wasn't the biggest fan of him. I appreciate him extending mercy; however, I questions several of the things that he did. Give me JPII or Bene XVI any day of the week.

The doors to the Conclave are now sealed. I am praying for a more conservative Pope. Actually, I am praying for the Holy Spirit to inspire the Cardinals to choose the best man possible.


Him saying "all religions lead to God" as I understand were words that he said (I don't speak Spanish) is a full stop for me.

It's akin to saying "I believe osas and you don't have to worry about anything because God's mercy and once you're saved nothing you do can lose that salvation. Congratulations". Will never buy into that at all as its indefensible ajd leads people down a very risky path.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
There has been the puff of black smoke. Praying for someone as Pope to lead God's church in a way consistent with the teachings of his Son

The infiltration has been powerful though. But the gates of hell shall never prevail against His church. He told us so.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

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).

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.
No, that is not what I'm arguing.
It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.

Here's what you said: "Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ? God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory."

Your answer to the necessity of God acting inconsistently, thus unjustly, in the sacrament system of salvation was that since God is sovereign, and therefore was not limited to blood sacrifice for atonement, in the same way his "sovereignty" allows him to not be limited by his justice and holiness, thus he can act inconsistently in his sacrament system for salvation.

I'm sorry, but yes, this is your argument. It gets atonement, God's character, and God's sovereignty all wrong.
Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.
Then either you're not being honest because you know that your beliefs won't work unless you think that way, or you are being honest, which means, then, that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of God's nature, and the God you believe in is not the God of Christianity.
Yikes! I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.
If only the Spanish Inquisition was merely telling people the truth.
In any case, it wouldn't change my beliefs because I agree with you that God is the effective cause of our justification. The sacraments are just the instruments.

Calvin had to believe sacrificial atonement was an absolute necessity, although for the record he didn't invent the idea as I suggested earlier. He revived it for reasons that I alluded to (I'm not a theologian, so I still have plenty to learn). I try to explain Catholic beliefs as best I can. Coke Bear may be able to clarify or correct some of what I say. What your view overlooks, though, is that God answers to no higher standard of justice. If I do wrong to you and a human judge lets me go without making restitution, you could say he has done you an injustice. If I do wrong to you and God forgives me, can you say the same? No, because God forgives whom he will.

It's an interesting debate, but as I said it's not a matter of heresy, much less not believing in the God of Christianity. All we really need to know is that Jesus gave us the sacraments.
I'm really trying to understand what you're saying. If sacraments are the "instruments" to justification, why does Paul say that we are justified through faith? What you're saying is that even if one has faith, without doing the sacraments they don't have justification. That is clearly against what Paul is teaching. Do you not see this?

I agree that God doesn't answer to a higher standard of justice. He IS the standard. What I'm saying is that he cannot go against his own standard because it's part of his eternal character. He would be violating himself, an impossibility. To achieve reconciliation with man, He can not require a blood atonement for sin for some people, but exempt it for others - that is an inconsistent justice, thus not perfect justice, thus it can't be God's. Do you agree?

Maybe we should start here: first, you agree that God is absolutely and necessarily holy by nature, and that man is sinful and unholy by nature? And that union (reconciliation) between God and man in this state is impossible, because God can't have union with sin?
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Again people really should read Saint Augustine (and many others) before opining on some things. They explain everything that was passed down from those that walked with Christ.

If they haven't educated themselves there, they will just he blabbering nonsense.

Otherwise you might as well be going to Robert Morris for his interpretations of the scripture in weekly Bible study on Sunday. Careful who you follow
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In Jeremiah chapter 7, God tells Jeremiah to speak his word of judgement against Israel for the evil things they were doing. God is angry at his people for worshiping the "Queen of Heaven" who was the pagan goddess Ishtar:

"As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven."

If the people said to God, "Why is that wrong? Don't we gather wood during the winter and kindle fires in our homes to keep warm? Don't we knead dough for our daily bread and to bake cakes for each other's birthday?"- do you really not see what's wrong with that response? You HAVE TO see the problem there, don't you?

