Christian Discussion Thread III

[Angleter]

Culturally and religiously, Christ and His Apostles were Jewish. Religiously, they saw Jesus as the Curist and the Son of God, all the while trying to follow His teachings. So yes, they were Christians. Being a totally depraved sinner, I have no knowledge as to whether I will enter Heaven. However, I trust in Jesus' divine mercy, and know that through my baptism I have the opportunity to enter Heaven, unlike those poor souls who have renounced Him, or refused to accept Him.

What denomination are you? I hope you understand it is faith alone that saves you. I will not deny that Baptism is extremely important for a Christian such as myself. However, it isn't your Baptism that saves you; it's Jesus' sacrifice. If you truly accept Jesus as your savior then you will be washed clean of sin. You should then be certain that you will enter Heaven.

What do you mean by 'faith'? By 'accept[ing] Jesus as your saviour'? It's ridiculous to say that a simply announcing one's belief in Jesus is meaningful faith. What Jesus does one accept as one's saviour? The Arian (or Muslim) view of Jesus the Jolly Nice Chap? One's own personal Jesus, who just happens to agree with you on everything? Of course not. The 'faith' is more than just a sort of Christian shahadah - to have real faith in Jesus Christ is to have faith in the real Jesus Christ. And that includes not turning away from him (and not then returning to him by repenting) through sin, which the faith equips us to avoid. A few pages ago I (unoriginally) compared the faith to a light illuminating an obstacle course that one has to navigate - but it's not a simple on/off light, between 'accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour (and nothing further)' and darkness, nor is it even between having the faith in its entirety and complete darkness. It's rather like a light with a dimmer. Many, probably most non-Christians share in many aspects of the faith - are they in complete darkness? No, they simply have a dimmer light to guide them. Their chances of getting through the obstacle course to God, to salvation, are not as great as a reasonably orthodox Christian's (let alone one who's completely on message), but it's a chance nonetheless.

Now, I'm certainly not a Pelagian - we can't save ourselves alone, without God. But through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God has lent a hand out to us all (yes, another metaphor, I know), and it's up to us whether we take it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

What denomination are you? I hope you understand it is faith alone that saves you. I will not deny that Baptism is extremely important for a Christian such as myself. However, it isn't your Baptism that saves you; it's Jesus' sacrifice. If you truly accept Jesus as your savior then you will be washed clean of sin. You should then be certain that you will enter Heaven.

What do you mean by 'faith'? By 'accept[ing] Jesus as your saviour'? It's ridiculous to say that a simply announcing one's belief in Jesus is meaningful faith. What Jesus does one accept as one's saviour? The Arian (or Muslim) view of Jesus the Jolly Nice Chap? One's own personal Jesus, who just happens to agree with you on everything? Of course not. The 'faith' is more than just a sort of Christian shahadah - to have real faith in Jesus Christ is to have faith in the real Jesus Christ. And that includes not turning away from him (and not then returning to him by repenting) through sin, which the faith equips us to avoid. A few pages ago I (unoriginally) compared the faith to a light illuminating an obstacle course that one has to navigate - but it's not a simple on/off light, between 'accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour (and nothing further)' and darkness, nor is it even between having the faith in its entirety and complete darkness. It's rather like a light with a dimmer. Many, probably most non-Christians share in many aspects of the faith - are they in complete darkness? No, they simply have a dimmer light to guide them. Their chances of getting through the obstacle course to God, to salvation, are not as great as a reasonably orthodox Christian's (let alone one who's completely on message), but it's a chance nonetheless.

Now, I'm certainly not a Pelagian - we can't save ourselves alone, without God. But through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God has lent a hand out to us all (yes, another metaphor, I know), and it's up to us whether we take it.

This is also not entirely accurate. Even the most penitent person can sin and more often than not do. It's a rather unfortunate part of our nature. Both Jewish custom and Christ himself held up repentance as an important vessel of forgiveness.

John 3:15-16

[The Archregimancy]

I didn't realize you were a Jehovah's witness.

Sorry, I meant to say that God from his holy domain of Kados, will bequeath unto each of us one of the infinite celestial bodies, to shape according to our heart's desire.

Silly Tarsonis.

Salvation will only come when the 30 Aeons representing the 15 syzygies are fully reunited with Bythos thereby healing the flaw in the Ogdoad of the Pleroma; we must therefore reverse the fall of Sophia.

[Angleter]

What do you mean by 'faith'? By 'accept[ing] Jesus as your saviour'? It's ridiculous to say that a simply announcing one's belief in Jesus is meaningful faith. What Jesus does one accept as one's saviour? The Arian (or Muslim) view of Jesus the Jolly Nice Chap? One's own personal Jesus, who just happens to agree with you on everything? Of course not. The 'faith' is more than just a sort of Christian shahadah - to have real faith in Jesus Christ is to have faith in the real Jesus Christ. And that includes not turning away from him (and not then returning to him by repenting) through sin, which the faith equips us to avoid. A few pages ago I (unoriginally) compared the faith to a light illuminating an obstacle course that one has to navigate - but it's not a simple on/off light, between 'accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour (and nothing further)' and darkness, nor is it even between having the faith in its entirety and complete darkness. It's rather like a light with a dimmer. Many, probably most non-Christians share in many aspects of the faith - are they in complete darkness? No, they simply have a dimmer light to guide them. Their chances of getting through the obstacle course to God, to salvation, are not as great as a reasonably orthodox Christian's (let alone one who's completely on message), but it's a chance nonetheless.

Now, I'm certainly not a Pelagian - we can't save ourselves alone, without God. But through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God has lent a hand out to us all (yes, another metaphor, I know), and it's up to us whether we take it.

This is also not entirely accurate. Even the most penitent person can sin and more often than not do. It's a rather unfortunate part of our nature. Both Jewish custom and Christ himself held up repentance as an important vessel of forgiveness.

John 3:15-16

True. I did refer to repentance, but it was a very clumsily-ordered sentence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Sorry, I meant to say that God from his holy domain of Kados, will bequeath unto each of us one of the infinite celestial bodies, to shape according to our heart's desire.

Silly Tarsonis.

Salvation will only come when the 30 Aeons representing the 15 syzygies are fully reunited with Bythos thereby healing the flaw in the Ogdoad of the Pleroma; we must therefore reverse the fall of Sophia.

Yeah I'm out of fringe Christian beliefs.

[Murkwood]

I was talking with a friend yesterday who said people who aren't Christian cannot get to heaven. Though I don't believe in heaven, I do want to know what other Christians think, so I figured I'd ask this question here, "can non-Christians get to heaven?"

I personally believe that if you're a good person, you'll get into Heaven. That's my two cents.

[Lysset]

I was talking with a friend yesterday who said people who aren't Christian cannot get to heaven. Though I don't believe in heaven, I do want to know what other Christians think, so I figured I'd ask this question here, "can non-Christians get to heaven?"

Claiming that only a certain religion or religious sect can only go to Heaven is, in my opinion, extremely arrogant, biased, and wrong. To quote from 1st Samuel Chapter 16, Verse 7, "...the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." Why should He, who looks on the heart of a person rather than their outward appearance, only allow Christians admittance into Heaven, then? It's a direct contradiction. In the end, it is not what religion or creed you were in life that determines your admittance into Heaven, but rather how you conducted yourself in life that determines it.

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. It isn't the sacrifice of Jesus that saves the Christian. It's the sacrifice of the Christian that saves the Christian. Jesus' chosen role is that He shows us exactly what that sacrifice entails - complete faith in the Father and Holy Spirit to meet us wherever we should begin to waver in our commitment to make the sacrifice. Christianity isn't at all about letting God do all the work. It's about doing what work we can to merit healing (salvation) and trusting God to fill in any blanks (alongside showing us where we failed).

When we focus on the death of Christ (as the Protestants do) as the vehicle through which salvation is attained then we forget the impact His life has on us, individually. Jesus isn't dead. He didn't die for our sins. He died because of and from our sins. He lives for our sins. As in it is through our sinful nature that God shows us the road to perfection. We can only see ourselves healed by being confronted with the consequences of our frailties and failures.

