BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I will never use grace as a doctrine, a principle, or a system rather than grace as the costly call to discipleship and death to self.

If you're comfortable, your heart is not in it.

---

That's not what "grace" is.

You don't seem to understand God's holiness, and that our sin MUST be accounted for, and that Jesus' sacrifice accomplished that, fully. You're not understanding that grace is Jesus saying "For al those who want to be forgiven and have eternal life with me, come to me and ask of me, and I will give it to you at NO COST - just BELIEVE." ==> said over and over in Scripture, and summarized by Jesus himself at the end of the Bible, in Revelation 22:17

You're putting the onus of achieving righteousness on yourself. What you're saying is that God gives us "grace".... to work for our own righteousness. That's a yoke that Peter noted no one ever can bear (Acts 15:10). Jesus is telling you that righteousness is a gift we receive by FAITH, not by how "good" you are. You're not understanding what "grace" is, and it means you aren't understanding and believing the gospel.

---

Nobody here is saying you earn salvation. We've been over that.

Think about what faith actually is. Faith is trust under pressure, commitment in uncertainty, walking forward when you can't see the ground. Every example of faith in Scripture involves major cost, risk, and discomfort.

Abraham leaving everything he knew. Moses confronting Pharaoh. The disciples dropping their nets. Paul being beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned. The entire book of Hebrews chapter 11 is a catalog of people whose faith cost them enormously.
Not one of them was comfortable. Apostles were brutally murdered.

If your response to grace is to get comfortable, you haven't actually encountered grace. You've encountered relief. And relief and faith are not the same thing.

Faith is what you exercise when relief runs out. When the diagnosis comes back bad. When the relationship collapses. When following Christ costs you something real.

What I'm really trying to tell you is that if you aren't working on yourself and getting out of your own way so that Christ can work in you, then you don't really Love Christ and you don't have real faith. And guess what… it takes struggle. Because your ego, your comfort, your passions, your pride, they don't move aside voluntarily. They have to be fought. That fight is not works righteousness. That fight is love.

If Christ is working in you and you're doing nothing to cooperate with that work, nothing to clear the ground, nothing to silence the noise of your own flesh, then you have to ask honestly whether you actually want him there.
That's not a works question. That's a love/faith question.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I will never use grace as a doctrine, a principle, or a system rather than grace as the costly call to discipleship and death to self.

If you're comfortable, your heart is not in it.

---

That's not what "grace" is.

You don't seem to understand God's holiness, and that our sin MUST be accounted for, and that Jesus' sacrifice accomplished that, fully. You're not understanding that grace is Jesus saying "For al those who want to be forgiven and have eternal life with me, come to me and ask of me, and I will give it to you at NO COST - just BELIEVE." ==> said over and over in Scripture, and summarized by Jesus himself at the end of the Bible, in Revelation 22:17

You're putting the onus of achieving righteousness on yourself. What you're saying is that God gives us "grace".... to work for our own righteousness. That's a yoke that Peter noted no one ever can bear (Acts 15:10). Jesus is telling you that righteousness is a gift we receive by FAITH, not by how "good" you are. You're not understanding what "grace" is, and it means you aren't understanding and believing the gospel.

---

Nobody here is saying you earn salvation. We've been over that.

Think about what faith actually is. Faith is trust under pressure, commitment in uncertainty, walking forward when you can't see the ground. Every example of faith in Scripture involves major cost, risk, and discomfort.

Abraham leaving everything he knew. Moses confronting Pharaoh. The disciples dropping their nets. Paul being beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned. The entire book of Hebrews chapter 11 is a catalog of people whose faith cost them enormously.
Not one of them was comfortable. Apostles were brutally murdered.

If your response to grace is to get comfortable, you haven't actually encountered grace. You've encountered relief. And relief and faith are not the same thing.

Faith is what you exercise when relief runs out. When the diagnosis comes back bad. When the relationship collapses. When following Christ costs you something real.

What I'm really trying to tell you is that if you aren't working on yourself and getting out of your own way so that Christ can work in you, then you don't really Love Christ and you don't have real faith. And guess what… it takes struggle. Because your ego, your comfort, your passions, your pride, they don't move aside voluntarily. They have to be fought. That fight is not works righteousness. That fight is love.

If Christ is working in you and you're doing nothing to cooperate with that work, nothing to clear the ground, nothing to silence the noise of your own flesh, then you have to ask honestly whether you actually want him there.
That's not a works question. That's a love/faith question.

---

You're only going by how you want to understand things, rather than by what Scripture is telling you. Faith is defined in scripture, and it doesn't involve having to pay a cost (Hebrews 11:1). The hardship and difficulty that comes with having faith is how faith is tested for purity, it's not faith itself.

Did you read the final verses of the Bible, where Jesus pretty much sums up his gospel message that he repeated throughout the Bible?:

"The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price."

The crux of what you and the Roman Catholics have been saying is this: we are saved by grace through faith.... but grace isn't grace unless you work for it, and faith isn't faith until you've obeyed enough. You're saying that you're not saved unless you've performed the sacraments, and you've obeyed commands and avoided certain sins. This is the constant "double talk" that I've been alluding to. This is a performance based salvation, not a faith based one. So yes, you ARE talking about working for your salvation, whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

I ask you (again): to what degree of "death to self" and how successful do you have to "pay the cost" for it to be officially "grace" and for it to be considered "faith"? If you mess up once, is it still "grace" and "faith" that you have? Twice? What's the cutoff point? If you say we can't know the cutoff point, then none of us can ever know we are saved. But that goes directly against Jesus saying that everyone who believes has eternal life, and 1 John 5:13 saying that we CAN know that we are saved. This will always be the problem with your view as long as you continue to tie your performance to your salvation.

Every time discipleship gets mentioned you hear works righteousness. Those are not the same thing.

Rev 22 is free and open, agreed completely. But notice what it says. 'Let the one who is thirsty come.' Thirst is not passive. Thirst is a condition of desperate want that drives you toward the source. You don't manufacture thirst by being good enough. But you can absolutely quench it artificially with entertainment, comfort, and assurance, and never actually move toward the water at all.

You're still thinking in the PSA framework, thresholds, ledgers, cutoff points, pass or fail…because that's your framework. It's not mine. The question was never how much have you performed. The question is are you actually moving toward Christ or away from him. Are you cooperating with what God is doing in you or are you blocking it. That's not a performance metric. It's a heart metric.

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every time discipleship gets mentioned you hear works righteousness. Those are not the same thing.

Rev 22 is free and open, agreed completely. But notice what it says. 'Let the one who is thirsty come.' Thirst is not passive. Thirst is a condition of desperate want that drives you toward the source. You don't manufacture thirst by being good enough. But you can absolutely quench it artificially with entertainment, comfort, and assurance, and never actually move toward the water at all.

You're still thinking in the PSA framework, thresholds, ledgers, cutoff points, pass or fail…because that's your framework. It's not mine. The question was never how much have you performed. The question is are you actually moving toward Christ or away from him. Are you cooperating with what God is doing in you or are you blocking it. That's not a performance metric. It's a heart metric.

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

---

When you tie "discipleship" to salvation, and define "discipleship" by one's performance, then you are indeed tying salvation to works righteousness. This is inescapable, no matter how often you deny it.

