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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Says the most willfully arrogant poster here. You've broken the irony meter. I'm sure Jesus is just glad you're on His team.

curtpenn said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

Says the most willfully arrogant poster here. You've broken the irony meter. I'm sure Jesus is just glad you're on His team.

---

If you can't tell the difference between my posts and his..... well, let's just say it's no surprise. I'm just shocked that you were able to string two words together without your usual vulgar nastiness.

Confidence: "What I'm saying is true. Here are the scriptural, historical, and logical reasons why. If any of you disagree, I invite full discussion and I will address any of your objections."

Arrogance: "I'm right. It's sad... look at all those here who are wrong, tsk, tsk. One only needs to educate oneself by reading the early church fathers, like I have. I won't explain why or how you're wrong, just realize that I can do it all day. And since I know I'm right, I don't need to address any of your arguments."

I was hoping my point would be obvious, but perhaps not.

I would hope everyone here can agree that as far as we can know anything on this side of the door, Dr. Sayers is in Heaven with Jesus.

But what gained his Salvation? Not his works, though they were very good and very many. Carey was saved by the blood atonement of Christ, as is the case for everyone who enters Heaven.

But it still matters that Dr. Sayers did the works he did. Part of that was Christ's commandment to send out workers for the harvest, to make us fishers of men as He promised. Every obedient act done in love for the Lord brings results, spreading the Gospel by example as much as word.

And there is nothing like knowing you have pleased the Lord.

So if we do any good thing, we do nothing of merit, yet there is meaning and joy in it to serve the Lord.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I was hoping my point would be obvious, but perhaps not.

I would hope everyone here can agree that as far as we can know anything on this side of the door, Dr. Sayers is in Heaven with Jesus.

But what gained his Salvation? Not his works, though they were very good and very many. Carey was saved by the blood atonement of Christ, as is the case for everyone who enters Heaven.

But it still matters that Dr. Sayers did the works he did. Part of that was Christ's commandment to send out workers for the harvest, to make us fishers of men as He promised. Every obedient act done in love for the Lord brings results, spreading the Gospel by example as much as word.

And there is nothing like knowing you have pleased the Lord.

So if we do any good thing, we do nothing of merit, yet there is meaning and joy in it to serve the Lord.

---

Fortunately I think we all agree that works do not get you into Heaven we are saved by God's grace.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I was hoping my point would be obvious, but perhaps not.

I would hope everyone here can agree that as far as we can know anything on this side of the door, Dr. Sayers is in Heaven with Jesus.

But what gained his Salvation? Not his works, though they were very good and very many. Carey was saved by the blood atonement of Christ, as is the case for everyone who enters Heaven.

But it still matters that Dr. Sayers did the works he did. Part of that was Christ's commandment to send out workers for the harvest, to make us fishers of men as He promised. Every obedient act done in love for the Lord brings results, spreading the Gospel by example as much as word.

And there is nothing like knowing you have pleased the Lord.

So if we do any good thing, we do nothing of merit, yet there is meaning and joy in it to serve the Lord.

---

Fortunately I think we all agree that works do not get you into Heaven we are saved by God's grace.

---

The point I was trying to make, is why - aside from reward - a Christian should not only want to do good, but delight in it.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again through faith in Christ, even as we are in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

It's amazing how people that nerd out passionately on all that is bad or wrong about venerating Mary etc they fail to even understand that the Queen Mother was even higher in rank than the wife of the King

It's all historical but it triggers many it appears

Fre3dombear 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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

It's amazing how people that nerd out passionately on all that is bad or wrong about venerating Mary etc they fail to even understand that the Queen Mother was even higher in rank than the wife of the King

It's all historical but it triggers many it appears

---

We all have different historical and theological backgrounds. BTD obviously has a strong love for the Lord.

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Fre3dombear 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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

It's amazing how people that nerd out passionately on all that is bad or wrong about venerating Mary etc they fail to even understand that the Queen Mother was even higher in rank than the wife of the King

It's all historical but it triggers many it appears

---

We all have different historical and theological backgrounds. BTD obviously has a strong love for the Lord.

---

The passion for our Lord Jesus Christ is evident in this thread from many people. History is history by and large and at least gives a potential starting point of agreement for further more flexible or fungible or complicated concepts and topics.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

---

From your word choice, I believe you are asking who - after Jesus - was the holiest human?

That would depend on your criteria.

Adam would be an obvious choice, as he was made perfect.

Enoch and Elijah would gain notice, as they were each taken bodily in Heaven.

Abraham gets props, being named in Scripture as the Friend of God.