It's exactly the defense you always use, every single time. It's just so perplexing. There's like a huge gap in your perception that just won't let you make the connection.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
City of God by Saint Augustine p892 (Book XIX) chapter 27:

"Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors". And this prayer is not effective for those whose "faith without works" is dead but only for those whose "faith is put into action through love" ("For in Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor 6 uncircumcision prevails over anything, but only faith which works through charity."


/end Saint Augustine's comments

Even here as we've taught and clarified countless times about the distinction between works and works of the mosaic law (circumcision in this ex) Paul makes clear in his letter to the Galatians this distinction and the need for works.

Only a fool would risk their eternal salvation saying yeah you don't have to do all that. Take the lazy way. Just have faith. In your mind. When you close your eyes.

Such a bizarre perspective to believe osas and no need to beg God's mercy constantly in saying "forgive us our debts" as we are taught to pray. One can't even begin to imagine the overwhelming conceit and puffery one must have to have that mindset about their salvation and even then it is written "God resists the proud but he gives favor to the humble"
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As yet another example that the Catholic Church was the original church and has existed since Jesus made Peter the first leader (wht came to be called popes through apostolic succession), Saint Augustine (amongst many many others even before him) speaks countless times of the "Catholic" church and states for example and I quote "now it is a belief held by the whole church of the true God, that Christ is to come from Heaven to judge both the living and the dead"


Now youll find exactly zero examples of Saint Augustine or others of the Catholic Church Fathers before his time speaking of some other Christian church which their "Catholic" church split off from to form in their present day between years 33ish and say 415 AD what they called the "true, Catholic Church"

Now some here want to wail and gnash teeth on this topic but they can produce no evidence ajd yet I can go in for hours over hundreds of years wirh written example after example.

Talk about stubborn. They should choose other points to argue as there's no way for them to win that argument of what they split off from the Catholic Church to follow for whatever reason.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Now spinning thru some of the endless banter here I happen to see comments from some saying they "know this" and "know how God judges" and yet even Paul writes of God:

"His judgements are inscrutable and his ways are untraceable"

We are clearly in the presence of greatness of those here that know how God judges without exception and fully when even Paul says it is untraceable.

Even many angels fell and yet they have not a care in rhe world and have little to no effort or work to put in for their salvation because of some twist of a phrase.

I could not imagine a greater fear than to have such hubris. And for this reason I hit my knees multiple times a day as a humble filthy sinner begging God's mercy and forgiveness and go to confession regularly.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

Coke Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

Just mere months ago (anti?) Pope Francis said essentially all or many religions lead to God. A totally heretical statement
No, he did NOT say this. This is false and I've detailed this here before.

(Social)Media spun his statements WAY out of context to fit their personal narratives.

When this so-called statement was made, he was speaking to youth about inter-religious dialogue. He wanted to make sure that students understand that it was not good to get in fights and arguments about religion. He wanted these students to be respectful and peaceful when discussing religion.

He stated that all religions are paths to God. His meaning was that there are many ways that people try to pursue God. Not all of them are equal. And he didn't mean that all people would get the correct understanding of God.

Pope Frances had always stressed ecumenism and mercy.

Finally, I say this as a person who wasn't the biggest fan of him. I appreciate him extending mercy; however, I questions several of the things that he did. Give me JPII or Bene XVI any day of the week.

The doors to the Conclave are now sealed. I am praying for a more conservative Pope. Actually, I am praying for the Holy Spirit to inspire the Cardinals to choose the best man possible.


Him saying "all religions lead to God" as I understand were words that he said (I don't speak Spanish) is a full stop for me.

It's akin to saying "I believe osas and you don't have to worry about anything because God's mercy and once you're saved nothing you do can lose that salvation. Congratulations". Will never buy into that at all as its indefensible ajd leads people down a very risky path.
As I said, I'm no Fraces apologist; however, I don't appreciate when his words are misconstrued.

His statement was best read (if I understand correctly) that all religions are paths to God. His comments were off-the-cuff remarks to students discussing how to treat one another in interfaith dialogues. I've already explained above the proper context. He certainly wasn't speaking ex-cathedra.

