Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[YouDoNotHaveTheRight]

@Preacher in regards to your edit on 1211 and I promise I'm not trying to poop the thread up.

It may be prideful to have doubts in flesh. For instance I have seen what you have said about Peter, but even Cain came from Adam who came from God. I also know that we are not to judge and that God will. Since being on this thread despite our differences in views I appreciate you and the orthodox user's posts because I still feel that it is good to know and very interesting. That being said I have observed that a lot of what you and orthodox user (I'm sorry I forgot username off hand) post about are fleshly people maybe divine in Catholicism or Orthodox, but from the protestant view I feel like its harder for us to accept the significance of flesh because of verses on the contrary like Acts 5:29-32 from the mouth of Peter. I just wanted to voice this because I feel like it is one of our constant big disconnects though I do like to hear about these things I know for some things there will just be disagreements too which is okay.

 

[Preacher ✝]

I think, if I'm being honest (and forgive me if this sounds harsh) but there are people, like perhaps some of the authority in the Catholic Church, who are afraid of teachings concepts like 'Eternal Hell' and 'No salvation without Christ' because it makes their viewpoints look bad, and they invent these false doctrines to clean up Hell to sell their faith to the general public. However you shouldn't be ashamed of God's word, it's eternal. Even if it seems mean to us in 2024 his word and rules never change.

Forgive the double post but I completely missed this bit.

I understand that perspective. Its one I grappled with during the period of discernment between my encounter with Christ that renewed my faith and my decision to return to Catholicism.

Aside from the other things I've laid out about the Church's authority and Christ's declaration, I'll say this. I think there are people out there who have a hard time accepting how loving and merciful God really is. Its very easy for us humans to try and quantify these things in our own terms, and concepts like infinity can end up seeming nebulous.

There's also the very human sense of jealousy or justice that we can get trapped in. Bishop Barron alludes to this in the sermon I linked last post but I want to share my own first hand experience from earlier in this very thread.

Part 1

Part 2

Mr. Rope here takes the stance that sin is actually good, and thus those who have a death bed confession after a life of sin essentially cheated the system compared to those who did their best to refrain from sin and live a virtuous life. They got to do all the "fun" sinful stuff and still got into heaven, while the virtuous lived "boring" lives.

What I want to focus on is not the ridiculous notion of sin being good but the implied jealousy of the virtuous. That someone who lived a virtuous life striving to be like Christ and reach heaven might end up sharing it with someone who lived a life of sin and repented near death. This pulls at our human understanding of fairness.

In allegory, picture two school children. One is well behaved and follows all the rules. The other is mischievous and always acting up or getting into trouble, at the risk of not being allowed to participate in recess like the well behaved kid. Then just before the recess bell rings the mischievous kid apologizes to the teacher, and is let out to play. The well behaved child might be jealous that the mischievous child was not punished for his misdeeds, but really he should be rejoicing because he gets to play with his friend.

EDIT:

It may be prideful to have doubts in flesh. For instance I have seen what you have said about Peter, but even Cain came from Adam who came from God. I also know that we are not to judge and that God will. Since being on this thread despite our differences in views I appreciate you and the orthodox user's posts because I still feel that it is good to know and very interesting. That being said I have observed that a lot of what you and orthodox user (I'm sorry I forgot username off hand) post about are fleshly people maybe divine in Catholicism or Orthodox, but from the protestant view I feel like its harder for us to accept the significance of flesh because of verses on the contrary like Acts 5:29-32 from the mouth of Peter. I just wanted to voice this because I feel like it is one of our constant big disconnects though I do like to hear about these things I know for some things there will just be disagreements too which is okay.

You posted while I was typing this post but thank you for it as it means I didnt actually double post. I also want to take this opportunity to test and see if editing in a quote sends a notification or not so please tell me if this is in your notifications.

As for your post, don't worry you're not shitting up the thread with it. I understand where your coming from and its why when I make arguments like the justification for Catholic Church and Papal authority found in Matthew 16:18-19 I do so with a focus on scripture rather than just immediately pointing to the Catechism. I know I'm speaking with sola scriptura and sola scriptura adjacent believers and I do my best to frame things that way.

When you see me talking about the Catechism and the Saints its more about explaining the Catholic perspective after we've crossed the agree to disagree line so that we are all at least disagreeing based on accurate understanding instead of misconception.

and I'm guessing the by Orthodox user you mean Orthobro @Str8Bustah.

