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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No it isn't. You're playing games. Faith/Belief is not a work.

---

I'm using your definition you stated a work "something you do." Believing is something you do. It may not involve a physical action, but it's something that you do just like prayer, repentance, and forgiveness. These actions are not physical. They take ascent of the will. It's something that you do.

Please re-read Sam's 6:47pm post carefully and slowly. He does a fantastic job explaining the Catholic view.

You have fallen pray to Luther's and Calvin's false view of "faith alone" salvation. It was made up during the 16th century. It has NO historical basis. Its "biblical" foundation is derived late based off personal views, not any Church father.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

I understand what YOU think worship is or isn't. The Roman Catholic argument of latria vs hyperdulia/dulia is just word games. The Bible clearly defines even "dulia" as worship. Catholics bow and kiss statues. The Bible clearly says that's worship. It's why Peter refused people to bow to him (Acts 10:26) and why the angel rebuked John in Revelation when he bowed to him (Rev 22:8).

---

Bathsheba bowed to David and Solomon bowed to Bathsheba. That doesn't mean that they worshipped them. They were giving honor and obedience.
Please try to read ALL of scripture to better understand it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" - the word "serve" there in Greek is the root word for "dulia". The Bible says "dulia" is worship.

---

You are reading into the bible (again). Dulia does NOT mean worship. It means to "serve", as you stated, or "to be a slave to." Again you are adding your jaded ieogesis into the text try attempt to prove your point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And frankly, if you can't see that the idolatrous and heretical prayers to Mary I've referenced is worship of Mary, and the hundreds of feasts throughout the year for Mary, singing hymns to her, praying to her, and having statues and pictures everywhere of her even in church that you bow to and kiss - if you can't see that's pure worship you're just a blind fool. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but it's the truth. You are trapped in deception. Anyone with at least an ounce of sense can see that that.

---

I really feel sorry for you to be trapped in your mind like this. These are tired protestant tropes that have been refuted MANY times. Most everyone has kissed a picture of a loved one. It doesn't mean we worship them. Millions of men have bowed and dropped to one knee to ask their future wives to marry them. That's not worship. We don't think that she is God.

PS. Only 19 (not "Hundreds") major and optional feast days exist on the calendar. You do realize that our American calendar also celebrates holidays of Presidents and their birthdays, civil leaders, significant cultural events, etc.?

Seriously, aren't you tired of spitting out the same, boring, false tropes? Can't we get on to something else? I really wonder sometimes if the devil has placed this on your heart to keep us from discussing other topics. It seems to be that's all you have to go to. EVERYONE here knows our positions on this. Why keep bringing it up? You aren't going to change anyone's opinion on the subject.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another example, the "Hail Holy Queen" Catholic prayer:

"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!

Hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to you do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious Advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Amen."

This is, like all the other Marian devotions and prayers I've referenced, CLEARLY exonerating her to the level of worship, as well as being quite heretical and idolatrous. It's quite unbelievable and sad how blind you are to this.

---

Thanks for sharing the "Hail, Holy Queen"! I recite this every day at the end of my rosary. It's called the "Salve Regina". It is so beautiful when sang in Latin. Nothing here is heretical, unless you think loving Jesus' mom is heretical.

Here are two versions of the Salve Regina: One in chant and the other with accompaniment:



It's OK to love Mary. She's your mother too. She loves you!

Finally, I will no longer be responding to your "Catholics worship Mary" bait any longer. If you wish to discuss a specific dogma, I'm OK with that. Posting anything else about this topic just reveals your character.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Works are part of living in obedience to God and remaining in a state of grace during our time on earth.

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There it is!!

Roman Catholicism teaches that salvation is by grace..... but you have to do works to KEEP that grace. That's no different than saying works are required for salvation. The only "sleight of hand" here is what Roman Catholicism does by muddying up the concept of "grace". A free gift isn't a gift at all if you have to work to keep it.

You: "The Church does not teach that we must accumulate some arbitrary number of good works, regardless of how unattainable it may be, in order to buy our own way into heaven" -

.... but it HAS to, right? I mean, if you're saying that you need works to maintain the grace you've received, then isn't it important to know how many works are needed? This goes back to my other question - if you don't know how many works are needed to keep your grace, if you don't know what the cutoff point is, then you CAN'T ever know if you are saved or not. But that directly contradicts 1 John 5:13.