"Thirst" is not a work. It's a state of being. No one is saying that salvation doesn't involve our desire to quench our thirst. It does, however, become works-righteousness when you say that you must perform a certain set of works and to a satisfactory degree in order to quench that thirst. Which is what you and the Roman Catholics are saying. Jesus is clearly saying that quenching that thirst has no cost. But you are saying it does.

You can deny the question I asked as "not being your framework", but it's a question that is based on pure logic and reality. Which means your framework must not be. I understand why you guys have to continually dodge it, because it renders your view untenable. Simply put, if you can't explain how successful one must be in "dying to oneself" or in "paying the cost" in order to be considered having received grace, then your view falls apart because it goes directly against Scripture. Your view doesn't understand what "grace" actually means - you continually try to tie it to performance. But as Paul explained in Romans 11:6, the moment you add one's performance to grace, it ceases to be grace.

The story of the prodigal son does NOT disprove sola fide, any more than Genesis 3 "disproved" penal substitutionary atonement, as I clearly showed. The son "coming back" to his father is exactly what Jesus is asking us to do, just like in Revelation 22 - to "come to him". And we come to him by believing and trusting in him.

A true faith in Jesus is supposed to produce comfort, ease, and assurance regarding our salvation: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Jesus.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Its wild that dispensationalism didn't really come about until the 1830s. It was a niche theological framework and now its literal dogma and a statement of faith for many as you can see above. Its a required belief for leadership and membership in many evangelical/baptist or non denom bible churches. I think it's fair to say that most Baptists are de facto dispensationalists, even without knowing it, just by way of that being what they've always been taught.

A lot of the early dispensationalists were Presbyterian, oddly enough. They baked dispensational notes right into the pages of Scripture in the Scofield bible in 1909 which made it the "gold standard" for most pastors/people. Like straight up dual-covenant theology. Now rejecting it is pretty much viewed not just as a difference in opinion, but as a rejection of the authority of Scripture itself.

And like you said, its now under even higher criticism and disagreements. I'm pretty sure Gavin Ortlund has pushed back on it and stated that covenant theology is correct and that dispensationalism is a secondary issue.

IMO, its just more rejection of ascetism: the rapture gets you out of suffering.

You can go all the way back to Genesis 3 to see that God's plan from the moment of the fall was the Incarnation of Christ. A singular, continuous covenant rather than a series of distinct "tests" or "managements" where God relates to humans differently in each era.
Fun fact: Genesis 3 also disproves PSA.

---

I just wanted to add (in case some didn't know) that the rise of dispensationalism, came the false notion of the pre-millennial rapture.

It is a complete misunderstanding / misinterpretation of the Bible that was made up in the 1830's.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Forgiveness is freely given, it doesn't require payment.

Have you even read all of Psalm 22?
"He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help" "

You have to claim that God is infinitely offended, that justice demands infinite punishment, and that someone must absorb it. That pictures God as a being whose anger must be appeased before love can flow.

It makes God less free and loving than the father in the Prodigal Son parable, who forgives without demanding anyone be punished first.

Do you even understand Christus Victor? It's more loving, it's taking on the cross to defeat death and sin. It's so we can join him AS WE'RE CALLED TO DO.

---

Doc - this question here demonstrates the dangers of reading ONE verse and creating a completely new theology.

As you well stated, the rest of Psalm 22 proves your point.

Doc Holliday said:

---

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

---

The prodigal son parable also completely dismantles the OSAS argument.

The prodigal son WAS with his father (SAVED) and committed sin and rejected him (LOST SALVATION). He repented and the father forgave him. He returned to his father's house (SAVED AGAIN).

Those in the OSAS can say that he was NEVER saved in the first place. He (the son) was clearly in his father's house.

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Forgiveness is freely given, it doesn't require payment.

Have you even read all of Psalm 22?
"He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help" "

You have to claim that God is infinitely offended, that justice demands infinite punishment, and that someone must absorb it. That pictures God as a being whose anger must be appeased before love can flow.

It makes God less free and loving than the father in the Prodigal Son parable, who forgives without demanding anyone be punished first.

Do you even understand Christus Victor? It's more loving, it's taking on the cross to defeat death and sin. It's so we can join him AS WE'RE CALLED TO DO.

---

Doc - this question here demonstrates the dangers of reading ONE verse and creating a completely new theology.

As you well stated, the rest of Psalm 22 proves your point.

---

His point was that Jesus' suffering did NOT come from God. That is clearly proven wrong by the verses I mentioned ("It was God's will to crush him"), and reading further in Psalm 22 does not change that, nor does it negate what is said in the beginning of the Psalm.

Obviously, God did not eternally "forsake" Jesus. Hence, the latter part of Psalm 22. But you can't deny that at least temporarily, he was forsaken as part of the punishment for the sin that he bore for us. Otherwise, Jesus would have stated something untruthful.

Claiming that PSA means that God is "eternally offended" is a strawman. Jesus' payment was sufficient and God considers it paid in full. And if punishment isn't eternal, then why the eternity in Hell for those who reject God? Jesus isn't being eternally punished, but his payment was good for eternity.

Coke Bear said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

---

The prodigal son parable also completely dismantles the OSAS argument.

The prodigal son WAS with his father (SAVED) and committed sin and rejected him (LOST SALVATION). He repented and the father forgave him. He returned to his father's house (SAVED AGAIN).

Those in the OSAS can say that he was NEVER saved in the first place. He (the son) was clearly in his father's house.

---

Parables are not explicit declarations about salvation. They are not meant for one to one comparisons. This parable does NOT mean you can be saved, then lost, then saved again. it's merely about the joy God has over lost sinners coming to repentance, which was the whole reason Jesus told that parable - the Jews were grumbling over Jesus keeping company with sinners. Jesus used this parable to illustrate why it was important to God that Jesus hang out with sinners - to bring them to repentance. "There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents". Jesus certainly isn't saying that the sinners he was hanging out with were saved previously, then lost it, and now he's trying to get them back.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every time discipleship gets mentioned you hear works righteousness. Those are not the same thing.

Rev 22 is free and open, agreed completely. But notice what it says. 'Let the one who is thirsty come.' Thirst is not passive. Thirst is a condition of desperate want that drives you toward the source. You don't manufacture thirst by being good enough. But you can absolutely quench it artificially with entertainment, comfort, and assurance, and never actually move toward the water at all.

You're still thinking in the PSA framework, thresholds, ledgers, cutoff points, pass or fail…because that's your framework. It's not mine. The question was never how much have you performed. The question is are you actually moving toward Christ or away from him. Are you cooperating with what God is doing in you or are you blocking it. That's not a performance metric. It's a heart metric.

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

---

When you tie "discipleship" to salvation, and define "discipleship" by one's performance, then you are indeed tying salvation to works righteousness. This is inescapable, no matter how often you deny it.

"Thirst" is not a work. It's a state of being. No one is saying that salvation doesn't involve our desire to quench our thirst. It does, however, become works-righteousness when you say that you must perform a certain set of works and to a satisfactory degree in order to quench that thirst. Which is what you and the Roman Catholics are saying. Jesus is clearly saying that quenching that thirst has no cost. But you are saying it does.