Focusing on the death at the expense of the life and resurrection of Christ distracts from and, ultimately, repudiates this basic fact about salvation, healing, the Church, the individual Christian, and the role of God Himself. Moreover and perhaps most damningly, it creates the impression that where me may not need to do anything to merit salvation, we need not try to merit salvation. Salvation, in such a perspective, becomes a given. A fact of existence. Then the deluded individual convinced of their own superiority reevaluates salvation and their role in attaining it as something that they do for others. So we get silliness like Protestants announcing that they must "hate the sin but love the sinner" (as if the two can be separated - they can't) and that, in the interest of ultimate salvation, homosexuals should live a life excluded from God's great mercy for being homosexual. Focusing on the death of Christ creates an arbitrary and artificial dichotomy between life and death, between salvation and healing, between humanity and humane behavior, between the Christian and everyone else, between the individual and God.

It's foolishness and dangerous.

This is not entirely accurate. The death of Christ was more than just a symbolic act. Christ's death was a very real payment for sins. What it wasn't was a singular vessel of forgiveness. Forgiveness is an act of mercy bequeathed upon us by the Father, through the Son. Such forgiveness is not simply granted though, it takes great faith and repentance.

Of course. I didn't mean to imply that the death was symbolic.

[Distruzio]

What denomination are you? I hope you understand it is faith alone that saves you. I will not deny that Baptism is extremely important for a Christian such as myself. However, it isn't your Baptism that saves you; it's Jesus' sacrifice. If you truly accept Jesus as your savior then you will be washed clean of sin. You should then be certain that you will enter Heaven.

What do you mean by 'faith'? By 'accept[ing] Jesus as your saviour'? It's ridiculous to say that a simply announcing one's belief in Jesus is meaningful faith. What Jesus does one accept as one's saviour? The Arian (or Muslim) view of Jesus the Jolly Nice Chap? One's own personal Jesus, who just happens to agree with you on everything? Of course not. The 'faith' is more than just a sort of Christian shahadah - to have real faith in Jesus Christ is to have faith in the real Jesus Christ. And that includes not turning away from him (and not then returning to him by repenting) through sin, which the faith equips us to avoid. A few pages ago I (unoriginally) compared the faith to a light illuminating an obstacle course that one has to navigate - but it's not a simple on/off light, between 'accepting Jesus Christ as your saviour (and nothing further)' and darkness, nor is it even between having the faith in its entirety and complete darkness. It's rather like a light with a dimmer. Many, probably most non-Christians share in many aspects of the faith - are they in complete darkness? No, they simply have a dimmer light to guide them. Their chances of getting through the obstacle course to God, to salvation, are not as great as a reasonably orthodox Christian's (let alone one who's completely on message), but it's a chance nonetheless.

Now, I'm certainly not a Pelagian - we can't save ourselves alone, without God. But through Christ's sacrifice on the cross, God has lent a hand out to us all (yes, another metaphor, I know), and it's up to us whether we take it.

Better than I could have said it.

[Cyprevus]

Hello my fellow Christians

[Ryfylke]

What denomination are you? I hope you understand it is faith alone that saves you. I will not deny that Baptism is extremely important for a Christian such as myself. However, it isn't your Baptism that saves you; it's Jesus' sacrifice. If you truly accept Jesus as your savior then you will be washed clean of sin. You should then be certain that you will enter Heaven.

Nonsense. It isn't the sacrifice of Jesus that saves the Christian. It's the sacrifice of the Christian that saves the Christian. Jesus' chosen role is that He shows us exactly what that sacrifice entails - complete faith in the Father and Holy Spirit to meet us wherever we should begin to waver in our commitment to make the sacrifice. Christianity isn't at all about letting God do all the work. It's about doing what work we can to merit healing (salvation) and trusting God to fill in any blanks (alongside showing us where we failed).

This line of thinking is silly. You've turned the death of Christ into a sad but ultimately unnecessary event that really doesn't do anything besides show us that we need to be better. In asserting that the individual wins salvation, you've fallen into the trap that the folks who deny his divinity fall into: "Sure, Jesus is a great guy and we definitely should follow his example. But that's all he is." It glorifies humanity and the individual at the expense of the person our faith is named after.

When we focus on the death of Christ (as the Protestants do) as the vehicle through which salvation is attained then we forget the impact His life has on us, individually. Jesus isn't dead. He didn't die for our sins. He died because of and from our sins. He lives for our sins. As in it is through our sinful nature that God shows us the road to perfection. We can only see ourselves healed by being confronted with the consequences of our frailties and failures.

Forgive me, but it seems like you aren't terribly familiar with Protestant theology. We very much recognize the significance of life, death, and resurrection. But we recognize the need all three. His death was not simply the prelude to the resurrection; it has very real power in itself.

Focusing on the death at the expense of the life and resurrection of Christ distracts from and, ultimately, repudiates this basic fact about salvation, healing, the Church, the individual Christian, and the role of God Himself.

Well, since we recognize the importance of all three, I'm glad Protestants don't fall into that trap.

Moreover and perhaps most damningly, it creates the impression that where me may not need to do anything to merit salvation, we need not try to merit salvation.

Of course we have to follow His commandments. That's what discipleship is! But I would never have the arrogance to assert that by my own actions I might ever be saved. I have time and time again come to the painful conclusion that I don't deserve salvation and must rely solely on Christ.

Salvation, in such a perspective, becomes a given. A fact of existence.

Such a perspective is absolutely wrong, and I criticize any church that adopts it. We must always recognize that grace, though free, comes at a great cost.

Then the deluded individual convinced of their own superiority reevaluates salvation and their role in attaining it as something that they do for others.

You seriously need to tone down the rhetoric, or at least stop attacking a strawman.

So we get silliness like Protestants announcing that they must "hate the sin but love the sinner"(as if the two can be separated - they can't) and that, in the interest of ultimate salvation, homosexuals should live a life excluded from God's great mercy for being homosexual.

First of all, please don't accuse a particular group of Christians of using an idiotic phrase that you and I both know is used by Christians of all stripes.

Secondly, though that phrase is silly, your parenthetical is likely why you don't understand Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism). In a sense, you're right - the two cannot be separated. Each of us is by nature sinful and unable to operate outside the frame of self interest, at least of our own volition. However, there is a distinction between the two in Lutheran theology (I can't speak for the Calvinists) that makes irrelevant your concerns about monergism. It's key to remember that grace justifies the sinner but does not justify either sin or the world as it stands. Though grace does all, we cannot stand idly by as people are marginalized because grace does not justify either marginalization or a society that margnializes. The work we do will never, ever be enough to merit salvation, but it's our categorical imperative as disciples to do it anyway.

Finally, don't lump Protestants together as intolerants who would marginalize people. There are several Protestant denominations that are far more inclusive than either the Roman or Eastern Churches and several that are much less inclusive.

Focusing on the death of Christ creates an arbitrary and artificial dichotomy between life and death,

Remarkably, these two actually are a dichotomy, at least for us. They can only intermingle in Christ, and Protestants don't deny that.

between salvation and healing,

What artificial dichotomy is created here? I'm confused.

between humanity and humane behavior, between the Christian and everyone else,

I've addressed these.

between the individual and God.

One is the created, the other the Creator. Apart from that, I don't see any dichotomy being set up.

It's foolishness and dangerous.

The only foolish and dangerous thing here is not having a solid grasp of what the people you're attacking believe. You're being blinded by irrational dislike of Protestants.

[Distruzio]

Nonsense. It isn't the sacrifice of Jesus that saves the Christian. It's the sacrifice of the Christian that saves the Christian. Jesus' chosen role is that He shows us exactly what that sacrifice entails - complete faith in the Father and Holy Spirit to meet us wherever we should begin to waver in our commitment to make the sacrifice. Christianity isn't at all about letting God do all the work. It's about doing what work we can to merit healing (salvation) and trusting God to fill in any blanks (alongside showing us where we failed).

This line of thinking is silly. You've turned the death of Christ into a sad but ultimately unnecessary event that really doesn't do anything besides show us that we need to be better. In asserting that the individual wins salvation, you've fallen into the trap that the folks who deny his divinity fall into: "Sure, Jesus is a great guy and we definitely should follow his example. But that's all he is." It glorifies humanity and the individual at the expense of the person our faith is named after.