---

No, you've coupled "works" with "obedience and remaining in a state of grace." One doesn't have to do "works" to stay in a state of grace. One only has to NOT fall into mortal sin to remain in a state of grace and stay in the friendship of God. Try to re-read his post carefully.

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

To those who believe that faith AND works are required for salvation:

What this essentially means is that if a person hears the gospel and believes it in his heart, and at that moment puts his trust in Jesus for his salvation, and then dies soon after before performing a single work, it means this person is NOT saved and is in Hell. You can't argue it any other way, there's just no escaping this. "Required" means required. Any attempt to create "exceptions" goes entirely against the concept of "required".

---

That is quite bizarre. I've never heard of anyone believing it, but I assume it's some kind of Christian nationalist MAGA thing.

---

It's the necessary belief of someone who believes faith and works are required for salvation. Doesn't that include you, a Roman Catholic?

---

It's not a belief of Roman Catholics or anyone else that I know of.

---

Have you been reading FreedomBear's comments? It's exactly what he has been saying. I believe he is a Catholic like you, I'm not sure. You need to ask him because he won't answer my questions. He "blocked" me so he wouldn't have to.

---

No, I only check this thread once in a great while. But nowhere does the Church teach or imply anything like that, so I doubt anyone said it.

All that is required of a Christian is to exit this life in a state of grace. Whether it's after an hour, a decade, or a century makes no difference.

---

Hello Sam, serious question.

How do you see being in a "state of grace"?

It's important to me because if I understand you correctly I agree, but to me being in a state of grace means receiving God's pleasure, and being grateful for His mercy and love.

Do you agree, or do you have a different understanding?

Thanks in advance.

---

Being in a state of Grace is being free from mortal sin. This is achieved through confession (with certain exception).

---

False. That is unBiblical. We ONLY gain God's grace and forgiveness of our sins by FAITH in Jesus Christ and His Sacrifice on the cross to pay for our sins.

---

How do you get forgiveness for your sins? Is there any act you personally do to achieve that? What does your religion teach you about how to be forgiven?

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

This makes no sense. Where did you explain the difference between absolute and moral necessity? What does that mean and how is it relevant?

Necessary means necessary. Bound means bound. "Yes, but with caveats", "it depends", is saying that it is NOT really necessary, and saying "God is not bound by His sacraments so He can make exceptions" is saying that we are NOT really bound by the sacraments. I don't see how this is "purblind" logic. What I do see, is Roman Catholicism trying to have it both ways in most unclarifying and confusing fashion. Trying to get a straight answer is like talking to a politician straddling both sides of the fence.

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No it isn't. You're playing games. Faith/Belief is not a work.

---

I'm using your definition you stated a work "something you do." Believing is something you do. It may not involve a physical action, but it's something that you do just like prayer, repentance, and forgiveness. These actions are not physical. They take ascent of the will. It's something that you do.

Please re-read Sam's 6:47pm post carefully and slowly. He does a fantastic job explaining the Catholic view.

You have fallen pray to Luther's and Calvin's false view of "faith alone" salvation. It was made up during the 16th century. It has NO historical basis. Its "biblical" foundation is derived late based off personal views, not any Church father.

---

Clearly, the context of "do" in my comment was performative action. If you have to resort to word games to argue your case, then you don't have much of a case at all.

Reading Sam's post carefully and slowly won't make his post or the RC theology any less problematic.

"Faith alone" absolutely has a historical basis: first of all, the Bible. Hillary of Poitiers ~350 AD wrote: "It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that sin was forgiven by Him whereas the Law was not able to absolve it, since faith alone justifies."

Marius Victorinus, ~350 AD wrote: "So knowing this, if we have believed that justification comes about through faith, we are surely going astray if we now return to Judaism, from which we passed over to be justified based not on works but faith, and faith in Christ. Faith itself alone grants justification and sanctification."

Ambrosiaster, ~ 360 AD wrote: "They are justified freely because, while doing nothing or providing any repayment, they are justified by faith alone as a gift of God."

