------A response to this at the Romans 9 part ------
When God stated that he loved Jacob and hated Esau its old testament and if u read in Malachi 1:1 God is talking about nations not salvation of them....In Gen 25:21-23 is talking about two nations in her womb. What God did was because Esau gave up his birthright to Jacob God chose Jacob over Esau. When stated in Romans 9 it has absolutely nothing to do with their salvation. ------- And God does not hate people he hates sin--------
Dr. Fernandes wants you to accept his view that Calvinists are basically bending scripture to suit their theology so that "world" only means "the elect" (that "world" refers to the many whom God will save and not everyone in the whole world). But the view that the "world" means "the whole world" leads to universalism, which is not scriptural.
so now tulip makes God a repect of person, because all men sin then all men are able to come to Christ, 2 cor 5 19 romans 15 17 - end, God is no repected of person, they that come to Him He will in no wise cast them out ,
I don't need a Doctrite or special schooling to know calvanism is not Scriptural. John 3:16 alone refutes this theology. If calvanism was true Jesus would have never been able to say " Whosoever" believeth on Him shall not perish. Peter says in Acts 2 that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Paul says the same thing in Romans. We clearly have a choice to believe or not to believe.
John 3:16 doesn't refute this theology. Jesus didn't say "whosoever believeth" in the sense that you've understood it. A literal translation might not make for smooth English but it can be accurately rendered as, "every one believing". Jesus does not imply nor say anything here that contradicts John 6:37-45. Who comes except those whom the Father draws? Who according to Romans 3 truly seeks after God? You did not choose Him, He chose you.
Why do synergists (Arminians and others) constantly presume that:
1) An imperative mood of speech implies ability? An imperative is merely a command of what man 'ought to do', it does not imply what man has 'the ability to do'.
2) "Free will", and/or, "ability" are prerequisites for "responsibility". They most certainly are NOT! The ONLY prerequisite for responsibility is a Lawgiver (God), and His Law (eg., the Decalogue); and, if one will be required to give a response to the Lawgiver.
1) Because "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
2) Because "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." Of course, I think the above passage confirms that we will always know the good we ought to do.
@jak. 1) 1Cor.10:13 is an indicative statement, followed by an imperative (v.14): wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. So you have not addressed my first point. And you're confusing an indicative statement (v.13), with an imperative (v.14). Not only this, but Paul is writing to believers; not unbelievers.
2) I'll ask you this about Jas.4:17, is this an indicative, or an imperative statement?
To whom is James writing, believers, or, unbelievers?
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
Doctor fernadez nails it right on the head. God never said for some who believe will have eternal life it says "whoever" which means everyone. Great debate, but you cannot say Christ died for few He died for all mankind and gave us the choice to follow Him.
GOD bless the one holy Catholic and apostolic church, the church that Jesus himself established, both the eastern and the western Cathoilcs, thoe we are enstraned at this moment, GOD bless you for holding tradition. GOD bless you for keeping the bible safe, GOD bless you for all the Saints throughout the ages, GOD bless you, GOD bless you.
Also if I may be allowed to make a bit of a genetic argument Notice how the Calvinist blamed God for his vice of poor time management at the beginning of the debate. God as the author of sin and evil. So what do we do with the logical problem of evil?
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. Mark 14:10 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do also. Deuteronomy 15:17 So it is safe to say betraying and enslaving Christ is Biblical?
"he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." - Ephesians 1:4-5.
"God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18
I wish Dr. Fernandes would have explained Middle Knowledge clearer and in more depth for these Calvinist, because their objections didn't really apply.
The Trinity doctrine is not Sola Scriptura, it is a man reasoned interpretation of scripture. I'm a evangelical, but attacking the catholic church is a bit of a strawman. So what if the Catholic church is apostate as a whole you can not dismiss someones argument as a part of the catholic church. Quite frankly special revelation is a waste of time if determinism is true.
I have a philosophical work that I need to get uploaded that uses Alvin Plantinga's EAAN to show the problem of cognition in both darwinian evolution and this so called total depravity, uncleaness, inabilty to think etc. TULIP is an appeal to special groups and God does not reason that way.
Theological determinism and darwinian evolution have the same logical conclusions. Also the defense is the same, redefine, redefine, redefine. Natural Theology is scriptural also and it's end is contradictory to determinism. God is not the author of evil as calvinism implies.
The Debate seems to be clearly won by the Molinist Dr. Phil Fernandes, this due to the weight of criticism that were not rebutted by the Calvinist Chris Comis.
As a Philosopher i found it very odd that Mr Comis who has a BA in Philosophy did not engage with the philosophical points raised by Dr Fernandes.
I think the main issue, with interpretation, is that some christians dont consider reason an authority, they will sometimes say "God rises above Logic and reason"
Except that Calvinism has little to no support among the early church fathers, is logically inconsistent, takes scripture out of context, denies free will, makes God a tyrant, etc. I could go on and on but you get the point. Even if you could prove that Catholicism is not biblical or does not have doctrines believed by the early Christians, it would not demonstrate that Calvinism is not problematic or is biblical.
Assertions, assertions without any meat... Typical.
...my point in bringing up Catholicism was to point out that you are in absolutely NO position to judge those according to what is and isn't biblical without being a hypocrite.
Actually, it puts me in a perfect position to judge what is or what is not biblical due to the fact that Catholicism does not teach the man made doctrine of sola scriptura, and has 2000 years of tradition behind it. Your tradition has only 500 years behind it, but continues promote the same theological errors that was started by John Calvin. If someone believes in sola scriptura, then that person is in no position to judge what is or what is not biblical.
If you cannot properly discern what is and isn't truth - evident by you being Catholic, then you are in no position to tell others whether or not they correctly discern biblical truth.
Years of tradition do not determine who has truth. Like, seriously? And considering that the Catholic church has wielded a sword backed by an entire empire for most of that 2000 years - killing Christians, it's no doubt that Catholicism flourished for as long as it did.
1) Does not answer the question. Who gave YOU the authority to discern truth?
2) Let me make it clear. YOU'RE the one who made baseless accusations against the Catholic church. I gave you a general bullet point reasons as to why I reject Calvinism, and you responded with accusations of baseless assertions, when giving reasons why one rejects the unbiblical doctrines of Calvinism is not "baseless assertions", but giving reasons why one rejects them.
Jesus gave his followers, myself included, the authority to discern the truth of one's or a Christianity through their fruits, and the fruits of Catholicism are well bad.
"And considering that the Catholic church has wielded a sword backed by an entire empire for most of that 2000 years - killing Christians, it's no doubt that Catholicism flourished for as long as it did." This is not a baseless claim, it's backed up by history.
1) Oh really? How was it determined that Jesus gave YOU the authority? What if you're wrong? How do you determine if your private interpretation of scripture is correct?
2) More baseless accusations about the Catholicism. "This is not a baseless claim, it's backed up by history." Still a baseless accusation with no sources to back up your claim them. If it's backed up by history, provide a source. You have the burden of proof here.
1. This is just ridiculous. As 'followers of Christ' is an all encompassing term for, you guessed it, followers of Christ, being a follower of Christ, Christ gave me the authority to discern the truth of on'es or a Christianity through their fruits. If what the Catholic church teaches is anit-biblical, then it has BAD fruit, and is NOT Christian.
2. 'm not going to humour your childish mind and provide for you sources for what is so widely accepted, unless you deny its truth.
1) You are avoiding the question with a bad answer. "Christ gave me the authority." Then how do you determine by scripture alone what is true.
2) Now you're acting like an atheist, and it should be common sense. If what you're saying is "so widely accepted," then you should have absolutely no problem providing me with a source. Calling me "childish" is a childish insult and a copout. Again, would you like to provide me with a source? Until you do, I don't take you seriously.
1. We're not turning this into a philosophical discussion about truth. You either agree with the fact that Jesus gave his followers the authority to judge what is and isn't Christian, or you don't, but if you don't, then that's unbiblical
2. Do you deny that the Catholic church was backed by an entire empire for most of it's existence? Do you deny that it caused a lot of bloodshed as a result of being so powerful? If you do, then plainly say so, because I'm not playing your game.
1) I do not deny that Jesus gave his apostles authority, but it does not mean that he gave them the authority to interpret the word of God however the hell they want, hence why the need for the church as the end all, be all of theological interpretation. That's the consequence of sola scriptura, whether you like it or not.
2) There is no evidence that constantine "started" the catholic church, if that's what you mean.
1. "Hence why the need for the church as the end all, be all of theological discussion." Scriptural evidence needed ... what's more, said church has to be a church of God, which is not Catholicism. This is not the consequence of Sola Scriptura! There are whole churches devoted to reformed theology - I didn't even first learn reformed theology from Calvin, but from the church! The ramifications of a church that does not believe in Sola scriptura? see exhibit C - the Catholic Church.
2. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say - Constantine the Great implemented Catholicism as a state religion to keep the peace between paganism and Christianity, it was not the source of bloodshed.
"Constantine the Great implemented Catholicism as a state religion to keep the peace between paganism and Christianity, it was not the source of bloodshed."