 

[Derrick]

You see here he is not just spouting it off out of no where. It's a direct answer to a question by St. Thomas. Christ is going to ascend, and his apostles are worried they won't know how to get back to him.

Then when St. Phillip presses him further, we get more in John 14:9-14 which colors the line as more about the divine nature of Christ than a hard set rule on who is or is not granted access to heaven. In other words "no one comes to the father" might be better understood as "no one knows the father" if they don't know Jesus as he is the clearest vision of God we've had.

You're interpretation seems to be largely agreeing with me while using more words. What your position is, if I understand, is that instead of saying 'no one can come to the father' (which is technical what the actual words say) he means, 'no one can know the Father'. If you interpret it that way then you reach the problem of you need to know the Father to be saved, if you don't you won't be saved (John 3:18 ).

and Christ's descent into Hell, we can see precedent by which the righteous can come to the Father despite ignorance of the Son.

You've mentioned this before and I really need you to show me where this is in the Bible because Christ in Hell is a part of the Bible I've never encountered before.

Since Christ's sacrifice essentially made the old sin offering laws obsolete, its no longer relevant for these matters.

Rather or not the laws of the Old Testament are still in effect is a can of worms I'm not going to open, instead I'll just redirect to you to a New Testament Passage, Luke 12:47-48 where Jesus said, "The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."

Here Jesus agrees that even being ignorant of some sin will lead you into trouble with the lord, though this will be a lesser punishment than if you knew what you were doing.

I want to also take this opportunity to ask you about Matthew 18:3.

Obviously the bible does use allegories and metaphors, they're usually pretty easy to spot for most neurotypical people. For example when Jesus said he was 'the vine' everyone agrees he wasn't saying he was literal a vine. I don't see how you can take a statement like 'nobody gets to the father except through me' and interpret as allegorical for something. A lot of people do this when the Bible says something they find problematic, just look about how people interpret Genesis. Obviously as you explained the passage clarified what Jesus meant (though I really don't see the passages around John 3:16 and John 14:6 as radically transforming their meanings.

What's interesting about the one you pulled out was Nicodemus actually asks Jesus about his use of child like metaphors asking Jesus, "'How can someone be born when they are old?' Nicodemus asked. 'Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!'"- John 3:4 and Jesus explains his imagery of making yourself like a child and being born again is just a metaphor.

EDIT: At the end of the day the Catechism is firmly rooted in scripture, and its been revised, expanded, and molded by 2000 years of Catholic scholars, Church Fathers, Theologians, and Canon Lawyers who all know a heck of a lot more about this stuff than any of us. Given that, is it not somewhat prideful to assert that when your own interpretation and theirs conflict that you're the one in the right?

Are people not infallible? Can they not make mistakes? The great thing is we have the source text available in just about every language (thanks Martin Luther) so we can read God's word ourselves to make sure we're not doing or being taught something which differs from the Bible. Church Leaders are great, but when they're telling us something that's literally the opposite of what the exact word for word scripture tells us then we must discount it.

Also, just a friendly reminder, the 'Vicar of Christ' is in full communion with these people:

Spoiler: Ordained Catholic Preists

I might be nit picking but am I wrong about that? It does raise some concerns about rather or not the Catholic Church is the true chuch/standing the test of time if it's leader is in communion with these people.

 

[YouDoNotHaveTheRight]

@Derrick I am not trying to balls wash @Preacher, but we had shared some DMs previously about some of what you are saying and I will paraphrase. He does not discount that evil men may be in the church, but he has more faith in the church being the will of the Messiah and God to solidify his children and aid in the teachings, as well as more faith that despite if evil men may be there that their efforts are in vain and do not hinder God's victory.

Sorry to intervene if that is personal I had to fish a lot for it lol.

 

[Preacher ✝]

You're interpretation seems to be largely agreeing with me while using more words. What your position is, if I understand, is that instead of saying 'no one can come to the father' (which is technical what the actual words say) he means, 'no one can know the Father'. If you interpret it that way then you reach the problem of you need to know the Father to be saved, if you don't you won't be saved (John 3:18 ).

As I said we're pressing the boundaries of my own understanding of scripture, which is why I referred you to the sermon by Bishop Barron who knows more. Regardless of my enthusiasm and the knowledge/understanding I've acquired, I am not a Church Scholar, I'm just a humble layman doing his best.