Irrespective, it doesn't matter now. He's passed on to his reward.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

Coke Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

Just mere months ago (anti?) Pope Francis said essentially all or many religions lead to God. A totally heretical statement
No, he did NOT say this. This is false and I've detailed this here before.

(Social)Media spun his statements WAY out of context to fit their personal narratives.

When this so-called statement was made, he was speaking to youth about inter-religious dialogue. He wanted to make sure that students understand that it was not good to get in fights and arguments about religion. He wanted these students to be respectful and peaceful when discussing religion.

He stated that all religions are paths to God. His meaning was that there are many ways that people try to pursue God. Not all of them are equal. And he didn't mean that all people would get the correct understanding of God.

Pope Frances had always stressed ecumenism and mercy.

Finally, I say this as a person who wasn't the biggest fan of him. I appreciate him extending mercy; however, I questions several of the things that he did. Give me JPII or Bene XVI any day of the week.

The doors to the Conclave are now sealed. I am praying for a more conservative Pope. Actually, I am praying for the Holy Spirit to inspire the Cardinals to choose the best man possible.


Him saying "all religions lead to God" as I understand were words that he said (I don't speak Spanish) is a full stop for me.

It's akin to saying "I believe osas and you don't have to worry about anything because God's mercy and once you're saved nothing you do can lose that salvation. Congratulations". Will never buy into that at all as its indefensible ajd leads people down a very risky path.
As I said, I'm no Fraces apologist; however, I don't appreciate when his words are misconstrued.

His statement was best read (if I understand correctly) that all religions are paths to God. His comments were off-the-cuff remarks to students discussing how to treat one another in interfaith dialogues. I've already explained above the proper context. He certainly wasn't speaking ex-cathedra.

Irrespective, it doesn't matter now. He's passed on to his reward.


To be fair, I will go back and look deeply into what was said and try to remove any propaganda filters. Even if he said "other religions are paths to God" that is still a 1,000,000% simple example of straight up herecy.

If he didn't say it I will change my opinion. There is only one path to God and it's thru Jesus Christ.

What we are to understand that means for Jews, Muslims and Hindus etc etc etc is they cannot go to Heaven. If God handles this another way, that is up to him as I have many friends of some of those groups that are "good people" but unfortunately if one is a Catholic and a Christian, it means they won't go to Heaven as the Gospel says Jesus is the ONLY WAY. (One path, no more no less

Also to be clear not suggesting you are a Francis-splainer. Undoubtedly he did some good things but also in my opinion some very un-Catholic damage that hopefully the next Pope will rectify as it created significant unnecessary confusion amongst the laeity.

Definitely he didn't speak EC-cathedra as no one has since 1950 and I believe only twice in 2000 years.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:


So when you put an image in a church, it has no importance to you who it is or what it represents?
Of course the image (statue, icon, etc.) in a church has important to us. It doesn't mean that we worship that person. Above or behind EVERY alter in Catholic churches is a huge crucifix. That's what is central to worship - Christ's sacrifice. The people in those images give us human examples of how they emulated Jesus. God and Jesus don't get jealous of our appreciation of those saints. No artist complains when a viewer appreciates their work.

I'm sure that you've been to Catholic masses for funeral, weddings, and what not. The next time that you're in Waco, I'd like to invite you to go to mass with me so that I can explain, while it's happening, what's going on and what we do. It doesn't have to be a Sunday mass. Daily masses are about 30 minutes. The Saturday vigil mass is just the Sunday mass, but on Saturday. It will last about an hour. We can go to any parish in Waco. I'm a founding member of St Jerome in Hewitt. I like to show the beauty of St Louis on 25th street. If you prefer something closer to campus, St Peter's has a very holy priest.

Oldbear83 said:

Sorry, I respect the woman who gave birth to Jesus, but she ain't the Lord in any way that we should be praying to her
I realized that we've discussed this before, but the word "pray" has different meanings with Catholics and protestants. I believe that it would more ecumenical for you to use the term "intercede for".