Constantine legalized Christianity (which was Catholicism during that time) and had actually converted to Christianity. Your point is mute, and has no scholarly support.
Okay here are my general bullet point reasons as to why I reject the Catholic church: it has little to no Biblical support, it is logically inconsistent, takes scripture out of context, implies free will, makes God non-existent... I could go on and on, but you get the point... This wouldn't pass for you, so it does not pass for me.
My real reasons are:
Mary worship, deification of Mary, prayer to the Saints, transubstantiation, works theology, infallible Pope...
3) Without free will, Christianity is useless, and makes accountability to God meaningless.
4) "Mary worship." Catholics do not worship Mary. "Deification of Mary." Nope. "Prayer to the Saints." Intercession from the saints is not worshiping the saints. "Transubstantiation." The doctrine of the real presence of Christ was believed for 1400 years. It may not have been called Transubstantiation until later, but it was believed. It was not until the reformation that it was challenged.
3) Read the Bible. The Gospels don't only serve to convict and save, but to judge. The Bible/Christianity, is a means through which God reveals himself to the elect. No, it does not make accountability to God meaningless, as is evident with King Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Judas, etc. God revealed to Jeremiah that He would send KN to enslave Israel and then would STILL curse KN for - you guessed it, enslaving Israel. Jeremiah 25: 12-14
3) Interesting enough, I do read the Bible, except I don't read it through Calvin-colored glasses like you. And those verses have nothing to do with free will but God's judgement. That verse has of relevance toward the concept of free will, and yes, if we do not have free will, that verse would make God a tyrant because, according to Calvinism, God has predetermined everything, including evil, if you take it to its logical conclusion.
3. You said that "Without freewill, Christianity is useless and makes accountability to God meaningless." I provided you with Biblical instances when one did NOT have freewill and was STILL held accountable to God. So, it very much is relevant to your problem of accountability.
That God is a tyrant is not a logical conclusion of God predestining evil - which he did A NUMBER OF TIMES in the Bible, for which I provided examples!
1. Once again, the verses I provided you was not in support or against free will but solved for you the problem of accountability - which is what YOUR rejection was!
1) Except those verses alone don't support your case that we still have accountability if we have no free will. If free will does not exist, it only proves that those verses make God out to be a tyrant. It's like you're not willing to see what Calvinism is when taken to its logical conclusion.
3 continued) You are aware of Exodus, which I already pointed out to a while back, where God hardens Pharaoh's heart, yet punished him for - you guessed it - hardening his heart. Judas was prophesied to betray Jesus, and the Bible states that the whole crucifixion was predestined by God: Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28
That is a complete non-sequitor. Just because something is prophesied, it does not follow that free will is non-existent. And I do not deny that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that has nothing to do with wether or not we have free will. Complete non-sequitor.
1) Non-sequitor - "logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise." That's WHAT YOU DID!
2)"I said God's prophecy AS WELL AS PREDESTINATION makes freewill non-existent." Makes no difference. It still doesn't follow that it makes free-will non-existent.
"Being obedient, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race" CCC #494 If this is not deification, raising up Mary to the position only Christ holds, then I don't know what is ... but kudos on your refutations ... 'nope' I've got to try that some day. I never said that Catholics worshiped the saints, but that they pray to the saints, which is NOT BIBLICAL. Transub. is the belief that the bread and wine are Christs literal body and blood...
1) Nice job taking that paragraph out of context. I would recommend reading the entire chapter from CCC 484 to 511.
2) Not going to respond to your accusations that veneration of the saints is not biblical because you provide no argument.
3) Transubstantiation is the NAME that catholics give to the doctrine of the real presence, which does mean that the bread and win becomes the literal body and blood of christ.
1. Not interested, because I didn't take anything out of context. What I provided for you was a quote being used in support for the CCC494#, so if a context is misunderstood, then it is the fault of the Catechism, not mine. Also, you have a habit of sending people off on wild goose chases by crying CONTEXT, while DEMANDING that they bring you evidence, it's not going to fly in this discussion.
2. It is your job to provide support for the belief that praying is Biblical.
1) Now you're just being intellectually lazy. I told you go read the ENTIRE chapter in specific part of the catechism. If you're not going to do that, then you are intellectually lazy and are not interested in truth.
2) "It is your job to provide support for the belief that praying is Biblical." Huh? Praying isn't biblical? I guess praying to God isn't biblical! ;-)
1. I AM interested in truth, only this is the second time that you had the opportunity to inform me of the context and you refused, rather you sent me on a 'wild goose chase' to discover the context for myself?? Even after accusing me of not being able to correctly interpret scripture?
2. If anything is intellectually lazy, it's capitalizing on a mistake (and quite revealing, even more so). Either way - what I meant was 'praying to saints...' and my objection still stands!
1) I GAVE you the context (paragraphs 484 to 511 of the CCC). I asked you to look it up yourself because I'm not going to type an entire chapter in a 500 comment limit.
You don't have to type an entire chapter, just sum up the context! The only reason why I am asking you to do this is because what I provided could not be any more clear as to it's meaning! Mary, through obedience, became the cause of salvation ... that is what it states.
You may argue that God using her was the cause for salvation, but her obedience had NOTHING to do with God choosing her, so that is a wrong way of looking at it either way!
This does nothing to explain the quote I gave. The quote state that Mary, through obedience, became the source of salvation for herself as well as others. She was not chosen by God because of her Obedience to him - THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Mary did NOTHING to earn the gift of bringing Jesus into human existence. To assume she is in any way the source of salvation, equates her with the position only Jesus should hold.
I gave you the paragraphs, and I summarized the chapter the best I could. You now are obligated to check the context yourself! "To assume she is in any way the source of salvation, equates her with the position only Jesus should hold." Mary is considered the Mother of God, hence giving birth to the savior! Without Mary, we would not have Jesus. Plain and simple, so she deserves veneration. And no, veneration =/= worship. If you still think that, then you are willfully ignorant.
I'm not obligated to do anything ... Actually, I'll read the context when you manage to address every other claim against Catholicism, as only then will my efforts matter.
Mary is not the Mother of God - she is the Mother of God the Son incarnate. Without Mary, God would've chosen some other woman - there was nothing significant to Mary that could not be found in any other virgin during her time.
She doesn't deserve veneration, she didn't DO anything outside the efforts of God.
"I'm not obligated to do anything." Sure, but if you really were interested in learning (which is obvious that you are not), then you would go and read the chapter in context. Too many objections to address, honey. Let's start with one at a time. ;)
"Mary is not the Mother of God - she is the Mother of God the Son incarnate."
Is Jesus fully God, or only partly God? If he is fully God, than that makes Mary the mother of God, and because of that, she deserves veneration.
No, I'm not interested in learning what I already know. I am interested in you refuting the fact that the Catholic church, through attributing to Mary value of which she is not worthy, deifies her.
Jesus is fully God, but he is not the Holy Spirit, nor is he God the Father... If Mary is the Mother of God, then you say that she is Mother of all persons within the Trinity ...
@aveyowyns "I'm not interested in learning what I already know." Actually, you don't know anything, and it's willfully ignorant on your part to claim you know. You claim to understand Catholicism, but it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about (as evident by the fact that you refuse to actually read the Catechism IN CONTEXT), and when someone calls you out, you whine and tell the other person that they are ignorant. You did not refute anything.
Oh, you know that's all very nice - but like I said: I'll grant that Catholics do not worship Mary for exasperation's sake: That still leaves about six or seven other unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic church that you ASKED me to provide but still have not refuted.
"I'll grant that Catholics do not worship Mary for exasperation's sake"
If you still believe that Catholics worship, then you are willfully ignorant. Plain and simple. I would strongly recommend you stop listening to people like 1tmoch and fivepointbaptist.
Of course, a 500 comment limit would not be adequate in answering all objections to catholicism, and I have to get going, so my PM inbox is open if you have questions.
PM you? Pffftt you've wasted enough of my time dancing around one point which I granted because we were not getting anywhere, and another point where you failed to provide scriptural evidence for transub request after request. Yet, you tell me that after a day or so of going back and forth you couldn't find enough 'characters' to provide Biblical support for the things that I asked?
I think I've learned my lesson when it comes to you ... never again.
"Arrogance is your name" I'm not the only constantly claiming that Catholics worship Mary, despite being shown over and over again why you are WRONG, gave you the passages in the CCC I recommend looking up, and then bombarded me with objections to multiple doctrines that take more than 500 comment to address. "I'm not interested in learning what I already know." You said that, and you call me arrogant? LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if you were called the BionicDance of Calvinism. ;-)
@baldonebear 1.) Muslims, Buddhist and all no Catholics can be saved without Jesus. Catholic Catechism Part 1 Article 847."Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the "dictates of their conscience" - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
1.) Muslims, Buddhist and all no Catholics can be saved without Jesus. Catholic Catechism Part 1 Article 847."Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the "dictates of their conscience" - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
@Onetruthrgv So then you would condemm babies and younge children to hell? You would condemm those "through no fault of their own" never recieved the holy word? My GOD is just and fair, your god I do not know.