Hmmm... I hadn't considered that, honestly. I can't really deny the modicum of truth in that comment. Although I'm not going so far as to suggest it's the individual who earns salvation. I'm explicitly saying that it's the individual that jeopardizes salvation rather than God asserting that breaking a rule earns the individual damnation.

When we focus on the death of Christ (as the Protestants do) as the vehicle through which salvation is attained then we forget the impact His life has on us, individually. Jesus isn't dead. He didn't die for our sins. He died because of and from our sins. He lives for our sins. As in it is through our sinful nature that God shows us the road to perfection. We can only see ourselves healed by being confronted with the consequences of our frailties and failures.

Forgive me, but it seems like you aren't terribly familiar with Protestant theology. We very much recognize the significance of life, death, and resurrection. But we recognize the need all three. His death was not simply the prelude to the resurrection; it has very real power in itself.

Of course. I'll not deny that.

Focusing on the death at the expense of the life and resurrection of Christ distracts from and, ultimately, repudiates this basic fact about salvation, healing, the Church, the individual Christian, and the role of God Himself.

Well, since we recognize the importance of all three, I'm glad Protestants don't fall into that trap.

I beg to differ. Certain sects fall into "that trap" moreso than others, certainly. But, by and large, the entire premise of Protestant theology (taken as a whole) creates the "trap".

Moreover and perhaps most damningly, it creates the impression that where me may not need to do anything to merit salvation, we need not try to merit salvation.

Of course we have to follow His commandments. That's what discipleship is! But I would never have the arrogance to assert that by my own actions I might ever be saved. I have time and time again come to the painful conclusion that I don't deserve salvation and must rely solely on Christ.

On that, we can both agree.

Salvation, in such a perspective, becomes a given. A fact of existence.

Such a perspective is absolutely wrong, and I criticize any church that adopts it. We must always recognize that grace, though free, comes at a great cost.

Once more, we agree.

Then the deluded individual convinced of their own superiority reevaluates salvation and their role in attaining it as something that they do for others.

You seriously need to tone down the rhetoric, or at least stop attacking a strawman.

It's no strawman. It is the entire foundation upon which all of Protestantism rests - that the Bible alone contains all authority necessary to speak the Will of God into existence. If the individual is in charge of that power, then salvation is, for them, an absolute given. Why? Because the Bible tells them so. If you be Protestant then you know that this is the way salvation is seen. You may find it distasteful but the truth needn't necessarily be sweetened to be swallowed.

So we get silliness like Protestants announcing that they must "hate the sin but love the sinner"(as if the two can be separated - they can't) and that, in the interest of ultimate salvation, homosexuals should live a life excluded from God's great mercy for being homosexual.

First of all, please don't accuse a particular group of Christians of using an idiotic phrase that you and I both know is used by Christians of all stripes.

Secondly, though that phrase is silly, your parenthetical is likely why you don't understand Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism). In a sense, you're right - the two cannot be separated. Each of us is by nature sinful and unable to operate outside the frame of self interest, at least of our own volition. However, there is a distinction between the two in Lutheran theology (I can't speak for the Calvinists) that makes irrelevant your concerns about monergism. It's key to remember that grace justifies the sinner but does not justify either sin or the world as it stands. Though grace does all, we cannot stand idly by as people are marginalized because grace does not justify either marginalization or a society that margnializes. The work we do will never, ever be enough to merit salvation, but it's our categorical imperative as disciples to do it anyway.

Finally, don't lump Protestants together as intolerants who would marginalize people. There are several Protestant denominations that are far more inclusive than either the Roman or Eastern Churches and several that are much less inclusive.

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. Second, I've yet to meet a Christian who speaks such nonsense into existence. Where they exist, I trust you'll explain how ridiculous they're being. Third, that is very much the approach Protestant theology advocates. Not only is sin the violation of a rule but, because all are guilty of breaking these rules in some way or another, in order to exonerate the individual sinner from culpability for the sin, the sin is artificially separated from them.

Sin isn't separate from our person. It's a disease. Like alcoholism. Christianity is the treatment. Receiving treatment for alcoholism doesn't absolve one of their alcoholism. Practicing Christianity doesn't absolve one of their sin - only God does that. Because sin isn't the violation of some rule. It's the violation of relationship.

Focusing on the death of Christ creates an arbitrary and artificial dichotomy between life and death,

Remarkably, these two actually are a dichotomy, at least for us. They can only intermingle in Christ, and Protestants don't deny that.

Quite the contrary. They do deny it.

between salvation and healing,

What artificial dichotomy is created here? I'm confused.

That the two are separate. That salvation comes from obeying a rule. That healing comes from perfection. Neither statement is true. Salvation comes from healing and perfection comes from obedience - only that, for the Protestant, obedience is found in a collection of books separate from the One Church. For the Christian, obedience to the Church, the entity that created both Bible and religion, creates a more perfected being. For the Protestant, obedience to the Bible creates perfection.

between humanity and humane behavior, between the Christian and everyone else,

I've addressed these.

As have I.

between the individual and God.

One is the created, the other the Creator. Apart from that, I don't see any dichotomy being set up.

Forgive me. I failed to elaborate. The dichotomy is a confrontational one here. Where the individual and God are called into a struggle for supremacy. Such a struggle ignores the reality of the trinity, and Man's role in the trinity.

It's foolishness and dangerous.

The only foolish and dangerous thing here is not having a solid grasp of what the people you're attacking believe. You're being blinded by irrational dislike of Protestants.

That may well be, actually - that I allow my bigotry to cloud my judgement. It's a bigotrous perspective I've struggled with the entire time I've been active on NSG (and longer, honestly). While there are those active on this board that genuinely show me just how far I go (Tarsonis, Merchant Republics, and others), I'm afraid that I'm simply too damned stubborn to see the logic behind their perspective. I even go so far as to disagree with the Church, which states that the Protestants are Christian Heretics. I admit that that is way too far to go and it's a failure I acknowledge. But until I can find some compelling argument contradicting me other than (nope, your wrong) then how can I help but remain steadfast in my assertions? Even my bishop addresses my arguments with an appeal to grace. I simply don't have the grace necessary to accept heretics as brothers in faith. Cousins? Yes. But brothers? No. Not yet.

Although I am looking.

[Nordengrund]

Just out of curiosity, are there/were there Protestant monks?

[Angleter]

Just out of curiosity, are there/were there Protestant monks?

There are a few - Taizé is a famous multi-denominational monastic community that was founded by, and includes many, Protestants. There are also Lutheran and Anglican monks (and nuns).

[Distruzio]

Just out of curiosity, are there/were there Protestant monks?

There are.

http://www.kildaremonastery.com/

http://www.taize.fr/en Originally Protestant although now open to RC and EO.

http://emerging-communities.com/tag/rutba-house/ Relatively new in North Carolina.


Protestant neomonasticism is a thing. The differences between the Protestant neomonastic approach to monasticism is that certain vows of obedience, celibacy, and poverty are not necessarily taken (along with other more specific vows unique to Christian monastic communities); the communities are not, necessarily consolidated into a singular location but, rather, a larger geographic vicinity; and (if I recall) they don't typically wear habits or uniforms (as such).

[Constantinopolis]

I personally believe that if you're a good person, you'll get into Heaven. That's my two cents.

Then why did Jesus have to die on the cross? Why didn't He just give us a few instructions about how to be good people, and then ascended back to Heaven?

The central events on which Christianity is based - the death and resurrection of Christ - make no sense if salvation is something that depends only on good behavior.

[Kassaran]

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. Second, I've yet to meet a Christian who speaks such nonsense into existence. Where they exist, I trust you'll explain how ridiculous they're being. Third, that is very much the approach Protestant theology advocates. Not only is sin the violation of a rule but, because all are guilty of breaking these rules in some way or another, in order to exonerate the individual sinner from culpability for the sin, the sin is artificially separated from them.

Sin isn't separate from our person. It's a disease. Like alcoholism. Christianity is the treatment. Receiving treatment for alcoholism doesn't absolve one of their alcoholism. Practicing Christianity doesn't absolve one of their sin - only God does that. Because sin isn't the violation of some rule. It's the violation of relationship.

