fb

New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Forums Fiction General Writing Discussions New Discussion Threat For Theological Debate

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #142195
    Cathy
    @this-is-not-an-alien

    Ok! @noah-cochran and I guess @anybody. Previously on Theological Debates…eh who cares…XD

    Okay, first off, I want to say that I really enjoyed reading that. You obviously have a firm understanding of your beliefs, and though we may disagree, I greatly respect someone who knows how to articulate what they belief to be true.

    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🤗!

    One: How exactly do priests and bishops differ (in most denominations the elder/bishop/preacher is the overseer and message giver to a local church)?

    Alright, priests provide most of the overseer and message giver duties to the local church. A priest is assigned to a church and its grounds and members (called the parish) and provides for the spiritual needs of the parish.
    The bishop is usually the person who assigns a priest to a particular church and they oversee and provide for the parishes in the area called a dioceses. Bishops also gather for ecumenical councils when there’s a prevalent or particularly grievous misunderstanding or strife of a particular church teaching such as Christ’s Divinity and humanity, Mary’s virginity etc, especially where these lead to heresies and divisions.
    So it’s like–when the Founding Fathers started–the federal and state jurisdiction. State laws (priests) are responsible and focus for the local spiritual needs and the individual people while bishops are responsible for the spiritual needs as a whole. Bishops oversee and instruct the dioceses which has several parishes within it. So if, say, a priest is teaches heretical teachings a parish member would send a letter of complaint to their bishop if necessary and the bishop-who has authority over the priest-would have a duty to look into the matter and judge accordingly.
    Bishops begin as priests and have shown themselves to have a great deal of wisdom and good judgement and such qualities for the role and are raised to the status of bishop where need arises by the pope or other bishops.
    So bishops and priests have different tasks and “jurisdictions” if you will.
    But there are more “subclasses” of priests and bishops within the Church, and I just looked up some of the specifics on that so I don’t bungle my terms XD. To begin with deacons are people vowed to celibacy and not yet ordained as priests, who assist the priest in ministering to the parish. Deacons can perform most priestly services that the priest can supervise such as witnessing a Catholic marriage in a sacramental way usually, ministering Holy Eucharist to those who are unable to attend Mass (priests can allow laypeople to do that as well where need arises and laypeople can give Communion to a dying person in case of emergency too), giving the homily at Mass, and providing spiritual help and guidance to anyone who asks for it.
    Priests today take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. Daily responsibilities range from maintaining the upkeep of their parish, collecting donations, and being responsive to the individual needs of the parish. Priests often give spiritual counsel, sacramentally hear Confessions, celebrate the Mass, perform baptisms funerals and burials, lead prayer groups and theological discussions, visit the sick, attend retreats with other priests and their bishop and attend public parish and diocesan meetings.
    Various bishops have various tasks. Diocesan bishops are responsible for seeing to the concerns of priests and Catholics within their diocese, they look into complaints, significant theological questions and metropolitan bishops have dioceses in–you guessed it–metropolitan areas, they oversee parishes within their dioceses and also serve as head of council within their dioceses.
    Archbishops oversee bishops within the metropolitan areas. They make sure priests and bishops are available in all the areas where they’re needed, that matters of faith are being upheld throughout the area and that funds and services are being distributed to the parishes who need them the most and to “check” abuse in power with priests or bishops within the area.
    Cardinals are the ones who elect the new pope (those under the age of 80). They possess a particularly esteemed title as cardinal, they would be the ones who do the most work in the Vatican itself. Collectively they form the College of Cardinals and are appointed by the pope himself from among the bishops.
    The pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter and is responsible for the global Catholic community. It’s a very interesting position, he has the final say in matters of faith and morals and because Catholics respect and obey the pope in as far as they are morally able the pope has–willingly or unwillingly–a great deal of political sway. There was even a time when the Holy Roman Emperors appointed popes and I don’t quite know the logic to that but it stopped in around 1085 AD. Among the tasks the pope does are: appointing bishops and cardinals, writing epistles, formal communications within the Church and even with foreign leaders where they persecute the Church or where they have objections and issues with the political effects of official Church teaching (for example, lotsa political leaders’ complaints over the Church’s stance on abortion, lgbtq+, and euthanasia), conducting meetings with bishops, political leaders and/or community leaders, greet pilgrims at general assemblies and during religious assemblies, excommunicate heretical public figures.

    Two: This is an ignorant question, so forgive me, but do Catholics read and study the bible on their own (without a priest)?

    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.
    Right now my family as a group is in Genesis, Leviticus and Psalms following a one-year schedule (my mom’s a stickler for those) that links all the verses together as well as possible. We read this verse in Genesis a while back that just really moved me, it was almost like it summed up my entire existence it was just so me. 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.
    On my own time…I don’t really have a system. With the attention-span of a sugar-high hummingbird on its first taste of coffee I just kinda…read whatever verses I randomly land on and try to let them wash over me because that’s all of how well I can stay focused. But. I do spend plenty of time reading the Bible 🙂

    Three: Could you give me a verse supporting transubstantiation?