I realize that you don't accept our "saintly" intercession, but the word pray (here) adds more heat than light.
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

To be fair, I will go back and look deeply into what was said and try to remove any propaganda filters. Even if he said "other religions are paths to God" that is still a 1,000,000% simple example of straight up herecy.

If he didn't say it I will change my opinion. There is only one path to God and it's thru Jesus Christ.

What we are to understand that means for Jews, Muslims and Hindus etc etc etc is they cannot go to Heaven. If God handles this another way, that is up to him as I have many friends of some of those groups that are "good people" but unfortunately if one is a Catholic and a Christian, it means they won't go to Heaven as the Gospel says Jesus is the ONLY WAY. (One path, no more no less

Also to be clear not suggesting you are a Francis-splainer. Undoubtedly he did some good things but also in my opinion some very un-Catholic damage that hopefully the next Pope will rectify as it created significant unnecessary confusion amongst the laeity.

Definitely he didn't speak EC-cathedra as no one has since 1950 and I believe only twice in 2000 years.
To your bolded comment, all Catholic's should say "AMEN!"

You might check CCC 847 - it says:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Yes, God can grant them salvation, BUT it is only thru the merits of Jesus. That's how any of us get to heaven. It is thru Him.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

Fre3dombear said:

To be fair, I will go back and look deeply into what was said and try to remove any propaganda filters. Even if he said "other religions are paths to God" that is still a 1,000,000% simple example of straight up herecy.

If he didn't say it I will change my opinion. There is only one path to God and it's thru Jesus Christ.

What we are to understand that means for Jews, Muslims and Hindus etc etc etc is they cannot go to Heaven. If God handles this another way, that is up to him as I have many friends of some of those groups that are "good people" but unfortunately if one is a Catholic and a Christian, it means they won't go to Heaven as the Gospel says Jesus is the ONLY WAY. (One path, no more no less

Also to be clear not suggesting you are a Francis-splainer. Undoubtedly he did some good things but also in my opinion some very un-Catholic damage that hopefully the next Pope will rectify as it created significant unnecessary confusion amongst the laeity.

Definitely he didn't speak EC-cathedra as no one has since 1950 and I believe only twice in 2000 years.
To your bolded comment, all Catholic's should say "AMEN!"

You might check CCC 847 - it says:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Yes, God can grant them salvation, BUT it is only thru the merits of Jesus. That's how any of us get to heaven. It is thru Him.


We are as they say sympatico there brother

And it is not for i to judge as it has no bearing on the outcome as the ways of God are…..
Oldbear83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We've been going back and forth on this topic for 125 pages now and nearly three years. A wide range of posts are here, some quite insightful, many others emotional and some even bitter. Against this backdrop, I wonder if a different approach might provide illumination.

On the matter of works, I'd like to bring up someone I knew for many years, and a man of such consequence that if I were half the man he was, I would believe God would be happy with me. I'd like to write to you about the Reverend Carey Sayers.

Dr. Sayers was not a Roman Catholic priest, nor was he a Southern Baptist minister. When my family moved to Houston from Dallas, there was not a good Baptist church close by, so my father suggested we try visiting Chapelwood Methodist. The man who was officially the pastor was good at preaching sermons, but we came to know and respect the Associate Pastor there, Carey Sayers. Sayers was there in 1948 when the church was founded, with just 13 original members. By the time we arrived, the church had grown to several thousand members, and by the time Dr. Sayers retired in 1998, Chapelwood had over five thousand members.

Ordinarily this would be off-putting for me, as I have learned that when churches get larger, they often become impersonal and miss the mission of a good church. Chapelwood was different, because of Carey Sayers.

You see, Dr. Sayers made a point of reading through the attendance books that were in each pew, noting visitors and also observing if a regular member missed a week. Even after decades of the job, Dr. Sayers took it upon himself to greet every visitor and thank them for coming, and he memorized all of the members. If a regular member missed a service, Carey would stop by to see how they were doing. In this way, Dr. Sayers was often the first person to know if someone was sick or had suffered a bad life event, like losing a job or having a car accident. When my father lost his job in 1982, even though he was not a member of Chapelwood (my dad went to South Main Baptist), Sayers quickly learned what had happened and began reaching out to contacts in Engineering that he knew.