@gtepp031387 Sorry but sin is not allowed in heaven. There is scripture that does point to children and babies being saved. You must be new here....You need to learn why people go to hell in the first place. Sin absolutely cannot be allowed in heaven! There is a thing called the age of accountability and one you hit that age you have no pardon of sin since you do not have the gift of Christ salvation. Call it cruel if you want but assuming your an atheist its just all subjective opinions.
@Onetruthrgv So then why do children die if they have no sin, since Adam was made to live forever?... Do you not think everything is possible for GOD? Do you not think he is fair and just and will take into account those who "through no fault of there own"(say the tounge clicker tribe in Africa that has never heard of Christ) have not been given a fair chance? What of the people that do the will of the father without confessing in name that they are Christian? Again my GOD is just and fair.
@gtepp031387 Because they are humans and are able to die. Can god commit suicide? No he cannot. I suggest you look at the definition of omnipotence. Are you saying the Muslim God is the same God we worship? The same Muslims who deny your Eucharist, the same Eucharist that Catholics once claimed protestants are going to hell for denying? The Muslims deny God in the flesh died. NOBODY COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME! You worship a false Gospel if you actually believe this.
@Onetruthrgv But the only reason death has hold on us is sin, so again you are daming childen and babies?...This would impliy a GOD who was not fair nor just, so your god I do not know.....I believe that some muslems who "through no fault of there own" where brainwashed, and espeacially the muslem children and babies, will be able to achieve salvation somehow, becaues my GOD is fair and just. GOD will be judge the heart and ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR GOD.
@gtepp031387 Never did I say children don't have sin, They are pardoned according to the bible. Now are you calling the God of the bible immoral or a liar? "No body can come to the father but by me" "You shall have no God's before me" I am sorry but you are preaching a pagan doctrine of universalism. Unless you have scripture to back up the Roman catholic position then please don't reply. I am sorry to say this but you don't even know your own God if he is the God of the bible.
@Onetruthrgv Intresting, you said no sin can enter heaven, and you say children have sin and with this sin can enter heaven, sounds like your very confused...nope I am calling your burger king god immoral and a liar. As well as saying you have contridicted yourself already in our brief conversation....by the way GOD wills ALL MEN to be saved, this includes the muslems and Jews, so yes they are part of the plan for salvation. And your "bible" is not my bible, yours is a hertical mess.
@gtepp031387 They are excused of such things. "Isaiah 7:15" I don't know the process of their cleansing before they enter heaven but the scriptures do say that they will be saved according to David in 2nd Samuel when he is crying for his son, He is talking about how he will see his son again ect Again you have provided no scripture what so ever for you heretical position. I gave you several of them that say people without Jesus will not go to heaven.
@Onetruthrgv My GOD is JUST AND FAIR, do you want scripture for that? Then open up any book in the bible and read a few chapters I'm sure a verse will pop up. A god who condemns someone THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN is not just and fair, thus the god you confess I do not know. If your too hard headed and stone hearted to see that then I feel sry for you, and I feel ashamed that we share in the title Christian.
@gtepp031387 God killed job's children even though they technically did nothing..are you calling that unjust? God is the author of life and can take life as he very well pleases.
@Onetruthrgv humm, death of the flesh, is much different then eternal hell! I already died to the flesh in baptism, nothing wrong with the death of flesh...so your rather ridiculus ploy has failed, MY GOD IS JUST AND FAIR, YOUR god I DO NOT KNOW.
@gtepp031387 Ok then according to you the God of the bible is unfair, You are entitled to your opinion. Until you give scripture it is just your opinion.
@Onetruthrgv Nope, you burger king interpritaion of the GOD of the bible is unfair and unjust. The true GOD of the true bible, not the heretical mess you call a bible that has some much missing and mistranslated content it myswell be a quran, is just and fair. The true GOD that estabished the Catholic church in 33 A.D. is just and fair. "Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~St Ignatius 30-107 A.D. Student of John the apostles, and ordained bishop by Peter in Antioch, martyred in Rome
@gtepp031387 Why are you insulting the quran? The Catholics after all believe they worship the same god! Your catechism states "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." I am sorry to say but you believe in a false church.
@Onetruthrgv Nope, the plan of salvation includes all men, including muslems Jews and such, as "GOD wills all men to be saved"...The muslems have some truth that comes from the church, yes. So do protestants, but I do not support what they teach, nor do I support what you teach. There is no difference between the Muslems and you protestants in my eyes, you are both Christian schisms, I can pinpoint when they broke from the true church just as I can pinpoint when you brok from it.
@gtepp031387 I am sure God wills all men to be saved but then why does the bible say that not many people will be in heaven? I thought by your logic that means nobody should be in hell? Nobody comes to the father but through me! lol I am sorry you failed to prove your point. I have showed that you catholic church is the heretical new age teaching of Satan.
@Onetruthrgv q1) Did I say there would be many in Heaven?...It is my understanding that every protestant in the world says they are saved, the Catholic church believes a little differently.
q2) Don't no where on earth you got that from.
q3) You have proved nothing beside the fact that the god you confess is niether just nor fair.
@Onetruthrgv 1) You have part of the truth that comes from the church yes, but you are not in full communion, just like the Muslems. You should be happy the church has had mercy on you.
2) Your second question was "I thought by your logic that means nobody should be in hell?" I responed with don't know where you got that from, and you respond with John 14:6, you have lost me.
3) Anyone who would condem someone from "no fault of there own" is not just and fair, that is a fact not an opinion.
@gtepp031387 2.) Yes God does will all people be saved but that doesn't mean he made all people saved. Lets use your bad logic for a second. God doesn't want people to go to hell yet several times in the bible people did go to hell.
3.) I gave you scripture and you just said he lied. I see that I am not dealing with a christian but an occultist.
4.) You are committing a logical fallacy called Appeal to consequences. You have no foundation for your position.
" you say that she is Mother of all persons within the Trinity." Now I know you are willfully ignorant, because I saw KabanetheChristian addressed this TO YOU in the comment section of his latest video. No one says that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. That is absolutely absurd.
That is what the title imples, and it is through this title that allows for her to be worshiped, like the many other pagan goddess who had sons and was therefore called the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God - Ishtar, Isis, Ashera, etc.
Of course, considering that you deny free will, that shouldn't surprise me. And even I summarized the chapter the best I could, it would not surprise me whatever that you would not read the entire chapter in context and TRY TO UNDERSTAND what they are getting at, instead preferring to strawman Catholic doctrine because of your irrational dislike of Catholicism.
Gobbledygook... Biblically, prayer is understood to be a form of worship. If Catholics pray to Mary, then they worship her.
Let's grant, for exasperation's sake, that Mary is not worshiped by Catholics - that leaves the unbibilcal doctine of transub, works righteousness, calling priests fathers, pope infallibility, celibacy a necessity to be a priest, implementing a Kingdom on Earth...
2 continued) ... My point in listing 'prayer to the saints' was to RECEIVE Biblical justification for it.
3. Great to know - but this is unbiblical ... and detached from reality. If you were to regurgitate the bread and wine, it would still be - you guessed it - bread and wine.
"Great to know - but this is unbiblical ... and detached from reality. If you were to regurgitate the bread and wine, it would still be - you guessed it - bread and wine."
I find it ironic that many fundamentalists interpret literately, but when it comes to John 6, they interpret as metaphorically or symbolically, when the context makes it clear that Jesus meant it literately. The doctrine of the real presence was not question until the reformation. No one questioned it until then.
What you find ironic doesn't matter, nor does any other rhetoric you manage to type up... The Belief that only priests or above should own a Bible was accepted until the reformation, too - I guess said belief is still justified :|
Jesus said that he was the bread of life ... that did not mean that those listening could've taken a chomp out of his shin for lunch
"that did not mean that those listening could've taken a chomp out of his shin for lunch."
The real presence does not say that when disciples can physically eat his physical body when he was around (otherwise that would be cannibalism), but that during communion, the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ that is taken IN THE FORM OF BREAD AND WINE.
Why are you even addressing this? This was a rhetorical statement to YOUR rhetorical statement that fundamentalist take everything literally except for John 8.
Let me remind you that you're the one who 1) made baseless accusations against the Catholic church 2) refused to provide sources for your claims about the Catholic church and accused Catholics of falling astray from scripture. And you're telling ME to grow up? LOL
@aveyowyns "Baseless accusations against the Catholic Church that you STILL cannot refute" How am I suppose to refute something if you don't provide me with a source to back up your claims? If you don't have a source, then your claim is just hanging in the air.
This is just getting ridiculous. Provide biblical support for transub, works righteousness, calling priests fathers, pope infallibility, celibacy a necessity to be a priest, implementing a Kingdom on Earth...
You goof, this will not fly. Among the first comments of this discussion SIX HOURS AGO, I provided for you a list of things that have no doctrinal supported in Catholicism, which you refuted once, but then managed to sneakily turn your attention to just Mary - the only thing you could sufficiently defend, apparent that you could not defend the others by your inability to address them after a number of requests to do so!