And since Jesus often compared Himself to David, that fellow should be considered.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

By what divine revelation does Mary have a "Queen Mother" role in heaven? The only "queen of heaven" in the bible was the pagan goddess Ishtar that God punished Israel severely for worshiping. This is a very unbiblical elevation of Mary's status to a goddess-like level. It's pure idolatry. Do you honestly not see a problem with calling anyone in Heaven "sovereign" except God? Do you remember the entry of paganism into Roman Catholicism? Can you not see this is pagan goddess worship reawakened?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

---

From your word choice, I believe you are asking who - after Jesus - was the holiest human?

That would depend on your criteria.

Adam would be an obvious choice, as he was made perfect.

Enoch and Elijah would gain notice, as they were each taken bodily in Heaven.

Abraham gets props, being named in Scripture as the Friend of God.

And since Jesus often compared Himself to David, that fellow should be considered.

---

Interesting thoughts. I would suggest Adam wasn't made naturally (in my undisclosed definition of naturally). Neither was Jesus as he had no earthly father as part of his creation.

The answer I would go with is Mary.

Fre3dombear 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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

It's amazing how people that nerd out passionately on all that is bad or wrong about venerating Mary etc they fail to even understand that the Queen Mother was even higher in rank than the wife of the King

It's all historical but it triggers many it appears

---

You are abusing history to non sequitur your way to elevating Mary to a goddess and to worship her, as well as adopting pagan ways of thinking instead of going with what's biblical. The way in which you're being blinded and bewitched is astounding, but also very sad. You are worshiping Mary for her earthly status as Jesus' mother, when Jesus never even called her his "mother" in the Bible, and even downplayed the relationship when others tried to talk it up. Finally, Mary is no longer Jesus' mother - at the cross, Jesus made Mary the mother of John, and John became her son.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

---

From your word choice, I believe you are asking who - after Jesus - was the holiest human?

That would depend on your criteria.

Adam would be an obvious choice, as he was made perfect.

Enoch and Elijah would gain notice, as they were each taken bodily in Heaven.

Abraham gets props, being named in Scripture as the Friend of God.

And since Jesus often compared Himself to David, that fellow should be considered.

---

Interesting thoughts. I would suggest Adam wasn't made naturally (in my undisclosed definition of naturally). Neither was Jesus as he had no earthly father as part of his creation.

The answer I would go with is Mary.

---

Your eagerness to elevate Mary to the level of worship made you forget that Jesus said it was John the Baptist.

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:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

---

The point is that God forgives us while we are yet sinners. We are reconciled with God by his grace alone. If we remain in sin, we do indeed separate ourselves from him and must seek forgiveness again. We are not "once saved, always saved."

Elizabeth addresses Mary as "Mother of my Lord," which is both an affirmation of her status as Jesus' mother and a reference to the courtly language used to address the mother of a king. As I said earlier, there are different levels of sovereignty.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Elizabeth addresses Mary as "Mother of my Lord," which is both an affirmation of her status as Jesus' mother and a reference to the courtly language used to address the mother of a king. As I said earlier, there are different levels of sovereignty.

---

Happened to see his / her quote. They don't even realize they just proved Jesus is an only child (well if they kkow anything of Jewish law)

"Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus". I wonder who thy is? And if Jesus came from thy's womb I wonder what that makes thy? Very complicated ground breaking stuff here.

And of course, no Catholic worships Mary

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

---

From your word choice, I believe you are asking who - after Jesus - was the holiest human?

That would depend on your criteria.

Adam would be an obvious choice, as he was made perfect.

Enoch and Elijah would gain notice, as they were each taken bodily in Heaven.

Abraham gets props, being named in Scripture as the Friend of God.

And since Jesus often compared Himself to David, that fellow should be considered.

---

Interesting thoughts. I would suggest Adam wasn't made naturally (in my undisclosed definition of naturally). Neither was Jesus as he had no earthly father as part of his creation.

The answer I would go with is Mary.

---

Absolutely disagree.

Do Protestants believe in the Holy Trinity?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Who is the holiest person every created naturally in human existence?

---

From your word choice, I believe you are asking who - after Jesus - was the holiest human?

That would depend on your criteria.

Adam would be an obvious choice, as he was made perfect.

Enoch and Elijah would gain notice, as they were each taken bodily in Heaven.

Abraham gets props, being named in Scripture as the Friend of God.

And since Jesus often compared Himself to David, that fellow should be considered.

---

Interesting thoughts. I would suggest Adam wasn't made naturally (in my undisclosed definition of naturally). Neither was Jesus as he had no earthly father as part of his creation.

The answer I would go with is Mary.

