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


*skims through the new posts and the impending catastrophe and chaos brinking closer*
Well well well, if it isn’t the consequences of my actions…😁Let’s see, where to start *fiendishly rubbing hands together*

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.

Amen! It’s a bunch at once and sure chaotically fun!
I’m glad the explanation helped! 😊Now to argue the Biblical reasons behind it😈
Oooonce I get there in chronological order of comments otherwise I’ll never remember half and answer less 😉

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

Aye, but even then one of the biggest reasons was wide-spread illiteracy (:

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

I do 😇

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).

Alright, you could say John 6 isn’t the Last Supper and so, just the feeding of the five thousand and it might as well be connected to the woman at the well with her asking for living water, but truly, He references the Eucharist throughout the Gospels and all those people seemed to think He was being very literal about His assertion and in 1 Cor. 11 He very clearly states “this is My Body which is for you (it can also be translated “broken for you” etc) in I think every account of the Last Supper, so these folks writing the Bible found it a very important detail. It really seems hard not to connect those two accounts really, He seems to be passing out heavenly–or at least “supernatural” bread to a lot of people and when they wanted more He said “unless you gnaw My Flesh and drink My Blood” sooo 🙂
But to go on with your second objection–@rusted-knight pretty much covered that, I just want to emphasis that the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of the Covenant; you see it as we can’t possibly choose God or be loved by Him unless He for some reason picks us out of a billion, but we believe that wouldn’t be Love, that the only reason He would give us free-will is because it’s necessary to have the capacity to love. Otherwise it’s just animal instinct, but love is, defined simply, to actively will the greater good of another regardless of how it affects you, and yet, respecting that person’s choice to not do what is good for them.
Before you knock it, please, why is there sin if God just chooses people to be saved or left to be damned? If God hates people who are evil, why are they still on earth instead of straight to Hell? And if we are partially predestined to ‘in the end’ either be of the elect or the damned and there’s no choice to it at all, why aren’t the elect simply taken to Heaven? I mean there’s no point to being on earth if the good can’t help the bad and the bad can’t break the good, it’d be nothing but a psycho ant farm. And if God is Love, how can He hate?
Now, understanding that, the Eucharist is the New Covenant with Him and the Body and Blood is something solely unique to Catholicism. Transubstantiation itself is a very difficult–even impossible– thing to actually 100% understand much like the Holy Trinity and how Christ is both fully human and fully divine with a soul that is fully human and divine. The bread is fully bread but also fully God.
Transubstantiation really does effect our beliefs deeply. It would be like saying the Crucifixion was just a symbol and we can all still believe in salvation and His Promise even though He didn’t die for us. I mean…sure, some people do that but which shows more love, the symbol or the real deal?
So, I mean, that’s my unnecessary addition to the debate there (:

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).

Well of all Catholic theology overall Church hierarchy isn’t one of the biggest deal breakers as long as we have the pope, bishops and priests. The pope is the big deal, as for your interpretation of good ol’ troublemaker Matthew 16:18 that’s a great interpretation. Except.
*–dramatic pause–*
Why would he say “you are ‘Rock’ and upon this rock I will build My Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it, I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc etc” instead of say “I’ll give this Rock–Me–the keys of heaven.” also why the heck would He have to do that since I’m assuming we all believe God always had the keys of heaven He wouldn’t have to give it to Himself.

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.

*see baptism of desire*
*also see deductive reasoning from premise “God is Love”*

Hold a sec! That might be a bad argument if we don’t first define love. How’s your definition of love?

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?

Oh yeah, we want to make mistakes (that’s the sin of presumption😄). Sorry, just giving you a hard time for a simple turn of phrase XD. Yes, that about sums it 🙂 Plus what @rusted-knight said!

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.

Alright, I think @rusted-knight already covered most of this, but–my bad, Original Sin and Total Depravity are a little different. Yes, we can do nothing to please God without Him, we believed it was impossible for us to reach Heaven before the Sacrifice of the Cross, but that souls that wanted to please God and died fell to a place called Limbo. We consider Original Sin a mortal sin which completely cuts us off from God but baptism washes away all prior sin (except maybe baptism of desire, it washes away mortal sin but…eh to explain that we’d have to get into a huge discussion on Purgatory to lay the groundwork before we even got there…XD). Hence people like Moses, Abraham, Isaac etc had that.
But all people were in a state of mortal sin completely cut off until they were baptized–that is–reborn in Spirit and Truth.

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.