Also I've been trying to converse in sola scriptura terms since I know you don't recognize the authority of the Church and through it the validity of the Catechism, but really the Catechism is what I rely on more than just scripture. I've attached my copy if you want to look at it, though I also recommend Fr. Mike's Catechism in a Year.

While you might dismiss it as something other than scripture, I assure you the Catechism is firmly rooted in scripture and cites it religiously, pun intended. It is the culmination of all those generations of scholars, Church leaders, Saints, refined into a form for us, the laity, to consume and understand. It's a far better medium for understanding the Catholic perspective than I am.

I've also avoided using the term Magisterium, but its an important one to know for understanding the Catholic perspective.

You've mentioned this before and I really need you to show me where this is in the Bible because Christ in Hell is a part of the Bible I've never encountered before.

1 Peter 3:18-20 specifically about the imprisoned spirits (hell is where they were imprisoned). Less directly its understood as what he was doing during the 3 days between his death and resurrection.

so we can read God's word ourselves to make sure we're not doing or being taught something which differs from the Bible

Speaking for myself, my main contention with sola scriptura and this notion of reading scripture to come to a personal understanding is the fact that it has demonstrably led to endless schism.

If every single person who preached sola scriptura were united in their interpretation of scripture, I would concede that the argument that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit holds much weight. However that is not the case. Meanwhile, despite all the faults of the humans who administer her, the Catholic Church has remained consistent in its doctrine and dogmas.

Also, just a friendly reminder, the 'Vicar of Christ' is in full communion with these people

By their own actions they have broken that communion. Do not get hung up on the lack of a formal excommunication, as I've said and as history has demonstrated, the Church reacts slower than a snail, but the fact remains that those German bishops have stepped outside the bounds of doctrine and its self evident to anyone not being willfully obtuse about it.

@YouDoNotHaveTheRight nailed it, and I affirm that I did say those things in DMs. Though its not just evil men but also men in general. We are all flawed, sin prone, fallen beings. We are not good. None is good but God himself.

Consider if you will this prayer, which is said in unison near the start of every mass.

Notice all the ways in which we can sin. Not just in what we have done, but in what we have not done, as well as our thoughts and words. Even those in the Church who would not be considered evil are not perfect. Considering how broken and flawed humans can be, and if you dig into history there's examples of clergy and even Popes who have done demonstrably bad things, is it not somewhat miraculous that the Church is still here 2000 years later? Nothing of man has ever lasted that long before. Empires have risen and fallen, but the Catholic Church just keeps chugging along. In that I see the work of God.

Spoiler: Meme

 

[Rendang]

I don't know how observing nature would teach you of a man who lived 2,000 years ago unless you've been shown the Gospel.

Romans 2:12-16 implies that all men inherently aware of God's final judgement and laws. People can deduce God's tenets from their hearts, explaining why may religions & philosophers can share Christian beliefs, but fail to grasp God completely. Furthermore, Paul's examination for the altar of the "UNKNOWN GOD" (Acts 17:23) shows that Gentiles had an awareness of God, but couldn't grasp such a wonderful deity.

These verses has strongly influenced the Catholic, & Orthodox church on the idea of "virtuous pagans," with St. Justin Martyr believing that hints or "seeds" of Christianity were given to certain by God to philosophers, especially Socrates. They had a partial view of God, but sadly couldn't grasp the whole picture, even if it was enough to be declared unknowing Christians by Justin.
I think @Str8Bustah would be aware, or be interested, to the concept of logos spermatikos, especially if he comes from a Greek or Balkan background.

Thus, salvation for those who haven't heard of Christ is possible within Catholicism/Orthodoxy, as unaware hearts naturally yearn for an answer to judgement and law. However, this way of salvation is extraordinarily rare, as many answer with the worship their regional religion and the law, leading to death. However, for us believers, we can stand confident in knowing that, if we follow God devoutly, all tribes will fear us, as we'll have answers, but once they become "children," they will embrace the Way.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Romans 2:12-16 implies that all men inherently aware of God's final judgement and laws. People can deduce God's tenets from their hearts, explaining why may religions & philosophers can share Christian beliefs, but fail to grasp God completely. Furthermore, Paul's examination for the altar of the "UNKNOWN GOD" (Acts 17:23) shows that Gentiles had an awareness of God, but couldn't grasp such a wonderful deity.