@aveyowyns I can provide scriptural evidence for all of this quite easily actually. But what I am wondering is why I should have to provide specific evidence only for the Bible? Where exactly is that said in scripture? When in christian history has that ever been the sole manner of beliefs?
It doesn't take away from the fact that you used an ad hominem attack on what you could've possibly saw was evidence against transub. I will take that to mean that you have no refutation against the arguments JMcC.
Also, if the idea of bread and wine becoming the literal body and blood and Jesus is "detached from reality," then by that logic, that would also mean that walking on water, turning water into wine, and the resurrection are detached from reality, according to your logic.
According to my logic, the fact that we can regurgitate the last supper and expect to see bread and wine, not flesh and blood, transubstantiation is detached from reality.
People SAW Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine ... Thomas SAW the holes in Jesus wrists and feet. There is absolutely NO WAY to confirm the miracle outside of Catholic teachings.
Once again, you completely miss the point. When you are claiming that transubstantiation is "detached from reality," then you have to logical conclusion that other miracles performed by God are "detached from reality," regardless as to whether people SAW Jesus walking on water, the departing of the Red Sea, or any other type of miracle.
Goodness Gracious. Just because the Catholic church believes transubstantiation is true, it does not mean that I have to apply to it the same criteria of other miracles, ESPECIALLY because there is no way to confirm said miracles outside of the Catholic willy-nilly claims.
Realize, this is ONE out of the many claims I have made claims I have made against the Catholic church - just so you see the bigger picture and realize how harping on particulars is wasteful.
"ESPECIALLY because there is no way to confirm said miracles outside of the Catholic willy-nilly claims."
You can't confirm the miracles claimed by christianity as a whole, so this point is mute and irrelevant. And I already understand that this is ONE of the many claims you have made against the Catholic church, most of which do not hold up to scrutiny. I would strongly recommend you take off those calvin-glasses and actually read the Bible for what it is.
Yes, I can confirm the miracle claims of other Christians and Christ if they are EYE-WITNESS accounts of them. That is sufficient for me. Where is the evidence that supports the bread and blood TURNING into Christs body and blood when consumed?
"I would strongly recommend you take of those calvin-glasses and actually read the Bible for what it is."
What a load of crap - you, who has yet to provide as SINGLE scripture to support your claims, you who can't even defend most of the accusations?
"Yes, I can confirm the miracle claims of other Christians and Christ if they are EYE-WITNESS accounts of them." Special pleading. So in order for a miracle to accepted under your eyes, they must have eye-witness, yet even though transubstantiation is a miracle, you won't accept it. Special pleading.
Yes, exactly. Willy-nilly claims about what happens to the bread and wine of Christ by Catholics, when the claim can be so easily refuted - regurgitation, and when there is no scriptural evidence to support it, are not substantial.
Someone saying they saw the healing of the blind infinitely trumps: 'I believe that the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood - well, because I believe it.'
4 continued) ...so all that hodge-podge about the 'presence of Christ' is disingenuous. But once again, using time or the 'Tom did it so why can't I,' argument does not fly - even if it did, Catholicism dominated the Bible through force for most of its existence.
Completely misunderstands the Catholic understanding of justification. "infallible Pope." Papal Infallibility does not teach that the Pope himself can be wrong, but HIS TEACHINGS on faith and morals cannot be in error.
Oh Goodness me. "Completely misunderstands the Catholic understanding of justification," is not going to fly, not at all. According to the Council of Trent: If you say you are saved by grace through faith in Christ by scripture alone, and nothing else is needed, let him be anathema... So, no - I did not misunderstand anything.
It doesn't matter what infallible means, the belief that the Pope is infallible is NOT BIBLICAL!
...calling priests fathers, establishing a God's kingdom on earth, rosary, Pope as God's sole representitive, mediation of priests, calling priests fathers, celibacy, universalism, etc etc.
"..calling priests fathers." Read the rest of that verse, and also read it in context. "establishing a God's kingdom on earth." It's not an unbiblical concept. "rosary." That's a catholic practice, not a doctrine, and it's not required to practice as a catholic. "mediation of priests." watch?v=imxs0N-_7p0 "Calling priests fathers." You already said this. "celibacy." celibacy is discipline, and it's not an unbiblical concept. "Universalism." The church does not teach universalism.
Yes, establishing God's kingdom on Earth is an unbiblical concept: "My Kingdom is not of this world" - from the lamb's mouth, himself.
The Rosary is not a Catholic practice, it's a pagan practice - Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus use prayer beads.
Celibacy is discipline when one is not married. It is forbidden by the Catholic church for a priest to get married. The Bible says that the Prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
When the Pope was asked how many ways there were to heaven, the Pope responded with: as many as there are people... You say that the Pope cannot err relative to his teachings on faith and morals - well, then you have to accept this!
I'm still waiting for the objection to these Catholics beliefs: implementing a Kingdom on Earth, required celibacy to be a priest, works theology, and Pope infallibility
I've proved to you that much of what Catholics believe goes against scripture, therefore, the early church could not have believed them, unless you then claim that they went against scripture.
@aveyowyns Oh miss philosophy I a bit not impressed by your philosophies. Many Catholics talks and give respect to dogs even they bark on them. But I say chu chu to them. When you niggas Learn.... (Awesome song)
So what did Christians do for the first few hundred years of Christianity? We do not see a full list of the canon of the bible till the council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I.
I have no idea what this is in reference to: but the early Christians had the Gospels, which is all that's necessary to be Christian. They probably also had the letters of Paul floating around.
Comment removed
Satarack 2 months ago
Comment removed
Satarack 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
------A response to this at the Romans 9 part ------
When God stated that he loved Jacob and hated Esau its old testament and if u read in Malachi 1:1 God is talking about nations not salvation of them....In Gen 25:21-23 is talking about two nations in her womb. What God did was because Esau gave up his birthright to Jacob God chose Jacob over Esau. When stated in Romans 9 it has absolutely nothing to do with their salvation. ------- And God does not hate people he hates sin--------
dustinp206 2 months ago
Thanks Dr Fernandes you torn up that calvanist like lettuce in a shredder never stood a chance.
dustinp206 2 months ago
Dr. Fernandes wants you to accept his view that Calvinists are basically bending scripture to suit their theology so that "world" only means "the elect" (that "world" refers to the many whom God will save and not everyone in the whole world). But the view that the "world" means "the whole world" leads to universalism, which is not scriptural.
Keruaran 3 months ago
so now tulip makes God a repect of person, because all men sin then all men are able to come to Christ, 2 cor 5 19 romans 15 17 - end, God is no repected of person, they that come to Him He will in no wise cast them out ,
blessedwithoutmeasur 4 months ago
I don't need a Doctrite or special schooling to know calvanism is not Scriptural. John 3:16 alone refutes this theology. If calvanism was true Jesus would have never been able to say " Whosoever" believeth on Him shall not perish. Peter says in Acts 2 that " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved. Paul says the same thing in Romans. We clearly have a choice to believe or not to believe.
jlwohio 5 months ago
@jlwohio That said it all, it is so true, 2cor 5:19 amen amen amen
blessedwithoutmeasur 4 months ago
@jlwohio
John 3:16 doesn't refute this theology. Jesus didn't say "whosoever believeth" in the sense that you've understood it. A literal translation might not make for smooth English but it can be accurately rendered as, "every one believing". Jesus does not imply nor say anything here that contradicts John 6:37-45. Who comes except those whom the Father draws? Who according to Romans 3 truly seeks after God? You did not choose Him, He chose you.
Keruaran 3 months ago
Why do synergists (Arminians and others) constantly presume that:
1) An imperative mood of speech implies ability? An imperative is merely a command of what man 'ought to do', it does not imply what man has 'the ability to do'.
2) "Free will", and/or, "ability" are prerequisites for "responsibility". They most certainly are NOT! The ONLY prerequisite for responsibility is a Lawgiver (God), and His Law (eg., the Decalogue); and, if one will be required to give a response to the Lawgiver.
rkg62976 6 months ago
@rkg62976
1) Because "No temptation has overtaken you except what is common to mankind. And God is faithful; he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it."
2) Because "If anyone, then, knows the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, it is sin for them." Of course, I think the above passage confirms that we will always know the good we ought to do.
jakreidler 6 months ago
@jak. 1) 1Cor.10:13 is an indicative statement, followed by an imperative (v.14): wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry. So you have not addressed my first point. And you're confusing an indicative statement (v.13), with an imperative (v.14). Not only this, but Paul is writing to believers; not unbelievers.
2) I'll ask you this about Jas.4:17, is this an indicative, or an imperative statement?
To whom is James writing, believers, or, unbelievers?
Exegesis, my friend.
rkg62976 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
To ARMINIANS -Romans 11:32 "for God has shut up all to unbelief, that he might have mercy on all".
To CALVINISTS -1 Timothy 4:10"for for this we both labour and are reproached, because we hope on the living God, who is Saviour of ALL MEN ESPECIALLY y of those believing."