Coke Bear said:

---

Bathsheba bowed to David and Solomon bowed to Bathsheba. That doesn't mean that they worshipped them. They were giving honor and obedience.
Please try to read ALL of scripture to better understand it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" - the word "serve" there in Greek is the root word for "dulia". The Bible says "dulia" is worship.

---

You are reading into the bible (again). Dulia does NOT mean worship. It means to "serve", as you stated, or "to be a slave to." Again you are adding your jaded ieogesis into the text try attempt to prove your point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And frankly, if you can't see that the idolatrous and heretical prayers to Mary I've referenced is worship of Mary, and the hundreds of feasts throughout the year for Mary, singing hymns to her, praying to her, and having statues and pictures everywhere of her even in church that you bow to and kiss - if you can't see that's pure worship you're just a blind fool. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but it's the truth. You are trapped in deception. Anyone with at least an ounce of sense can see that that.

---

I really feel sorry for you to be trapped in your mind like this. These are tired protestant tropes that have been refuted MANY times. Most everyone has kissed a picture of a loved one. It doesn't mean we worship them. Millions of men have bowed and dropped to one knee to ask their future wives to marry them. That's not worship. We don't think that she is God.

PS. Only 19 (not "Hundreds") major and optional feast days exist on the calendar. You do realize that our American calendar also celebrates holidays of Presidents and their birthdays, civil leaders, significant cultural events, etc.?

Seriously, aren't you tired of spitting out the same, boring, false tropes? Can't we get on to something else? I really wonder sometimes if the devil has placed this on your heart to keep us from discussing other topics. It seems to be that's all you have to go to. EVERYONE here knows our positions on this. Why keep bringing it up? You aren't going to change anyone's opinion on the subject.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another example, the "Hail Holy Queen" Catholic prayer:

"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!

Hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to you do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious Advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Amen."

This is, like all the other Marian devotions and prayers I've referenced, CLEARLY exonerating her to the level of worship, as well as being quite heretical and idolatrous. It's quite unbelievable and sad how blind you are to this.

---

Thanks for sharing the "Hail, Holy Queen"! I recite this every day at the end of my rosary. It's called the "Salve Regina". It is so beautiful when sang in Latin. Nothing here is heretical, unless you think loving Jesus' mom is heretical.

Here are two versions of the Salve Regina: One in chant and the other with accompaniment:



It's OK to love Mary. She's your mother too. She loves you!

Finally, I will no longer be responding to your "Catholics worship Mary" bait any longer. If you wish to discuss a specific dogma, I'm OK with that. Posting anything else about this topic just reveals your character.

---

For the hundredth time, you are bowing to, kissing, having feasts for, praying to, and singing hymns to Mary as an exalted being in heaven to whom you can petition for favor and blessing. You are NOT doing this when you kiss pictures or bow to people you know or to your family or loved ones for the same reason. You are so blind and dishonest, even to yourself, about what you're doing that it really hurts to witness it.

Clearly, the bible, and hence God himself, is saying that "serving" IS worship. The word "serve" is used in the Old Testament when God is describing what His people are doing to other pagan gods. Clearly, God sees this as being unfaithful to Him, and giving to others what is due Him only. Jesus is saying the same thing about "dulia"-ing Mammon. For God's sake, wake up.

Nothing really needs to be argued with you at this point. You are completely blinded in deception and idolatry. I'm not writing my comments for you, I'm writing them for the benefit of others who might be reading this. When you praise and delight in those Marian prayers that are CLEARLY idolatrous and heretical, that is stronger than any argument against your beliefs that I can ever make myself. What you're doing is straight up evil.

from the Greek :


'to slice as to serve in service............'

- KKM

from where we get:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Thank you! Now you are really beginning to think.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Thank you! Now you are really beginning to think.

---

So you acknowledge the problems in RC doctrine and belief? This only demonstrates that the RC system of placing requirements and conditions upon the believer to perform in order to keep one's salvation (works/sacraments) is fraught with problems, not the least of which is it directly contradicts the teaching of the Bible that Jesus completed all the requirements for us, and his righteousnes is imputed to us through faith alone, apart from any works.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

Bathsheba bowed to David and Solomon bowed to Bathsheba. That doesn't mean that they worshipped them. They were giving honor and obedience.
Please try to read ALL of scripture to better understand it.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

In Matthew 6:24 - "No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money" - the word "serve" there in Greek is the root word for "dulia". The Bible says "dulia" is worship.