You can deny the question I asked as "not being your framework", but it's a question that is based on pure logic and reality. Which means your framework must not be. I understand why you guys have to continually dodge it, because it renders your view untenable. Simply put, if you can't explain how successful one must be in "dying to oneself" or in "paying the cost" in order to be considered having received grace, then your view falls apart because it goes directly against Scripture. Your view doesn't understand what "grace" actually means - you continually try to tie it to performance. But as Paul explained in Romans 11:6, the moment you add one's performance to grace, it ceases to be grace.

The story of the prodigal son does NOT disprove sola fide, any more than Genesis 3 "disproved" penal substitutionary atonement, as I clearly showed. The son "coming back" to his father is exactly what Jesus is asking us to do, just like in Revelation 22 - to "come to him". And we come to him by believing and trusting in him.

A true faith in Jesus is supposed to produce comfort, ease, and assurance regarding our salvation: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Jesus.

---

You've got to harmonize all of scripture together.

When you say that true faith in Jesus is supposed to produce comfort, ease, and assurance and then you just point to a single verse to justify that universal claim...you're making a huge mistake.
Because now you've got to back that claim up against the following:

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.'"

Luke 14:27 "And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"

Philippians 2:12 "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"

Carrying your cross isn't comfortable or easy. Doing the will of the Father isn't easy. Working out your salvation with fear and trembling was said to believers and isn't a one time event, that's not assurance.
So you can't make a universal claim that true faith is SOLELY for comfort, ease, and assurance and then completely reject that our free will matters at all.

Its ontological. Its both easy and difficult. Its why I can easily harmonize James and Paul without conflict: Paul is attacking "Works of the Law" (trying to force God's hand via ritual/merit), while James is defending "Works of the Spirit" (the actual life of Christ lived out in the believer).

In the Orthodox tradition, justification is understood as "righteous-fication" which is a literal, ontological union with God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. its different from the reformed tradition: you distinguish between a one-time legal justification and a lifelong process of sanctification, the Orthodox view integrates these into a single, ongoing journey of transformation. Within this framework, good works are the indispensable "fruit of the Spirit" that result from a deepening participation in the divine life. They do not "earn" salvation in a transactional sense and instead they are the lived reality of salvation itself.

This is why the Orthodox will confess works are absolutely necessary as part of salvation, that works are not merely proof of salvation, and that works do not earn salvation. Again, its ontological.

You're reading scripture in western nominalist thought that didn't exist at the time scripture was written. When a person with a nominalist mindset reads "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling," they panic. They think: "If I have to work, then the 'Saved' label isn't true yet." But to the biblical writers and the Orthodox, that verse is perfectly harmonious because the "work" is the salvation. You aren't working for a label; you are working out the divine life that has been poured into your actual being. It's the difference between a soldier performing drills because he is a soldier (Ontological) versus someone performing drills hoping to eventually be called a soldier (Nominalist).

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every time discipleship gets mentioned you hear works righteousness. Those are not the same thing.

Rev 22 is free and open, agreed completely. But notice what it says. 'Let the one who is thirsty come.' Thirst is not passive. Thirst is a condition of desperate want that drives you toward the source. You don't manufacture thirst by being good enough. But you can absolutely quench it artificially with entertainment, comfort, and assurance, and never actually move toward the water at all.

You're still thinking in the PSA framework, thresholds, ledgers, cutoff points, pass or fail…because that's your framework. It's not mine. The question was never how much have you performed. The question is are you actually moving toward Christ or away from him. Are you cooperating with what God is doing in you or are you blocking it. That's not a performance metric. It's a heart metric.

The prodigal son story is actually a quiet demolition of sola fide as most evangelicals practice it. The son didn't just believe from the pig pen. He got up and walked home. He was moved by something deeper than intellectual assent to a proposition. He was moved by love and genuine hunger for his father. And that hunger produced movement. That's the point. If you genuinely believe, if you genuinely love, it will show up in your life as orientation, as hunger, as getting up when you fall. Not perfectly. Not without failure. But the want will be real and it will move you.

If it doesn't move you at all, if the faith produces nothing but comfort and assurance and settled ease, then you have to ask honestly what you actually believe in.

---

When you tie "discipleship" to salvation, and define "discipleship" by one's performance, then you are indeed tying salvation to works righteousness. This is inescapable, no matter how often you deny it.

"Thirst" is not a work. It's a state of being. No one is saying that salvation doesn't involve our desire to quench our thirst. It does, however, become works-righteousness when you say that you must perform a certain set of works and to a satisfactory degree in order to quench that thirst. Which is what you and the Roman Catholics are saying. Jesus is clearly saying that quenching that thirst has no cost. But you are saying it does.

You can deny the question I asked as "not being your framework", but it's a question that is based on pure logic and reality. Which means your framework must not be. I understand why you guys have to continually dodge it, because it renders your view untenable. Simply put, if you can't explain how successful one must be in "dying to oneself" or in "paying the cost" in order to be considered having received grace, then your view falls apart because it goes directly against Scripture. Your view doesn't understand what "grace" actually means - you continually try to tie it to performance. But as Paul explained in Romans 11:6, the moment you add one's performance to grace, it ceases to be grace.

The story of the prodigal son does NOT disprove sola fide, any more than Genesis 3 "disproved" penal substitutionary atonement, as I clearly showed. The son "coming back" to his father is exactly what Jesus is asking us to do, just like in Revelation 22 - to "come to him". And we come to him by believing and trusting in him.

A true faith in Jesus is supposed to produce comfort, ease, and assurance regarding our salvation: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." - Jesus.

---

You've got to harmonize all of scripture together.

When you say that true faith in Jesus is supposed to produce comfort, ease, and assurance and then you just point to a single verse to justify that universal claim...you're making a huge mistake.
Because now you've got to back that claim up against the following:

Matthew 16:24 "Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.'"

Luke 14:27 "And whoever does not bear his cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.

Matthew 7:21-23 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"

Philippians 2:12 "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling"

Carrying your cross isn't comfortable or easy. Doing the will of the Father isn't easy. Working out your salvation with fear and trembling was said to believers and isn't a one time event, that's not assurance.
So you can't make a universal claim that true faith is SOLELY for comfort, ease, and assurance and then completely reject that our free will matters at all.

Its ontological. Its both easy and difficult. Its why I can easily harmonize James and Paul without conflict: Paul is attacking "Works of the Law" (trying to force God's hand via ritual/merit), while James is defending "Works of the Spirit" (the actual life of Christ lived out in the believer).

---

Read those verses you gave carefully. Are they talking specifically about salvation? If they are, are they saying anything about having to do works for salvation? "The will of my Father" isn't talking about works. If you're going to say that the "will of the Father" that Jesus is talking about there is to follow God's commandments and always be "good", then NONE of us are saved, or ever will be saved. The "will of the Father" he's talking about there is that we believe in whom the Father has sent (John 6:29).

"Working out your salvation" does not mean "work FOR your salvation".

Now look at all the verses that DO explicitly talk about salvation. It's only FAITH (believing) that is required. They never say "...oh, and you must also do X and Y, including denying yourself, and oh, don't forget to get water baptized or take the Eucharist, because you can't be saved without those, even if you do believe."

Was the sinful woman in Luke 7, to whom Jesus said "YOUR FAITH has saved you", told that in order to be saved, she also had to deny herself and suffer through discipleship? No, she was simply told to "go in peace".