DOUBTERS I Cor. 15:23-28"But every man in his own order:..For He must reign until He has put all enemies under His feet..last enemy...destroyed is DEATH... Son also Himself be subject unto Him..that God may be ALL IN ALL"
motibi 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Doctor fernadez nails it right on the head. God never said for some who believe will have eternal life it says "whoever" which means everyone. Great debate, but you cannot say Christ died for few He died for all mankind and gave us the choice to follow Him.
mikeeofriel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Thanks rfvidz!
SupremeHero777 8 months ago
Calvinism have nothing to do with the first christianity
newtochrist 8 months ago
GOD bless the one holy Catholic and apostolic church, the church that Jesus himself established, both the eastern and the western Cathoilcs, thoe we are enstraned at this moment, GOD bless you for holding tradition. GOD bless you for keeping the bible safe, GOD bless you for all the Saints throughout the ages, GOD bless you, GOD bless you.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@gtepp031387
Amen!!! ^_^
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
Also if I may be allowed to make a bit of a genetic argument Notice how the Calvinist blamed God for his vice of poor time management at the beginning of the debate. God as the author of sin and evil. So what do we do with the logical problem of evil?
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them. Mark 14:10 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do also. Deuteronomy 15:17 So it is safe to say betraying and enslaving Christ is Biblical?
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
"he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves." - Ephesians 1:4-5.
"God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Romans 9:18
Predestination is obviously Biblical.
Antisyncretism 8 months ago
Good call K, I was hoping for some middle knowledge or God's timelessness arguments.
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
I wish Dr. Fernandes would have explained Middle Knowledge clearer and in more depth for these Calvinist, because their objections didn't really apply.
KBrimstone 8 months ago
The Trinity doctrine is not Sola Scriptura, it is a man reasoned interpretation of scripture. I'm a evangelical, but attacking the catholic church is a bit of a strawman. So what if the Catholic church is apostate as a whole you can not dismiss someones argument as a part of the catholic church. Quite frankly special revelation is a waste of time if determinism is true.
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
I have a philosophical work that I need to get uploaded that uses Alvin Plantinga's EAAN to show the problem of cognition in both darwinian evolution and this so called total depravity, uncleaness, inabilty to think etc. TULIP is an appeal to special groups and God does not reason that way.
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
Theological determinism and darwinian evolution have the same logical conclusions. Also the defense is the same, redefine, redefine, redefine. Natural Theology is scriptural also and it's end is contradictory to determinism. God is not the author of evil as calvinism implies.
MereChristianLogic 8 months ago
The Debate seems to be clearly won by the Molinist Dr. Phil Fernandes, this due to the weight of criticism that were not rebutted by the Calvinist Chris Comis.
As a Philosopher i found it very odd that Mr Comis who has a BA in Philosophy did not engage with the philosophical points raised by Dr Fernandes.
I think the main issue, with interpretation, is that some christians dont consider reason an authority, they will sometimes say "God rises above Logic and reason"
TheDutchPhilosopher 8 months ago
"Are the Five Points of Calvinism biblical?"
No.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago 13
@thunderbolt94
Is Catholicism biblical?
No.
It looks like you and the Calvinist are in the same boat then ... something about the log and speck would be fitting here.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Except that Calvinism has little to no support among the early church fathers, is logically inconsistent, takes scripture out of context, denies free will, makes God a tyrant, etc. I could go on and on but you get the point. Even if you could prove that Catholicism is not biblical or does not have doctrines believed by the early Christians, it would not demonstrate that Calvinism is not problematic or is biblical.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Assertions, assertions without any meat... Typical.
...my point in bringing up Catholicism was to point out that you are in absolutely NO position to judge those according to what is and isn't biblical without being a hypocrite.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Actually, it puts me in a perfect position to judge what is or what is not biblical due to the fact that Catholicism does not teach the man made doctrine of sola scriptura, and has 2000 years of tradition behind it. Your tradition has only 500 years behind it, but continues promote the same theological errors that was started by John Calvin. If someone believes in sola scriptura, then that person is in no position to judge what is or what is not biblical.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
If you cannot properly discern what is and isn't truth - evident by you being Catholic, then you are in no position to tell others whether or not they correctly discern biblical truth.
Years of tradition do not determine who has truth. Like, seriously? And considering that the Catholic church has wielded a sword backed by an entire empire for most of that 2000 years - killing Christians, it's no doubt that Catholicism flourished for as long as it did.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"you cannot properly discern what is and isn't truth"
Who gave you the authority to determine who can or can't determine what is or what isn't truth?
Baseless accusations against the Catholic church don't get you anywhere with me.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Jesus did: "You shall know them by their fruits."
Baseless accusations against Calvinistic/reformed theology don't get you anywhere - with anyone.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) Does not answer the question. Who gave YOU the authority to discern truth?
2) Let me make it clear. YOU'RE the one who made baseless accusations against the Catholic church. I gave you a general bullet point reasons as to why I reject Calvinism, and you responded with accusations of baseless assertions, when giving reasons why one rejects the unbiblical doctrines of Calvinism is not "baseless assertions", but giving reasons why one rejects them.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Jesus gave his followers, myself included, the authority to discern the truth of one's or a Christianity through their fruits, and the fruits of Catholicism are well bad.
"And considering that the Catholic church has wielded a sword backed by an entire empire for most of that 2000 years - killing Christians, it's no doubt that Catholicism flourished for as long as it did." This is not a baseless claim, it's backed up by history.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) Oh really? How was it determined that Jesus gave YOU the authority? What if you're wrong? How do you determine if your private interpretation of scripture is correct?
2) More baseless accusations about the Catholicism. "This is not a baseless claim, it's backed up by history." Still a baseless accusation with no sources to back up your claim them. If it's backed up by history, provide a source. You have the burden of proof here.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
1. This is just ridiculous. As 'followers of Christ' is an all encompassing term for, you guessed it, followers of Christ, being a follower of Christ, Christ gave me the authority to discern the truth of on'es or a Christianity through their fruits. If what the Catholic church teaches is anit-biblical, then it has BAD fruit, and is NOT Christian.
2. 'm not going to humour your childish mind and provide for you sources for what is so widely accepted, unless you deny its truth.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) You are avoiding the question with a bad answer. "Christ gave me the authority." Then how do you determine by scripture alone what is true.
2) Now you're acting like an atheist, and it should be common sense. If what you're saying is "so widely accepted," then you should have absolutely no problem providing me with a source. Calling me "childish" is a childish insult and a copout. Again, would you like to provide me with a source? Until you do, I don't take you seriously.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@TB94
1. We're not turning this into a philosophical discussion about truth. You either agree with the fact that Jesus gave his followers the authority to judge what is and isn't Christian, or you don't, but if you don't, then that's unbiblical
2. Do you deny that the Catholic church was backed by an entire empire for most of it's existence? Do you deny that it caused a lot of bloodshed as a result of being so powerful? If you do, then plainly say so, because I'm not playing your game.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) I do not deny that Jesus gave his apostles authority, but it does not mean that he gave them the authority to interpret the word of God however the hell they want, hence why the need for the church as the end all, be all of theological interpretation. That's the consequence of sola scriptura, whether you like it or not.
2) There is no evidence that constantine "started" the catholic church, if that's what you mean.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@TB94
1. "Hence why the need for the church as the end all, be all of theological discussion." Scriptural evidence needed ... what's more, said church has to be a church of God, which is not Catholicism. This is not the consequence of Sola Scriptura! There are whole churches devoted to reformed theology - I didn't even first learn reformed theology from Calvin, but from the church! The ramifications of a church that does not believe in Sola scriptura? see exhibit C - the Catholic Church.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"- I didn't even first learn reformed theology from Calvin, but from the church!"
Thank you for contradicting yourself and proving my point! ;-)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
2. I say what I mean, and I mean what I say - Constantine the Great implemented Catholicism as a state religion to keep the peace between paganism and Christianity, it was not the source of bloodshed.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"Constantine the Great implemented Catholicism as a state religion to keep the peace between paganism and Christianity, it was not the source of bloodshed."
Constantine legalized Christianity (which was Catholicism during that time) and had actually converted to Christianity. Your point is mute, and has no scholarly support.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94 The Jac she is a nigga and a philosophy student, its useless to throw pearls of wisdom to dogs and pigs.
She will not listen or give you respect which you deserve.
eraser695 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Jesus gave his authority, his keys, to Peter, not to all of his followers. How do you assume such a claim to the keys?
TheChurchAuthentic 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Okay here are my general bullet point reasons as to why I reject the Catholic church: it has little to no Biblical support, it is logically inconsistent, takes scripture out of context, implies free will, makes God non-existent... I could go on and on, but you get the point... This wouldn't pass for you, so it does not pass for me.
My real reasons are:
Mary worship, deification of Mary, prayer to the Saints, transubstantiation, works theology, infallible Pope...
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
3) Without free will, Christianity is useless, and makes accountability to God meaningless.