---

You are reading into the bible (again). Dulia does NOT mean worship. It means to "serve", as you stated, or "to be a slave to." Again you are adding your jaded ieogesis into the text try attempt to prove your point.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And frankly, if you can't see that the idolatrous and heretical prayers to Mary I've referenced is worship of Mary, and the hundreds of feasts throughout the year for Mary, singing hymns to her, praying to her, and having statues and pictures everywhere of her even in church that you bow to and kiss - if you can't see that's pure worship you're just a blind fool. I'm sorry to be so harsh, but it's the truth. You are trapped in deception. Anyone with at least an ounce of sense can see that that.

---

I really feel sorry for you to be trapped in your mind like this. These are tired protestant tropes that have been refuted MANY times. Most everyone has kissed a picture of a loved one. It doesn't mean we worship them. Millions of men have bowed and dropped to one knee to ask their future wives to marry them. That's not worship. We don't think that she is God.

PS. Only 19 (not "Hundreds") major and optional feast days exist on the calendar. You do realize that our American calendar also celebrates holidays of Presidents and their birthdays, civil leaders, significant cultural events, etc.?

Seriously, aren't you tired of spitting out the same, boring, false tropes? Can't we get on to something else? I really wonder sometimes if the devil has placed this on your heart to keep us from discussing other topics. It seems to be that's all you have to go to. EVERYONE here knows our positions on this. Why keep bringing it up? You aren't going to change anyone's opinion on the subject.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Here's another example, the "Hail Holy Queen" Catholic prayer:

"Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy!

Hail, our life, our sweetness, and our hope!
To you do we cry, poor banished children of Eve;
to you do we send up our sighs,
mourning and weeping in this valley, of tears.
Turn, then, most gracious Advocate,
your eyes of mercy toward us;
and after this our exile
show unto us the blessed fruit of your womb, Jesus;
O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.
Amen."

This is, like all the other Marian devotions and prayers I've referenced, CLEARLY exonerating her to the level of worship, as well as being quite heretical and idolatrous. It's quite unbelievable and sad how blind you are to this.

---

Thanks for sharing the "Hail, Holy Queen"! I recite this every day at the end of my rosary. It's called the "Salve Regina". It is so beautiful when sang in Latin. Nothing here is heretical, unless you think loving Jesus' mom is heretical.

Here are two versions of the Salve Regina: One in chant and the other with accompaniment:



It's OK to love Mary. She's your mother too. She loves you!

Finally, I will no longer be responding to your "Catholics worship Mary" bait any longer. If you wish to discuss a specific dogma, I'm OK with that. Posting anything else about this topic just reveals your character.

---

For the hundredth time, you are bowing to, kissing, having feasts for, praying to, and singing hymns to Mary as an exalted being in heaven to whom you can petition for favor and blessing. You are NOT doing this when you kiss pictures or bow to people you know or to your family or loved ones for the same reason. You are so blind and dishonest, even to yourself, about what you're doing that it really hurts to witness it.

Clearly, the bible, and hence God himself, is saying that "serving" IS worship. The word "serve" is used in the Old Testament when God is describing what His people are doing to other pagan gods. Clearly, God sees this as being unfaithful to Him, and giving to others what is due Him only. Jesus is saying the same thing about "dulia"-ing Mammon. For God's sake, wake up.

Nothing really needs to be argued with you at this point. You are completely blinded in deception and idolatry. I'm not writing my comments for you, I'm writing them for the benefit of others who might be reading this. When you praise and delight in those Marian prayers that are CLEARLY idolatrous and heretical, that is stronger than any argument against your beliefs that I can ever make myself. What you're doing is straight up evil.

---

Catholics aren't using "dulia" to mean worship. You are playing word games. The devil really has a hold of you on this topic.

As I've said, I'm done discussing this with you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

---

Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

---

Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.

---

sam's earned his fish sammich today......

-- kkm

D!

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

---

Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.

---

No, it does not implicate what you say. God is omnipotent, but he required blood sacrifice because he is perfectly just. Being omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. God can not sin. God can not violate His own character.

The problem with your sacraments remains.

william said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

---

Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.

---

sam's earned his fish sammich today......