Did the house of Cornelius have to "carry their cross" or do any sort of works before they received the Holy Spirit and were saved? Was the Phillipian jailer also told this? The woman at the well?

And how successfully must one "carry their cross" for Jesus, or do the "works of the Spirit" in order to be saved? Can they mess up once? Twice? Ten times before they're no longer considered to be a recipient of "grace" and therefore saved?. How can anyone have the assurance that God promises in 1 John 5:13 with this system? Is Jesus lying to us when he says repeatedly that if we BELIEVE in him, we are saved? You keep tying works to our salvation, so you're always going to have this problem, which you can not resolve.

Carrying your cross, suffering for your discipleship, etc. are costs. But Jesus specifically says that we can drink the living water for salvation at no cost. Is Jesus contradicting himself?

Please take your own advice - harmonize all of Scripture. Don't take verses that aren't talking about salvation, and use them to completely negate all the other verses that ARE talking about salvation.

Romans 5:2 KJV
[2] by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

I think that perhaps a discussion of what grace is and isn't would be helpful.

First of all, in Roman Catholic, and as a result Protestant teaching grace is a created phenomenon: "It is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul...Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent, supernatural quality of the soul" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, vol. 6, p. 705).

According to Orthodox theology, on the other hand, Grace is the uncreated energy of God Himself, which at the time of man's creation was intimately connected with his soul. Man participated in the Divine life through the Divine Energy, and this participation was proper to the original nature of man.

Vladimir Lossky comments on the difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of supernatural (created) grace and the Orthodox doctrine of Divine (uncreated) Grace: "For Eastern (Orthodox) Tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which Western (Latin) theology calls by the name supernatural signifies for the East uncreated--the Divine Energies ineffably distinct from the Essence of God.

The difference consists in the fact that the Western (Roman Catholic) conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the Divine Cause, exactly as in the act of creation; while for Eastern (Orthodox) theology there is a natural procession, the Energies shining forth eternally from the Divine Essence.

This is the fundamental difference.

In western, second millenium Christianity the sole focus became the realization of created grace through faith for the soul that lacks illumination to reach a state of juridical faultlessness and avoid hell/purgatory depending on your point of view.

In the original unified church of the first millenium, juridicial faultlessness was the beginning of the journey, not the end goal . It is what enabled the temple curtain to be torn in two, still memorialized in the liturgy of Saint John Chrysosotom by the opening of the doors of the iconostasis. Your communion with God is restored by the gift of faith in his uncreated grace. It is this restoration of communion that is the focus of the faith, a restoration of our illumined souls through God's uncreated grace. A relighting of the candles Adam and Eve extinguished. A reversal of the fall, not just forgiveness for it.

A full realization of all of Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

Realitybites said:

---

I think that perhaps a discussion of what grace is and isn't would be helpful.

First of all, in Roman Catholic, and as a result Protestant, teaching grace is a created phenomenon: "It is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul...Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent, supernatural quality of the soul" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, vol. 6, p. 705).

According to Orthodox theology, on the other hand, Grace is the uncreated energy of God Himself, which at the time of man's creation was intimately connected with his soul. Man participated in the Divine life through the Divine Energy, and this participation was proper to the original nature of man.

Vladimir Lossky comments on the difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of supernatural (created) grace and the Orthodox doctrine of Divine (uncreated) Grace: "For Eastern (Orthodox) Tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which Western (Latin) theology calls by the name supernatural signifies for the East uncreated--the Divine Energies ineffably distinct from the Essence of God.

The difference consists in the fact that the Western (Roman Catholic) conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the Divine Cause, exactly as in the act of creation; while for Eastern (Orthodox) theology there is a natural procession, the Energies shining forth eternally from the Divine Essence.

This is the fundamental difference.

In western, second millenium Christianity the sole focus became the realization of created grace through faith for the soul that lacks illumination to reach a state of juridical faultlessness and avoid hell/purgatory depending on your point of view.

In the original unified church of the first millenium, juridicial faultlessness was the beginning of the journey, not the end goal . It is what enabled the temple curtain to be torn in two, still memorialized in the liturgy of Saint John Chrysosotom by the opening of the doors of the iconostasis. Your communion with God is restored by the gift of faith in his uncreated grace. It is this restoration of communion that is the focus of the faith, a restoration of our illumined souls through God's uncreated grace. A relighting of the candles Adam and Eve extinguished. A reversal of the fall, not just forgiveness for it.

A full realization of all of Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

---

Stop trying to mystify what God wants to make plain to us.

Grace is simply "unmerited favor". It is God freely giving to us that which we don't deserve or didn't earn.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

I think that perhaps a discussion of what grace is and isn't would be helpful.

First of all, in Roman Catholic, and as a result Protestant, teaching grace is a created phenomenon: "It is not a substance that exists by itself, or apart from the soul; therefore it is a physical accident inhering in the soul...Sanctifying grace may be philosophically termed a 'permanent, supernatural quality of the soul" (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, vol. 6, p. 705).

According to Orthodox theology, on the other hand, Grace is the uncreated energy of God Himself, which at the time of man's creation was intimately connected with his soul. Man participated in the Divine life through the Divine Energy, and this participation was proper to the original nature of man.

Vladimir Lossky comments on the difference between the Roman Catholic doctrine of supernatural (created) grace and the Orthodox doctrine of Divine (uncreated) Grace: "For Eastern (Orthodox) Tradition the created supernatural has no existence. That which Western (Latin) theology calls by the name supernatural signifies for the East uncreated--the Divine Energies ineffably distinct from the Essence of God.

The difference consists in the fact that the Western (Roman Catholic) conception of grace implies the idea of causality, grace being represented as an effect of the Divine Cause, exactly as in the act of creation; while for Eastern (Orthodox) theology there is a natural procession, the Energies shining forth eternally from the Divine Essence.

This is the fundamental difference.

In western, second millenium Christianity the sole focus became the realization of created grace through faith for the soul that lacks illumination to reach a state of juridical faultlessness and avoid hell/purgatory depending on your point of view.

In the original unified church of the first millenium, juridicial faultlessness was the beginning of the journey, not the end goal . It is what enabled the temple curtain to be torn in two, still memorialized in the liturgy of Saint John Chrysosotom by the opening of the doors of the iconostasis. Your communion with God is restored by the gift of faith in his uncreated grace. It is this restoration of communion that is the focus of the faith, a restoration of our illumined souls through God's uncreated grace. A relighting of the candles Adam and Eve extinguished. A reversal of the fall, not just forgiveness for it.

A full realization of all of Romans 6:4 "Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."

---

Stop trying to mystify what God wants to make plain to us.

Grace is simply "unmerited favor". It is God freely giving to us that which we don't deserve or didn't earn.

---

God is literal. Jesus will physically set up His Kingdom on the earth.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

His point was that Jesus' suffering did NOT come from God. That is clearly proven wrong by the verses I mentioned ("It was God's will to crush him"), and reading further in Psalm 22 does not change that, nor does it negate what is said in the beginning of the Psalm.

Obviously, God did not eternally "forsake" Jesus. Hence, the latter part of Psalm 22. But you can't deny that at least temporarily, he was forsaken as part of the punishment for the sin that he bore for us. Otherwise, Jesus would have stated something untruthful.