4) "Mary worship." Catholics do not worship Mary. "Deification of Mary." Nope. "Prayer to the Saints." Intercession from the saints is not worshiping the saints. "Transubstantiation." The doctrine of the real presence of Christ was believed for 1400 years. It may not have been called Transubstantiation until later, but it was believed. It was not until the reformation that it was challenged.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
3) Read the Bible. The Gospels don't only serve to convict and save, but to judge. The Bible/Christianity, is a means through which God reveals himself to the elect. No, it does not make accountability to God meaningless, as is evident with King Nebuchadnezzar, Pharaoh, and Judas, etc. God revealed to Jeremiah that He would send KN to enslave Israel and then would STILL curse KN for - you guessed it, enslaving Israel. Jeremiah 25: 12-14
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
3) Interesting enough, I do read the Bible, except I don't read it through Calvin-colored glasses like you. And those verses have nothing to do with free will but God's judgement. That verse has of relevance toward the concept of free will, and yes, if we do not have free will, that verse would make God a tyrant because, according to Calvinism, God has predetermined everything, including evil, if you take it to its logical conclusion.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
*no relevance toward the concept of free will.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
3. You said that "Without freewill, Christianity is useless and makes accountability to God meaningless." I provided you with Biblical instances when one did NOT have freewill and was STILL held accountable to God. So, it very much is relevant to your problem of accountability.
That God is a tyrant is not a logical conclusion of God predestining evil - which he did A NUMBER OF TIMES in the Bible, for which I provided examples!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) the verse you provided me had NOTHING to do with free will, but about God's sovereignty, so verses do not support your argument. Irrelevant point.
2) Did you just admit that God predestined evil?
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
1. Once again, the verses I provided you was not in support or against free will but solved for you the problem of accountability - which is what YOUR rejection was!
2. I don't need to repeat myself.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) Except those verses alone don't support your case that we still have accountability if we have no free will. If free will does not exist, it only proves that those verses make God out to be a tyrant. It's like you're not willing to see what Calvinism is when taken to its logical conclusion.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
3 continued) You are aware of Exodus, which I already pointed out to a while back, where God hardens Pharaoh's heart, yet punished him for - you guessed it - hardening his heart. Judas was prophesied to betray Jesus, and the Bible states that the whole crucifixion was predestined by God: Acts 2:22-23, 4:27-28
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
That is a complete non-sequitor. Just because something is prophesied, it does not follow that free will is non-existent. And I do not deny that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that has nothing to do with wether or not we have free will. Complete non-sequitor.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
You don't know a non-sequitor when you see one ... or use one rather ( Catholicism ... has 2000 years of tradition behind it).
God hardening pharaoh's heart has everything to do with your problem of accountability.
I did not say that prophecy makes freewill non-existent, I said God's prophecy AS WELL AS PREDESTINATION makes freewill non-existent.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) Non-sequitor - "logical fallacy where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise." That's WHAT YOU DID!
2)"I said God's prophecy AS WELL AS PREDESTINATION makes freewill non-existent." Makes no difference. It still doesn't follow that it makes free-will non-existent.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
"Being obedient, she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race" CCC #494 If this is not deification, raising up Mary to the position only Christ holds, then I don't know what is ... but kudos on your refutations ... 'nope' I've got to try that some day. I never said that Catholics worshiped the saints, but that they pray to the saints, which is NOT BIBLICAL. Transub. is the belief that the bread and wine are Christs literal body and blood...
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) Nice job taking that paragraph out of context. I would recommend reading the entire chapter from CCC 484 to 511.
2) Not going to respond to your accusations that veneration of the saints is not biblical because you provide no argument.
3) Transubstantiation is the NAME that catholics give to the doctrine of the real presence, which does mean that the bread and win becomes the literal body and blood of christ.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
1. Not interested, because I didn't take anything out of context. What I provided for you was a quote being used in support for the CCC494#, so if a context is misunderstood, then it is the fault of the Catechism, not mine. Also, you have a habit of sending people off on wild goose chases by crying CONTEXT, while DEMANDING that they bring you evidence, it's not going to fly in this discussion.
2. It is your job to provide support for the belief that praying is Biblical.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
1) Now you're just being intellectually lazy. I told you go read the ENTIRE chapter in specific part of the catechism. If you're not going to do that, then you are intellectually lazy and are not interested in truth.
2) "It is your job to provide support for the belief that praying is Biblical." Huh? Praying isn't biblical? I guess praying to God isn't biblical! ;-)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
1. I AM interested in truth, only this is the second time that you had the opportunity to inform me of the context and you refused, rather you sent me on a 'wild goose chase' to discover the context for myself?? Even after accusing me of not being able to correctly interpret scripture?
2. If anything is intellectually lazy, it's capitalizing on a mistake (and quite revealing, even more so). Either way - what I meant was 'praying to saints...' and my objection still stands!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
1) I GAVE you the context (paragraphs 484 to 511 of the CCC). I asked you to look it up yourself because I'm not going to type an entire chapter in a 500 comment limit.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
You don't have to type an entire chapter, just sum up the context! The only reason why I am asking you to do this is because what I provided could not be any more clear as to it's meaning! Mary, through obedience, became the cause of salvation ... that is what it states.
You may argue that God using her was the cause for salvation, but her obedience had NOTHING to do with God choosing her, so that is a wrong way of looking at it either way!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
In other words, you're too intellectually lazy to look up the context. Very well then, I'll give you a brief summary.
1) Jesus is conceived by the HS.
2) The immaculate conception
3) Goes into how Mary is the mother of God (Theo-tokos)
4)Mary's virginity
5) Mary's virginal mother in God's plan
In brief, she became the new Eve, the mother of the living BECAUSE she became the one who gave birth to Jesus. I would recommend reading it yourself.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
*whoops, I meant Mary as the virginal mother in God's plan.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
This does nothing to explain the quote I gave. The quote state that Mary, through obedience, became the source of salvation for herself as well as others. She was not chosen by God because of her Obedience to him - THAT is the point I'm trying to make. Mary did NOTHING to earn the gift of bringing Jesus into human existence. To assume she is in any way the source of salvation, equates her with the position only Jesus should hold.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
I gave you the paragraphs, and I summarized the chapter the best I could. You now are obligated to check the context yourself! "To assume she is in any way the source of salvation, equates her with the position only Jesus should hold." Mary is considered the Mother of God, hence giving birth to the savior! Without Mary, we would not have Jesus. Plain and simple, so she deserves veneration. And no, veneration =/= worship. If you still think that, then you are willfully ignorant.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
I'm not obligated to do anything ... Actually, I'll read the context when you manage to address every other claim against Catholicism, as only then will my efforts matter.
Mary is not the Mother of God - she is the Mother of God the Son incarnate. Without Mary, God would've chosen some other woman - there was nothing significant to Mary that could not be found in any other virgin during her time.
She doesn't deserve veneration, she didn't DO anything outside the efforts of God.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"I'm not obligated to do anything." Sure, but if you really were interested in learning (which is obvious that you are not), then you would go and read the chapter in context. Too many objections to address, honey. Let's start with one at a time. ;)
"Mary is not the Mother of God - she is the Mother of God the Son incarnate."
Is Jesus fully God, or only partly God? If he is fully God, than that makes Mary the mother of God, and because of that, she deserves veneration.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
No, I'm not interested in learning what I already know. I am interested in you refuting the fact that the Catholic church, through attributing to Mary value of which she is not worthy, deifies her.
Jesus is fully God, but he is not the Holy Spirit, nor is he God the Father... If Mary is the Mother of God, then you say that she is Mother of all persons within the Trinity ...
...but I digress.
Refute the other points.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns "I'm not interested in learning what I already know." Actually, you don't know anything, and it's willfully ignorant on your part to claim you know. You claim to understand Catholicism, but it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about (as evident by the fact that you refuse to actually read the Catechism IN CONTEXT), and when someone calls you out, you whine and tell the other person that they are ignorant. You did not refute anything.
(cont)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Oh, you know that's all very nice - but like I said: I'll grant that Catholics do not worship Mary for exasperation's sake: That still leaves about six or seven other unbiblical doctrines of the Catholic church that you ASKED me to provide but still have not refuted.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"I'll grant that Catholics do not worship Mary for exasperation's sake"
If you still believe that Catholics worship, then you are willfully ignorant. Plain and simple. I would strongly recommend you stop listening to people like 1tmoch and fivepointbaptist.
Of course, a 500 comment limit would not be adequate in answering all objections to catholicism, and I have to get going, so my PM inbox is open if you have questions.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
"If I have questions?' Arrogance is your name
PM you? Pffftt you've wasted enough of my time dancing around one point which I granted because we were not getting anywhere, and another point where you failed to provide scriptural evidence for transub request after request. Yet, you tell me that after a day or so of going back and forth you couldn't find enough 'characters' to provide Biblical support for the things that I asked?
I think I've learned my lesson when it comes to you ... never again.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"Arrogance is your name" I'm not the only constantly claiming that Catholics worship Mary, despite being shown over and over again why you are WRONG, gave you the passages in the CCC I recommend looking up, and then bombarded me with objections to multiple doctrines that take more than 500 comment to address. "I'm not interested in learning what I already know." You said that, and you call me arrogant? LOL. I wouldn't be surprised if you were called the BionicDance of Calvinism. ;-)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@aveyowyns What do you wish evidence for, if it is a Catholic teaching, I can provide it.
gtepp031387 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Please name 3 unbiblical doctrines in the CC.