These verses has strongly influenced the Catholic, & Orthodox church on the idea of "virtuous pagans," with St. Justin Martyr believing that hints or "seeds" of Christianity were given to certain by God to philosophers, especially Socrates. They had a partial view of God, but sadly couldn't grasp the whole picture, even if it was enough to be declared unknowing Christians by Justin.
I think @Str8Bustah would be aware, or be interested, to the concept of logos spermatikos, especially if he comes from a Greek or Balkan background.

Thus, salvation for those who haven't heard of Christ is possible within Catholicism/Orthodoxy, as unaware hearts naturally yearn for an answer to judgement and law. However, this way of salvation is extraordinarily rare, as many answer with the worship their regional religion and the law, leading to death. However, for us believers, we can stand confident in knowing that, if we follow God devoutly, all tribes will fear us, as we'll have answers, but once they become "children," they will embrace the Way.

Well said.

 

[Derrick]

1 Peter 3:18-20 specifically about the imprisoned spirits (hell is where they were imprisoned). Less directly its understood as what he was doing during the 3 days between his death and resurrection.

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention, I'm a bit disappointed it wasn't some part of the Bible I didn't know about where Jesus does some DOOM tier stuff but I digress. I could reguritate some Protestant talking points, however I am non demonination percisely because I don't want to be forced to believe a position I don't so having read it I will tell you what I think about it honestly. I think it's saying he went down to pull out Noah's family from Hell (they being 8 strong). While this is news to me I don't think it changes my interpretation of no salvation without Jesus (John 14:6). If Jesus wanted to make a special trip to recover Noah (Noah was a prophet after all) and the Bible tells us he did, then I think that can still mesh with the other verses. Noah was a righteous and holy man who lived before Christ (the offer of salvation through Christ was therefore non applicable), Noah was so righteous it seems that Christ made a trip down to save him family. I guess it's possible then for an Old Testament prophet and his associates to be saved, though given John 14:6 if the Bible doesn't tell us it specifically happened then I wouldn't put much stock into it.

Speaking for myself, my main contention with sola scriptura and this notion of reading scripture to come to a personal understanding is the fact that it has demonstrably led to endless schism.

If every single person who preached sola scriptura were united in their interpretation of scripture, I would concede that the argument that their interpretation is guided by the Holy Spirit holds much weight. However that is not the case. Meanwhile, despite all the faults of the humans who administer her, the Catholic Church has remained consistent in its doctrine and dogmas.

Differences in interpretation can come from a few different situations, firstly there are indeed some areas where one could find legit minor differences in interpretations due to them perhaps not being the clearest in the Bible, but these are usually on small (for lack of a better term) matters, when that happens I like to see what the first and second century church fathers were doing, while their word isn't the end-all-be-all it can help give us some idea of the earliest interpretations. The second way is that not everyone is devoted or willing to follow the scriptures, think about those bishops in Germany as a Catholic example of this. Some people willfully misrepresent scripture on things which it clearly spells out like salvation and evolution to name a few we've talked about before.

Additionally I think the way you are framing things is a bit unfair. Since the Roman Catholic Church was "first" (though the Orthodox might disagree with that labeling however) it can't exactly 'break off' of anything however there have been several groups which have splintered off of it, The Orthodox in 1054, the Protestants in the 16th century, The Anglicans, The Sede Vacante Catholics in 1962, which should indicate that the church didn't really have 2000 years of universal agreement on its theology. One could make the argument that one of these groups was carrying the 'one true' theology and the Roman Catholic's deviated from it.

By their own actions they have broken that communion. Do not get hung up on the lack of a formal excommunication, as I've said and as history has demonstrated, the Church reacts slower than a snail,

Spoiler: They got him

but the fact remains that those German bishops have stepped outside the bounds of doctrine and its self evident to anyone not being willfully obtuse about it.

If it's so self evident why hasn't the Pope done anything about it? The above image I posted indicates he has the power and can act swiftly to remove people he fells have deviated from the Church.

Romans 2:12-16 implies that all men inherently aware of God's final judgement and laws

Having read these passages it seems to be indicating one has little to no excuse for not accept Christ, specifically, "They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts".

Thus, salvation for those who haven't heard of Christ is possible within Catholicism/Orthodoxy, as unaware hearts naturally yearn for an answer to judgement and law

Jesus doesn't ask you to yearn to understand him he says you must believe in him, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."-John 3:16. The him here refers to the 'son' specifically. If you don't 'believe' in or accept God than you can not be saved. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. This idea that the belief in some generic unknowable God is good enough to cover you I believe is incorrect, the Bible doesn't ask you to believe in 'God' (as in the Father) it's asking that you specifically accept the Son, Jesus, as your savior.