---

Absolutely disagree.

---

Not surprised at all but entitled to your opinion.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

---

The point is that God forgives us while we are yet sinners. We are reconciled with God by his grace alone. If we remain in sin, we do indeed separate ourselves from him and must seek forgiveness again. We are not "once saved, always saved."

---

Forgiveness is not justification. Forgiveness removes the responsibility for a debt, but it does not make one righteous. Justification makes one righteous in God's eyes. To illustrate, if you had a dog that went outside and rolled in filth, you can "forgive" the dog while he is filthy, meaning you won't punish him for getting filthy, but you can't have him come into the house in that state and be with you. He'd have to be cleaned of that filth first. Dogs can't clean themselves. You'd have to do it. By your grace alone. Justification is purely the work of God, not of ourselves. And that justification is achieved only by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and by our faith in him.

If a believer sins, though he needs to seek forgiveness, he does not ever lose his righteousness, because his righteousness isn't based on what he has done, it is based solely on what Jesus has done. As long as he has faith in Jesus, Jesus' righteousness is always credited to him. This is the true peace that those who put their faith in Jesus have. A believer can't have righteousness, then lose it, then have it again, then lose it - because Jesus is always righteous and never loses it.

Once a true believer puts their faith in Jesus, they never lose that faith. If they do, then they were never a true believer and never had real faith (1 John 2:19). True believers are sealed by the Holy Spirit which guarantees their salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14, Ephesians 4:30, 2 Corinthians 1:22). Jesus declared that those who belong to him will never be taken from his hand (John 10:28-29).

If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.

One can believe in Jesus and go to hell. Multiple examples of this.

Believing in osas and living one's life that way will lead to eternal damnation for many. It's heretical

Fre3dombear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Elizabeth addresses Mary as "Mother of my Lord," which is both an affirmation of her status as Jesus' mother and a reference to the courtly language used to address the mother of a king. As I said earlier, there are different levels of sovereignty.

---

Happened to see his / her quote. They don't even realize they just proved Jesus is an only child (well if they kkow anything of Jewish law)

"Blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus". I wonder who thy is? And if Jesus came from thy's womb I wonder what that makes thy? Very complicated ground breaking stuff here.

And of course, no Catholic worships Mary

---

Very confusing post. What would Jesus being an only child have to do with any of this (he wasn't Mary's only child, btw).

"Blessed is the FRUIT of thy womb JESUS" - it's Jesus that's being blessed, not the womb. The typical Catholic non sequitur is that this makes the womb holder (Mary) to be some sort of a goddess. Fortunately, Jesus clears it up for us, directly:

"As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, "Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed! But he said, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!"

Notice that in this passage, someone tried blessing the WOMB and the womb bearer. Did Jesus say, "Amen, sister, and make sure you recognize that my mother Mary is to be highly venerated amongst you, and she will have authority in heaven. She is the most holiest person ever. Pray to her, bow to statues to her, sing hymns to her, celebrate feasts for the "Queen of Heaven", making sure that you never mind the fact that my Father cursed the Israelites for celebrating the "Queen of Heaven", but whatever."??

Umm, no, he didn't. And neither did anyone else say anything remotely close in the whole Bible. Jesus never even addressed Mary as his mother in the Bible.

Fre3dombear said:

---

One can believe in Jesus and go to hell. Multiple examples of this.

Believing in osas and living one's life that way will lead to eternal damnation for many. It's heretical

---

Here's where you try equivocation of the word "believe" to support your point. "Believing in Jesus" in the sense of acknowledging his existence is not faith. "Believing in Jesus" in the biblical sense when it comes to salvation is acknowledging what Jesus did for you, and trusting in him and what he did for your salvation.

The question is, if you have to resort to fallacies to support your position, how good of a position is it? Why continue to believe it?

No one who has faith in Jesus will be damned. This would make God and Jesus a liar. Let's hear what Jesus says himself, in his words:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life." - John 5:24, and; "Whoever believes in him is not condemned," - John 3:18.

No true believer in Jesus uses OSAS as an excuse for living like hell. They are not a true believer if they are using the gospel to sin.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

---

The point is that God forgives us while we are yet sinners. We are reconciled with God by his grace alone. If we remain in sin, we do indeed separate ourselves from him and must seek forgiveness again. We are not "once saved, always saved."

---

If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.

---

If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Elizabeth addresses Mary as "Mother of my Lord," which is both an affirmation of her status as Jesus' mother and a reference to the courtly language used to address the mother of a king. As I said earlier, there are different levels of sovereignty.