    John 6:48-58, I’m gonna go ahead and write the whole verse because I’m gonna break it down from its original Greek, from its Biblical context and from Jewish understanding of the Messiah.
    But first, I’m gonna describe the time-of-Christ celebration of the Passover compared to the Exodus Passover. Exodus 12: 1-12 describes it and in a couple words you have 1. Choose an unblemished male lamb 2. Sacrifice the lamb. 3. Spread its blood on the home as a “sign” of the sacrifice 4. Eat the flesh of the lamb with unleavened breath. 5. Keep this Passover feast as a “day of remembrance” every year.
    Ok, by Christ’s time they completely dropped spreading the blood on the doorposts but expanded the service to include drinking four cups of wine. Additionally, lambs couldn’t be sacrificed and eat in the homes anymore, instead they were sacrificed at the Temple and eaten in the city of Jerusalem and only Levitical priests could pour the blood on the alter (Deuteronomy 16: 5-7) sacrificed from the ninth to eleventh hour (3-5 pm) according to this Jewish priest historian, Josephus, who is dated to Christ’s time (from his book War 6:423-27).
    The actual Jewish Passover sacrifice has not been celebrated since the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD and has not to this day been rebuilt. So modern Jews do not celebrate the Passover but instead celebrate the Seder meal.
    In fourth century AD, the Passover lamb was crucified in the temple (–Joseph Tabory, in the Mishnah, at the time the Temple stood, Pesahim 5:9/Pesahim 7:1). Pesahim 10:5–Jews would celebrate the Passover as if they were really there and participating in it even centuries later (man I need to find a full copy of the Mishnah…) In ancient times, Jews believed on the Passover the Messiah would save them (Exodus Rabbah 18:11–“On that very night know that I will redeem you.” and Exodus Rabbah 12:42 “The Messiah who is called ‘first’ will come in the first month”)
    So all that to say, Passover was a big deal and only priests could perform the sacrifice and we believe Christ acted as both priest and victim at the same time. Now keep in mind step 4 for the Passover feast. And I’m gonna skip in John to the flesh I’m gonna go back to the bread with the Our Father prayer later:
    “The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us His Flesh to eat” So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you [and watch out when Jesus gives the “trulys” or the “Amens” depending on translation..] unless you eat [the Greek word does not mean “eat” it means “gnaw” and I am angry at most translations because this is not the only phrase they try to “water down”] the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For My Flesh is Food indeed and My Blood is Drink indeed. He who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.”
    Ok, why could Jesus keep repeating it, not only repeating it but using the most crude language in Greek, a term that was only used in reference to devouring animals a term that was very graphic. And then, Jesus, He’ll usually speak in parables to the people but then kinda pull his Apostles aside and explain the parables. But when people question He says “Does this scandalize you?” and He tells Peter “Are you going to leave too?” not “Here is the real meaning.” like He usually does when He speaks in figures.
    So that’s like harsh enough for the Jews but in Jesus’ time you are excommunicated, set apart from the Jews permanently and pretty much irreconcilably if you drink blood. In Exodus and Leviticus He was like “the blood of any creature is Mine alone, the blood is life and you cannot drink another’s life, anyone who drinks the blood will be cut off from the Jewish people” So He was not only telling them He was the Paschal Lamb He was also saying “you are no longer Jews, now you are Christians in the New Covenant in My Blood.”
    The Lamb had to be eaten whole for the sacrifice to be accepted. And the Temple sacrifices ended forty years after his Death and Resurrection. Correct me if I’m wrong but the purpose of the lamb in the Paschal sacrifice at that time was to take the sins of the people on itself and die to kill their guilt.
    But it gets more fantastic
    Modern science has this technology to mathematically calculate the constellations’ orbits in any period of time thanks to Kepler’s discovery. Well something happened at the exact moment of Christ’s Death, beginning with the star of Bethlehem to the constellations described in the visions in Revelation. As you’ve probably read a billion times in Scripture the moon turned blood red–that was a particular ancient term for a very specific lunar eclipse. And if you look from earth it’s the moon covering the sun or the sun covering the moon or whichever for different eclipses. But from the moon, you see earth covering the sun and on Good Friday, 3 pm over two thousand years ago the earth covered the sun at the moment they were aligned with the heart of the ram constellation.
    You can watch The Star of Bethlehem from the producer Stephen McEveety, presented by Rick Larson, it backs scientific examination with Biblical clues and its phenomenal. But the point is, the entire universe cried out at Christ’s Death and there’s no doubt Jesus is the Passover Lamb. And in order for the sacrifice to be fulfilled you had to eat the Lamb.
    Aaaand I probably got a “teensy” bit carried with the star, heheh lil’ geeky Catholic heart is really into all that XD. It’s not the only miracle around the Eucharist or the Cross, we actually have the real burial shroud of Christ and it’s done some…pretty interesting things before and–right back to the Bible.
    Bread from Heaven: John 6:47–51:
    “Truly truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life. I am the Bread of Life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this Bread, he will live forever; and the Bread which I shall give for the life of the world is My Flesh.”
    John 6: 57 “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me will live because of me.”
    Okok, still think it’s a metaphor, viola! Allow me to translate from Greek some of the Our Father seen in Mathew 6:11 and Luke 11:3 “Give us this day our “daily” bread.” Lol they translate it that way because the term, epiousios, is “obscure”. It’s funny because nobody has ever seen that word before in any Greek texts during any period, scholars call it a “neologism” which is high-vocabulary for “he just made up a word” and scholars don’t quite know whether it’s a bad translation from original Hebrew or Aramaic or what. There are a “top two translations” suggested: epi ousia meaning “for existence” or epi “on, above, upon” ousia “substance or nature” or “supersubstantial/supernatural”
    Now “daily supernatural bread” would’ve reminded every good Jew of the manna in the desert. And in John 6: 30-34 just a couple verses earlier, we have the feeding of the five-thousand read it through people reminded of Moses and its pretty clear they’re thinking of Messiah and manna pretty well linked. From a Jewish perspective at the time Bread from Heaven could not be viewed as merely symbolic. Now you could say He was trying to demonstrate that they were taking things too literally and it’s something they need to focus on spiritually and symbolically more as with a “fighting savior” which they expected. But if Jesus is the “new manna” and the old manner truly was miraculous and very real supernatural bread from heaven how could Christ be less then in a very real and literal sense Bread from Heaven?
    And another thing; remember the Apostles are writing these books for different people in all these different countries and situations and if so many disciples left because they misunderstood, why the heck wouldn’t the Apostles explicitly state “Christ meant this as a symbol of His New Covenant”? I mean, there’s some precedent there, one of the Gospels “translates” Jewish customs to Gentiles and somewhere in there John actually had to explain he wasn’t immortal guys stop spreading that rumor. So it really doesn’t make sense if it’s just a symbol for them to not have explained that…
    Finally there was…ok actually there’s a lot more and I could probably go on for another three pages but I should probably stop there for now XD.

    Four: Would you agree that the church institution shown in the New Testament does not have the hierarchy of cardinals, bishops, archbishops, priests, archdeacons, pope, etc.. (I can’t find it anywhere)?

    No I wouldn’t agree, we actually do have very specific Biblical reasons for our hierarchy, perhaps not as precise and sharp as you’d find if Jesus just kinda sat down and said “here’s how the structure should look like” cos He didn’t do that here, not on the level He did in Leviticus and for the Jewish worship ceremonies. So a lot of the hierarchy comes from contexts and natural growth but the seeds and the groundwork with its consequential expansion can be seen demonstrated in the Bible so here’s the very very basics:
    The pope is the direct successor of Peter and there’s this super huge unbroken line from Peter to the current pope all the names of the popes. Matthew 16:18-19 “bind on earth bind on heaven” that kinda stuff. Anyway the terms in their original language “binding/loosing” are rabbinic terms that referred to excommunication and then for forbidding or allowing on religious matters. There’s plenty more verses but that’s the popular one and this is just a “quick” rundown.
    The cardinals could be seen from Acts where the 11 Apostles found it necessary to choose somebody to replace Judas in his role of ministry and in Acts 15 where the apostles and elders gathered together to consider the matter of circumcision, the way it’s described is very similar to an ecumenical council.
    The bishops can be seen in Act 14:23 they “appointed elders for them in every church” and 1 Timothy 3:1-7 spells out a bishop’s job while Titus 5-9 gives the minimum requirement for a bishop and the entire epistle of Titus is a sample of how cardinals or the pope contact a bishops right now whenever there’s the need.
    Priests/deacons are found in 1 Timothy 3: 1-13 although the Greek word ‘deacon’ simply means ‘servant’ its context and the instructions given indicate a priest-like structure and set of qualifications, there’s some more for that all but that loosely gives the Biblical origins. The New Testament does not take the time to outline a clear, precise structure everybody has to follow in as much depths as, say, how God outlined every rule and regulation and article of clothing in Leviticus, but it does indicate that there was a structure in place and that it was for the purpose of ministering different duties and hierarchy.
    Pretty basic, but it’s just kinda something to start off with this is already shaping out to be a ridiculously long post XDD

    Five: I would just like to clarify exactly how you belief someone receives eternal salvation. This is my understanding of what you belief: God loves everyone, meaning he gives everyone the choice to do what it takes to get to heaven. What it takes is for a person to be baptized in one of the ways you listed, for a person to perform the sacraments (Eucharist/communion/Lord’s Supper), and for a person to strive to please God. Is that correct? If it is, how good does one have to be? Do Catholics still believe a person has to repent of their sins to a confessor to go to be eternally saved? Also, which baptism if any would you say applies to an aborted baby? Sorry, lots of questions, I’m really curious about all your beliefs.