That was the kind of man Dr Sayers was.

Sayers was also known for giving away a lot of his pay to help people. And Sayers was very good at forgetting about who he had given money to; he had no intention of asking anyone to pay him back. Sayers was so well known for giving to anyone who needed it, that when he retired in 1998, the church gave him a new truck because his old one was basically beyond repair, but they made him sign an agreement promising not to give away the truck or sell it so he could give away the money from it.

When I went to Baylor I was baptized at Calvary Baptist Church. When Dr. Sayers learned about his, he congratulated me and wished me the best, and assured me I was still welcome still a member at Chapelwood.

Now I wrote those things for several reasons. First, putting it simply, I deeply respect Dr. Sayers as a friend, as a Christian leader and as a minister in the best sense of the word. I believe that there are a great many such people in the various churches, and as Christ knows His flock, I do not count it my place to judge whether someone is or is not in Christ, but trust God in His decisions.
Second, as to works. If he were here Dr. Sayers would confirm that nothing he did had even the slightest merit in his Salvation: That, completely, was accomplished by Christ on the cross, and the Covenant granted by God.

Carey Sayers loved the Lord, and wanted to please Him. So, over the years Dr. Sayers learned as much as he could about how Jesus worked and taught, and tried to live in the way Jesus taught us to live. And over time, Sayers became more and more like Christ in how he worked, spoke and lived. The thing that struck me though, is that Dr. Sayers was not one to get into arguments. Instead, he reflected a kind of quiet joy in his life, as if he felt God's pleasure and was honored to be friends with the Lord.

To me, that's the point. Love God and honor Him by acting as he wants us to act. Love our neighbor as well as we can, and always try to improve on both counts. Obviously, anyone who knows me knows how poorly I do a job of being a Christian at times, but I have tried to get better at it, and I have been blessed to know some people who are very strong in their relationship with God. And in my experience, they all did good works for the simple reason that they loved the Lord.

That's a condition we should all hope to experience, I believe. And I celebrate anyone who has such a relationship with the Lord, as I hope you do also.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Oldbear83 said:

We've been going back and forth on this topic for 125 pages now and nearly three years. A wide range of posts are here, some quite insightful, many others emotional and some even bitter. Against this backdrop, I wonder if a different approach might provide illumination.

On the matter of works, I'd like to bring up someone I knew for many years, and a man of such consequence that if I were half the man he was, I would believe God would be happy with me. I'd like to write to you about the Reverend Carey Sayers.
Carey Sayers sounds like a godly man. Nice anecdote, but if others are believing things that are wrong, how does this help them?
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Fre3dombear said:

As yet another example that the Catholic Church was the original church and has existed since Jesus made Peter the first leader (wht came to be called popes through apostolic succession), Saint Augustine (amongst many many others even before him) speaks countless times of the "Catholic" church and states for example and I quote "now it is a belief held by the whole church of the true God, that Christ is to come from Heaven to judge both the living and the dead"


Now youll find exactly zero examples of Saint Augustine or others of the Catholic Church Fathers before his time speaking of some other Christian church which their "Catholic" church split off from to form in their present day between years 33ish and say 415 AD what they called the "true, Catholic Church"

Now some here want to wail and gnash teeth on this topic but they can produce no evidence ajd yet I can go in for hours over hundreds of years wirh written example after example.

Talk about stubborn. They should choose other points to argue as there's no way for them to win that argument of what they split off from the Catholic Church to follow for whatever reason.

The "Catholic" church is merely the entire body of true believers in Jesus Christ. The constant and repetitive conflation between this and the Roman Catholic Church by this poster is maddening. What the orignal churches were in no way resemble what the Roman Catholic Church is today. Obviously, this poster completely fails to understand the difference between schism and corruption by slow accretion. Even when historical facts have been clearly presented. He proudly boasts how he can go "on for hours" how he is right, but he "blocks" those who want to engage him. This is what I mean by willful ignorance firmly entrenched in arrogance.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

curtpenn said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

curtpenn said:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:



You can't place into another's hands what one doesn't already have. You labor overmuch over a turn of phrase as is typical of your kind and argue by assertion without end. I don't claim to understand what the original author intended in his native language (nor do I really care, for that matter).
Yes, you actually do care. Or you did care. You were orginally defending the Marian prayer that said to place one's salvation into MARY'S hands. That was the original context. That's what Roman Catholics here in this forum embraced fully.