 

[Mnutu]

@Derrick

If you don't 'believe' in or accept God than you can not be saved. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me".- John 14:6. This idea that the belief in some generic unknowable God is good enough to cover you I believe is incorrect, the Bible doesn't ask you to believe in 'God' (as in the Father) it's asking that you specifically accept the Son, Jesus, as your savior.

It is not about a belief in a generic unknowable god, but about not limiting the ability of God. How could you say that for certain this man is damned, when we have been taught not to usurp Gods authority (Romans 9:14-29), nor to judge (Matthew 7:1-6, Luke 6:37-42; both as they are fully meant to be understood). How could you deny the knowing of God as important when all creation must know Him (Psalm 139:13-16) from the beginning? This is explained fully in Romans 2, which contrasts with Romans 1 in its explications of man’s forgetting of God; his usage of Jew and Gentile indicate those who have the law and those who do not.

None of this justifies an indifferent attitude, nor does it say that they’ll be ok in death. Christ is indeed the judgment seat, and all must pass through Him in the end. But even this, it is explained, that God saves whomsoever He desires to save. If anything, it is a greater chance for those who know Christ and follow His Law to fail.

Furthermore, this is a very deep topic that tugs on many important strands of differences. To even explain it in part (and not in light passing as I have) would require many more citations and topics.

EDIT: even now I see a place overlooked! To believe in Christ is to know Him; for even He said many will say “I did these in Your Name” and He will tell them to depart, for He has not KNOWN them.

 

[Derrick]

How could you say that for certain this man is damned, when we have been taught not to usurp Gods authority

nor to judge

I have never said in this thread, 'Joe Smith is damned, but John Davis is saved', precisely because I don't think it would be good as a Christians to sentence someone to Hell (that is God's Job) and would lead my dangerously into judgemental territory. However I have said God has explained the rules for salvation to us (John 3:16, John 4:18, James 2:18 ) and has promised to save those who follow them, whilst damning those who don't. If you disagree with that you would have to take it up with God, and not myself, as all I'm saying comes directly from the Bible.

How could you deny the knowing of God as important when all creation must know Him (Psalm 139:13-16) from the beginning?

My apologies if I wasn't clear on this, knowing God the Father is important, actually necessary even for salvation. However what I was saying is that one has to go beyond just knowing a God to knowing Jesus, however in order to be saved it's not just knowing the existence of 'a God' it's knowing his son too, Jesus said, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."- here Jesus is saying that it's not believing in a God which saves you (though that is necessary) instead you must go beyond that and, as he said, believe in his son (Jesus) in order to be saved.

when I wrote the post you quoted I assumed all persons who accepted Jesus as the Messiah were probably also accepting the existence of the Father.

that God saves whomsoever He desires to save

That's true, however God has told us exactly what kind of people he's going to save (remember John 14:6, nobody gets to the Father except through Christ) and God is not a liar, if he told us he'd only save X than he'll only save X (unless the Bible notates otherwise).

Remember Numbers 23:19: "God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?" If he says 'I'll save the following and only the following' than believe him.

 

[Mnutu]

@Derrick
I never accused you of judging any specific person, nor of even condemning many people. I take your understanding of the verse as too restrictive on God. I posted certain verses that talk about how God is known from the beginning, but yet you would still say that that is insufficient and a failure before the end. However, see (as Preacher has posted) the Harrowing of Hell (1 Peter 3:18-19, and 1 Peter 4:6); here Christ went to Hades (or Hell, or Sheol) and brought the dead from death. Yet God was known before them.

To cut short a longer discussion (as I’m getting pressed on my own time and will happily respond in depth later!); a better understanding of that particular verse of John that neither denies the knowing of the Father by His Spirit (of which was sent by Christ) nor contradicts that the Lord may save whomsoever He wills is to recall that Christ is the judgment seat. We must stand before Him at the end, not the Father. (See: 2 Timothy 4:1, Roman’s 14:10, and John 5:26-29).

I can’t even finish this point! I will leave with a very tenuous, spurious, and half remembered quote (that I NEED to verify before I could claim it well) to at least mull over; that even in the end, all men must come to know Christ at the hour of judgment.