    Nono! Those are good questions, thanks for asking!
    Alright! For someone to receive eternal salvation they must be baptized in such a way before or at the time of death. 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. But for a Catholic baptized in water they must receive the Sacraments and strive to please God. I’m not saying it’s impossible for a person who doesn’t do the last two to be saved but it sure does make it harder to even receive the grace to even desire to love.
    Now a Catholic, understanding the Truth of Christ’s Death and Resurrection absolutely must strive to please God. As far as how good, it’s obviously impossible for anyone to be good apart from completely relying on God’s grace and as far as we fail to rely on Love so we sin, but how good a person must act underlining their Faith to receive salvation is this: the very barest, the faith of a mustard seed. God is Love, therefore He is looking for every possible way to save us and the very slightest, smallest grace we turn to is enough.
    However, we believe this is the minimum for receiving eternal salvation. And if hell is eternal separation from Love and from any grace to love or even desire to love, Heaven is eternal union with Love, with every joy and grace and desire to receive that a soul can be filled with. But souls are different and not everyone receives the same measure of grace to be filled. My patron saint, St Therese of Lisieux, had the idea of different souls being filled in Heaven like this: her sister pulled out a cup and a thimble and filled them both with water, she explained the water was Love and the cup and thimble were souls. Neither minded that the other had more or let because they were both filled, yet even so there was a difference in the measure they received.
    So someone can do the minimum and get to Heaven but…choosing to love deeply, the more often a soul chooses to please God, the more deeply that soul loves and the greater its capacity to receive love. So a Catholic would do all three of the above things baptism, receiving the sacraments and striving to please God for the sake of loving God more than achieving salvation. And a Catholic has the duty to spread the Gospel by an example of a life spent in love and like “the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effect”, we believe in praying for all souls’ salvation and offering all our works as a prayer to God.
    As for whether Catholics believe they must repent their sins to a confessor to be saved the answer is yes, but also no. Catholics believe in two kinds of sins; those mortal and those venial (see…I have a particular verse in mind but I can’t remember the verse with the verse…it was “there is a sin which is mortal, and I do not say one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal…” grrr, where was that verse?!) anyway, mortal sins–like the sin of Adam and Eve destroy God’s life in our souls, total depravity, cut off from God, these include; murder, robbery, illicit sex and sacrilege etc. These must be confessed. Venial sins injure Love and the practice of genuine love and include; lying, petty anger, tax fraud (lol, sorry jk mostly XD). These don’t have to be confessed for someone to remain in union with Christ albeit much more imperfectly, but Catholics really should confess their sins venial and mortal because it’s very strengthening. Even setting aside the fact that it’s a sacrament and provides innumerable graces, confession is just plain character-building, it forces you to be honest both with yourself and with someone else and to actually confront your faults instead of throwing up your hands and anyway…next question; which baptism applies to aborted babies?
    This one is a pretty serious matter in the Catholic Church, in part because there is no definitive official answer for every scenario. In the case of abortion it could be either baptism of desire or baptism of blood. If a parent or legal guardian was intending to baptize the child, that’s a baptism of desire made for the child assuming they’re unable to baptize. But also, even in the womb John the Baptist leapt for joy at Jesus’ Presence, so in those last moments we really don’t know for every case individually. I’m sure a lot of theologians can get into very deep debate over this and maybe sometime soon there’ll be an ecumenical council over it. I personally just can’t imagine so many babies arbitrarily being judged on how well their parents and guardians ministered but at the moment of death it might be they’re given understanding to have a baptism of desire or of blood. I’ve also heard it suggested that people can spiritually adopt babies and then will the baptism of desire. That’s a thin thread but…maybe? I definitely want to ask our parish priests about that this Sunday if I get the chance.

    Okay, so I’m going to start with bible translations because that is something of great importance. I once saw a video of a man asking a bunch of different Christians to read Psalm 23 from their own bibles aloud at the same time. They did. What happened was total chaos with the different translations saying different things from each other. I give this example merely to show how important it is to find a specific translation (possibly more than one if they are the same), because if one doesn’t they will have a mess on their hands. I’m not going to go into which translation I belief to be the true one, but suffice to say, I belief that God inspired and preserved one specific text, and that text is the only accurate one (not that God cannot use un-preserved translations for good, he can use many things for good). After saying all that, the verses I reference when I present my beliefs will not be in all bible translations. Some bibles literally removed verses or parts of chapters, abominable in my opinion, but I won’t get carried away. xD

    OHHHH I WAS STUCK ON CATHOLIC TRANSLATIONS!!! Yeah, I agree that a ridiculous amount of Bible translations are just edited just plain edited and watered down!!! Even Catholic versions I’m still like ‘would you translate the Greek word as it is?! God didn’t mince around words why do you?!!!!’
    I actually wasn’t even thinking about this but I’ve heard most Protestants have 66 (?) books in the Bible and we have 73. I never actually counted but I know we have Tobit, Judith, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch and more verses of James than some Christian Bibles which I think were lost in some versions around Martin Luther. Idk, but I know those books and probably a couple other ones aren’t considered inspired? So I guess we agree there except for we mutually believe our Bible’s the true translation and your’s is the one messed up 😛

    Okay, so here is the basic layout of my beliefs and their order: Predestination and Election, Calling/Being Born Again, Justification, Glorification (resurrection, going to heaven). —–A few more quick things. One, the bible does not teach absolute predestination (the belief that all of are actions, sin included, is predetermined by God, i.e, we don’t make decisions for ourselves). Two, at the end of time, God will return and his elect’s physical bodies will be resurrected and glorified. Three, here is a quick rundown of our worship service: We use a regulative practice, which means we only use thing we find in the New Testament.

    Ok! We agree with Total Depravity pretty much, the Catholic term for it is Original Sin 🙂
    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?
    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?
    I can see your logic with John 3:16 but I simply can’t agree with the world being defined as the Elect because I believe the moment He ever ceases to love us we would cease to have ever existed, but I can go with–on a level–whosoever believes is evidence of being born again. I don’t think I quite understand it enough to debate yet but the gist is; we are predestined either with the grace we need or without but we’re still given freewill in our actions just not all of us have the capacity to choose Love? Kinda?
    This one is probably just gonna take me a bit to get cos it’s so foreign to me XD

    Three, here is a quick rundown of our worship service: We use a regulative practice, which means we only use thing we find in the New Testament. Thus, we have no instruments, motorcycle shows, youth groups, Sunday schools, etc..We start with congregational singing with prayers mixed in, then we moved on to preaching. That’s really it. We have the Lord’s Supper and Foot Washing at intervals throughout the year, we believe in water baptism by immersion. However, this water baptism does not save people to heaven (total depravity, election, Eph. 2, no by works of men, etc..), it is just a symbol of us following Christ into the grave and rising with him a new man, a now as a member of the Church.

    Ahhhh–motorcycle shows 🤨? Oh Foot Washing sounds like a really beautiful symbolic rite!

    There are other things to say, but this post is getting crazy long. xD I’m looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

    Lol yes!! This is totally shaping out to be the forum of crazy long posts! XD But it’s so great that we each love our Faith so much we can go on forever about it 🙂

    I would like to see that. What’s the premise of your book?

    😄 I could too! Three brothers’ll teach ya to get out of any wrist-hold and tackle somebody twice your size! XDD
    The premise of my book: It’s a high fantasy psychological/supernatural thriller about a disowned prince with C-PTSD (Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) born with fire abilities in a world where people born with special abilities are a hated subclass due to a time when these people used to guide and defend the Twelve Kingdoms until corruption slipped in and the people overturned the world powers by taking down the “gifteds” or “ability-borns”. So now there’s a longstanding war between the two axis powers of the world Casumbra to fill the void both for the ex-heroes and their now-outlawed religion modeling off Old Testament prophets and all.
    But the pivotal plot focus is on the MC’s complex and mysterious past that has the potential the turn the fate of the war with every choice he makes as he uncovers a trail of historical legends to the ancient Temple Ruins. Thematically, the story revolves around choice and real love against manipulation, co-dependency, and abusive relationships particularly on an emotional or psychological level with questions like; Is it ever right to override someone’s choice even when they’re decisions are self-injurious? How far does duress and extreme circumstances defend crimes like deceit? And how does someone break habits that kept them alive but have turned into self-sabotage?
    I started writing this with absolutely no plan while I was struggling with suicidal thoughts and all so a lot bubbled up that I didn’t actually know I was thinking until I wrote it and I think it’s one of the most personal things I’ve ever written and probably the most graphic and controversial thing I’ll ever write. But it’s helped me a lot and I hope it’ll help other people, but I wouldn’t exactly recommend it to everybody XD.
    What’s the premise of your book tho?! (:

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

    #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. 🙂

     

     

    #142209
    Rusted Knight
    @rusted-knight

    @noah-cochran
    I am a Catholic and retired altar boy so I have some answers

    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.

    First. Transubstantiation is VERY REAL. Jesus himself says in Luke 22 verse 19-20 “And He took bread, and when He had given thanks broke it and gave it to them, saying, ‘This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ And likewise the chalice after supper, saying, ‘This chalice which is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.'” This is backed up by more than 70 confirmed <b>miracles</b> in which The Eucharist is turned into real heart flesh with real AB type blood. The earliest record of these miracles is 595 in Italy and the most recent being 2013 in Poland. The samples taken from ALL these Hosts show evidence of quote “human heart muscle with alterations that often appear during the agony.” Type AB blood is significant because samples of the same blood are found in the Shroud of Turin.