Excellent question, He did say “hated” but he also said “whoever doesn’t hate mother and father is not worthy of me” (Luke 14:26). I don’t what’s up with that but “hate” pops up like in the above verse in such a way you can’t possibly take it at its meaning but instead seems to mean more “cut off” or “detached from”. There’s quite a few places where He says “hate” but still cares for those…I was gonna go through all that but I actually found a link that states that I’m trying to explain link (btw this is the first link I’ve ever successfully made here!🤗 pls tell me if it doesn’t work 😑)
Another reason–maybe not exactly rational, but logical all the same. You say God doesn’t love Satan or sinners, but we’re told to love sinners, to love all souls. We’re given grace to forgive others completely independent of their response, we’re given grace to be kind to all, at least that’s what we strive to do in striving to be good. If we love, if we do any good, if we have the slightest compassion, if we feel any pity or kindness or remorse for others it’s all from God because He is Love. Maybe it’s just my stupidity or misguided feelings but I would go to hell in Satan’s place if that would save him, at least I would want the courage to. So either God gave me that silly notion from His own Love or I’m sinning in having pity. So, if God hates Satan, pity for irreconcilable sinners (ie all sinners according to Election) is very sinful and a ploy by the devil, yes?
But if we’re to do good to those who hate us who benefits from that if God hates them just as much as we struggle not to? Why would it even be for our characters if we have no choice in our salvation or lack thereof? What about Abraham trying to bargain with God for Sodom and Gomorrah? What about Moses constantly interceding for the people? How could God die for only a few, without their say or anything in them that could affect the decision, and yet still leave them on earth to be tormented by people who are damned without a single say or ability to be saved, how could this God–a god that would do such a thing–how could He be Love? And not sadomasochism?
Alright and on Ephesians he says we were dead and “by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God – not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Ok I’m gonna kinda answer this in with your other question

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.

Now you said faith and goodness and everything were all signs of predestination. In the same way believing, receiving the sacraments and confessing are all signs of faith. See…pretty much all of James XD but for instance James 2:14-26. It just seems to me ridiculous to call something love if there’s no freewill. I mean we can’t exactly love animals; we can be very attached to them, amused by them, fond of them, proud of having trained them, but we can’t love animals. Not the way we can love other people or the way we can love God.

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

Thanks! I definitely will! I’d like to hear what you think about it when I get there! 🙂 I’m hoping to self-publish, hbu?

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.

Lol, that sounds neat! Hugon’s been an interesting character in Character Castle 2.0 and historically accurate medieval settings are awesome!!! You’ll have to tell me when it’s published, or if I can beta read! (:

Neasaaaaaa!!!!! *bowls over with a hug!* Yay! You got to join!!

wow your education on Catholic doctrine makes me look inferior, compared to you I know very little haha.

Ack, thanks! My parents really deeply study the Faith and Bible study with us and keep learning themselves so it’s all thanks to them! I don’t really know much about the apparitions in Medjugorje, can you tell me about them? 🙂

Oh, and Cathy, this thread is called the Threat  for Theological Debate. I found that quite amusing.

Lol, it wasn’t a typo.😇

Except it explicitly says that he does not call all. The word “elect,” found in numerous places, and it means to “choose out of (please read Eph. 1, 1 Peter 1:2, Col. 3:12, and Romans 9, it will help clear up my view). There are two inherent points in this “choose out of.” First, that God is the one choosing, not us. Second, for someone to choose out of (like in an presidential election for instance), that means some people are not  being chosen. Thus, not everyone is going to heaven, only the people God elects and saves according to his will and power. Another big point for God not calling all, is found in Romans 9:13, where is clearly says God hated Esau and loved Jacob, and this is right after it mentions the elect in Romans 9:11. When Jesus talks about the path being narrow (and I think you agree with me on this), he is talking about the people who walk in the straight and narrow in this life, those who serve him. In other words, the people who serve God during their natural lives and enjoy the earthly Kingdom of God are few and far between (which is evident when one studies history and or watches the news). But again, for us to even begin walking that straight and narrow path that few walk, we must be born again first. Thus, walking that straight and narrow does not get us to heaven, it is instead evidence that we are already in heaven. One has to understand the concept of original sin and total depravity for this to make any sense, so even though we disagree, I would greatly encourage you to go read 1 Cor. 2, Eph. 2:1-9, Rom. 3:9-20, and Rom. 8:1-everything. xD.

What about Matthew 22:14, Matthew 22:10 and that whole parable? Mark 16:15, why do we preach if we don’t think we can bring others to be born again? John 9:35-41, if we have no grace and no salvation, no choice then we couldn’t be guilty we could only be animals incapable of sinning. John 10:16. John 15:22-24. Yes, only a few are chosen but all are called. Why does Jesus ask the people He heals for faith or if they want to be healed if they have no choice in receiving or not? Act 10:34? Romans 1:11? Sin can only be sin if we freely choose it, and if we’re incapable of anything else, would we say a rabid dog is a sinner condemned to hell?

And there’s still the hierarchy of the church and Mary’s Immaculate Concept. Right, that’ll probably be another “long post” so that’ll take a couple more days 😂😂😂

Don't let the voices in your head drive you insane;only some of them can drive; most are underage

Pin It on Pinterest