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


Again, I must already have X before I can place X anywhere. Basic logic. That you interpret this some other way falls into the realm of error and speculation. In any event, your laborious harping over this obscure point simply confirms your good standing as Inquisitor General/Pharisee-in-Chief. Congrats.
First of all, your logic is false. You don't have to already have X in order to place it anywhere. You can put your rescue into the hands of a fireman. You're not already rescued, you're putting the success of the rescue into the hands of the fireman and his ability to rescue you.

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


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

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

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


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

If you're only seeking intercession, your salvation is still in the hand's of Jesus, not Mary. What you are professing when you claim that it's in Mary's hands, is that she is able to determine your salvation or lack thereof instead of Jesus.
No, it's really just a way of saying you're seeking intercession.
Your intercessor does not have the fate of your salvation in their hands. Saying that it does is CLEARLY usurping the role of Jesus.
The Bible is full of references to people being "saved" by someone other than Christ. See James 5:13-15, James 5:19-20, Jude 20-23, 1 Corinthians 7:16-17. Of course it is really Christ saving them. It's the same when Mary intercedes.

You will probably conclude that this is inconsistent with OSAS, but Catholics don't believe in that anyway.
NONE of those verses even comes close to saying that the person being "saved" had sought intercession from the other person for their being "saved" by placing the fate of their salvation "in their hands" (they determine it's success or failure). Neither do they come close to suggesting that the person's salvation was ever in the other person's hands to begin with. The very suggestion that it could be in any other person's hands other than Jesus is the idolatrous part in all this that you seem to want to skirt.
It's a manner of speaking, perhaps a bit archaic. Catholics don't believe that their salvation is determined by anyone other than God.
It is hardly just a manner of speaking, considering the context of the entire prayer which says Mary is the "ruler of my house", "our strength and our refuge", "peacemaker between sinners and God", "salvation of the universe", "sovereign" and asks that she "grant that we may go to heaven".

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

This is so sickening. Mary, if she knew any of this, would be sickened. If you don't recognize any of this as blatantly idolatrous, then I am utterly convinced you are not a Christian.
I'm not familiar with that language, but I suspect you're taking it too literally. I can only tell you what Catholics believe. I know you don't agree with all of it, but hopefully you will try to understand it.
Wow. Anything.... just anything to avoid the patently obvious that's right in your face.

For God's sake, man, open your eyes.
I mean, whom should I listen to if I want to know what the Church believes? You or the Church? No one literally thinks Mary establishes laws for the Lord. It's poetic language (notice the simile) describing his love for her.
So... you need the Church to tell you whether what the Church promotes is heretical and idolatrous? Do you see the problem with that?

Poetic language to describe his love for her? Isn't that love going overboard, then? Isn't love for another human, or anything else for that matter, too excessive if it emulates love for God like that?

Let me get you to at least admit this: regardless of whether it's "poetic" language or not, doesn't that language cross the line into being idolatrous? Should Christians ever use language like that to describe anyone but God/Jesus? "Sovereign"?? Take that one, for instance. Who can Christians ever say is sovereign other than God? We can go down the list, and you'd really have to go to ridiculous lengths to defend it.
Didn't say that. I'm just encouraging you first to understand Catholic beliefs, then accept them or not.
And I'm encouraging you to answer the question - is it ever right to call Mary, or anyone else for that matter "sovereign"?
Sure. Kings, queens, and governments are all referred to as sovereign. In the United States we even have different levels of sovereignty.
So what is Mary sovereign over?
I'm still waiting for an answer to this. Sam?
Coke Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