    Second. A person CANNOT just preform the Lord’s Supper. Only ordained priests and bishops can do that. A person cut off from the church by mortal sin or official excommunication (Mortal sin and certain actions automatically excommunicate one) cannot receive Communion. Doing so makes the person doubly guilty.

    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).

    Catholic ordaining requires the laying on of hands as was dictated in the Gospel. as for the Gospel quote, it comes from Matthew 16: 18 and in its entirety reads “And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The Greek word used for Peter is Petros the masculine form of “Rock”. Jesus is telling Peter he will be fundamental in the church as he continues in verse 19. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus is very specifically giving power to Peter over what He will build.

    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.

    Ok. This is tricky waters. Scientifically speaking, if the heart stops, the brain’s activities will continue for about five minutes give or take. That sound like plenty of time to go over your life and chose to recognize God. Also the problem is being looked at upside down. By saying that you can only recognize God in life because he will only show himself to you in life sounds like one is trying to put limits on a limitless Being.

    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?

    Close. Humans are not perfect. We make mistakes. General Patton said it best. “I don’t measure a man’s success by how high he climbs but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.” We on earth are the Church Militant. We are at war with the Devil and his forces in a war. We get hit. We get back up and push forward. That is how we do better.

    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.

    This idea is founded on a single issue that has permeated throughout Christianity. THE GOSPEL CANNOT BE PICKED APART AND SELECTIVLY READ. St. Paul is saying that without God we are nothing. Without God we have not purpose in life. We are walking dead until we accept God and let His Spirit guide us. Look at rich atheists. They will spend their life, their fortune, their health even trying to fill the void that only God can fill. God has not picked out a select few. Jesus himself said that the path was narrow. He calls all. It is up to us to pick up the cross and stay on the path.

    Uh, no. xD First off, are you saying that Mary had no sin in her? Or that she was automatically saved?

    Yes. Mary had no sin. Read Exodus. The detail God gives Moses in making the Ark of the Covenant and Sanctuary is extraordinary. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. She held the living Jesus inside her for nine months. Can you imagen the detail and purity she had compared to the old Ark? This is why he was taken up to Heaven body and soul. Just like the Ark of the Covenant.

    The Devil saw me with my head down and got excited. Then I said Amen

    #142215
    Neasa
    @irishcelticredflowercrown

    Another fellow Catholic here 🙂 @noah-cochran I love your open mind and willingness to learn about the Catholic faith. Good on you!! 🙂 im not as educated as these two, so my (not so helpful😅) recommendation is to check out the youtube channel Ascension Presents, they manage to explain all the different bits and pieces about Catholicism. Just in case your interested🙂

     

    Plus – and this may be a little too much for you and thats okay cause this isn’t actual Catholic doctrine 🙂 – but I do recommend checking out the sources on the apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Particularly Our Lady of Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe and Our Lady of Akita. They have been confirmed as actual apparitions which by the way is no easy feat. The Church takes alleged apparitions very seriously, they don’t just accept every story and allegation that comes their way. There’s an entire process they need to do, and the same goes for miraculous healings. For example Medjugorje, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, is a place where several children allegedly saw a vision of Our Lady before the Bosnian war occurred. I think apparitions are still supposed to be taking place there, but its under review by the Church and has been for years. I think there were a couple of incidents that occurred that kind of put the whole thing into question. So you do have to be very cautious when it comes to these events. Still my mentor went to Medjugorje and had a huge conversion, literally went from juvenile delinquent to on fire Catholic! So even though its not officially confirmed by the church (they simple acknowledge that something miraculous happened there) its still a pilgrimage site and so many people have had their lives changed. Even if you don’t believe the apparitions happened, which is totally understandable they are pretty hard to wrap your head around🙂 and of course the apparitions ain’t the foundations of the Church either, and the Bible is still the official undying Word of God – at the end of the day they’re still fascinating to read about 🙂


    @rusted-knight
    and @this-is-not-an-alien wow your education on Catholic doctrine makes me look inferior🤣, compared to you I know very little haha.

    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Neasa.
    • This reply was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by Neasa.
    #142220
    Noah Cochran
    @noah-cochran

    @rusted-knight

    Hey man, glad you dropped in. 🙂

    There isn’t much more for me to say about Transubstantiation, except that the verse talking about the Lord’s Supper are talking about a ordinance/sacrament that the bible command us to do in remembrance of him and what he did for us on the cross. There is no biblical evidence for a literal change to human flesh in a cannibal sense. As for the alleged miracles you mentioned, I mean no offense, but I try to only use the inspired word of God as a basis for my doctrinal beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

    Only ordained priests and bishops can do that.

    Absolutely, only ordained bishops/elders and administer the ordiances, if you thought I was saying otherwise, I apologize. I’m not exactly sure what brought that comment up, so if there was some specific reason, enlighten me please.  🙂

    This idea is founded on a single issue that has permeated throughout Christianity. THE GOSPEL CANNOT BE PICKED APART AND SELECTIVELY READ.

    I’m confused. 😆 How was what I said picking it apart? If you mean I was referencing specific verses instead of whole chapters or passages, then you’re welcome to read the whole passage, it will only support the verse. Also, I tried to make a point of listing several sister verses to support each other (hermeneutics, the use of scripture to interpret scripture, the best way by far to study the bible).

    Jesus himself said that the path was narrow. He calls all. It is up to us to pick up the cross and stay on the path.

    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.

    Catholic ordaining requires the laying on of hands as was dictated in the Gospel. as for the Gospel quote, it comes from Matthew 16: 18 and in its entirety reads “And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” The Greek word used for Peter is Petros the masculine form of “Rock”. Jesus is telling Peter he will be fundamental in the church as he continues in verse 19. “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Jesus is very specifically giving power to Peter over what He will build.

    You still haven’t supplied explicit (and it needs to be explicit) biblical evidence for priests, cardinals, or any of the other hierarchy. As for the Peter verse, we’ll just have to disagree. Throughout the bible Jesus is called the cornerstone of our father, the rock upon which we are built (Acts 4:10-12, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6 (is Peter talking about himself there? xD), and more). In the verse I brought up, Jesus is telling Peter (who’s name means Stone, or small rock), that upon this rock (Himself) I will build My church (i.e, Jesus is telling Peter that He (Jesus) is the rock, not Peter, not anyone else, it’s only through Him that the church will stand).

    Yes. Mary had no sin.

    In Romans 3, Paul quotes from Psalms 14 and 53 which say there are none good, no not one. Including Mary. Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us, and she needed salvation just like the rest of us. God using her as a abode for himself in infant form does not give her status as a perfect human being. As for the Exodus examples, they are kinda a stretch. xD

    Loved reading your thoughts man! 🙂


    @irishcelticredflowercrown

    Thanks for your thoughts! 🙂

    Again, I really try to only use God inspired and preserved, his word, the good news of his Son, to prove doctrine. Anything else could be mistakes, things of the devil, or an endless number of other things.


    @this-is-not-an-alien

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

    #142231
    Rusted Knight
    @rusted-knight

    There isn’t much more for me to say about Transubstantiation, except that the verse talking about the Lord’s Supper are talking about a ordinance/sacrament that the bible command us to do in remembrance of him and what he did for us on the cross. There is no biblical evidence for a literal change to human flesh in a cannibal sense. As for the alleged miracles you mentioned, I mean no offense, but I try to only use the inspired word of God as a basis for my doctrinal beliefs, nothing more, nothing less.

    Ok, Transubstantiation is simple and complex at the same time. Jesus said, therefore it is. The bread and wine used in the Eucharist retain there earthly appearance. They retain what our senses can detect. Spiritually however, the substance of the bread and wine is fully the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. As for the second part, I would suggest reading James 2: 14-26. My own beliefs heavily use the Bible but it is reinforced by what we have discovered. Also its kind of fun to use Christian science to shoot down atheist science.

    Absolutely, only ordained bishops/elders and administer the ordiances, if you thought I was saying otherwise, I apologize. I’m not exactly sure what brought that comment up, so if there was some specific reason, enlighten me please.