So I'm a Heretic? Because I don't believe a man has the right to consider himself Christ on Earth, I'm a Heretic. Because I believe I am saved by Grace and Mercy and by Love in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ and not by the works of my hands I am a Heretic? Because I believe that I am no longer bound by the rituals and ceremonies that once had to be followed by the Jews I am a Heretic? Because I believe that no man is greater than another and because I believe that all are equal before God and thus all are equal within the Body of the Church of Christ I am a Heretic?

You're right when you say sin isn't separate, and when you say Christianity is the treatment, but sin is the violation of a rule, not just any rule however, but one of God's rules, in that respect, it isn't even a rule, but a law, and violation of said law isn't a crime, it's a sin. The simple transposition of words used in our daily life can be used to describe the relationship of sin and the Law, by showing sin as any and all violations of the Law, and that the punishment for violation of the Law is death.

While it does violate a relationship perhaps, it also most definitely is the violation of a Law. While we no longer live under the Law as Christians because we have been purchased out of our slavery to sin, we still will continue to violate the Law until the day we die, and yet it is through our belief that we are forgiven, not through our works. To work for our salvation is to lessen if not completely dismiss the importance of Christ's life, death, and Resurrection!

between salvation and healing,

What artificial dichotomy is created here? I'm confused.

That the two are separate. That salvation comes from obeying a rule. That healing comes from perfection. Neither statement is true. Salvation comes from healing and perfection comes from obedience - only that, for the Protestant, obedience is found in a collection of books separate from the One Church. For the Christian, obedience to the Church, the entity that created both Bible and religion, creates a more perfected being. For the Protestant, obedience to the Bible creates perfection.

Hang on, I'm a tad confused here? Never once did Jesus commit the act of healing someone, but rather, he healed them. I know, sounds strange right because you don't catch the difference. To state that he was healing someone is to state that His utilization of His divine power in His works took time to take effect. However we all see that is hardly the case with each person He healed. Never once did we see a gradual return to health, but rather it was instantaneous.

Also on that note, how can Salvation come from healing? While indeed it is a process through life to grow closer to our Lord and Savior, it is only a relationship that grows, not our state. We are still mortal, we still suffer the same consequence as everyone else, death, but unlike those who do not believe, it isn't a death that keeps us separate from God, but rather in the moment we die, we are then healed in our spirit so that we may be found blameless before God.

In short, to use the term healing again brings back the need for works to earn one's Salvation and that is hardly the Truth as is written. Also, the church is NOT, I repeat, NOT the entity that created the Bible, if it is, then our faith is meaningless as it would have been created by men, men who are flawed and thus unable to show me Salvation, it also created no religion, only a community for which our brethren can use to fellowship and praise our God.

Also, what arrogance is this, that you state that the Church "creates a more perfected being"? How is something that is perfected made more perfect? Perfection is not improvable, it is the utter height of improvement, where no more space to improve can be made! Also, to the Protestant, obedience to the Bible is not what we believe creates perfection, but rather our God, the one who created us and sent his Son to die for us is the very thing that perfects us when he sees we have been washed clean and pure to perfection in the blood of the Lamb.

We do not follow a book, but the Word of the Living God. It is why we do not follow the Pope, because the Pope is not God and cannot speak for God because we have received all that God wishes to say, likewise are priests and any other person able to speak for God or on God's behalf because we all now have God in us as the Holy Spirit when we are saved. If we wish to hear God speak, we pray and wait for the Holy Spirit to move us, and if we wish to learn of God, then we read his word (or as the technology now allows, we can rather listen to his word). Pastors are only still relevant because they possess a fountain of knowledge which believers then can go to in order to learn of a topic they might not be able to discern within themselves because they do not yet have the wisdom that comes with age and experience in the Bible.

In the end, it is not obedience to the Bible that creates perfection in the Protestant or even the believer in a general sense of the word, but rather it is the faith in the obedience of Christ that leads to perfection.

between the individual and God.

One is the created, the other the Creator. Apart from that, I don't see any dichotomy being set up.

Forgive me. I failed to elaborate. The dichotomy is a confrontational one here. Where the individual and God are called into a struggle for supremacy. Such a struggle ignores the reality of the trinity, and Man's role in the trinity.

How can God and the individual be called into a struggle for supremacy? Only the individual struggles if the individual does not realize his position as the lesser being. God is immovable, and thus incapable of struggling, he would not be moved by the struggling of the individual, but rather he'd move the individual through their struggling. Man's role int he Trinity is nil, it doesn't exist beyond the point and stretch that Jesus is the Son of Man, yet even in that respect, he is literally only the son of a woman, who likewise is human, so thus the name perhaps is better written as Son of Human, but it doesn't flow as well you see. Therefore, we move into the point I wish to make is that Man has no place in the Trinity.

The Godhead in other words, is God, threefold, three beings in one, a Holy unity of the likes we will be incapable of comprehending until we see the reunion of the Church that is the Spirit, with Christ, whom is the Son, under the Father, that is, well, the Father. It is the only time that we, the believers of the Church of Christ will be able to comprehend the Trinity, for even as I have described it, there appears to be a distinction, but in all reality, the distinction is indiscernible and yet apparent. It is a concept we are incapable of understanding without seeing, and we will not see, again like I have said before, until the Church that is the Spirit is reunited with Jesus (whom is the Son etc.).

Perhaps Man's role is that we carry the Spirit inside of us? I still fail to see how in the end that still puts us, the creation, on terms with the Creator.
[box]

It's foolishness and dangerous.

The only foolish and dangerous thing here is not having a solid grasp of what the people you're attacking believe. You're being blinded by irrational dislike of Protestants.

That may well be, actually - that I allow my bigotry to cloud my judgement. It's a bigotrous perspective I've struggled with the entire time I've been active on NSG (and longer, honestly). While there are those active on this board that genuinely show me just how far I go (Tarsonis, Merchant Republics, and others), I'm afraid that I'm simply too damned stubborn to see the logic behind their perspective. I even go so far as to disagree with the Church, which states that the Protestants are Christian Heretics. I admit that that is way too far to go and it's a failure I acknowledge. But until I can find some compelling argument contradicting me other than (nope, your wrong) then how can I help but remain steadfast in my assertions? Even my bishop addresses my arguments with an appeal to grace. I simply don't have the grace necessary to accept heretics as brothers in faith. Cousins? Yes. But brothers? No. Not yet.

Although I am looking.[/quote]
Fair enough, while you stick to your guns, I too shall stick to mine, for while I do not see you as a heretic for following the Catholic Church, I do see you as a Brother whom perhaps has thrown dust into his eyes. For in your stubbornness, and in your spite, you do sin. It is not simply stubbornness, but bigotry, and not just bigotry, but hate, and in that hate, there is murder, for the two are indistinguishable in the eyes of God the Father.

[Constantinopolis]

I need to interject here. Distruzio is not Roman Catholic. He is Orthodox. It says so right in his signature. Let me tell you, it is very annoying for us Orthodox Christians when Protestants (usually American ones) just assume that any Christian who isn't Protestant must be Catholic. The Orthodox Church also exists, you know, and we are a rather large Church, second only to the Roman Catholic in terms of adherents. In addition, there are the non-Chalcedonian churches, who are close to the Orthodox and are neither Catholic nor Protestant. And on the other end of the historical spectrum - if you want to count them as Christian - there are the Restorationists (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses), who are also neither Catholic nor Protestant.

Now, Distruzio's views on Protestantism are rather extreme - as he openly admits - and much harsher than the general view of our Church, so it's difficult for me to defend them. In fact, I won't even try. But please, don't confuse Orthodox Christians with Roman Catholic Christians. We have been arguing against Papal supremacy for over twice as long as Protestantism has existed.

[Ryfylke]

This line of thinking is silly. You've turned the death of Christ into a sad but ultimately unnecessary event that really doesn't do anything besides show us that we need to be better. In asserting that the individual wins salvation, you've fallen into the trap that the folks who deny his divinity fall into: "Sure, Jesus is a great guy and we definitely should follow his example. But that's all he is." It glorifies humanity and the individual at the expense of the person our faith is named after.