 

[Preacher ✝]

If it's so self evident why hasn't the Pope done anything about it? The above image I posted indicates he has the power and can act swiftly to remove people he fells have deviated from the Church.

That guy wasn't excommunicated. He was removed from his position for insubordination, refusing a direct order, and his was a position that was less than necessary. He was doing extravocational work, and his superiors ordered him to return to normal duties, he refused because he was more devoted to his extravocational work than his vocational work, so they basically gave him the freedom to pursue his extravocational work at the cost of his vocational work.

I don't know why they are slower for the Germans, could setting up alternative Bishops before they clean house, there is a shortage of Priests after all.

Whatever the case its no excuse for apostasy, that would make one lower than those bishops.

EDIT
Something just occurred to me. Derrick you said this:

if the Bible doesn't tell us it specifically happened then I wouldn't put much stock into it.

However I contend that there is ample precedent in scripture for not being explicit or literal.

The Old Testament is full of prophesies that relate to Jesus Christ coming as the Messiah.
When Christ did come, the Pharisees would not heed him, despite those prophecies, because deep down they were motivated by fear. Fear of the Romans, fear of losing their place in the power structure, fear of change.

Had the Old Testament straight up said "There will be one named Jesus Christ who is your Messiah and he will be crucified for your sins" then even the Pharisees wouldn't be able to argue against him.

 

[Derrick]

I take your understanding of the verse as too restrictive on God.

These are restrictions God has set on himself, and preacher (don't know how to @ someone with an emoji in their name) did point out that God made an except specifically for Noah and his immediate family, but I'm sure you can understand why they are different than everyone else, Noah was so righteous he and his crew were the only people spared from the flood on the Earth, because of this they earned a chance to accept Christ. The Bible tells us of this one particular story, the scriptures I quoted make it clear this is not a grace extended to anybody else who died without Christ.

We must stand before Him at the end, not the Father.

They are one in the same (John 10:30).

God will judge everyone according when they die, of course the decision is ultimately up to him but he gave us the guidelines that he will be using. You must (according to him) have accepted Jesus and lived your life accordingly.

I don't know why they are slower for the Germans, could setting up alternative Bishops before they clean house

I apologize, I know I must be coming across conceited right now but with the Pope appointing cardinals and bishops who share many of the same sentiments as the Germans I am just skeptical that he will be taking swift action against them, particularity after setting the precedent with his swift action against the conservative Texas Bishop. (though I hope I'm wrong about that)

Something just occurred to me. Derrick you said this:


However I contend that there is ample precedent in scripture for not being explicit or literal.

I'm not 100% sure what you're implying here. Of course the Bible doesn't tell us every single thing that Jesus did during his more than thirty year long life. However we shouldn't be making stuff up and base our theology off of it. If I told you, "in order to be saved you must wear purple on Thursday, Jesus said so." and you said, "What, where does it say that in the Bible?" and I just went, "Well it doesn't but we don't know everything Jesus did or said during his whole life," you would be right to call me out. We shouldn't base our theology around assumptions.

Likewise salvation for non believers (ignorant or otherwise) is one of those things which not only falls outside the Bible but even contradicts it (Remember, 'No one comes to the Father except through me'). With that said while God might have made an exception for a righteous prophet of the old testament (which he let us know about), however, and I know I keep repeating this, but God is not a liar (Numbers 23:19) if he says there is only this one way to him then theres only one way, no 'if' 'ands' or 'buts'. It is wrong to make up a theological position that Jesus makes regular trips to Hell to save people when the Bible tells us that doesn't happen.

When Christ did come, the Pharisees would not heed him, despite those prophecies, because deep down they were motivated by fear. Fear of the Romans, fear of losing their place in the power structure, fear of change.

Had the Old Testament straight up said "There will be one named Jesus Christ who is your Messiah and he will be crucified for your sins" then even the Pharisees wouldn't be able to argue against him.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. In my case the Bible literally says, without any caveats, 'This is the only way to Heaven'. If the Old Testament had said, 'The Messiah will not be named Jesus and will not be from Bethlehem or Nazareth' than the Pharisees would have a point, however the Bible didn't say something like that in such literal terms (like it does for salvation). It laid our various prophecies which would lead one to conclude Jesus was the Messiah. If the Bible didn't literally say 'No one comes to the Father' than perhaps you would have a point, but it does in fact spell out in literal terms the only way to the Father. It is not right for us to make up things in addition to what it tells us.