    I was just making sure everything was there.

    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.

    God invites us to Him. Its like a job interview. Sitting around ain’t going to get the job. Trying to apply is not going to guarantee a hire but continuing to try will help. God will decide who enters Heaven and who does not. But we have to do our part if we want the ticket in.

    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.

    Original sin does not make us pure evil. Original sin removes the innocence we originally had in the Garden of Eden. Because of Adam and Eve’s free chose, we all are weak spiritually. Humans, with a singular exception, can never be perfect this side of the grave. But we are not totally lost. This side of the grave is our test. How much are we willing to do to get to the prize?

    Predestination is false and the reason is very simple. If God is merciful enough to die for us, would he intentionally cut off people before they even have a chance to prove themselves? It seems rather contradictory.

    You still haven’t supplied explicit (and it needs to be explicit) biblical evidence for priests, cardinals, or any of the other hierarchy. As for the Peter verse, we’ll just have to disagree. Throughout the bible Jesus is called the cornerstone of our father, the rock upon which we are built (Acts 4:10-12, Eph. 2:20, 1 Peter 2:6 (is Peter talking about himself there? xD), and more). In the verse I brought up, Jesus is telling Peter (who’s name means Stone, or small rock), that upon this rock (Himself) I will build My church (i.e, Jesus is telling Peter that He (Jesus) is the rock, not Peter, not anyone else, it’s only through Him that the church will stand).

    The Acts of The Apostles provides most of the answers. Deacons and Priests serve the people, spreading the news. (Acts 6: 1-7) The Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals and Pope work to oversee the Church, to lead it and correct errors. (Acts 15 for the first ecumenical counsel)

    In Romans 3, Paul quotes from Psalms 14 and 53 which say there are none good, no not one. Including Mary. Mary was a sinner just like the rest of us, and she needed salvation just like the rest of us. God using her as a abode for himself in infant form does not give her status as a perfect human being. As for the Exodus examples, they are kinda a stretch. xD

    In his salutation to Mary, the angel Gabriel calls Mary “full of grace”. This is unique to Mary. Mary had to be pure to care for Jesus during his Hidden Life. The Exodus example is by no means a stretch. The Old Testament points to the signs that will led to Jesus. Mary is his mother and so must be mentioned as she is.

    I would very highly suggest reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is the dictionary, if you will, for everything we Catholic believe. It will have footnotes for Biblical passages as well as ecumenical counsels and doctors of the church.

    The Devil saw me with my head down and got excited. Then I said Amen

    #142330
    Cathy
    @this-is-not-an-alien

    *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! (:


    @irishcelticredflowercrown
    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

    #142338
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    So, I need to read over this whole discussion to get up-to-speed, but I saw @noah-cochran mention in the reading thread that he’s never debated a Calvinist before so… Hi. Resident Calvinist here to step into the conversation and make things extra complicated. XD (Or y’all can kick me out or tell me to save it for a different thread, lol. I won’t be offended.)

    I shall return once I’ve caught up with the conversation. XD

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #142341
    Neasa
    @irishcelticredflowercrown

    @this-is-not-an-alien

    Hii Cathy! Glad to be here❤️

    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?

    Thats pretty cool gosh. Good on your parents for educating you!

    Medjugorje. Wow okay where do I begin? I’ve never been there myself, but if God intends for me to go He will make sure of it 🙂 Just bear in mind that the Vatican hasn’t recognised these apparition reports as authentic (i’m not sure what the official consensus is, I could be wrong) but they have recognised Medjugorje as a pilgrimage site. Some of the visionaries allegedly still see her and some allegedly don’t. So you can just make up your own mind regarding the authenticity of the visions 🙂
    So the story goes that in June 1981 six children saw the Blessed Virgin on a hill and the alleged apparitions continued for many years. Basically they say that Our Lady is calling the world to conversion. I could be wrong but I think she also allegedly foretold the Bosnian war. Allegedly she revealed ten secrets to each of the visionaries, some concerning themselves and some concerning the whole world. They were told that the third secret would be a lasting indestructible sign on apparition hill. One of them, Mirjana, is responsible for revealing the alleged secrets. One of the secrets was apparently so terrible, the visionaries begged Our Lady to prevent it from happening. They said later that this upcoming event had been reduced due to massive prayer, fasting and conversion. You can read all this stuff online, its very interesting.

    That being said lot of people have mixed feelings about Medjugorje and definitely be careful about believing everything you hear. There was an incident with one of the visionaries where the people had reason to believe I know that a lot of traditional Catholics believe that its the work of the devil, they complain about the fact that none of the alleged visionaries have become religious laity and none of the women wear veils on their heads during mass, which is what women do in Latin mass. But at least hundreds of conversions have taken place there. So I personally think there is something incredible there. Still my advice is to question everything no matter what 🙂

    #142346
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    So bishops and priests have different tasks and “jurisdictions” if you will.

    This makes some sense.

    To begin with deacons are people vowed to celibacy

    Why celibacy, when deacons are described as married men in 1 Timothy 3?

    Passover was a big deal and only priests could perform the sacrifice

    That seems like a Pharisaical addition to the law. The Passover, as biblically instructed, was the responsibility of the heads of households.

    But the point is, the entire universe cried out at Christ’s Death

    That’s really cool!

    But if Jesus is the “new manna” and the old manner truly was miraculous and very real supernatural bread from heaven how could Christ be less then in a very real and literal sense Bread from Heaven?

    Because the New Covenant is a spiritual fulfillment of the Old Covenant. We don’t circumcise anymore because we now experience circumcision of the heart in a spiritual sense. Jesus as the “new manna” is no less miraculous and supernatural; He fills and satisfies us like the manna filled and satisfied the Israelites in the desert. Now, it is interesting that there are so many references to a consumption of Christ and I think that bears further study (what would that mean in a spiritual sense?), but I still think it’s a metaphor. One that ought to be taken seriously according to its character as metaphor rather than simile—implying it was to be a very close comparison—but still metaphor. We’re also told we don’t live on bread alone, but on the Word of God (interestingly enough, Jesus was the Word, which wouldn’t have been nearly so meaningful when that passage was first introduced in Deuteronomy), which is evidently a spiritual satisfaction rather than physical. There are similar metaphors equating Jesus with water, but we understand them to be metaphor. What makes the bread different?

    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.

    The thief on the cross.

    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?

    Oh hey. This sounds Calvinist. XD I agree with this point completely.

    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.

    Ditto.

    A person CANNOT just preform the Lord’s Supper. Only ordained priests and bishops can do that.

    Why?

    Yes. Mary had no sin. Read Exodus. The detail God gives Moses in making the Ark of the Covenant and Sanctuary is extraordinary. Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. She held the living Jesus inside her for nine months. Can you imagen the detail and purity she had compared to the old Ark? This is why he was taken up to Heaven body and soul. Just like the Ark of the Covenant.

    Given how much of the Old Covenant is directly compared to its fulfillment in the New, I find this comparison questionable. Nowhere in the Bible does it compare Mary to the Ark of the Covenant. Nor does it say she was without sin, nor does it say she was “taken up” rather than simply dying, unlike any other occasions of divine intervention as with Enoch and Elijah. So I have a lot of trouble believing that this view of Mary is accurate.

    God invites us to Him. Its like a job interview. Sitting around ain’t going to get the job. Trying to apply is not going to guarantee a hire but continuing to try will help. God will decide who enters Heaven and who does not. But we have to do our part if we want the ticket in.

    Except we’re dead. Dead people can’t apply for anything. We have to be given life first.

    Predestination is false and the reason is very simple. If God is merciful enough to die for us, would he intentionally cut off people before they even have a chance to prove themselves? It seems rather contradictory.

    If God is just and cannot endure sin, why does He choose to save any of us? The fact that any of us are saved is proof of His mercy. He doesn’t cut off; we’re already cut off. He reaches out and reconnects.

    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?