Hmmm... I hadn't considered that, honestly. I can't really deny the modicum of truth in that comment. Although I'm not going so far as to suggest it's the individual who earns salvation. I'm explicitly saying that it's the individual that jeopardizes salvation rather than God asserting that breaking a rule earns the individual damnation.

Oh, I would agree with that last part, at least the first clause of it. In fact, virtually no one believes in double predestination these days; the Counter-Reformation hit the Calvinists harder than it did other sects, and double predestination doesn't really fit American ways of thinking, so it never caught on there. However, I would assert that any doctrine that incorporates synergism encounters this problem. Even if we assign only, say, 5 percent of salvation to ourselves, that's the 5 percent the believer will focus on and take the grace of the other 95 percent for granted.

Well, since we recognize the importance of all three, I'm glad Protestants don't fall into that trap.

I beg to differ. Certain sects fall into "that trap" moreso than others, certainly. But, by and large, the entire premise of Protestant theology (taken as a whole) creates the "trap".

You're going to have to be more specific than "Protestant theology." Are you talking Calvinist, Arminian, or Lutheran? From there, which aspect? Divine monergism?

You seriously need to tone down the rhetoric, or at least stop attacking a strawman.

It's no strawman. It is the entire foundation upon which all of Protestantism rests - that the Bible alone contains all authority necessary to speak the Will of God into existence. If the individual is in charge of that power, then salvation is, for them, an absolute given. Why? Because the Bible tells them so. If you be Protestant then you know that this is the way salvation is seen. You may find it distasteful but the truth needn't necessarily be sweetened to be swallowed.

Certainty of salvation can produce conceptions of cheap grace, yes. It's an irresolvable problem for the Arminians, I believe, but the Lutheran-Anglican-Moravian tradition has a long history of fighting cheap grace. Zinzendorf, Hauge, Hus, Bonhoeffer, Berggrav, and Luther himself recognized and reminded their fellow Christians that while certainty of salvation can be a comfort, it comes at great cost: the call to live as a disciple in all things, denying oneself for the sake of that call. When we recognize costly grace, certainty of salvation and the certainty of the call that comes with it become the most terrifying idea imaginable. It's not complacency; it simply can't be.

First of all, please don't accuse a particular group of Christians of using an idiotic phrase that you and I both know is used by Christians of all stripes.

Secondly, though that phrase is silly, your parenthetical is likely why you don't understand Protestantism (or at least Lutheranism). In a sense, you're right - the two cannot be separated. Each of us is by nature sinful and unable to operate outside the frame of self interest, at least of our own volition. However, there is a distinction between the two in Lutheran theology (I can't speak for the Calvinists) that makes irrelevant your concerns about monergism. It's key to remember that grace justifies the sinner but does not justify either sin or the world as it stands. Though grace does all, we cannot stand idly by as people are marginalized because grace does not justify either marginalization or a society that margnializes. The work we do will never, ever be enough to merit salvation, but it's our categorical imperative as disciples to do it anyway.

Finally, don't lump Protestants together as intolerants who would marginalize people. There are several Protestant denominations that are far more inclusive than either the Roman or Eastern Churches and several that are much less inclusive.

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism.

You're free to believe this if you feel compelled to, but it does not speak to me that you are arguing in good faith when you assert it. I will not argue on your terms and will continue to address them as Christians. I ask that you refrain from beleaguering this point, as it is not relevant and your Church disagrees with you on the matter.

Second, I've yet to meet a Christian who speaks such nonsense into existence. Where they exist, I trust you'll explain how ridiculous they're being.

I shall. I've heard it from plenty of Catholics and will continue to address it as it comes up.

Third, that is very much the approach Protestant theology advocates. Not only is sin the violation of a rule but, because all are guilty of breaking these rules in some way or another, in order to exonerate the individual sinner from culpability for the sin, the sin is artificially separated from them.

See, this is why you can't lump Protestants together like that:

But they contend that concupiscence is a penalty, and not a sin [a burden and imposed penalty, and is not such a sin as is subject to death and condemnation]. Luther maintains that it is a sin.

From the Apology to the Augsburg Confession

The point I was trying to make is that for the Lutheran-Anglican-Moravian, grace does not justify individual sins. Justification is the end, not a tool of exoneration along the way.

Sin isn't separate from our person. It's a disease. Like alcoholism.

Though I agree with you, your analogy actually supports you opponents' point; you might want to think of revising it for this reason:

The alcoholic consumes alcohol as a result of their alcoholism.
The sinner commits sin as a result of their sinfullness

Christianity is the treatment. Receiving treatment for alcoholism doesn't absolve one of their alcoholism.

I don't think I ever said it did. But again, be careful with the analogy. An alcoholic can, with treatment, give up alcohol entirely.

Practicing Christianity doesn't absolve one of their sin - only God does that. Because sin isn't the violation of some rule. It's the violation of relationship.

To the first aspect, I agree entirely; I'm not an Arminian. To the second point, it's both. Law and Gospel.

Remarkably, these two actually are a dichotomy, at least for us. They can only intermingle in Christ, and Protestants don't deny that.

Quite the contrary. They do deny it.

Well, I don't know what to tell you. Let me again assure you that we really don't. If you have a specific example, that would help me see what you are referring to.

What artificial dichotomy is created here? I'm confused.

That the two are separate. That salvation comes from obeying a rule. That healing comes from perfection.

What? Who on earth told you Protestants believe that? You could maybe make the argument that the Arminians believe that but even that is stretching it.

Salvation comes from healing and perfection comes from obedience - only that, for the Protestant, obedience is found in a collection of books separate from the One Church. For the Christian, obedience to the Church, the entity that created both Bible and religion, creates a more perfected being.

Both salvation and healing come from grace. That's it. Nothing else. It is grace that calls us to obedience to Christ alone, for one cannot be obedient to two masters.

For the Protestant, obedience to the Bible creates perfection.

Again, where is this coming from? That's not what Protestants believe.

One is the created, the other the Creator. Apart from that, I don't see any dichotomy being set up.

Forgive me. I failed to elaborate. The dichotomy is a confrontational one here. Where the individual and God are called into a struggle for supremacy. Such a struggle ignores the reality of the trinity, and Man's role in the trinity.

Once again, that might be an argument to be made against Arminian theology, but I fail to see how the other two major schools do this. Especially the Calvinists; to me, double predestination seems pretty much like the definition of "lack of human agency."

The only foolish and dangerous thing here is not having a solid grasp of what the people you're attacking believe. You're being blinded by irrational dislike of Protestants.

That may well be, actually - that I allow my bigotry to cloud my judgement. It's a bigotrous perspective I've struggled with the entire time I've been active on NSG (and longer, honestly). While there are those active on this board that genuinely show me just how far I go (Tarsonis, Merchant Republics, and others), I'm afraid that I'm simply too damned stubborn to see the logic behind their perspective. I even go so far as to disagree with the Church, which states that the Protestants are Christian Heretics. I admit that that is way too far to go and it's a failure I acknowledge. But until I can find some compelling argument contradicting me other than (nope, your wrong) then how can I help but remain steadfast in my assertions? Even my bishop addresses my arguments with an appeal to grace. I simply don't have the grace necessary to accept heretics as brothers in faith. Cousins? Yes. But brothers? No. Not yet.

Although I am looking.

There's definitely something to be said for that. I often find myself falling into a similar mindset toward the Evangelical movement. They hijacked and secularized the Reformation to the point where the entire movement, which I firmly believe was rooted in a return to orthodoxy, gets summed up by "Have you accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior?" It's immensely frustrating to me, and it further frustrates me that my mindset toward them hasn't improved despite my best efforts. I haven't found any on NSG yet, though I suppose I haven't been here very long. Hopefully I'll have positive interactions as you've had.

[Distruzio]

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism. Second, I've yet to meet a Christian who speaks such nonsense into existence. Where they exist, I trust you'll explain how ridiculous they're being. Third, that is very much the approach Protestant theology advocates. Not only is sin the violation of a rule but, because all are guilty of breaking these rules in some way or another, in order to exonerate the individual sinner from culpability for the sin, the sin is artificially separated from them.