---

Elizabeth addressed her as his mother, Jesus never did. And Elizabeth isn't wrong, because Mary is indeed the mother of the earthly Jesus, the Jesus that came in the flesh. But Jesus did not start existing when he was born to Mary - he is eternal, and existed eternally with the Father (John 1). Therefore, the heavenly, glorified, eternal Jesus has no mother. Only the earthly Jesus did. And that earthly Jesus died.

The "Queen Mother" role is an earthly kingdom role. Jesus said that his kingdom is "not of this world". If Jesus was king as his earthly self, then perhaps Mary would be the Queen Mother. But Jesus clearly said his Kingdom is not earthly. It is heavenly, eternal, and glorified, and its King is the heavenly, eternal, and glorified Jesus. Mary is NOT the mother of this eternal Jesus. The eternal Jesus had no mother, therefore in the Kingdom of God there is no Queen Mother.

There is no excuse to call anyone in heaven, human or angel, "sovereign" because they are ALL under God/Jesus. This is clear and blatant idolatry and heresy. And mind you, you are claiming this, whether the sovereignty is a different level or not, despite ANY evidence from divine revelation. You are following man's fallible tradition, one that you have seen direct evidence of having been compromised with pagan beliefs and practices. You can not trust this tradition over the infallible word of God.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

---

The point is that God forgives us while we are yet sinners. We are reconciled with God by his grace alone. If we remain in sin, we do indeed separate ourselves from him and must seek forgiveness again. We are not "once saved, always saved."

---

If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.

---

If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.

---

Seeing glimpses into some the quoted comments is entertaining.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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?

---

God is absolutely and necessarily holy. Man is sinful and unholy as a result of original sin, though we still have free will in some form. Reconciliation with God is a free gift when we are born again in baptism. To remain in union with God we must continue in a state of grace, keeping clean the pure garment we were given in exchange for the old. The sacrament of the Eucharist helps us to avoid sin. When we do sin, the sacrament of Penance reconciles us anew. In this way we are made holy and fit for reward according to our deeds. But even our good deeds are a gift from God. His abundance is such that he counts his goodness as our own.

Faith is the root of our justification, without which we can never please God. But faith must act in charity (our love for God) to cooperate with his grace and make us truly holy.

I don't know about requiring blood atonement for some and not others. I was just citing the Atonement as an example of God's sovereignty in the plan of salvation. It's not a useful example if you assume it was absolutely necessary, so you can disregard that. The sacraments are not absolutely necessary in any case. They are instruments in the way that a painter's brushes are the instruments of his art. They preserve and increase us in righteousness, but in no way does that diminish the importance of our creator or the faith which allows us to cooperate with his work.

---

Ok, but that's more than I was really wanting. I really just wanted to know if you agree that a reconciliation between a holy God and man in a state of sin is impossible, because God can not tolerate sin. Agree?

And what is Mary sovereign over?

---

I guess I would have to disagree. We are reconciled with God when we are born again, even though when we put our faith in Christ we are still in a state of sin.

My understanding is that Mary is sovereign in heaven in the way the queen mother was sovereign in Old Testament Israel. She was secondary to the king, but in a place of unique respect, and her requests were rarely if ever denied.

---

See, you don't really understand justification and atonement. Paul clearly states that when we put our faith in Jesus, we are no longer in a state of sin, we are made righteous. We still sin because we are still in the flesh, but Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us through faith even though we are still sinners. God "justifies the ungodly" (Romans 4:5), NOT the godly! This is the essence of the gospel!

"And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness"

If we are still in a state of sin even after having faith in Jesus, we CAN'T have reconciliation with God - it would be impossible because God is holy and he can NOT have union with sin, absolutely and necessarily.

I really think this is why Roman Catholics like yourself have a hard time understanding the true Gospel and believe that you have to "cooperate" in it with your own effort in some way. You have incorrect views about God's holiness, justification, and atonement.

---

The point is that God forgives us while we are yet sinners. We are reconciled with God by his grace alone. If we remain in sin, we do indeed separate ourselves from him and must seek forgiveness again. We are not "once saved, always saved."

---

If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.

---

If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.

---

That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.

Lol
Now we got some guy / gal suggesting Mary isn't even the mother of God / Jesus

I would be very careful following any line of reasoning they share.

From another quote appears they have zero
Clue of Jewish tradition (Jesus was a Jew) and how his final words prove he was an only child of his Mother Mary who is the Mother of God as Jesus is God

This is one of the most bizarre Protestant arguments I've encountered over the years. An odd topic to spend time and emotion arguing against but is what it is for some.

No opinions on this it seems. It creates quite the conundrum for them