    To be completely fair, this is something that I have struggled with more than once. And I solidly believe in predestination. So I understand the struggle here. 😛 But here’s the thing. Without sin, we can’t understand grace. Without separation from God, we can’t understand salvation. Without fear and hate, we can’t understand love and peace. Without injustice, justice is meaningless. The contrast of a fallen world with a glorious God is necessary to our understanding of His character. And we still have to come to an understanding of God in our own way. He chooses us, not the other way around, but He does reveal Himself in ways that He knows will connect with us personally. He designed us; He knows how to reach us. And those unique personal experiences with Him are part of what build and strengthen our relationship with Him. But again, they have to have something to contrast with.

    You say God doesn’t love Satan or sinners, but we’re told to love sinners, to love all souls.

    We’re humans without knowledge of who may or may not be saved. We have a limited view and are called to operate accordingly. God is the Creator and Arbiter of the universe, and Scripture says that love of the world is enmity with God (James 4:4) and that we are enemies of God before we’re saved (Romans 5, Romans 8). God sees the whole picture and He can operate according to that complete view, while we cannot because our view is not yet complete.

    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?

    The other side of the coin is that God endures with longsuffering those “created for destruction.” (Romans 9:20-24)

    Why would it even be for our characters if we have no choice in our salvation or lack thereof?

    Yes. Because our character is developed due to our salvation, not for our salvation. Our character grows as we strive to be more like Christ, until we come to full spiritual maturity (or as near as we can get before Heaven). Kind of getting into what you asked about “why aren’t we all sent to either Heaven or Hell right away?” again… God created Earth on purpose. He created Earth and made mankind stewards over it. That stewardship is now the responsibility of His Church, and we must have Christ-like character in order to be faithful stewards of that calling. His Kingdom is not limited to Heaven; His will is to be done on Earth as it is in Heaven. His Kingdom is a spiritual reality overlapping with a physical world.

    Lol, it wasn’t a typo.😇

    Seems pretty fitting. I approve. XD

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #142425
    Noah Cochran
    @noah-cochran

    @this-is-not-an-alien

    I wondered if the title was on purpose, it seemed like something you would do. 😄

    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?

    First of all, what are you’re thoughts on the verses and points I made? How would you explain them?

    Now, before I comment on Matt. 22, I’m going to go into something I should have at the beginning. You and your brother have been talking a lot about why one should do good, preach the gospel, repent, get baptized, preform the Eucharist, etc.., if it doesn’t get one to heaven. You have also made comments on how and why there is still sin in the world, or if God chooses his people, than why do they still sin (if I’m understanding your comments anyway, correct me if I’m wrong.). Well, here’s the answer: Temporal/timely salvation, and the Kingdom of Heaven(KoH). During this life, after one of the elect has been born again through God’s sovereign power and love (nothing to do with human works,  like preaching or accepting or repenting, see Eph. 2), that individual is now a dual nature creature, meaning they still have the flesh that used to have completely control over them (total depravity, see Rom. 3 and 1 Cor. 2:14), but now they also have the spirit, the ability to please God. Now you ask, why would they please God? What do they get? What’s the point?  The answers are simple: They can be saved in a timely since from the consequences of sin, and enjoy the KoH here on earth (KoH is basically a taste and substance of what heaven is like). If a dual nature man acts according to the principles in the bible, does good works, joins the church, performs the ordiances, he will be saved. Saved from a life of wallowing in sin and guilt to a life feeling the love of God and blessings he showers upon those who obey Him. Side note, but many (actually most) places in the bible are talking about this type of salvation (which just means deliverance), not the eternal kind. This is difficult for some people to grasp, but pretend you read the sentences: “Serve me, read my word, and you will be delivered.” or “I nearly fell off a cliff, but a man told me that I was nearing the edge, and I was saved.” In the first example, the question is, delivered from what? Most Armenians and Catholics would not think that meant eternal salvation because the word saved wasn’t used, but if you switched it to the word saved, they would then think it mean eternal salvation. The second sentence is a prime example of what the preaching of how the preaching of the gospel saves us. It doesn’t save us to eternal glory (that would be a work of man getting someone to heaven), it saves us from ignorance, ignorance of what God has done for us, and ignorance of how we can change are ways and feel the love of God in our life. Here is a wonderful example of how the gospel can save someone: A man once had great debt. Then another man paid it off, wrote down what he had done in a book, but didn’t tell the beneficiary. Thus, the beneficiary no longer had that debt, but he didn’t know  he didn’t have that debt, thus it was till a burden to him. Then a third man came and told the beneficiary what had happend, and showed him the written prove. This revelation saved the man from the ignorance that was crushing him, and revealed the wonderful news of what the benefactor had done. The benefactor is God, the debt is sin, the third man is a preacher or evangelist, and the first man/beneficiary is a dead sinner that became a dual nature man.

    As for Matt. 22 specifically, that parable is talking about timely salvation. Those who act according to the statues (puts on the wedding garment) that bible teaches, they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven, to a place where God is pleased with them (the kingdom of heaven is many things, and is often the church, but always remember that it is not eternal salvation). When is says “For many are called, but few are chosen,” that means of all the elect and born again (the called), only few served God and are chosen to be in the KoH in this life. In other words, few become the chosen by choosing to serve God and act according to his statues.

    I hope I explained this clearly, please ask clarify questions if you have any. 🙂

    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?

    I’m a little confused…xD A rapid dog does not have the conscious soul like a human, I can say that much.

    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?

    There is sin because not all are elected, and even the elected and born again ones are still sinners, but now they are sinners that can also bear fruits of the spirit (duel natured creature). As for why God doesn’t just send his elect to heaven and his non-elect to hell, their are two equally important answers: One, for His glory. Our God is a jealous God, who wants use to love and serve Him during this life. He loves to see us honor His word, shine as a light, and follow his statues, this gives Him glory, glory he infinitely deserves. Two, we cannot know the mind of God outside of what is explicitly revealed in His word, and to pretend otherwise is arrogance (not saying that you are or anything, just stating fact).  Questions like “why doesn’t God just take us to heaven and send the non-elect to hell,” is like the question “why did God even create us in the first place?” We won’t know in this life, and we may never fully understand, but we do know it brings Him glory. Also, God hating people with a righteous anger is fully justified, and is something He can do even though He is a God of love. In our fallen, totally depraved nature, we hated God. Hated Him, despised Him, thought of Him as nothing. We sinned against Him.  For God to hate that sin and depredation is not sin, it is indignation. As I heard an elder say last weekend at a meeting, the real question isn’t why God hated Esau, it’s why did God love Jacob? Again, we do not know the mind of God, we do not know why he chose one and not the other. But the one who created us and could kill all of us with a thought and it wouldn’t be sin, can and does do as he pleases. We cannot, and should not try to treat God like a finite, human being. Oh, and Luke 14:26 is talking about putting everything, including family if it gets in the way, aside and following him. It is an alienating hate, not a sinful hate. And it is a hate from humans, so I’m not sure that applies to anything here.

    I have another question for you Cathy, as I we rap up some of our other major subjects. Why do you believe in baptism by sprinkling? In fact, using the word “baptism” and “sprinkling” in the same sentence is kinda a paradox. Baptism means to immerse, and is a symbol of Jesus going into the ground in death and coming out again in victory over death and sin. In addition to this, all the examples found in the bible are by immersion, so why biblically unprecedented sprinkling?

    As for the Peter = Pope controversy verse, here is the full verse: “And I say also unto thee, That though art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

    He is saying that Peter is Peter, but He, Jesus, is the foundation of the church. In Matt. 16:20, a couple verse later in the same context, it says: “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”

    Why would Jesus say that if the context was talking about Peter’s great responsibility? It wouldn’t. Jesus says that because He was talking about himself.