Sin isn't separate from our person. It's a disease. Like alcoholism. Christianity is the treatment. Receiving treatment for alcoholism doesn't absolve one of their alcoholism. Practicing Christianity doesn't absolve one of their sin - only God does that. Because sin isn't the violation of some rule. It's the violation of relationship.

So I'm a Heretic? Because I don't believe a man has the right to consider himself Christ on Earth, I'm a Heretic. Because I believe I am saved by Grace and Mercy and by Love in the Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ and not by the works of my hands I am a Heretic? Because I believe that I am no longer bound by the rituals and ceremonies that once had to be followed by the Jews I am a Heretic? Because I believe that no man is greater than another and because I believe that all are equal before God and thus all are equal within the Body of the Church of Christ I am a Heretic?

Yes. You are a heretic to the Christian faith. You are, indeed, a heretic. Does this call your propensity for loving Christ into question? No. Does this call your salvation into question? No. It simply means that you hold theological views that are not dogmatically Christian. Our two approaches to faith do overlap in certain areas, but central to the Christian faith is humility before the physical Church that Christ created (among other pillars). Protestantism writ large denies the value of the physical Church in favor of a spiritual church. This is calling Christ a liar at worst or, at best, calling Christ naive. For that, you are a heretic.

You're right when you say sin isn't separate, and when you say Christianity is the treatment, but sin is the violation of a rule, not just any rule however, but one of God's rules, in that respect, it isn't even a rule, but a law, and violation of said law isn't a crime, it's a sin. The simple transposition of words used in our daily life can be used to describe the relationship of sin and the Law, by showing sin as any and all violations of the Law, and that the punishment for violation of the Law is death.

Christ is God. Christ did not petition his apostles to follow the Law. He fulfilled all requirements of it. Christians are no longer beholden to the Law. Christ's fulfillment reopened the possibility of relationship between Man and God. The Law presents Man with a codex of behavior that brings Man into communion with God at God's leisure, provided a good account of judgement. The relationship presents man with the hope that God will forgive the harsh manner in which Man judges himself.

Under the Law, God judges Man. Under Christ, Man judges Man. This is a very significant disparity between Protestantism and Christianity.

While it does violate a relationship perhaps, it also most definitely is the violation of a Law. While we no longer live under the Law as Christians because we have been purchased out of our slavery to sin, we still will continue to violate the Law until the day we die, and yet it is through our belief that we are forgiven, not through our works. To work for our salvation is to lessen if not completely dismiss the importance of Christ's life, death, and Resurrection!

"Purchased out of our slavery to sin"? Nonsense. Christs death did no such thing. His death destroyed the power of death over Man. Sure, sure, sin leads to death and Christs descent into Hell addressed this but His death was, in no way, a "purchase" of something. Sin isn't some debt to be ameliorated. It's an ailment. One does not buy off alcoholism.

What artificial dichotomy is created here? I'm confused.

That the two are separate. That salvation comes from obeying a rule. That healing comes from perfection. Neither statement is true. Salvation comes from healing and perfection comes from obedience - only that, for the Protestant, obedience is found in a collection of books separate from the One Church. For the Christian, obedience to the Church, the entity that created both Bible and religion, creates a more perfected being. For the Protestant, obedience to the Bible creates perfection.[/box]

Hang on, I'm a tad confused here? Never once did Jesus commit the act of healing someone, but rather, he healed them. I know, sounds strange right because you don't catch the difference. To state that he was healing someone is to state that His utilization of His divine power in His works took time to take effect. However we all see that is hardly the case with each person He healed. Never once did we see a gradual return to health, but rather it was instantaneous.

No. Christ is healing. Not past tense. His divine sovereignty does, indeed, take time to take effect. Why? Because of the individual and their ego. Because of their afflictions. To suggest that Christ "healed" in the past tense is to deny the individual need of Christ. It's like saying that Christ is an impersonal one size fits all baseball cap. He isn't. Through the Church, His treatment is dispensed on an individual level, based on individual needs. I'm never going to be "healed" in the past tense. I'm going to be healed in an ongoing treatment because Christian dogma and doctrine, unlike Protestant dogma and doctrine, recognizes the perpetuity of sin in the life of the individual. It never asserts that sin is something we get over.

Also on that note, how can Salvation come from healing? While indeed it is a process through life to grow closer to our Lord and Savior, it is only a relationship that grows, not our state. We are still mortal, we still suffer the same consequence as everyone else, death, but unlike those who do not believe, it isn't a death that keeps us separate from God, but rather in the moment we die, we are then healed in our spirit so that we may be found blameless before God.

You misunderstand. Salvation is healing.

In short, to use the term healing again brings back the need for works to earn one's Salvation and that is hardly the Truth as is written. Also, the church is NOT, I repeat, NOT the entity that created the Bible, if it is, then our faith is meaningless as it would have been created by men, men who are flawed and thus unable to show me Salvation, it also created no religion, only a community for which our brethren can use to fellowship and praise our God.

You speak as though history is separate from reality. Do you think that Christ was born and the Bible with him? The Bible took hundreds of years to create. Do you think the apostles and their disciples stood on the street corner thumping at the Jews about the good news of Christ? No. Of course they didn't. Because the Bible didn't exist. This isn't a doctrinal or dogmatic difference of opinion. It is historical fact. As much a fact as saying that yesterday it was hot. The Bible came into existence after the Church and at the behest of the Church.

Also, what arrogance is this, that you state that the Church "creates a more perfected being"? How is something that is perfected made more perfect? Perfection is not improvable, it is the utter height of improvement, where no more space to improve can be made!

Perfection is not a threshold to pass. The only perfect thing is God. Man, through God, can be made more perfect than before. It's a gradual transition from less perfect to more perfect. Perfection is, in fact, improvable.

Also, to the Protestant, obedience to the Bible is not what we believe creates perfection, but rather our God, the one who created us and sent his Son to die for us is the very thing that perfects us when he sees we have been washed clean and pure to perfection in the blood of the Lamb.

You'll hear no dispute on that account from me. I'm pleased you now acknowledge your god as a distinct conception alien to our own. That's the only way to view such a thing when the Protestant dogmatically insists that God, Christianity, and the Christian life can be found, each, in the text of the books comprising the Bible.

We do not follow a book, but the Word of the Living God.

Indeed. That's no different from what I said. However you wish to say it, it's bibliolatry.

It is why we do not follow the Pope, because the Pope is not God and cannot speak for God because we have received all that God wishes to say,

Indeed. Catholics don't believe that either.

likewise are priests and any other person able to speak for God or on God's behalf because we all now have God in us as the Holy Spirit when we are saved. If we wish to hear God speak, we pray and wait for the Holy Spirit to move us, and if we wish to learn of God, then we read his word (or as the technology now allows, we can rather listen to his word). Pastors are only still relevant because they possess a fountain of knowledge which believers then can go to in order to learn of a topic they might not be able to discern within themselves because they do not yet have the wisdom that comes with age and experience in the Bible.

Indeed. I'll not contest that.

One is the created, the other the Creator. Apart from that, I don't see any dichotomy being set up.

Forgive me. I failed to elaborate. The dichotomy is a confrontational one here. Where the individual and God are called into a struggle for supremacy. Such a struggle ignores the reality of the trinity, and Man's role in the trinity.

How can God and the individual be called into a struggle for supremacy? Only the individual struggles if the individual does not realize his position as the lesser being.

Indeed. That's precisely where I was going with that. If you deny the real struggle your ego and your sense of humility engage in every day then you are, I'm afraid, deluded. Our ego is at constant odds with our humility before God. There is nothing wrong with acknowledging that fact. There is something very wrong with denying it or otherwise denying the existence of it.

God is immovable, and thus incapable of struggling, he would not be moved by the struggling of the individual, but rather he'd move the individual through their struggling.

Yet more heresy. Of course God is movable. Of course God is capable of struggle. Lest He never would have called out to Adam and Eve when they hid. Lest He never would have prayed for the strength to do as was necessary before His crucifixion. Lest He never would have been Man.