Claiming that PSA means that God is "eternally offended" is a strawman. Jesus' payment was sufficient and God considers it paid in full. And if punishment isn't eternal, then why the eternity in Hell for those who reject God? Jesus isn't being eternally punished, but his payment was good for eternity.

---

I really don't understand your statement, "It was God's will to crush him."

If you are saying that God (using his Antecedent (active) will) willed Jesus or anyone to suffer, that would make God evil. We know that's not the case.

If you are saying that God (using his Consequent (permissive) will) allowed Jesus to suffer, then I would agree.

God did NOT punish Jesus. Jesus volunteered to take our punishment for us.

Psalm 22 concerns itself with a feeling of Suffering and Abandonment. Despite this deep lament, the psalmist maintains his deep trust in God recalling the past divine faithfulness and deliverance showing Trust and Supplication. The psalm shift from despair to Vindication and Deliverance. Finally, it concludes with the Universal Worship with a vision of God's reign.

Yes, Jesus was crying out in anguish, but he was doing so with victory in mind.

His cry was not so much that God was abandoning him as much as it was a proclamation of God's ultimate Goodness.

Those watching the crucifixion would have understood this as they were intimately familiar with the WHOLE verse.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Parables are not explicit declarations about salvation. They are not meant for one to one comparisons. This parable does NOT mean you can be saved, then lost, then saved again. it's merely about the joy God has over lost sinners coming to repentance, which was the whole reason Jesus told that parable - the Jews were grumbling over Jesus keeping company with sinners. Jesus used this parable to illustrate why it was important to God that Jesus hang out with sinners - to bring them to repentance. "There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents". Jesus certainly isn't saying that the sinners he was hanging out with were saved previously, then lost it, and now he's trying to get them back.

---

Your OSAS is showing.

Several parables address themes of salvation showing His nature of divine mercy and a call to repentance and conversion.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep - the lost sheep was part of God's flock and gets lost. The Shepard relentlessly pursues the lost one and brings him back. There is joy when he returns.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast - discusses how many are called by are prepared and accept the invitation.

The Parable of the Weeds - Jesus discusses those at the final judgement will be culled out and burned.

St. Augustine sees the son's departure from God with sin. His return signifies repentance and joy with the reconciliation with God.

St Ambrose highlights the compassionate embrace of the father, comparing it to the sacrament of reconciliation, where all sinners are welcomed back.

St John Chrysostom focuses on the transformation that occurs through repentance. He praises the son for his humility in seeking forgiveness. Side note, he also compares the feast prepared by the father to the Eucharist.

The father, himself, says about his son, "was dead and is alive. He was lost and is found."

One has to be alive and not lost first.

Finally, OSAS was NOT taught until the 16th century. This is a man-made tradition. How did the smartest men in the world for nearly 1500 years NOT understand the bible on this position?

This is almost as bad as believing in the "Rapture" that was made up in the 1830's.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

His point was that Jesus' suffering did NOT come from God. That is clearly proven wrong by the verses I mentioned ("It was God's will to crush him"), and reading further in Psalm 22 does not change that, nor does it negate what is said in the beginning of the Psalm.

Obviously, God did not eternally "forsake" Jesus. Hence, the latter part of Psalm 22. But you can't deny that at least temporarily, he was forsaken as part of the punishment for the sin that he bore for us. Otherwise, Jesus would have stated something untruthful.

Claiming that PSA means that God is "eternally offended" is a strawman. Jesus' payment was sufficient and God considers it paid in full. And if punishment isn't eternal, then why the eternity in Hell for those who reject God? Jesus isn't being eternally punished, but his payment was good for eternity.

---

I really don't understand your statement, "It was God's will to crush him."

If you are saying that God (using his Antecedent (active) will) willed Jesus or anyone to suffer, that would make God evil. We know that's not the case.

If you are saying that God (using his Consequent (permissive) will) allowed Jesus to suffer, then I would agree.

God did NOT punish Jesus. Jesus volunteered to take our punishment for us.

Psalm 22 concerns itself with a feeling of Suffering and Abandonment. Despite this deep lament, the psalmist maintains his deep trust in God recalling the past divine faithfulness and deliverance showing Trust and Supplication. The psalm shift from despair to Vindication and Deliverance. Finally, it concludes with the Universal Worship with a vision of God's reign.

Yes, Jesus was crying out in anguish, but he was doing so with victory in mind.

His cry was not so much that God was abandoning him as much as it was a proclamation of God's ultimate Goodness.

Those watching the crucifixion would have understood this as they were intimately familiar with the WHOLE verse.

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Parables are not explicit declarations about salvation. They are not meant for one to one comparisons. This parable does NOT mean you can be saved, then lost, then saved again. it's merely about the joy God has over lost sinners coming to repentance, which was the whole reason Jesus told that parable - the Jews were grumbling over Jesus keeping company with sinners. Jesus used this parable to illustrate why it was important to God that Jesus hang out with sinners - to bring them to repentance. "There is joy in heaven over one sinner who repents". Jesus certainly isn't saying that the sinners he was hanging out with were saved previously, then lost it, and now he's trying to get them back.

---

Your OSAS is showing.

Several parables address themes of salvation showing His nature of divine mercy and a call to repentance and conversion.

The Parable of the Lost Sheep - the lost sheep was part of God's flock and gets lost. The Shepard relentlessly pursues the lost one and brings him back. There is joy when he returns.

The Parable of the Wedding Feast - discusses how many are called by are prepared and accept the invitation.

The Parable of the Weeds - Jesus discusses those at the final judgement will be culled out and burned.

St. Augustine sees the son's departure from God with sin. His return signifies repentance and joy with the reconciliation with God.

St Ambrose highlights the compassionate embrace of the father, comparing it to the sacrament of reconciliation, where all sinners are welcomed back.

St John Chrysostom focuses on the transformation that occurs through repentance. He praises the son for his humility in seeking forgiveness. Side note, he also compares the feast prepared by the father to the Eucharist.

The father, himself, says about his son, "was dead and is alive. He was lost and is found."

One has to be alive and not lost first.

Finally, OSAS was NOT taught until the 16th century. This is a man-made tradition. How did the smartest men in the world for nearly 1500 years NOT understand the bible on this position?

This is almost as bad as believing in the "Rapture" that was made up in the 1830's.

---

Nothing you're saying is proving OSAS false.

But Scripture itself proves you false, as I've repeatedly shown.

The father in the parable said the son was "dead" THEN alive. He doesn't say he was "alive, dead, then alive again". Neither did the father say he was "found, lost, then found again". Regardless, this is a parable - it is not an explicit declaration about gaining and then losing salvation. In fact, in this parable, "salvation" was when the son was "found", not when he was "alive before he was lost". And Like I already explained, there was a specific purpose for the parable, and it was NOT to explain soteriology in detail.

And if the "smartest men" led you to pray, bow to, and worship Mary and credit her for your salvation, then those men are FAR FROM being smart. in fact, it makes them evil - and really, really stupid.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing you're saying is proving OSAS false.

But Scripture itself proves you false, as I've repeatedly shown.

The father in the parable said the son was "dead" THEN alive. He doesn't say he was "alive, dead, then alive again". Neither did the father say he was "found, lost, then found again". Regardless, this is a parable - it is not an explicit declaration about gaining and then losing salvation. In fact, in this parable, "salvation" was when the son was "found", not when he was "alive before he was lost". And Like I already explained, there was a specific purpose for the parable, and it was NOT to explain soteriology in detail.