-- kkm

D!

---

I agree. It is pretty fishy.

Some folks are so sure they are in good with God, I expect they walk across lakes for recreation.

pope dale?

the unifier.

- el kkm

maybe a pope luigi - the gastronomique pope.....

just let him eat pasta and enjoy the vino.....

PA.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

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

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

I believe we are bound by the sacraments. That doesn't mean I HAVE TO believe God is bound by them. The Bible and the Church clearly teach us that he is not. That's your answer.

---

And if sacraments aren't required for some and in some situations, it means that the sacraments themselves don't actually effect the grace that leads to salvation, correct? Because if it did, it would be absolutely necessary, without exception. But then that raises the question - if God doesn't need it to save, then why require it? Why make it necessary, even "normatively"? If he can overlook it for some, why not for all? Why "bind" us to it in the first place? Why send someone to Hell over something that He was able to overlook in another? We haven't even gotten to all these problems with this belief yet.

---

Now you are really beginning to think.

---

I'm waiting for you to. Think with me.

Do you see now why you, a Roman Catholic, HAVE to believe that the person in my example (dies right after coming to faith in Jesus, before doing a single work) is not saved but is in Hell? Because RC says works (sacraments) are "necessary" for salvation - but if "necessary" there doesn't mean absolutely necessary but instead allows for exceptions, then the whole belief falls apart for the reasons above.

---

Your questions implicate much more than just the sacraments. The same questions could be and have been asked about Atonement itself. If God is omnipotent, why require blood sacrifice? Couldn't he just forgive us? If so, why should anyone be condemned for not accepting Christ?

God is sovereign, and he designed the plan of salvation for his own reasons. Understand this, and you'll see why your problem with the sacraments is illusory.

---

Protestants get so wrapped up in their new invention and desire to slander the original church founded by by Jesus and built upon the rock, Peter.

They don't acknowledge that 1) coming to Christ is a work, 2) proclaiming Jesus is God is a work (thief on the cross I've heard some here have mentioned) and that obeying Jesus / God's commands is….wait for it…a work.

It even says if you don't follow the commandments (a work) you're not getting to Heaven. Directly from Jesus mouth.

Then some are even so brave as to suggest that God could be an unjust judge based on their interpretation. What pride. What hibris

And God can make any exception He wants. He's God. Why is that hard to understand?

Just such a weird belief system theyve concocted recently.

" slander the original church"

Sorry to interrupt your pissing match but no, that is absolutely not what Protestants did.

A lot more like trying to reform the church in power, then when the men in power refused to change from their sin, the Protestants sought to follow Paul's example (the Church of Rome following Caiaphas for all purposes) and so we have the Schism.

Some great thinkers and leaders can be found in the Roman Catholic denomination as well as a number of Protestant denominations, and of course humans being full pf pride there are sadly also false teachers and some leaders who have done great evil in all kinds of places.

XFrodo makes a good point that a church which wants to follow Christ does well to seek the Holy Spirit first and test their doctrines in Scripture. Ironically, the early Romans who followed Christ did the same, before Constantine corrupted them with wealth and earthly power.

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

Do you see why salvation HAS to be by faith alone? It can't be any other way. If you add any kind of works as a requirement for salvation, adherence to that requirement HAS to be absolute and perfect, otherwise God will be judging people based on completely arbitrary grounds, which would violate His attribute of perfect justice. That means that a person who comes to faith in Jesus but dies right afterward before being able to do a single work MUST go to Hell according to that system. Any exception or caveat would mean that God is not just.

Before Jesus, the requirement for eternal life was perfection. No exceptions. Because God is perfectly just and righteous. But that was impossible for man. Therefore, the only way to save us would be for Jesus to fulfill that requirement for us, and have his perfection credited to us, by faith alone. If you add works, you are re-instituting a new form of legalism and rule-keeping that Jesus' death and resurrection fulfilled completely and did away with. And if you do that, you are now back to the absolutely necessary requirement of adhering to the new rules perfectly and absolutely, otherwise you're forcing God to be unjust. Which is impossible. Therefore, this system can NOT be true.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Some folks are so sure they are in good with God, I expect they walk across lakes for recreation.