Man's role int he Trinity is nil, it doesn't exist beyond the point and stretch that Jesus is the Son of Man, yet even in that respect, he is literally only the son of a woman, who likewise is human, so thus the name perhaps is better written as Son of Human, but it doesn't flow as well you see. Therefore, we move into the point I wish to make is that Man has no place in the Trinity.

Again, this is heresy against Christian dogma. If Christ is fully Man and fully God then Man does, in fact, have a place in the Trinity. That's the purpose of existence as far as the Christian is concerned - full and absolute reconciliation with God through the Son.

*shakes head*

This is really very basic theology.

The Godhead in other words, is God, threefold, three beings in one, a Holy unity of the likes we will be incapable of comprehending until we see the reunion of the Church that is the Spirit, with Christ, whom is the Son, under the Father, that is, well, the Father. It is the only time that we, the believers of the Church of Christ will be able to comprehend the Trinity, for even as I have described it, there appears to be a distinction, but in all reality, the distinction is indiscernible and yet apparent. It is a concept we are incapable of understanding without seeing, and we will not see, again like I have said before, until the Church that is the Spirit is reunited with Jesus (whom is the Son etc.).

More heresy. The Church is not spiritual. It's physical. What you're saying is tantamount to declaring that Jesus, having once died, yet remains dead. What you're saying is tantamount to declaring that Jesus, upon ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father, did not ascend body, soul, and mind. What you're saying is that there is a distinction that separates the spiritual form the mental and from the corporeal. There isn't.

Perhaps Man's role is that we carry the Spirit inside of us? I still fail to see how in the end that still puts us, the creation, on terms with the Creator.

It doesn't put us on terms with the Creator. It puts the Creator on terms with us. Throughout this exchange you have highlighted the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Protestantism: the Christian views God as humble beings that only seek to be reunited with their Creation while the Protestant views God as the ultimate judge upon whose feet we must all prostrate ourselves out of fear of damnation.

Such a view isn't, necessarily, invalid. On the contrary, it's what makes Protestantism so viable a faith. I rather think you Protestants do yourselves a great disservice by insisting that you are the same as us. You aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination is the Protestant concept of God, worship, dogma, and approach to faithful doctrine similar.

[Islamic republiq of Julundar]

First off, Protestants are not Christian. They are heretics. They are to Christianity what Christianity is to Judaism

Up to now you have banged the drum that Prodestantism is a totally different religion from Christianity. Today, you call us 'Heretics'. That's illogical, Captain. Christianity started as a Jewish heresy and then it grew into a totally different religion.

You can only be an Heretic if you are still part of the Original religion. By analogy, IMPO, Jehovah's Witnesses change lots of stuff and are a Christian Heresy; Mormons changed even more and are a different religion.

[Benuty]

Up to now you have banged the drum that Prodestantism is a totally different religion from Christianity. Today, you call us 'Heretics'. That's illogical, Captain. Christianity started as a Jewish heresy and then it grew into a totally different religion.

You can only be an Heretic if you are still part of the Original religion. By analogy, IMPO, Jehovah's Witnesses change lots of stuff and are a Christian Heresy; Mormons changed even more and are a different religion.

How so?

[Kassaran]

Yes. You are a heretic to the Christian faith. You are, indeed, a heretic. Does this call your propensity for loving Christ into question? No. Does this call your salvation into question? No. It simply means that you hold theological views that are not dogmatically Christian. Our two approaches to faith do overlap in certain areas, but central to the Christian faith is humility before the physical Church that Christ created (among other pillars). Protestantism writ large denies the value of the physical Church in favor of a spiritual church. This is calling Christ a liar at worst or, at best, calling Christ naive. For that, you are a heretic.

What physical Church? I'm not aware that he set forth any doctrine determining the way the Church in his absence would be built. This is something I'm honestly interested to hear, because I have never been made aware to such a physical Church. I do know that there is the Catholic Church (which isn't what you support), I am aware of the Church of Latter Day Saints (The Mormons) and the Jehovah's Witness, but I know nothing of a physical breathing Church beyond the one I feel which is the full sum of those in the Christian Faith.

Christ is God. Christ did not petition his apostles to follow the Law. He fulfilled all requirements of it. Christians are no longer beholden to the Law. Christ's fulfillment reopened the possibility of relationship between Man and God. The Law presents Man with a codex of behavior that brings Man into communion with God at God's leisure, provided a good account of judgement. The relationship presents man with the hope that God will forgive the harsh manner in which Man judges himself.

Under the Law, God judges Man. Under Christ, Man judges Man. This is a very significant disparity between Protestantism and Christianity.

Yet another place where I don't think we're actually communicating. In no way do I believe I need to follow the Law being saved, but rather I use the Law as a means of showing to others their need to be saved. The Law is a text that damns the very core of the Human, and shows their corrupted and sinful self, and it shows their need for Salvation. I will agree with you that his fulfillment of the Law reopened the possibility of a relationship between Man and God, but again, the Law is not a codex to bring Man into communion, it is the very thing that shows why there cannot be a communion, without belief and Salvation that is.

Man after the Fall is now inherently evil, he is born in sin, lives in sin, and dies in it. The inability of man to escape from his slavery to sin is a simple fact of life for the non-believer, however with Christ shedding His blood on the cross, the sacrifice, the pure and perfect sacrifice, that was called for by God to atone for our sins, we now are no longer slaves like I said before to sin. While sin may also be comparable to a disease, it is also comparable to slavery, for it is something that goes against our desire to please God, and rather puts us under the control of a terrible master.

It does not do so by actually controlling our bodies, for sin is a choice, but it is one man inescapably makes, that is, save for the one man who was God in the flesh, Jesus. He alone managed to escape slavery to sin by never making the choice to sin in the first place for to sin, is to against his will, and since being entirely man, yet also being entirely God, his choices were never out of accordance to his own will, his will being separate and contained.

"Purchased out of our slavery to sin"? Nonsense. Christs death did no such thing. His death destroyed the power of death over Man. Sure, sure, sin leads to death and Christs descent into Hell addressed this but His death was, in no way, a "purchase" of something. Sin isn't some debt to be ameliorated. It's an ailment. One does not buy off alcoholism.

Again, I see not only as a disease, but also as a form of slavery, for we were indeed bought by the blood of Christ, we were in his Death washed clean, and in his Resurrection redeemed, and in our own deaths, we then shall finally be made whole. Perhaps the main problem here is that in addition to the little we do know for sure about God, we also know very little about his Will and how it works, and thus likewise we also do not know to the fullest extent how sin works against us, but what I can say for certain is this: that Sin is what separates man from his Creator, for while not being outside of his plan, it is outside of an aspect of his will. We were then cursed to forever stay ignorant and incapable of not sinning from the moment that we first did, and so likewise we needed a cure for the disease as you so put it, or a means of redemption from our slavery as I so put it, to once again be able to have communion with our Creator in his own Heavenly realms above.

No. Christ is healing. Not past tense. His divine sovereignty does, indeed, take time to take effect. Why? Because of the individual and their ego. Because of their afflictions. To suggest that Christ "healed" in the past tense is to deny the individual need of Christ. It's like saying that Christ is an impersonal one size fits all baseball cap. He isn't. Through the Church, His treatment is dispensed on an individual level, based on individual needs. I'm never going to be "healed" in the past tense. I'm going to be healed in an ongoing treatment because Christian dogma and doctrine, unlike Protestant dogma and doctrine, recognizes the perpetuity of sin in the life of the individual. It never asserts that sin is something we get over.

I do not imply it as past tense, but rather as instantaneous, that from the moment it occurs, it happens in the moment between seconds, too fast for us to note. I do not deny the individual need for Christ, in fact, I don't believe one is healed until their death, in that moment where there soul finally becomes free of its physical constraints, but no sooner and no later. Christ, however, I will say is one-size-fits-all , but perhaps not in the way you have stated I think he is. Rather than being someone's personal Lord and Savior, he took on the sin of the world past, present, and future while on the cross.

However, his death was something that is personal to all of us, but I guess this is yet another paradox we cannot solve with our own limited means of thinking, for we think in lines perhaps, but the Lord thinks in planes and faces (geometrically speaking) in comparison. It is something to do with His omnipotent presence, yet singular being; His individuality from the rest of the Godhead, but also their unity. I do not try to understand it, I only pray that I am one day entitled to comprehend the simplest of things about Him that I would be incapable of knowing within this body.