---

Logically, wouldn't someone have to be alive BEFORE they were dead?

He was with the father in his house. He was obviously alive and found at that time. He rebelled, sinned, and left. At that point, he was dead to him. The son repented and came home. He was now found and alive again. This has been believed for nearly 2000 years.

Again, why should I listen to your fallible opinion of the parable when it doesn't make logical sense?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

And if the "smartest men" led you to pray, bow to, and worship Mary and credit her for your salvation, then those men are FAR FROM being smart. in fact, it makes them evil - and really, really stupid.

---

This is too funny! Your posts seem to revert to ad hominem attacks with false beliefs when you can't prove your point theologically. I fully expect your next post to contain your infamous list of "Mary-quotes."

Until then, I'll wait patiently for you to find a historical source to prove your man-made tradition.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

No. Are you saying that what I said, that the punishment Jesus received was from God and not Satan as was asserted, is not in Scripture? Yes or no. Simple question.

Try this one: Was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Nothing you're saying is proving OSAS false.

But Scripture itself proves you false, as I've repeatedly shown.

The father in the parable said the son was "dead" THEN alive. He doesn't say he was "alive, dead, then alive again". Neither did the father say he was "found, lost, then found again". Regardless, this is a parable - it is not an explicit declaration about gaining and then losing salvation. In fact, in this parable, "salvation" was when the son was "found", not when he was "alive before he was lost". And Like I already explained, there was a specific purpose for the parable, and it was NOT to explain soteriology in detail.

---

Logically, wouldn't someone have to be alive BEFORE they were dead?

He was with the father in his house. He was obviously alive and found at that time. He rebelled, sinned, and left. At that point, he was dead to him. The son repented and came home. He was now found and alive again. This has been believed for nearly 2000 years.

Again, why should I listen to your fallible opinion of the parable when it doesn't make logical sense?

---

Why should I, let alone anyone, listen to you, when you spent half the forum arguing against sola scriptura, all while not even understanding it, or even bothering to learn what it is? I'm sorry, but you just aren't capable of having the level of conversation that I'm wanting to have. It's being wasted on you.

Quote:

---

How did the smartest men in the world for nearly 1500 years NOT understand the bible on this position?

---

Jesus - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children." - Matthew 11:25

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

How did the smartest men in the world for nearly 1500 years NOT understand the bible on this position?

---

Jesus - "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children." - Matthew 11:25

---

Because those who expressed their views were killed by the Cathoic Church.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

The punishment is death. Its not the wrath of the Father against the Son. You smuggled in wrath.

The Orthodox have a sense of "penal" (legal) "substitution" in our atonement, it's not the same as the Protestant doctrine premised on Christ receiving the punishment determined for us, which is damnation. Christ cannot be damned, and the punishment He willingly accepted was the severing of soul from body (human death). By entering death (the ultimate penalty for sin) while remaining the Life-Giver, He destroys death from the inside. It's a "substitution" of presence: He goes where we were trapped so we can be where He is.

The Prot doctrine is also premised on Christ meriting a created state of perfect temporal works that is part of the imputational "bargain." This would mean Prot PSA results in created grace, which is a heresy.
Grace cannot be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy.

If salvation is just an imputation of "perfect temporal works," it risks Nestoriansim: separating Christ's human "achievements" from His divine personhood. If God the Son could be separated from God the Father even for a moment, He would cease to be God, which would effectively mean accepting a form of Arianism or Nestorianism where the suffering is pushed solely onto a "detached" human nature.

I cannot allow you to make room for denying Jesus is God.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

The punishment is death. Its not the wrath of the Father against the Son. You smuggled in wrath.

The Orthodox have a sense of "penal" (legal) "substitution" in our atonement, it's not the same as the Protestant doctrine premised on Christ receiving the punishment determined for us, which is damnation. Christ cannot be damned, and the punishment He willingly accepted was the severing of soul from body (human death). By entering death (the ultimate penalty for sin) while remaining the Life-Giver, He destroys death from the inside. It's a "substitution" of presence: He goes where we were trapped so we can be where He is.

The Prot doctrine is also premised on Christ meriting a created state of perfect temporal works that is part of the imputational "bargain." This would mean Prot PSA results in created grace, which is a heresy.
Grace cannot be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy.

If salvation is just an imputation of "perfect temporal works," it risks Nestoriansim: separating Christ's human "achievements" from His divine personhood. If God the Son could be separated from God the Father even for a moment, He would cease to be God, which would effectively mean accepting a form of Arianism or Nestorianism where the suffering is pushed solely onto a "detached" human nature.

I cannot allow you to make room for denying Jesus is God.

---

Wow, so by referencing Isaiah, I'm now "making room for denying Jesus is God". Simply unbelievable.

You really are getting yourself lost in the weeds of Orthodoxy. And you're coming out with some really distorted views. You're having to constantly argue against straw men in order to argue against Protestant beliefs that are coming straight from Scripture. You're unnecessarily getting yourself hung up on concepts of "wrath" and "Christ being damned" - concepts of your own making rather than what is actually believed by Protestants, or what is taught directly from the Bible. So you're constantly having to wrestle against Scripture and find work-arounds. That should be a tell tale sign.

Haven't I shown you the many errors of your church? Shouldn't you at least be questioning them, and measuring them against Scripture, instead of buying wholesale into all this mystical, philosophical obfuscation of concepts that God intended to make simple, i.e. "uncreated vs created grace", the "heresy" of "imputation of perfect temporal works", and the like? I don't think you even know what it is you're taking about. You really are getting twisted up in an effort to define purely biblical views as being heresies. It is quite remarkable. Is it any wonder that your church has twisted a way to credit Mary for our salvation? That should also be a tell-tale sign, but no, somehow this doesn't faze you, and that signals something VERY troubling.

Can I AT LEAST get you to acknowledge that it was God's will to crush Jesus and was it God who put Jesus to grief? That's word for word straight out of Scripture. Can we start there, in agreement?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

The punishment is death. Its not the wrath of the Father against the Son. You smuggled in wrath.

The Orthodox have a sense of "penal" (legal) "substitution" in our atonement, it's not the same as the Protestant doctrine premised on Christ receiving the punishment determined for us, which is damnation. Christ cannot be damned, and the punishment He willingly accepted was the severing of soul from body (human death). By entering death (the ultimate penalty for sin) while remaining the Life-Giver, He destroys death from the inside. It's a "substitution" of presence: He goes where we were trapped so we can be where He is.

The Prot doctrine is also premised on Christ meriting a created state of perfect temporal works that is part of the imputational "bargain." This would mean Prot PSA results in created grace, which is a heresy.
Grace cannot be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy.

If salvation is just an imputation of "perfect temporal works," it risks Nestoriansim: separating Christ's human "achievements" from His divine personhood. If God the Son could be separated from God the Father even for a moment, He would cease to be God, which would effectively mean accepting a form of Arianism or Nestorianism where the suffering is pushed solely onto a "detached" human nature.

I cannot allow you to make room for denying Jesus is God.

---

Wow, so by referencing Isaiah, I'm now "making room for denying Jesus is God". Simply unbelievable.