I also ask that you share your brand of Protestantism.
baldonebear 8 months ago
@baldonebear 1.) Muslims, Buddhist and all no Catholics can be saved without Jesus. Catholic Catechism Part 1 Article 847."Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the "dictates of their conscience" - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
Find that in the bible for me please
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@baldonebear That one thing alone refutes your church.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv
What one thing? Be specific?
baldonebear 7 months ago
@baldonebear did you not read what I posted?
1.) Muslims, Buddhist and all no Catholics can be saved without Jesus. Catholic Catechism Part 1 Article 847."Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the "dictates of their conscience" - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"
Find that in the bible for me please
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv So then you would condemm babies and younge children to hell? You would condemm those "through no fault of their own" never recieved the holy word? My GOD is just and fair, your god I do not know.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 Sorry but sin is not allowed in heaven. There is scripture that does point to children and babies being saved. You must be new here....You need to learn why people go to hell in the first place. Sin absolutely cannot be allowed in heaven! There is a thing called the age of accountability and one you hit that age you have no pardon of sin since you do not have the gift of Christ salvation. Call it cruel if you want but assuming your an atheist its just all subjective opinions.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
Comment removed
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv So then why do children die if they have no sin, since Adam was made to live forever?... Do you not think everything is possible for GOD? Do you not think he is fair and just and will take into account those who "through no fault of there own"(say the tounge clicker tribe in Africa that has never heard of Christ) have not been given a fair chance? What of the people that do the will of the father without confessing in name that they are Christian? Again my GOD is just and fair.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 Because they are humans and are able to die. Can god commit suicide? No he cannot. I suggest you look at the definition of omnipotence. Are you saying the Muslim God is the same God we worship? The same Muslims who deny your Eucharist, the same Eucharist that Catholics once claimed protestants are going to hell for denying? The Muslims deny God in the flesh died. NOBODY COMES TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME! You worship a false Gospel if you actually believe this.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv But the only reason death has hold on us is sin, so again you are daming childen and babies?...This would impliy a GOD who was not fair nor just, so your god I do not know.....I believe that some muslems who "through no fault of there own" where brainwashed, and espeacially the muslem children and babies, will be able to achieve salvation somehow, becaues my GOD is fair and just. GOD will be judge the heart and ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE FOR GOD.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 Never did I say children don't have sin, They are pardoned according to the bible. Now are you calling the God of the bible immoral or a liar? "No body can come to the father but by me" "You shall have no God's before me" I am sorry but you are preaching a pagan doctrine of universalism. Unless you have scripture to back up the Roman catholic position then please don't reply. I am sorry to say this but you don't even know your own God if he is the God of the bible.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Intresting, you said no sin can enter heaven, and you say children have sin and with this sin can enter heaven, sounds like your very confused...nope I am calling your burger king god immoral and a liar. As well as saying you have contridicted yourself already in our brief conversation....by the way GOD wills ALL MEN to be saved, this includes the muslems and Jews, so yes they are part of the plan for salvation. And your "bible" is not my bible, yours is a hertical mess.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 They are excused of such things. "Isaiah 7:15" I don't know the process of their cleansing before they enter heaven but the scriptures do say that they will be saved according to David in 2nd Samuel when he is crying for his son, He is talking about how he will see his son again ect Again you have provided no scripture what so ever for you heretical position. I gave you several of them that say people without Jesus will not go to heaven.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv My GOD is JUST AND FAIR, do you want scripture for that? Then open up any book in the bible and read a few chapters I'm sure a verse will pop up. A god who condemns someone THROUGH NO FAULT OF THIER OWN is not just and fair, thus the god you confess I do not know. If your too hard headed and stone hearted to see that then I feel sry for you, and I feel ashamed that we share in the title Christian.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 God killed job's children even though they technically did nothing..are you calling that unjust? God is the author of life and can take life as he very well pleases.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv humm, death of the flesh, is much different then eternal hell! I already died to the flesh in baptism, nothing wrong with the death of flesh...so your rather ridiculus ploy has failed, MY GOD IS JUST AND FAIR, YOUR god I DO NOT KNOW.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 Ok then according to you the God of the bible is unfair, You are entitled to your opinion. Until you give scripture it is just your opinion.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Nope, you burger king interpritaion of the GOD of the bible is unfair and unjust. The true GOD of the true bible, not the heretical mess you call a bible that has some much missing and mistranslated content it myswell be a quran, is just and fair. The true GOD that estabished the Catholic church in 33 A.D. is just and fair. "Wherever Jesus is there is the Catholic church" ~St Ignatius 30-107 A.D. Student of John the apostles, and ordained bishop by Peter in Antioch, martyred in Rome
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 Why are you insulting the quran? The Catholics after all believe they worship the same god! Your catechism states "The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." I am sorry to say but you believe in a false church.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv Nope, the plan of salvation includes all men, including muslems Jews and such, as "GOD wills all men to be saved"...The muslems have some truth that comes from the church, yes. So do protestants, but I do not support what they teach, nor do I support what you teach. There is no difference between the Muslems and you protestants in my eyes, you are both Christian schisms, I can pinpoint when they broke from the true church just as I can pinpoint when you brok from it.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gtepp031387 I am sure God wills all men to be saved but then why does the bible say that not many people will be in heaven? I thought by your logic that means nobody should be in hell? Nobody comes to the father but through me! lol I am sorry you failed to prove your point. I have showed that you catholic church is the heretical new age teaching of Satan.
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@Onetruthrgv q1) Did I say there would be many in Heaven?...It is my understanding that every protestant in the world says they are saved, the Catholic church believes a little differently.
q2) Don't no where on earth you got that from.
q3) You have proved nothing beside the fact that the god you confess is niether just nor fair.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 1.) Actually Vatican II says we are now brothers in Christ but we are merely disconnected from the "True Church"
2.) John 14:6
3.) Okay that is your opinion and you are entitled to it
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Onetruthrgv 1) You have part of the truth that comes from the church yes, but you are not in full communion, just like the Muslems. You should be happy the church has had mercy on you.
2) Your second question was "I thought by your logic that means nobody should be in hell?" I responed with don't know where you got that from, and you respond with John 14:6, you have lost me.
3) Anyone who would condem someone from "no fault of there own" is not just and fair, that is a fact not an opinion.
gtepp031387 7 months ago
@gtepp031387 2.) Yes God does will all people be saved but that doesn't mean he made all people saved. Lets use your bad logic for a second. God doesn't want people to go to hell yet several times in the bible people did go to hell.
3.) I gave you scripture and you just said he lied. I see that I am not dealing with a christian but an occultist.
4.) You are committing a logical fallacy called Appeal to consequences. You have no foundation for your position.
I am still waiting for scripture!
Onetruthrgv 7 months ago
@aveyowyns
" you say that she is Mother of all persons within the Trinity." Now I know you are willfully ignorant, because I saw KabanetheChristian addressed this TO YOU in the comment section of his latest video. No one says that Mary is the mother of the Trinity. That is absolutely absurd.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
That is what the title imples, and it is through this title that allows for her to be worshiped, like the many other pagan goddess who had sons and was therefore called the Queen of Heaven and Mother of God - Ishtar, Isis, Ashera, etc.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"That is what the title imples"
Having a specific title does not make something implicated. Again, your argument is ridiculous, and based on shoddy reasoning.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Of course, considering that you deny free will, that shouldn't surprise me. And even I summarized the chapter the best I could, it would not surprise me whatever that you would not read the entire chapter in context and TRY TO UNDERSTAND what they are getting at, instead preferring to strawman Catholic doctrine because of your irrational dislike of Catholicism.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Gobbledygook... Biblically, prayer is understood to be a form of worship. If Catholics pray to Mary, then they worship her.
Let's grant, for exasperation's sake, that Mary is not worshiped by Catholics - that leaves the unbibilcal doctine of transub, works righteousness, calling priests fathers, pope infallibility, celibacy a necessity to be a priest, implementing a Kingdom on Earth...
The CC is overwhelmingly far gone from scripture.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@TB94
2 continued) ... My point in listing 'prayer to the saints' was to RECEIVE Biblical justification for it.
3. Great to know - but this is unbiblical ... and detached from reality. If you were to regurgitate the bread and wine, it would still be - you guessed it - bread and wine.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"Great to know - but this is unbiblical ... and detached from reality. If you were to regurgitate the bread and wine, it would still be - you guessed it - bread and wine."
I find it ironic that many fundamentalists interpret literately, but when it comes to John 6, they interpret as metaphorically or symbolically, when the context makes it clear that Jesus meant it literately. The doctrine of the real presence was not question until the reformation. No one questioned it until then.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
What you find ironic doesn't matter, nor does any other rhetoric you manage to type up... The Belief that only priests or above should own a Bible was accepted until the reformation, too - I guess said belief is still justified :|
Jesus said that he was the bread of life ... that did not mean that those listening could've taken a chomp out of his shin for lunch
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"that did not mean that those listening could've taken a chomp out of his shin for lunch."
