fb

Reply To: New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Forums Fiction General Writing Discussions New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate Reply To: New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

#142202
Noah Cochran
@noah-cochran

@this-is-not-an-alien

Thank you, I was so thrilled by how thorough and insightful your explanations and questions are! I spent the entire day buzzing with excitement to get to some free time to write back🤗!

I’m glad they were coherent enough, covering this many topics at once can be difficult. 🙂

Thanks for the great explanation of the priests vs bishops etc, that really cleared things up for me.

Lol this is such a common question and it always cracks me up. Our priests practically order us every other week to please read the Bible on our own and it’s highly encouraged in many pope writings and in Scripture Itself.

I figured as much, but due to it being different in historical places and times for Catholics, I wanted to be sure.

It was Genesis 20:3–-“Behold, you are a dead man.”
🤭 bwahahahahahaha!!! …sorry I couldn’t resist (I’ve been dying to use that somewhere!)XD.

It appears you have an evil side to you miss Cathy. 😉

In regard to Transubstantiation, I’ll just say a couple things. I went through and read John 6 as well as the account of the Lord’s Supper in 1 Cor. 11. There are two things I want to point out: One, John 6 was written before and completely disconnected from the Lord’s Supper, meaning that the two are not connected (not directly that is). Two, in John 6, it states that (and I’m paraphrasing, so go read it) he that eateth my body and drinketh my blood will have everlasting life. If one was to take this verse as the Lord’s Supper, then was they would essentially be saying is that if a person performs the Lord’s Supper, they are going to heaven. For instance, Stalin walks into church, performs the Lord’s Supper, and walla, he is saved to eternal salvation. I’m not seeing it. What John 6 is talking about is more evidence that someone is a child of God, that evidence being if they feast and drink on him through enjoying his grace (and other things, such as believing).

Finally, I just don’t see where you are getting the specific doctrine of Transubstantiation. Nowhere in the bible does it seem that they are eating actual flesh, or drinking actual blood, it is a symbol of what Jesus has done for us when he died at the cross (as 1 Cor. 11 states), and to be frank, I don’t understand why transubstantiation was conjured up, it really doesn’t effect any of your beliefs, you could believe what I do (that it is a symbol and done in remembrance) and it wouldn’t change anything. I mean, you do believe that you have to perform the sacraments/ordinances (at least in most cases it seems), to go to heaven, but that still has nothing to do with Transubstantiation.

Church Hierarchy and Institution:

I’m not going to say much about this, but I will say that all of your examples were derived from inferences that are slightly arbitrary. xD The way we set up church is by only doing what the bible specifically shows us. That is elders/bishops (same thing), Deacons (to help those in the church that are in need among other things), and the congregation. The way elders/bishops or ordained is by the laying on of hands of other elders, there is no special bishops, priests, or cardinals found. As for the pope, I’m still a little confused on what verse you use and why, but since I’ve heard some people say that catholics use the verse “upon this rock I will build my church” (Jesus speaking to Peter), I say something about that. In that verse, Jesus is not talking to Peter, he is talking about himself to Peter (i.e, Jesus is saying that He is the rock, and upon Himself, He will build His church).

 

A person who neither receives the Sacraments or strives to please God during his or her life yet turns to God at the last instant of life, we believe is saved.

Why exactly? This directly contradicts all of the other doctrines you have presented, and searching through the bible, I can’t seem to find anything that even hints at a thing like this. But I’m sure you have a verse you use, so just let me know what it is so I can take a look at it. 🙂

But for a Catholic baptized in water they must receive the Sacraments and strive to please God.

By “strive to please God,” I assume you’re inferring that they can make as many mistakes as they want, but they have to try to do better everytime and confess major sins to a confessor. Correct?

 

Ok! We agree with Total Depravity pretty much, the Catholic term for it is Original Sin

Okay, so yes, I should have mentioned Original Sin. When Adam fell (sinned), we fell with him (original sin), and became totally depraved. But after reading what you wrote about how to attain eternal salvation, it does not appear that you believe in Total Depravity. The doctrine of Total Depravity means that we cannot receive the things of God or please him no matter what, until he save us. Take this verse (1 Cor. 2:14): “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” The natural man is the Adam man, the man who is totally dead from original sin. Thus, something has to happen to this natural man in order for him to even want  to receive baptism or the sacraments, or to, as you put it, “strive to please God.” Other verses: Rom. 3:9-20, Rom. 8:1-8. Here is the question for you: How does this naturally dead and totally depraved man get to a state where he even wants to please God or do good works?

Here is what I believe it is: We all became spiritually dead to all things of goodness and God when Adam fell. But, those who God chose before the foundations of the world, will become born again during this life, that is how they become spiritually alive, instead of spiritually dead and depraved. After  they are born again, they can begin to do good works, and desire to be baptized and receive the sacraments (they can pretend to do those things when they are dead, but that would just be for the eyes of men). Thus, good works, believing on Him, and performing baptism and the ordinances for the right reasons are evidences of being born again.

He ever ceases to love us we would cease to have ever existed

Why? In Romans 9:13 it says: “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” God hated Esau, it doesn’t get more explicit than that, and yet Esau still existed. God loves his children, he does not love Satan, he does not loved people who are bound for hell. The word “elect,” means to “chose out of.” For God to choose out of, there most be people that are not chosen, thus, not everyone is the elect.

So, I’m really interested to see your thoughts on Ephesians 2:1-9. Why don’t you go read it and tell me what your thoughts. 🙂

With the elect I think we believe basically the same in the grace of God alone saving them but we believe being born again is in baptism. So the pivot point is whether or not we have a choice to believe in Christ? Yaybe?

I am confused on how you can say that “God alone is saving them.” You proceed to say that we have to do a whole bunch of things: Believe (I think anyway, you said something confusing early in your response, but I’ve already asked about that), receive baptism, the sacraments, and confess major sins.

Although–interestingly, we do believe the Virgin Mary was born from the moment of her conception without Original Sin because of her role as Mother of Christ both God and Man, through no act of her own but consented to by her ‘yes’ to the angel Gabriel. Is that about how Election you’re describing works?

Uh, no. xD First off, are you saying that Mary had no sin in her? Or that she was automatically saved? Secondly, Election is the choosing of God’s people before the beginning of time. And when I say “choose,” I mean that God did the choosing, people could not say yes or no. No accepting, no rejecting.

Ahhhh–motorcycle shows 🤨?

People have crazy things in so called “Churches” nowadays. xD

But it’s so great that we each love our Faith so much we can go on forever about it 🙂

Absolutely, I’m really enjoying this conversation. 🙂

That’s an interesting plot for your book, let me know if you ever publish, I’ll check it out. 🙂

My book is a medieval action adventure stand alone novel (I decided to start out simple) set in medieval France. Totally fictional characters and events, but historical things are referenced. As I said, I love the medieval time period. The books title is “The Thief’s Dilemma” and chapter one starts out with, guess what, Hugon, a thief. 🙂

 

 

Pin It on Pinterest