I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
How To Get To Heaven When You Die
747,780 Views |
6592 Replies |
Last: 7 hrs ago by BusyTarpDuster2017
Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If only the Spanish Inquisition was merely telling people the truth.Sam Lowry said:Yikes! I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.Sam Lowry said:Again, you are the one assuming these things are unjust or inconsistent. I don't share those assumptions.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:It's what you were forced to argue to make the sacrament system for salvation work.Sam Lowry said:No, that is not what I'm arguing.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That wasn't the question at all. The question wasn't whether his holiness required a blood sacrifice atonement. The question was whether atonement (or any alternative process as God's "choice" to reconcile with sinful man) can involve God violating his holiness (or any other eternal attribute) while conducting that atonement (or other process).Sam Lowry said:
It's not God's holiness that's in question. It's whether his holiness absolutely required the Atonement. Theologians have disagreed on this point. It's not a matter of heresy.
You're trying to answer the dilemma of God having to act unjustly or inconsistently in a sacrament system for salvation by arguing that since a blood sacrifice for atonement was not an absolute necessity for God in the first place, it's possible for God to act unjustly and violate his holiness, because his justice and holiness don't necessarily have to be absolute either. This is a completely incongruent argument and the suggestion is indeed heretical.
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.
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 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?
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.
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.
"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:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the "sovereign" reference to? The Hail Holy Queen? The word "sovereign" doesn't appear in that prayer
I don't know, actually.Fre3dombear said:Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the "sovereign" reference to? The Hail Holy Queen? The word "sovereign" doesn't appear in that prayer
Sam Lowry said:I don't know, actually.Fre3dombear said:Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the "sovereign" reference to? The Hail Holy Queen? The word "sovereign" doesn't appear in that prayer
Gotcha. Not surprising as things tend to get wayyyyy off the beaten path so I had to focus on more intellectual discussions but it doesn't block the quotes so still get some side entertainment.
Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
CALLING CURTPENN.....Fre3dombear said:Sam Lowry said:I don't know, actually.Fre3dombear said:Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
What is the "sovereign" reference to? The Hail Holy Queen? The word "sovereign" doesn't appear in that prayer
Gotcha. Not surprising as things tend to get wayyyyy off the beaten path so I had to focus on more intellectual discussions but it doesn't block the quotes so still get some side entertainment.
Do you see what I'm talking about? ^^^ This is arrogance. "Look at all these silly quotes that are far, far beneath my intellectualism. Because I personally don't know where this quote comes from, obviously it must be erroneous or completely made up. And I won't even bother to verify its truth, because I'm right - so much so, that I can even completely disregard any factual evidence they might present...."
Now you know.
"My words must be reckoned with in a timely manner. Never mind that they might have stuff to do, my appeasement comes first. If not done within the time frame I find acceptable, obviously it means they are admitting they are wrong."Fre3dombear said:
No opinions on this it seems. It creates quite the conundrum for them
Curtpenn, the more you know.......
Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
His kingdom is not of this world. No reason to call him "Lord" if she was only referring to the earthly Jesus.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
No, it follows from what we both agreed. Works don't save, but sin does separate us from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
Why no reason? Jesus, though born to Mary into the flesh, is still the eternal Jesus in person. And since his kingdom is not of this world, his kingship is as the eternal Jesus, not the earthly Jesus. And since Mary was Jesus' earthly mother, not his eternal mother, she is not the Queen Mother in Jesus' eternal kingdom.Sam Lowry said:His kingdom is not of this world. No reason to call him "Lord" if she was only referring to the earthly Jesus.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
That's way too complicated for me. I choose to believe what Christians have always believed -- Jesus is the Son of God, and Mary is his mother.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why no reason? Jesus, though born to Mary into the flesh, is still the eternal Jesus in person. And since his kingdom is not of this world, his kingship is as the eternal Jesus, not the earthly Jesus. And since Mary was Jesus' earthly mother, not his eternal mother, she is not the Queen Mother in Jesus' eternal kingdom.Sam Lowry said:His kingdom is not of this world. No reason to call him "Lord" if she was only referring to the earthly Jesus.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
Is Mary in heaven?
Sam Lowry said:That's way too complicated for me. I choose to believe what Christians have always believed -- Jesus is the Son of God, and Mary is his mother.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why no reason? Jesus, though born to Mary into the flesh, is still the eternal Jesus in person. And since his kingdom is not of this world, his kingship is as the eternal Jesus, not the earthly Jesus. And since Mary was Jesus' earthly mother, not his eternal mother, she is not the Queen Mother in Jesus' eternal kingdom.Sam Lowry said:His kingdom is not of this world. No reason to call him "Lord" if she was only referring to the earthly Jesus.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
Praise God I wasn't born into some twisted belief system that stubbornly made me over complicate this. That's some regressive indoctrination that may never be undone sadly for some.