    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! (:

    Glad my writing is readable, I’ll keep you in mind for beta reading. 🙂

     


    @r-m-archer

    You’re welcome to join in the fun. 🙂

    To be completely fair, this is something that I have struggled with more than once. And I solidly believe in predestination. So I understand the struggle here. 😛 But here’s the thing. Without sin, we can’t understand grace. Without separation from God, we can’t understand salvation. Without fear and hate, we can’t understand love and peace. Without injustice, justice is meaningless. The contrast of a fallen world with a glorious God is necessary to our understanding of His character. And we still have to come to an understanding of God in our own way. He chooses us, not the other way around, but He does reveal Himself in ways that He knows will connect with us personally. He designed us; He knows how to reach us. And those unique personal experiences with Him are part of what build and strengthen our relationship with Him. But again, they have to have something to contrast with.

    You should read my response to Cathy on this subject if you would like to see my view, I ain’t typing it up again, to hard. xD

    Except we’re dead. Dead people can’t apply for anything. We have to be given life first.

    I loved this. xD Just about actually laughed out loud. This is exactly right.

    No offense to you @rusted-knight, just a fun conversation. 🙂

    Why?

    Only ordained elders/bishops can administer the ordiances, as seen in the bible.

    The thief on the cross.

    Oh, I believe that it is evidence that he was saved as well, but that was not the context Cathy and her brother were talking in.

    Two questions for you Miss Archer:

    First, do you believe in the absolute predestination of all things?

    Two, do you believe that all the elect will  believe the truth of the gospel and perform good works throughout their life? Do you believe they will persevere in these good works?

    Great discussions everyone! 🙂

     

     

    #142437
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    Those who act according to the statues (puts on the wedding garment) that bible teaches, they will be allowed into the kingdom of heaven, to a place where God is pleased with them (the kingdom of heaven is many things, and is often the church, but always remember that it is not eternal salvation).

    This is an interesting interpretation. I don’t think I’ve ever heard this perspective before. I think I maybe agree with parts of it, but not all of it? I think the Kingdom of Heaven is a spiritual reality that we enter into as soon as we’re saved, which begins on earth and culminates in the New Heaven and New Earth. It’s not separate from our eternal salvation, but a slim piece of it. We do good works not to earn a place in this kingdom, but to reflect our place in it. If we have been given a place in the Kingdom, it is our responsibility to act as faithful stewards of it, especially as we are called heirs (Rom. 8:14-17). This means building up the Church, both by building up and exhorting and edifying those already saved and by reaching out to the lost, and pursuing God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.”

    Likewise, our good works don’t earn us salvation, but are the natural fruit that comes from our salvation (Matt. 7:16-21, John 15). If we are truly saved, the Spirit works within us, providing us with a desire to practice the good works that God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:8-10).

    One, for His glory. Our God is a jealous God, who wants use to love and serve Him during this life. He loves to see us honor His word, shine as a light, and follow his statues, this gives Him glory, glory he infinitely deserves.

    Another good point.

    Questions like “why doesn’t God just take us to heaven and send the non-elect to hell,” is like the question “why did God even create us in the first place?” We won’t know in this life, and we may never fully understand, but we do know it brings Him glory.

    I disagree that we don’t know why He created us. He created us for fellowship with Him, to be like Him. We were intentionally created in His image to steward the Earth He created and walk in communion with Him. (But that’s a bit of a tangent, so I’ll leave that there.)

    Also, God hating people with a righteous anger is fully justified, and is something He can do even though He is a God of love. In our fallen, totally depraved nature, we hated God. Hated Him, despised Him, thought of Him as nothing. We sinned against Him. For God to hate that sin and depredation is not sin, it is indignation. As I heard an elder say last weekend at a meeting, the real question isn’t why God hated Esau, it’s why did God love Jacob? Again, we do not know the mind of God, we do not know why he chose one and not the other. But the one who created us and could kill all of us with a thought and it wouldn’t be sin, can and does do as he pleases. We cannot, and should not try to treat God like a finite, human being.

    Exactly.

    It is an alienating hate, not a sinful hate.

    Hm. That’s a good articulation.

    Only ordained elders/bishops can administer the ordiances, as seen in the bible.

    Do you have any particular references? I’m not trying to be difficult, and I’m not sure that I disagree with you, it’s just something I’d like to look at further so I figured I’d ask if you have any easy references. But if not, I can certainly look into it myself.

    First, do you believe in the absolute predestination of all things?

    Yes. I think God is in ultimate control of all things and orchestrates events for His glory and the well-being of the saints. But I also think we have personal responsibility and agency from a human perspective, so this doesn’t absolve us of responsibility for our behavior or the consequences thereof. I see it as similar to an author and their characters, where it is just as true that the characters make decisions as that the author makes their decisions; there are two perspectives and they’re not mutually exclusive even though they appear contradictory.

    Two, do you believe that all the elect will believe the truth of the gospel and perform good works throughout their life? Do you believe they will persevere in these good works?

    Yep. To use the terms from TULIP, that would be Irresistible Grace (God’s grace does what it sets out to do, i.e. the elect will receive that grace and be saved) and Perseverance of the Saints (true salvation is permanent and cannot be lost; the Spirit remains at work in the lives of the saved, prompting them to repentance and good works).

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #142539
    Noah Cochran
    @noah-cochran

    @r-m-archer and @this-is-not-an-alien (because I don’t want Cathy to take my explanation wrongly xD)

    We do good works not to earn a place in this kingdom, but to reflect our place in it.

    Let me clarify before you take my words in the opposite direction I intended. xD Belief and good works are indeed evidence (or reflection as you used) that we are born again, that we are the elect, that we are bound for the ultimate end of heaven. Now, before I get to the KoH, let me clarify my points, because I articulated them atrociously. What do good works and believing do for us in this life? They allow us to feel the presence and blessings of God (enjoy His grace), and they glorify Him. Do you agree with me there Archer?

    As for the KoH, I must admit, it is hard to draw exact lines on what it is. I will say this though, if you are in the KoH, you are enjoying the grace and closeness of God, and you cannot be sinning (one very common way to be in the KoH or press into as some would say is to be in church service, without sin of course). I kinda mixed up two different concepts, so I probably shouldn’t have even brought up the KoH.

    I disagree that we don’t know why He created us. He created us for fellowship with Him, to be like Him. We were intentionally created in His image to steward the Earth He created and walk in communion with Him.

    Yes, He created man/Adam to be a steward, but why create the Earth in the first place? One reason that I already mentioned is for His glory and praise, but other than that, we cannot know the mind of God. He did not need us, and thus his creation of us was totally unnecessary, the only thing we know is that He desire’s our praise.

    Do you have any particular references? I’m not trying to be difficult, and I’m not sure that I disagree with you, it’s just something I’d like to look at further so I figured I’d ask if you have any easy references. But if not, I can certainly look into it myself.

    Okay, so I’m gonna kinda concede a point here. Other than Jesus being the one to lead the Lord’s Supper and Foot Washing (which are two ordiances that are explicitly prescribed to be done by all Christians), there are not other places that clearly say ministers should oversee those ordiances. However, we do read that all things should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), and that ministers are to be overseers (Acts 20:28), and taking both of those things together, I believe that elders/bishops should be the ones administering those ordiances. Can it be done without them in an orderly and decent way? Possibly, but I still believe that to keep things running properly and ideally, ministers should be the ones to do it. @rusted-knight is welcome to bring other verse if he finds any.

    As for water Baptism, we clearly see that the bible teaches and shows through numerous examples that it is done (and to be done) by ordained Elders or Bishops, and no one else. You probably already know the many examples of this (such as Philip, who was at that time a elder, not a deacon), so I won’t start listing them.

    Two questions about absolute predestination: First, if I sin, and God predestined that it would happen, He is then causing me to sin, so thus He would be sinning (even if I am still responsible, God sinned as well). How do you explain that? Secondly, I find no verses stating that absolutism is true. We find predestination in the context of sending his elect to heaven one day, but that is it. What verse would you use in support of this belief of absolutism?

    Yep. To use the terms from TULIP, that would be Irresistible Grace (God’s grace does what it sets out to do, i.e. the elect will receive that grace and be saved)

    Uhh…I also believe in the TULIP, and the way you stated Irresistible Grace(IG) is right, but that does not answer the question. As you said, IG is God calling us from death to life when we are born again, and we can not deny that. However, that does not mean we will do as we should and belief in His word and follow His statues. An example of this is some guy in Africa who is born again and yet lives His whole life in ignorant unbelief and sin because he doesn’t have access to the bible or preaching. Another example is a man who is born again, but is just stubborn, and won’t listen to the bible or preaching even if he does have access to them. That doesn’t mean God failed at calling him and borning him again, it just means he is a stubborn sinner. That was my point.