You really are getting yourself lost in the weeds of Orthodoxy. And you're coming out with some really distorted views. You're having to constantly argue against straw men in order to argue against Protestant beliefs that are coming straight from Scripture. You're unnecessarily getting yourself hung up on concepts of "wrath" and "Christ being damned" - concepts of your own making rather than what is actually believed by Protestants, or what is taught directly from the Bible. So you're constantly having to wrestle against Scripture and find work-arounds. That should be a tell tale sign.

Haven't I shown you the many errors of your church? Shouldn't you at least be questioning them, and measuring them against Scripture, instead of buying wholesale into all this mystical, philosophical obfuscation of concepts that God intended to make simple, i.e. "uncreated vs created grace", the "heresy" of "imputation of perfect temporal works", and the like? I don't think you even know what it is you're taking about. You really are getting twisted up in an effort to define purely biblical views as being heresies. It is quite remarkable. Is it any wonder that your church has twisted a way to credit Mary for our salvation? That should also be a tell-tale sign, but no, somehow this doesn't faze you, and that signals something VERY troubling.

Can I AT LEAST get you to acknowledge that it was God's will to crush Jesus and was it God who put Jesus to grief? That's word for word straight out of Scripture. Can we start there, in agreement?

---

Those aren't concepts of my own making. That's directly from calvinists like R.C. Sproul and many others. A Father who requires the torture and killing of His Son, who demands torture as a form of atonement. That's what you guys believe. That forgiveness is only possible through the enactment of punishment.

Quote:

---

We always say the Clich, 'God Hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.' That's nonsense! The Bible speaks of Him abhorring us, and that we're loathsome in His sight, and He can't stand to even look at us…
R.C. Sproul

---

Quote:

---

God's anger at sin and hatred of sinners causes him to pour out his wrath [on Jesus]
Mark Driscoll

---

Quote:

---

It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn't hate sinners by saying, 'he loves the sinner and hates the sin.' He does hate sinners.
John Piper

---

Quote:

---

Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans if not for the work of Christ's cross.
Wyatt Graham

---

Here is what I will acknowledge: That Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

The punishment is death. Its not the wrath of the Father against the Son. You smuggled in wrath.

The Orthodox have a sense of "penal" (legal) "substitution" in our atonement, it's not the same as the Protestant doctrine premised on Christ receiving the punishment determined for us, which is damnation. Christ cannot be damned, and the punishment He willingly accepted was the severing of soul from body (human death). By entering death (the ultimate penalty for sin) while remaining the Life-Giver, He destroys death from the inside. It's a "substitution" of presence: He goes where we were trapped so we can be where He is.

The Prot doctrine is also premised on Christ meriting a created state of perfect temporal works that is part of the imputational "bargain." This would mean Prot PSA results in created grace, which is a heresy.
Grace cannot be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy.

If salvation is just an imputation of "perfect temporal works," it risks Nestoriansim: separating Christ's human "achievements" from His divine personhood. If God the Son could be separated from God the Father even for a moment, He would cease to be God, which would effectively mean accepting a form of Arianism or Nestorianism where the suffering is pushed solely onto a "detached" human nature.

I cannot allow you to make room for denying Jesus is God.

---

Wow, so by referencing Isaiah, I'm now "making room for denying Jesus is God". Simply unbelievable.

You really are getting yourself lost in the weeds of Orthodoxy. And you're coming out with some really distorted views. You're having to constantly argue against straw men in order to argue against Protestant beliefs that are coming straight from Scripture. You're unnecessarily getting yourself hung up on concepts of "wrath" and "Christ being damned" - concepts of your own making rather than what is actually believed by Protestants, or what is taught directly from the Bible. So you're constantly having to wrestle against Scripture and find work-arounds. That should be a tell tale sign.

Haven't I shown you the many errors of your church? Shouldn't you at least be questioning them, and measuring them against Scripture, instead of buying wholesale into all this mystical, philosophical obfuscation of concepts that God intended to make simple, i.e. "uncreated vs created grace", the "heresy" of "imputation of perfect temporal works", and the like? I don't think you even know what it is you're taking about. You really are getting twisted up in an effort to define purely biblical views as being heresies. It is quite remarkable. Is it any wonder that your church has twisted a way to credit Mary for our salvation? That should also be a tell-tale sign, but no, somehow this doesn't faze you, and that signals something VERY troubling.

Can I AT LEAST get you to acknowledge that it was God's will to crush Jesus and was it God who put Jesus to grief? That's word for word straight out of Scripture. Can we start there, in agreement?

---

Those aren't concepts of my own making. That's directly from calvinists like R.C. Sproul and many others. A Father who requires the torture and killing of His Son, who demands torture as a form of atonement. That's what you guys believe. That forgiveness is only possible through the enactment of punishment.

Quote:

---

We always say the Clich, 'God Hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.' That's nonsense! The Bible speaks of Him abhorring us, and that we're loathsome in His sight, and He can't stand to even look at us…
R.C. Sproul

---

Quote:

---

God's anger at sin and hatred of sinners causes him to pour out his wrath [on Jesus]
Mark Driscoll

---

Quote:

---

It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn't hate sinners by saying, 'he loves the sinner and hates the sin.' He does hate sinners.
John Piper

---

Quote:

---

Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans if not for the work of Christ's cross.
Wyatt Graham

---

Here is what I will acknowledge: That Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.

---

The concepts of your own making are that "wrath", "punishment", and "hatred" are done by God in the way that we humans do it. That is, out of evil, spite, and revenge. You can't attributte these to God. But Scripture is clear that God's wrath is expressed out of his absolute holiness and justice, which was poured out on the earth by the Flood, and even upon his own people Israel. We humans don't have this absolute hoiiness, so there's a tendency to understand and compare God by bringing him down to our level, and then judge him accordingly.

Remember that not all Protestants are Calvinists, and do not necessarily agree with their perspective entirely. Though I think you are judging their words through the same lens that's causing your visceral response to "wrath" and "hatred" from a human understanding rather than through the lens of a holy God.

And you're still running away from my question: was it God's will to crush Jesus and to put him to grief? if you can't or won't simply acknowledge what Scripture is clearly saying, then that's telling us everything we need to know.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

It was God's will for Christ to suffer and die for our sins so that we could be saved.

Substitution again:

II Corinthians 5:21 NKJV
[21] For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

"It was God's will to crush him" comes straight from Scripture:

"Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief" - Isaiah 53:10

Not surprised at all you Roman Catholics don't know Scripture. Your church saw to it that you don't, so that you'd accept blindly what they tell you to believe. Psalm 22 speaking of Jesus being "forsaken" by God is describing exactly the situation where God is the one putting Jesus to grief- what Isaiah clearly prophesied.

You really need to start listening to Scripture, rather than your Tradition, which has been proven false many times.

---

Are you saying that God committed evil upon an innocent person? Yes or no? Simple question.

---

Try this one: given that Isaiah 53 says "Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief", then.....was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

Notice that they won't answer this. Pretty simple and straightforward question. Cat's got their tongue all of the sudden.

Can they not simply acknowledge what is plainly before us, in Scripture? Instead, there's just silence, and they ran away from the question.

Folks... what does this tell you?

---

The punishment is death. Its not the wrath of the Father against the Son. You smuggled in wrath.