All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Not after salvation. Salvation fixes the separation. To be separated again after salvation would mean that salvation does NOT fix separation. It would mean that salvation is ultimately by our works, since all men are still sinners even after salvation.Sam Lowry said:No, it follows from what we both agreed. Works don't save, but sin does separate us from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
If you really did believe what Christians have always believed, then you wouldn't be believing all this about Mary.Sam Lowry said:That's way too complicated for me. I choose to believe what Christians have always believed -- Jesus is the Son of God, and Mary is his mother.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Why no reason? Jesus, though born to Mary into the flesh, is still the eternal Jesus in person. And since his kingdom is not of this world, his kingship is as the eternal Jesus, not the earthly Jesus. And since Mary was Jesus' earthly mother, not his eternal mother, she is not the Queen Mother in Jesus' eternal kingdom.Sam Lowry said:His kingdom is not of this world. No reason to call him "Lord" if she was only referring to the earthly Jesus.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:I explained that this isn't a contradiction. It's in the first two sentences of my post.Sam Lowry said:I think we've already covered most of this, but I would point out a contradiction in your post. If Mary isn't the mother of God, then Elizabeth is wrong. There is no reason for her to call Mary "Mother of my Lord."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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.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.
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.
And the "mother" isn't capitalized. It's not an honorary title, it just means that she was to birth the earthly Jesus. Mary was the mother of the man Jesus, not the God Jesus. Roman Catholicism is trying to play this game where they try to sneak in the idea that Mary is the bearer of the eternal God himself, to lure people into worshiping her. It has worked.
Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Well but not Mary of course. But point being Mary had a mother and father. Who was Adam and eves mothers and fathers
Wait.... you think Mary didn't have original sin??Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Irrelevant to the matter at hand.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Well but not Mary of course. But point being Mary had a mother and father. Who was Adam and eves mothers and fathers
YOU think she was holy based on ...?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Wait.... you think Mary didn't have original sin??Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Salvation is by forgiveness through grace. No works can earn it, but that doesn't mean we can't turn our backs on it. Our reconciliation with God is relational, not magical.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Not after salvation. Salvation fixes the separation. To be separated again after salvation would mean that salvation does NOT fix separation. It would mean that salvation is ultimately by our works, since all men are still sinners even after salvation.Sam Lowry said:No, it follows from what we both agreed. Works don't save, but sin does separate us from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
Oldbear83 said:Irrelevant to the matter at hand.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Well but not Mary of course. But point being Mary had a mother and father. Who was Adam and eves mothers and fathers
It's completely relevant and why you should have never included them in the discussion of the question I asked.
Sam Lowry said:Salvation is by forgiveness through grace. No works can earn it, but that doesn't mean we can't turn our backs on it. Our reconciliation with God is relational, not magical.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Not after salvation. Salvation fixes the separation. To be separated again after salvation would mean that salvation does NOT fix separation. It would mean that salvation is ultimately by our works, since all men are still sinners even after salvation.Sam Lowry said:No, it follows from what we both agreed. Works don't save, but sin does separate us from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
I had explained all this to them weeks ago. They will stubbornly be stuck forever on "faith alone" which appears nowhere in the Bible except one place and neuters their entire argument.
They further confuse themselves with thinking wrongly that Catholics believe works get you into heaven vs the belief that doing no works (which they don't realize is impossible in the original word that we call in English"faith"), an understanding of which, would instantly explain to them why works are required or they don't truly have what they think is "faith"
It's really all very simple but "Catholic bad" gets them all worked up and confused. It's all been there from the beginning and I've posted no less than 10 Church Fathers and near 20 verses explaining it all.
In the end we'll find out if their softer, simpler, lazier way is sufficient for God or if all the Catholics' efforts were just a waste of time on this temporal sojourn while they lived it up OSASing and never a care of losing their salvation as they whistle past….
It's truly the ultimate risk and one I would personally never take or allow my family to take. But for sure, we'll all find out in the end.
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Irrelevant to the matter at hand.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Well but not Mary of course. But point being Mary had a mother and father. Who was Adam and eves mothers and fathers
It's completely relevant and why you should have never included them in the discussion of the question I asked.