I don't think you'll be able to convince me of your position and at this point I don't think I'm going to convince you of mine so this may be an area we have to agree to disagree on, so, in order to facilitate some productive discussion heres an entertaining video you might enjoy if you want to see what the end stage of "progressive Christianity" looks like:

 

[Preacher ✝]

hat God made an except specifically for Noah and his immediate family,

I think you're misreading that verse. What its saying is that only Noah and his family were spared during the flood, all those other people before him died and were waiting in Hell.

Also every time you bring up those stupid German bishops I just picture this meme.



It's an intellectually dishonest argument. You don't see me pointing out all the horrible things protestants have done because we're debating theology not the quality of various individuals.

Spoiler: and this meme for all the back and forth on interpretations

Before I make a hypocrite of myself and start shitting up the thread. I want to ask this.

Do you regularly honor Christ's word in Luke 22:19? Do you, in some way, celebrate the Eucharist and the last supper?

It is often said that mankind fails to follow most of Christs commandments. All too often we do not love our neighbors or pray for our enemies, but one that is followed the most is the institution of the Eucharist.

And I'm not even getting into the gritty on transubstantiation. We can have that debate another time. My point here is you're routinely caught up on literal interpretation, and even in that view Christ is clear that we should break bread and/or drink wine in remembrance of him. So, do you?

 

[Derrick]

Also every time you bring up those stupid German bishops I just picture this meme.



It's an intellectually dishonest argument. You don't see me pointing out all the horrible things protestants have done because we're debating theology not the quality of various individuals.

I have only brought up the German Bishops (and the fact the Pope is in communion with them) to counter your argument that Catholicism is the 'true Religion' because everybody is in universal agreement. I try to avoid going against a Religion because it's teachers are engaged in bad activities, after all if you wanted to learn to play guitar and your instructor was an asshole would you just give up learning guitar or find a new instructor? If I wanted to go the route of attacking Catholicism on the basis of 'Catholic Bishops bad' I could much harder than just the German Bishops and start posting Chick Tracts. But again, I think your denomination should be judged by its teachings, not it's members. The sole exception is the Pope, since you view him as the 'Vicar of Christ'/God's appointed representative on Earth I am going to hold some of the bad things he does and teaches against Catholicism, like for example, if the Pope were to kiss a Quran, seemingly endorsing the message of a book which leads people away from Jesus than I would take offense.

You don't see me pointing out all the horrible things protestants have done because we're debating theology not the quality of various individuals.

While it would be a bit dishonest to attack a denomination because of the leaders (as I've pointed out above) it wouldn't really affect me too much as I don't belong to any protestant denominations (this being one of the reasons why)

I'm not asking you to take my interpretation (OK I pretty much am) instead I'm asking you to read the verses and judge them for yourself, which I think will lead you to the conclusion I have reached.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The sole exception is the Pope, since you view him as the 'Vicar of Christ'/God's appointed representative on Earth

I'm not going to weigh in on Francis because of Cannon Law 1373, but as I've pointed out before, if a bad pope was enough to bring down The Church it would have happened after Pope John XII


Also, you might have missed the last edit of my last post but I'm going to press you on whether you honor the Eucharist.

 

[Derrick]

I'm not going to weigh in on Francis

The Pope I spoke of who kissed the Quran was John Paul II, who was declared a saint by the Catholic Church after his death.

Do you regularly honor Christ's word in Luke 22:19? Do you, in some way, celebrate the Eucharist and the last supper?

Yes, I do.

And I'm not even getting into the gritty on transubstantiation

Somehow I have a feeling you're about to.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Pope I spoke of who kissed the Quran was John Paul II, who was declared a saint by the Catholic Church after his death.

Quite frankly I don't care. Here's a blog post about it. Read if you want.

Yes, I do.

In what way? (giving thanks before a meal doesnt count)

Somehow I have a feeling you're about to.

Nope I will refrain unless prompted.

 

[Derrick]

Quite frankly I don't care.

Fair enough, as long as you've made peace with it.

In what way? (giving thanks before a meal doesnt count)

Bread and wine, I am unaware of any denominations that do it any other way.

 

[Mnutu]

@Derrick
You repeatedly ignore the verses I’ve posted and cite the same three. Please explain to me how the verses I have cited point to your understanding.