There is EVERYTHING wrong about making statues if you believe the person is a glorified being in heaven to whom you petition in the same way you petition God for supernatural intervention, and you have them in church. What would you say to a church that has a golden statue of Trump in it, to whom they bow to and kiss, and they say, "hey, we just admire the guy". Do you honestly think that's ok? Do you honestly think God wouldn't have a problem with it?
We don't ask them for petitions. We ask them to pray for us. Saints have no power other than what God gives them. Saints don't answer prayers. God does.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

When you kiss a trophy, you're not kissing it because you believe the trophy is a glorified being in heaven worthy of your love and praise, and to whom you petition for supernatural intervention, just like you do with God.
I don't fully understand the context of this (dependent clause) paragraph. Are you missing words or proper punctuation?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

When you "ask" for intercession from a departed saint, you are praying to them (i.e. spiritually communicating to them as you would God/Jesus), thus engaging them in a way we are only told to engage God, and you're conferring attributes upon them that are divine, which again, you were never told of by God.
Does the bible say to NOT ask the saints for intercession?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It's simply stunning how you Roman Catholics here simply can't grasp this. It's evidence that you aren't really regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You aren't true believers, it's as simple as that. This isn't to insult you, this is to warn you.
Interesting. I've received 6 of the 7 sacraments that Jesus instituted. I received the Holy Spirit at Baptism and the fullness of the Holy Spirit with all 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit at my confirmation.

You are qualified to make that judgement on my soul, yet you belong to some unnamed, random church that was made up by some random man in the last few decades. Please buy a lotto ticket.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Coke Bear said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

There is EVERYTHING wrong about making statues if you believe the person is a glorified being in heaven to whom you petition in the same way you petition God for supernatural intervention, and you have them in church. What would you say to a church that has a golden statue of Trump in it, to whom they bow to and kiss, and they say, "hey, we just admire the guy". Do you honestly think that's ok? Do you honestly think God wouldn't have a problem with it?
We don't ask them for petitions. We ask them to pray for us. Saints have no power other than what God gives them. Saints don't answer prayers. God does. What powers did God give them, and by what divine revelation are you basing that on?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

When you kiss a trophy, you're not kissing it because you believe the trophy is a glorified being in heaven worthy of your love and praise, and to whom you petition for supernatural intervention, just like you do with God.
I don't fully understand the context of this (dependent clause) paragraph. Are you missing words or proper punctuation? No. And pedantry is not going to solve the problems with your reasoning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

When you "ask" for intercession from a departed saint, you are praying to them (i.e. spiritually communicating to them as you would God/Jesus), thus engaging them in a way we are only told to engage God, and you're conferring attributes upon them that are divine, which again, you were never told of by God.
Does the bible say to NOT ask the saints for intercession? So everything the bible does NOT say is okay? Are you seriously making this argument?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

It's simply stunning how you Roman Catholics here simply can't grasp this. It's evidence that you aren't really regenerated by the Holy Spirit. You aren't true believers, it's as simple as that. This isn't to insult you, this is to warn you.
Interesting. I've received 6 of the 7 sacraments that Jesus instituted. I received the Holy Spirit at Baptism and the fullness of the Holy Spirit with all 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit at my confirmation.

You are qualified to make that judgement on my soul, yet you belong to some unnamed, random church that was made up by some random man in the last few decades. Please buy a lotto ticket. Nothing you just said is biblical. Anyone who goes by the bible can make that judgement on you. The name of one's church has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. There is only on church, the entire body of believers in Jesus. All true believers have discernment with the Holy Spirit. This is my discernment, take it as you wish - if you did indeed receive the Holy Spirit (which I doubt), you are grieving it tremendously by your idolatry of Mary. I doubt you have the Holy Spirit because of the complete absence of any conviction within you that this is wrong, when it is so obvious that it is. It's not just a lack of conviction - you actually love the idolatry and heresy. There actually is a spirit leading you, but it ain't Holy. Again, this isn't to attack you, but to tell you the painful truth that you absolutely need to hear.
Fre3dombear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hail Mary full of grace
The Lord is with thee

Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus

Holy Mary Mother of God
Pray for us sinners
Now and at the hour of our death. Amen.
First Page Last Page
Page 125 of 189
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.