    True salvation is permanent and cannot be lost; the Spirit remains at work in the lives of the saved, prompting them to repentance and good works.

    I agree with that statement so much, and yet I also disagree in what you consider the doctrine of perseverance. I belief that the p in tulip is Preservation, meaning those God chooses and calls will never fall from  His hand, His grace (exactly what you said). And yet, that does not mean they will persevere in good works. It does mean that the new man (the spirit of God in them) will prompt them to good works and to belief (as you said), but that doesn’t mean they will obey. Paul even talks about how he often disobeys God. He also talks at the end of Romans 8 about how nothing in the world, not even their own sin, can remove them from God’s grace. Thus we see that even though a person is born again (and might have even been a believer in works and speech at one time), that doesn’t mean they will continue in good works, it only means the spirit will continue to prompt them.

    • This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Noah Cochran.
    #142545
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    What do good works and believing do for us in this life? They allow us to feel the presence and blessings of God (enjoy His grace), and they glorify Him. Do you agree with me there Archer?

    Yes, I would largely agree with that. They also cause others to see God through us… but that falls under “glorifying Him” closely enough that that’s really just me nitpicking, lol.

    As for the KoH, I must admit, it is hard to draw exact lines on what it is. I will say this though, if you are in the KoH, you are enjoying the grace and closeness of God, and you cannot be sinning (one very common way to be in the KoH or press into as some would say is to be in church service, without sin of course). I kinda mixed up two different concepts, so I probably shouldn’t have even brought up the KoH.

    Hm. I still think I don’t fully agree, but this is an interesting concept I might be interested in discussing further some other time.

    Yes, He created man/Adam to be a steward, but why create the Earth in the first place? One reason that I already mentioned is for His glory and praise, but other than that, we cannot know the mind of God. He did not need us, and thus his creation of us was totally unnecessary, the only thing we know is that He desire’s our praise.

    Fair enough.

    However, we do read that all things should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. 14:40), and that ministers are to be overseers (Acts 20:28), and taking both of those things together, I believe that elders/bishops should be the ones administering those ordiances. Can it be done without them in an orderly and decent way? Possibly, but I still believe that to keep things running properly and ideally, ministers should be the ones to do it.

    That’s a fair conclusion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. 🙂

    As for water Baptism, we clearly see that the bible teaches and shows through numerous examples that it is done (and to be done) by ordained Elders or Bishops, and no one else. You probably already know the many examples of this (such as Philip, who was at that time a elder, not a deacon), so I won’t start listing them.

    For sure. I definitely see evidence for baptism being something only Church leadership ought to administer.

    First, if I sin, and God predestined that it would happen, He is then causing me to sin, so thus He would be sinning (even if I am still responsible, God sinned as well). How do you explain that?

    If I create a story and characters and I cause one character to steal from another, or cause one to murder another, is it sin for me to cause those characters to sin? No, because I created the thing stolen, I created the characters’ lives, and therefore I have authority to manage those creations as I know will shape the story to its proper end. God created all things and therefore has authority over all things, authority to give and to take, be that property or life or anything else created. He is also not subject to the same moral law that we are since He created the moral law that He put in place for mankind. One cannot be subject to something that they themselves created; they are, of necessity, outside of it. It’s a similar principle to what Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 15:27 when he says that when God promises to place all things under Jesus’s feet, obviously that cannot include God Himself since God is the one who placed all things under Jesus in the first place. God must operate according to His character–in justice and love–but He has authority over creation that we do not and therefore our moral law that He designed for us was designed so as to prevent us from taking His authority into our own hands. He still has absolute authority over what He has created.

    Secondly, I find no verses stating that absolutism is true. We find predestination in the context of sending his elect to heaven one day, but that is it. What verse would you use in support of this belief of absolutism?

    I have a whole document listing verses that support various aspects of Total Sovereignty (predestination/election, God as the bringer of calamity as well as prosperity, absolutism, etc.). With a little bit of time I can go through and highlight the ones that support absolutism specifically and post a link to the document.

    Uhh…I also believe in the TULIP, and the way you stated Irresistible Grace(IG) is right, but that does not answer the question. As you said, IG is God calling us from death to life when we are born again, and we can not deny that. However, that does not mean we will do as we should and belief in His word and follow His statues. An example of this is some guy in Africa who is born again and yet lives His whole life in ignorant unbelief and sin because he doesn’t have access to the bible or preaching. Another example is a man who is born again, but is just stubborn, and won’t listen to the bible or preaching even if he does have access to them. That doesn’t mean God failed at calling him and borning him again, it just means he is a stubborn sinner. That was my point.

    Oh, I think I didn’t fully understand your initial question. Sorry.

    I’ll tackle your second example first, since it’s the easier for me to answer. I would have a very hard time believing that someone truly born again would stubbornly continue in sin. Now, let me clarify a little bit because I know that could be misconstrued. I do think that Christians are just as prone to particular “pet sins” as anyone else; sometimes there is a particular sin or two or three that we cling to for a while. However, if the Holy Spirit is truly within us prodding us to get rid of them, as He is if we are truly born again, then they will eventually come to light and we will desire to reject them. It might take a while, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t just let people hold onto sin forever. If there’s no fruit in due season, it’s evidence that the tree is dead. So I don’t think people can be truly born again and stubborn in their sin and refusal to seek after God. The truly born again want God.

    The first example is a little tougher for me because 1) I want more context (how was this guy saved?) and 2) I’m trying to figure out how the balance of ignorance comes in. On the one hand, sin is sin, period. On the other hand, sin is given life by the law; we don’t know sin without the law. (Romans 7) But, regardless of that, we do all have some basic understanding of morality simply by existing as moral creatures, and the Spirit informs the conscience of a believer even further. Our conscience can be influenced by the Spirit through Scripture or directly. Members of the early church were making conscience calls about food sacrificed to idols before the Bible was available to inform their decisions. (Of course, Paul’s letters addressed that, but it was after conscience had already decided for many of the people struggling with it, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have talked about considering the consciences of others.) So while it’s a hypothetical situation, I believe God would equip those with His Spirit to follow His commands through the Spirit.

    I agree with that statement so much, and yet I also disagree in what you consider the doctrine of perseverance. I belief that the p in tulip is Preservation, meaning those God chooses and calls will never fall from His hand, His grace (exactly what you said). And yet, that does not mean they will persevere in good works. It does mean that the new man (the spirit of God in them) will prompt them to good works and to belief (as you said), but that doesn’t mean they will obey. Paul even talks about how he often disobeys God. He also talks at the end of Romans 8 about how nothing in the world, not even their own sin, can remove them from God’s grace. Thus we see that even though a person is born again (and might have even been a believer in works and speech at one time), that doesn’t mean they will continue in good works, it only means the spirit will continue to prompt them.

    I think we might be experiencing a communication breakdown on this point. I think my use of “perseverance” and yours might not be matching up. I meant to refer to a general pattern over a believer’s lifetime; you seem to be interpreting “perseverance” to mean it’s a constant thing? Is that correct? Believers still absolutely struggle with sin and fail time and time again to listen to the Spirit’s prompting. However, true believers still seek to follow the Spirit’s leading and are able to succeed in righteousness through the power of the Spirit when they repent of their sin (by which I mean repentance of recent sin, not the initial and permanent repentance at the time of salvation) and turn from it to pursue righteousness again. Does that make sense? I’m not certain I’m articulating as clearly as I would like. 😛

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

    #142546
    R.M. Archer
    @r-m-archer

    @noah-cochran

    Here’s the document. (Hopefully the forum doesn’t eat it.)

    Fantasy/dystopian/sci-fi author. Mythology nerd. Worldbuilding enthusiast. Singer. Fan of classic literat

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Pin It on Pinterest