---

Right? I mean it's all so simple To Some and yet many are called and few are chosen - doesn't even make any logical sense given their hubris anout their belief but that's on them to work out. I believe they call it whistlin past the graveyard.

That said, hopefully it is that simple. I believe God calls us to do so much more and I know I am capable of so much more and therefore every day I strive and fail to do all God gas commanded. While impossible I still try to the point of exhaustion in hopes I can maybe help save even just one more and that when God says "well done good and faithful servant" I will at least have done all that I could even though none of it is enough and hopefully his infinite mercy and His grace is bestowed upon me and all whom I know and love.

And many of us miss our own hubris, brother.

Oldbear83 said:

---

" slander the original church"

Sorry to interrupt your pissing match but no, that is absolutely not what Protestants did.

A lot more like trying to reform the church in power, then when the men in power refused to change from their sin, the Protestants sought to follow Paul's example (the Church of Rome following Caiaphas for all purposes) and so we have the Schism.

Some great thinkers and leaders can be found in the Roman Catholic denomination as well as a number of Protestant denominations, and of course humans being full pf pride there are sadly also false teachers and some leaders who have done great evil in all kinds of places.

XFrodo makes a good point that a church which wants to follow Christ does well to seek the Holy Spirit first and test their doctrines in Scripture. Ironically, the early Romans who followed Christ did the same, before Constantine corrupted them with wealth and earthly power.

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

---

One man's lissing match is another man's doctrinal debate. Similar to today where the failed men leading the Catholic church today are being pushed back on by the laeity that are demanding a return to traditional doctrine vs a watering down and "more inclusive" doctrine for this temporal sojourn

All men are flawed but God's word is the rock and the standard that does not change regarding His expectations of us.

The Protestants did a great disservice by inventing something new and softer and fuzzier 500 years ago vs as many are doing today in trying to heal the Catholic Church and return its leadership to the teachings of the founders of the Catholic Church. As a result we now have 45,000 different Christian "faiths" vs stewarding the Catholic faith to be in alignment with the teaching and writings.

That has been largely the debate here. One crowd that seems to largely believe "look all ya gotta do is this and you good. See you in Heaven" vs those more along the lines of what I and others have posted about the high expectations and challenges and works and expectations and commands that God has told us to obey.

Built as always on top of God's Grace.

I don't quite get the Roman reference giving the reason it was called Catholic in the first place unless your point is to try to distinguish between that and say orthodox. Universal is not Roman…it's…universal.

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

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

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

God and my faith are not in any way confined to a location so it's never been a passion point for me or Catholics that I know. It seems often to be for Protestants for some reason.

Oldbear83 said:

---

And many of us miss our own hubris, brother.

---

I am merely a lowly sinner. No hubris from me. Doesn't mean I have to agree with people that are wrong. Then we'd just both be wrong.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

---

"Pope" is an RC title.

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

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

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And many of us miss our own hubris, brother.

---

I am merely a lowly sinner. No hubris from me. Doesn't mean I have to agree with people that are wrong. Then we'd just both be wrong.

---

It's the arrogance that your opinion speaks for Christ that concerns me.

We all run that risk if we are not careful. Just another reason to spend more time with Scripture and Prayer than on forums bickering about who is better liked by Jesus.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

---

"Pope" is an RC title.

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

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

---

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

How is that obsessing?

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

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

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

---

"Pope" is an RC title.

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

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

---

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

How is that obsessing?

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

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

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.

---

Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

And many of us miss our own hubris, brother.

---

I am merely a lowly sinner. No hubris from me. Doesn't mean I have to agree with people that are wrong. Then we'd just both be wrong.

---

It's the arrogance that your opinion speaks for Christ that concerns me.

We all run that risk if we are not careful. Just another reason to spend more time with Scripture and Prayer than on forums bickering about who is better liked by Jesus.

---

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

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

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

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

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

---

"Pope" is an RC title.

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

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

---

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

How is that obsessing?

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

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

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.

---

Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.

---

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

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

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

---

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

---

"Pope" is an RC title.

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

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

---

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

How is that obsessing?

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

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

Without it you'd not even have a Bible today as one example.

---

Jesus was praising Peter's faith, just as He regularly commented on people's faith.

Jesus never made Peter the Junior Messiah.

---

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

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

---

"It".

As in Peter's faith.

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