The real presence does not say that when disciples can physically eat his physical body when he was around (otherwise that would be cannibalism), but that during communion, the bread and wine become the literal body and blood of Christ that is taken IN THE FORM OF BREAD AND WINE.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Why are you even addressing this? This was a rhetorical statement to YOUR rhetorical statement that fundamentalist take everything literally except for John 8.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
I address this because, like most fundamentalist, you misunderstand that verse (and the doctrine of the real presence as a whole).
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Jesus said do this in rememberance of me - he did not say - this IS me.
watch?v=V4iGMZ12_Po&feature=feedlik
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
LOL, you gave me a link to a John MacCarthur video, who practically makes the same tired arguments against the eucharist! Care to try again? ;)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
And I cry: intellectual laziness!
Grow up.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"And I cry: intellectual laziness!
Grow up."
Let me remind you that you're the one who 1) made baseless accusations against the Catholic church 2) refused to provide sources for your claims about the Catholic church and accused Catholics of falling astray from scripture. And you're telling ME to grow up? LOL
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Baseless accusations against the Catholic Church that you STILL cannot refute ... as I've relisted time and time again.
I cannot provide sources for claims that you refuse to address!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns "Baseless accusations against the Catholic Church that you STILL cannot refute" How am I suppose to refute something if you don't provide me with a source to back up your claims? If you don't have a source, then your claim is just hanging in the air.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
This is just getting ridiculous. Provide biblical support for transub, works righteousness, calling priests fathers, pope infallibility, celibacy a necessity to be a priest, implementing a Kingdom on Earth...
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Wait. I thought this conversation was about sola scriptura, then it was about Mary? Make up your mind!
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
You goof, this will not fly. Among the first comments of this discussion SIX HOURS AGO, I provided for you a list of things that have no doctrinal supported in Catholicism, which you refuted once, but then managed to sneakily turn your attention to just Mary - the only thing you could sufficiently defend, apparent that you could not defend the others by your inability to address them after a number of requests to do so!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns I can provide scriptural evidence for all of this quite easily actually. But what I am wondering is why I should have to provide specific evidence only for the Bible? Where exactly is that said in scripture? When in christian history has that ever been the sole manner of beliefs?
NotByBreadAlone77 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
...and as one who is so keen on pointing out fallacies, I'm surprised you didn't realize this was an ad hominem!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Considering the amount of logical fallacies that you type on the keyboard, it's easy to lose count of the amount of logical fallacies you commit. ;)
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
It doesn't take away from the fact that you used an ad hominem attack on what you could've possibly saw was evidence against transub. I will take that to mean that you have no refutation against the arguments JMcC.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Also, if the idea of bread and wine becoming the literal body and blood and Jesus is "detached from reality," then by that logic, that would also mean that walking on water, turning water into wine, and the resurrection are detached from reality, according to your logic.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
According to my logic, the fact that we can regurgitate the last supper and expect to see bread and wine, not flesh and blood, transubstantiation is detached from reality.
People SAW Jesus walking on water and turning water into wine ... Thomas SAW the holes in Jesus wrists and feet. There is absolutely NO WAY to confirm the miracle outside of Catholic teachings.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Once again, you completely miss the point. When you are claiming that transubstantiation is "detached from reality," then you have to logical conclusion that other miracles performed by God are "detached from reality," regardless as to whether people SAW Jesus walking on water, the departing of the Red Sea, or any other type of miracle.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Goodness Gracious. Just because the Catholic church believes transubstantiation is true, it does not mean that I have to apply to it the same criteria of other miracles, ESPECIALLY because there is no way to confirm said miracles outside of the Catholic willy-nilly claims.
Realize, this is ONE out of the many claims I have made claims I have made against the Catholic church - just so you see the bigger picture and realize how harping on particulars is wasteful.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"ESPECIALLY because there is no way to confirm said miracles outside of the Catholic willy-nilly claims."
You can't confirm the miracles claimed by christianity as a whole, so this point is mute and irrelevant. And I already understand that this is ONE of the many claims you have made against the Catholic church, most of which do not hold up to scrutiny. I would strongly recommend you take off those calvin-glasses and actually read the Bible for what it is.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
Yes, I can confirm the miracle claims of other Christians and Christ if they are EYE-WITNESS accounts of them. That is sufficient for me. Where is the evidence that supports the bread and blood TURNING into Christs body and blood when consumed?
"I would strongly recommend you take of those calvin-glasses and actually read the Bible for what it is."
What a load of crap - you, who has yet to provide as SINGLE scripture to support your claims, you who can't even defend most of the accusations?
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"Yes, I can confirm the miracle claims of other Christians and Christ if they are EYE-WITNESS accounts of them." Special pleading. So in order for a miracle to accepted under your eyes, they must have eye-witness, yet even though transubstantiation is a miracle, you won't accept it. Special pleading.
So far, got nothing.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Yes, exactly. Willy-nilly claims about what happens to the bread and wine of Christ by Catholics, when the claim can be so easily refuted - regurgitation, and when there is no scriptural evidence to support it, are not substantial.
Someone saying they saw the healing of the blind infinitely trumps: 'I believe that the bread and wine turn to flesh and blood - well, because I believe it.'
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
Of course you would say that. You are special pleading, and are trying to make up every excuse in the book to defend your man made theology.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Yes, that's right - please, scriptural evidence to support transub - or else say no more.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
4 continued) ...so all that hodge-podge about the 'presence of Christ' is disingenuous. But once again, using time or the 'Tom did it so why can't I,' argument does not fly - even if it did, Catholicism dominated the Bible through force for most of its existence.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"works theology"
Completely misunderstands the Catholic understanding of justification. "infallible Pope." Papal Infallibility does not teach that the Pope himself can be wrong, but HIS TEACHINGS on faith and morals cannot be in error.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
'works theology.'
Oh Goodness me. "Completely misunderstands the Catholic understanding of justification," is not going to fly, not at all. According to the Council of Trent: If you say you are saved by grace through faith in Christ by scripture alone, and nothing else is needed, let him be anathema... So, no - I did not misunderstand anything.
It doesn't matter what infallible means, the belief that the Pope is infallible is NOT BIBLICAL!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
...calling priests fathers, establishing a God's kingdom on earth, rosary, Pope as God's sole representitive, mediation of priests, calling priests fathers, celibacy, universalism, etc etc.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns .
"..calling priests fathers." Read the rest of that verse, and also read it in context. "establishing a God's kingdom on earth." It's not an unbiblical concept. "rosary." That's a catholic practice, not a doctrine, and it's not required to practice as a catholic. "mediation of priests." watch?v=imxs0N-_7p0 "Calling priests fathers." You already said this. "celibacy." celibacy is discipline, and it's not an unbiblical concept. "Universalism." The church does not teach universalism.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
So, I repeat - calling priests fathers.
Yes, establishing God's kingdom on Earth is an unbiblical concept: "My Kingdom is not of this world" - from the lamb's mouth, himself.
The Rosary is not a Catholic practice, it's a pagan practice - Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus use prayer beads.
Celibacy is discipline when one is not married. It is forbidden by the Catholic church for a priest to get married. The Bible says that the Prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of demons.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
When the Pope was asked how many ways there were to heaven, the Pope responded with: as many as there are people... You say that the Pope cannot err relative to his teachings on faith and morals - well, then you have to accept this!
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
I'm still waiting for the objection to these Catholics beliefs: implementing a Kingdom on Earth, required celibacy to be a priest, works theology, and Pope infallibility
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns The test is what did the early church believe. How did THEY interpret the Scriptures. They were the first, second, third generation....
It was UNDENIABLE Catholic. So your words ring very hallow...
Deepertruthblog 8 months ago
@Deepertruthblog
"It was undeniably Catholic"
...not as hollow as these words, surely.
I've proved to you that much of what Catholics believe goes against scripture, therefore, the early church could not have believed them, unless you then claim that they went against scripture.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns Oh miss philosophy I a bit not impressed by your philosophies. Many Catholics talks and give respect to dogs even they bark on them. But I say chu chu to them. When you niggas Learn.... (Awesome song)
eraser695 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
Sola Scriptura is biblical.
aveyowyns 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
"Scriptura is biblical."
Who gave you the authority to determine that it's biblical?
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@thunderbolt94
The Bible does ... that's usually what is meant by 'biblical.'
aveyowyns 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aveyowyns
"The Bible does ... that's usually what is meant by 'biblical.'"
That's circular. I asked you who gave you authority to determine what is biblical, and you state the Bible. That's circular reasoning.
thunderbolt94 8 months ago
@aveyowyns
So what did Christians do for the first few hundred years of Christianity? We do not see a full list of the canon of the bible till the council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I.
redbaron998 8 months ago
@redbaron998
I have no idea what this is in reference to: but the early Christians had the Gospels, which is all that's necessary to be Christian. They probably also had the letters of Paul floating around.
aveyowyns 8 months ago