The Orthodox have a sense of "penal" (legal) "substitution" in our atonement, it's not the same as the Protestant doctrine premised on Christ receiving the punishment determined for us, which is damnation. Christ cannot be damned, and the punishment He willingly accepted was the severing of soul from body (human death). By entering death (the ultimate penalty for sin) while remaining the Life-Giver, He destroys death from the inside. It's a "substitution" of presence: He goes where we were trapped so we can be where He is.

The Prot doctrine is also premised on Christ meriting a created state of perfect temporal works that is part of the imputational "bargain." This would mean Prot PSA results in created grace, which is a heresy.
Grace cannot be created, because if it is created it is not grace, since grace is God Himself as energy.

If salvation is just an imputation of "perfect temporal works," it risks Nestoriansim: separating Christ's human "achievements" from His divine personhood. If God the Son could be separated from God the Father even for a moment, He would cease to be God, which would effectively mean accepting a form of Arianism or Nestorianism where the suffering is pushed solely onto a "detached" human nature.

I cannot allow you to make room for denying Jesus is God.

---

Wow, so by referencing Isaiah, I'm now "making room for denying Jesus is God". Simply unbelievable.

You really are getting yourself lost in the weeds of Orthodoxy. And you're coming out with some really distorted views. You're having to constantly argue against straw men in order to argue against Protestant beliefs that are coming straight from Scripture. You're unnecessarily getting yourself hung up on concepts of "wrath" and "Christ being damned" - concepts of your own making rather than what is actually believed by Protestants, or what is taught directly from the Bible. So you're constantly having to wrestle against Scripture and find work-arounds. That should be a tell tale sign.

Haven't I shown you the many errors of your church? Shouldn't you at least be questioning them, and measuring them against Scripture, instead of buying wholesale into all this mystical, philosophical obfuscation of concepts that God intended to make simple, i.e. "uncreated vs created grace", the "heresy" of "imputation of perfect temporal works", and the like? I don't think you even know what it is you're taking about. You really are getting twisted up in an effort to define purely biblical views as being heresies. It is quite remarkable. Is it any wonder that your church has twisted a way to credit Mary for our salvation? That should also be a tell-tale sign, but no, somehow this doesn't faze you, and that signals something VERY troubling.

Can I AT LEAST get you to acknowledge that it was God's will to crush Jesus and was it God who put Jesus to grief? That's word for word straight out of Scripture. Can we start there, in agreement?

---

Those aren't concepts of my own making. That's directly from calvinists like R.C. Sproul and many others. A Father who requires the torture and killing of His Son, who demands torture as a form of atonement. That's what you guys believe. That forgiveness is only possible through the enactment of punishment.

Quote:

---

We always say the Clich, 'God Hates the sin, but he loves the sinner.' That's nonsense! The Bible speaks of Him abhorring us, and that we're loathsome in His sight, and He can't stand to even look at us…
R.C. Sproul

---

Quote:

---

God's anger at sin and hatred of sinners causes him to pour out his wrath [on Jesus]
Mark Driscoll

---

Quote:

---

It is just not true to give the impression that God doesn't hate sinners by saying, 'he loves the sinner and hates the sin.' He does hate sinners.
John Piper

---

Quote:

---

Jesus bore divine wrath at the cross for our sake, and so protected us from it. This act implies that God hates humans since he would have poured wrath upon humans if not for the work of Christ's cross.
Wyatt Graham

---

Here is what I will acknowledge: That Christ carried in His body the sufferings that sin has brought into the world, and that Christ suffered in His soul over all the sins of the world, and their offense against God. He bore our iniquities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us. That is what it means that the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all. He suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death), by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands.

---

The concepts of your own making are that "wrath", "punishment", and "hatred" are done by God in the way that we humans do it. That is, out of evil, spite, and revenge. You can't attributte these to God. But Scripture is clear that God's wrath is expressed out of his absolute holiness and justice, which was poured out on the earth by the Flood, and even upon his own people Israel. We humans don't have this absolute hoiiness, so there's a tendency to understand and compare God by bringing him down to our level, and then judge him accordingly.

Remember that not all Protestants are Calvinists, and do not necessarily agree with their perspective entirely. Though I think you are judging their words through the same lens that's causing your visceral response to "wrath" and "hatred" from a human understanding rather than through the lens of a holy God.

And you're still running away from my question: was it God's will to crush Jesus and to put him to grief? if you can't or won't simply acknowledge what Scripture is clearly saying, then that's telling us everything we need to know.

---

No, we're not going to play this stupid ass game where you try to collapse your interpretation into the text itself, so that anyone disagreeing with you must be disagreeing with Scripture. That might have worked on you and how you bought into PSA…but it's not going to work on me.

The real issue here isn't whether the text is true, but how it should be understood.

The text absolutely affirms that the Servant suffers according to God's will. I'm not denying that at all. What I'm pushing back on is the assumption that this automatically means a transfer of punishment or intra-Trinitarian wrath. The passage itself doesn't define the suffering in those terms, that's an interpretation you're bringing into the text, not something the text explicitly states.

The biggest mistake you're making is flattening "God's will" into one category. Scripture speaks of God's will in multiple ways: what He actively causes, what He permits and what He uses for good. The Crucifixion of Jesus is called both an act of lawless men and and something that happened according to God's plan (Acts 2:23).

You're also ignoring the broader context of Isaiah 53. The chapter emphasizes that the Servant is innocent, that He is rejected and misunderstood, and that His suffering results in healing and restoration. Taken as a whole, the passage is not laying out a mechanism of punishment being transferred…it's describing how the righteous one suffers on behalf of others and brings about their healing.

WIth regards to Isaiah 53:10, remember that you're reading an English translation. Additionally, if you're reading it in most English Bibles you're reading an English translation of a Hebrew canon that dates from ~ 1000 AD edited and collated by Jews who rejected Jesus. Not an English translation of the Old Testament text that the church used for the first 1000 years of its existence. That is to say that what you're reading out of the OT as the Word of God was given to you by people who rejected Him. Unless you take the time to actually go get and read the original or an English translation of the original you shouldn't get too hung up on what the definition of Is, is.

There are some things in this altered OT that are 100% accurate. Then there are other things, like the tweaks made in the genealogies of the patriarchs that cut a couple of thousand years off the age of the earth, pushing the arrival of the messiah ahead from Jesus' time to the present or future.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

No. Are you saying that what I said, that the punishment Jesus received was from God and not Satan as was asserted, is not in Scripture? Yes or no. Simple question.

---

Trick question. I don't believe Jesus was punished by God. I believe he volunteered to take our punishment.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Try this one: Was it God's will to crush Jesus and put him to grief? Yes or no.

---

No.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Why should I, let alone anyone, listen to you, when you spent half the forum arguing against sola scriptura, all while not even understanding it, or even bothering to learn what it is? I'm sorry, but you just aren't capable of having the level of conversation that I'm wanting to have. It's being wasted on you.

---

Simple, I am presenting, to the best of my ability, the views of the Catholic Church created by Jesus himself.

I have presented a commonly accepted view of sola scriptura. I've also mentioned, I can find MULTIPLE definitions of sola scriptura. I don't know which one you subscribe to. That's why I've asked several times for you to present "your version" of SS. You won't. I'm not sure why. Help me understand your version of SS.