Creation of the species is by definition a one-time event, so no, your argument is, well, specious.
Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Irrelevant to the matter at hand.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Well but not Mary of course. But point being Mary had a mother and father. Who was Adam and eves mothers and fathers
It's completely relevant and why you should have never included them in the discussion of the question I asked.
Creation of the species is by definition a one-time event, so no, your argument is, well, specious.
Then you're simply misunderstanding the question.
I haven't heard any great arguments to dethrone Mary yet. We'll see how it plays out
So you DO?Oldbear83 said:YOU think she was holy based on ...?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Wait.... you think Mary didn't have original sin??Oldbear83 said:All natural humans carried Adam and Eve's original sin.Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Consider that you disqualified Adam because 'he wasn't made naturally'. Well, the same can be said for Mary.Fre3dombear said: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.
But let's also consider that you used the word 'holiest'.
Mary did nothing to cause us to regard her as 'holy'. She performed no miracles, did no healing, there is no evidence of Mary speaking with God's authority to the disciples or any of the churches.
In no scripture does God the Father or Jesus command us to obey Mary or treat her as a church leader.
Mary was a good and faithful servant of the Lord, but in no way more 'holy' than, say, John or James.
Man. Wow.
Well. Ok.
Btw Mary wasn't created naturally? Tell me more about
Thought you would remember that.
Salvation is full reconciliation of sinful man to a holy God only made possible by the atoning sacrifice of Jesus and his resurrection, and given to us by grace through faith.Sam Lowry said:Salvation is by forgiveness through grace. No works can earn it, but that doesn't mean we can't turn our backs on it. Our reconciliation with God is relational, not magical.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Not after salvation. Salvation fixes the separation. To be separated again after salvation would mean that salvation does NOT fix separation. It would mean that salvation is ultimately by our works, since all men are still sinners even after salvation.Sam Lowry said:No, it follows from what we both agreed. Works don't save, but sin does separate us from God.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Then we agree your conclusion is a complete non sequitur.Sam Lowry said:Exactly.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That does not follow at all. Separation IS by works. Salvation is not.Sam Lowry said:If that were true, we would never have been separated from God to begin with.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:If works don't ever gain you your salvation, then works can't ever make you lose it.Sam Lowry said: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."BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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!Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said: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.BusyTarpDuster2017 said: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?Sam Lowry said:
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 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?
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.
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.
"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.
Yes, it is relational. As long as we have that faith, that relationship exists, even when we sin. If we have faith and sin, and that sin ends the relationship, then the relationship was not based on faith, but rather on our performance. You are back to works-based salvation.
And sinning is not "turning our backs on it". That is something entirely different altogether. It would mean that you weren't a believer to begin with, as the Bible says.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".
If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".
If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".
I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.
Do you see what's missing in your analogy?Sam Lowry said:If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".
I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.
The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."
You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.
If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?
Jesus' righteousness and innocence aren't going anywhere. So there's no taking back of the gift. He doesn't pay the price and then say "I'm sorry, the sacrifice is no longer valid." What he does say is that it's our choice to accept or reject it, and the Bible teaches us that we do so daily.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Do you see what's missing in your analogy?Sam Lowry said:If a judge gives you a lenient sentence, you commit another crime, and he then gives you a harsher sentence, was his leniency never real? Has he taken back his gift? Did you have to perform in order to receive it?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faithand this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
If God gives you a free gift, and then takes it back because you didn't do something right - then it was never a free gift at all, you had to perform for it. The Roman Catholic system of salvation turns God's free gift of salvation into an earned reward, and makes God into an Indian giver. And it allows a person to boast: "God gave me salvation; but I was able to keep it".
I don't think so. Anyone who feels so entitled as to fault the judge in that situation is missing the point...and is likely to end up in worse trouble before long.
The intercessor. He sits at the right hand of the judge and says "I represent this person. I paid for all his crimes already. Give him my innocence."
You are the one who is missing the point. In your analogy, you only have the judge dealing directly with the criminal (God and sinner). God, because of his eternal character of holiness, absolutely requires payment for sin. He can not gift leniency or absolution at all, or he violates his eternal character. We were doomed to pay the eternal price for our sins (separation from God - true death). The whole point of the gospel is that someone paid the price of our sins for us - Jesus. The "gift" is Jesus' righteousness and innocence, received through faith.
If God were to take back that gift even while Jesus remains innocent and righteous and we still have faith, then it was never a gift at all. The gift was given while we were sinners, and BECAUSE we were sinners - why then take back the gift because we are still sinners?