Sin, while being something we get over, is something we cannot get over by ourselves, and is something that does not leave us until, once again, that moment between seconds when the soul becomes free of our body. Like I have said extensively before, Sin is something we are cursed to deal with for the entirety of our life, Christ being the only one who was able to circumvent it, because of who He is, not because of what He is.

You misunderstand. Salvation is healing.

Salvation is what heals, not what begins healing. Salvation is a one time thing, not an enduring thing. It covers once and for all time our sin, it does not cover our sin piece by piece until we die. Again, most of the important stuff in a Christian's life happens in that final moment where once again we die, but are fully redeemed.

You speak as though history is separate from reality. Do you think that Christ was born and the Bible with him? The Bible took hundreds of years to create. Do you think the apostles and their disciples stood on the street corner thumping at the Jews about the good news of Christ? No. Of course they didn't. Because the Bible didn't exist. This isn't a doctrinal or dogmatic difference of opinion. It is historical fact. As much a fact as saying that yesterday it was hot. The Bible came into existence after the Church and at the behest of the Church.

History is not separate from reality, but it is separate from the present. Christ was not born ad the Bible with Him, but well into half the Bible had already been written at the time of His birth. That'd be the Old Testament.

The other half which was written after His death admittedly wasn't composed into one contiguous work like it is now until what, the Council of Nycea (or something like that, certain the spelling is wrong, but nevertheless you get my point). However, it was not the Church that had existed at the time of the apostles, but rather those following in their steps. The Bible was not created by the Catholic Church, it was not created by the Christian Church, it was not created at all by any human hands. It was created by God, however it was assembled by men of God. Thus therein lies perhaps the difference in opinion here. However, they did stand on street corners thumping at the Jews about the good news of Christ, but they were likely to be thumping their chests. Also, how did you know the weather for me yesterday... =_=

MOVING ON, the Bible (in its raw form, not assembled into one contiguous work like it is now) was created from the time of the Church, it was written by members of the Church, but overall, it was created by God, more specifically, his Holy Spirit.

Perfection is not a threshold to pass. The only perfect thing is God. Man, through God, can be made more perfect than before. It's a gradual transition from less perfect to more perfect. Perfection is, in fact, improvable.

Webster and Google seem to think otherwise. Now, remember, it is a word, and perhaps there is a better one to describe it, but going simply from this point of reference here, it does not appear so from my standpoint:

Google says:
per·fec·tion
pərˈfekSHən/Submit
noun
the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
"the satiny perfection of her skin"
a person or thing perceived as the embodiment of perfection.
"I am told that she is perfection itself"
synonyms: the ideal, a paragon, the ne plus ultra, a nonpareil, the crème de la crème, the last word, the ultimate, the best; More
the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible.
"among the key tasks was the perfection of new mechanisms of economic management"
synonyms: improvement, betterment, refinement, refining, honing More

Let's just look at that first and last definition there closer...

-the condition, state, or quality of being free or as free as possible from all flaws or defects.
-the action or process of improving something until it is faultless or as faultless as possible.

Anywhere in there say anything about improving beyond perfection? No, it does not, it is the point at which no more improvements can be made because it already encompasses the whole of the point it was supposed to address.

Indeed. That's no different from what I said. However you wish to say it, it's bibliolatry.

Ah, now I see what you're getting at here, no, I do not worship the Bible, but rather view it as my means of further understanding the being I worship. Perhaps that points out all the more my point in all of this.

Yet more heresy. Of course God is movable. Of course God is capable of struggle. Lest He never would have called out to Adam and Eve when they hid. Lest He never would have prayed for the strength to do as was necessary before His crucifixion. Lest He never would have been Man.

God does not change, he is the same today, yesterday, and forever. Perhaps in the form of emotional struggle, yes he is movable, he does show sadness, but also happiness, disappointment, but also pride. Here is where simply a misunderstanding in the terms of the words used was taken, unless I am still mistaken.

Again, this is heresy against Christian dogma. If Christ is fully Man and fully God then Man does, in fact, have a place in the Trinity. That's the purpose of existence as far as the Christian is concerned - full and absolute reconciliation with God through the Son.

*shakes head*

This is really very basic theology.

I know it is basic theology, but from where I stand, Man is inherently evil, save for the only one who ever managed to live a pure and blameless life that being Jesus, our God in the flesh, and again I feel that perhaps a misunderstanding here through the flawed medium of communication we have has occurred, or maybe, once again, I am mistaken. I know Man is in the Trinity in the form of Jesus Christ, but I also was taking into account before, the millions and billions of those whom have been a part of the human race and yet not been believers.

More heresy. The Church is not spiritual. It's physical. What you're saying is tantamount to declaring that Jesus, having once died, yet remains dead. What you're saying is tantamount to declaring that Jesus, upon ascending to sit at the right hand of the Father, did not ascend body, soul, and mind. What you're saying is that there is a distinction that separates the spiritual form the mental and from the corporeal. There isn't.

Again, I don't understand what you mean here. I do believe there is a very strong distinction between the mental, the physical, and the spiritual. Tell me how these things are not distinctive from one another so that I might understand what you are getting at here because I honestly and sincerely do not understand.

It doesn't put us on terms with the Creator. It puts the Creator on terms with us. Throughout this exchange you have highlighted the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Protestantism: the Christian views God as humble beings that only seek to be reunited with their Creation while the Protestant views God as the ultimate judge upon whose feet we must all prostrate ourselves out of fear of damnation.

Such a view isn't, necessarily, invalid. On the contrary, it's what makes Protestantism so viable a faith. I rather think you Protestants do yourselves a great disservice by insisting that you are the same as us. You aren't. Not by any stretch of the imagination is the Protestant concept of God, worship, dogma, and approach to faithful doctrine similar.

I'm sorry, but I actually shudder in response to that notion, "It puts the Creator on terms with us." It is almost like you're saying," Hey God, I did this, so now listen to me, because you're on terms with me now." God never fell out of terms with us, we fell out of terms with him. Also, why do you think God cannot be both the (I refuse to use the word humble for there is no reason to use it for a being like God to be humble except perhaps when one considers Jesus's own humility, but that was before the will of God to show what we should do likewise) gentleness of the Lamb, yet also the fierceness of the Lion. He has shown that He is indeed that ultimate judge like you say, but He also has shown a great love and grace that shows His desire to be in a relationship with His creation.

Will there not indeed be a reckoning at the end of time when God will see to it that all whom have violated His will are punished bar those who believed in the promise of His Son? That definitely appears to me as though he is indeed a great and ultimate judge. However was there not also a time when He called out to Man, in the Garden, to seek us out, to find us when we had hidden ourselves from Him? Though He knew already what had transpired, He still wished to see us in our moment of defeat, in our greatest moment of weakness, he showed grace, by sparing them. Not only that, He gave them clothing, and throughout the Bible we see Him constantly judging His people, but also we see Him constantly providing for them, and defending them. Here again I say that god is not one or the other, but both, to an extent we might never even fully comprehend.

[Chelta]

Could I inquire of the Eastern Orthodox contingent here how they would respond to this?

It's an analysis of St Cyprian's De catholicae ecclesiae unitate, which I've been reading, on a Catholic apologetics website. I'm not a Catholic, but I'm just wondering, because the Eastern Orthodox also consider themselves to be the true church, how they would interpret that source, as opposed to how Catholics would interpret it.

Particularly this bit:

What St. Cyprian says here presupposes not only that St. Peter and his successors enjoy a special divine protection from heresy, but also that St. Peter and his successors serve as the Church’s principium unitatis, i.e. the touchstone by which schism is determined, such that in the event of a schism, it is not question-begging which side “went out” and which side is the “us” from which they went out.1 E.g. “You went out from us, because we’re right. No, you went us from us, because we’re right.” etc. For St. Cyprian, the divinely established means of avoiding both heresy and schism, lies in what Jesus gave uniquely to St. Peter and his successors. This is confirmed in what St. Cyprian writes in one of his letters:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare — a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics — to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. (Epistle 54, 14)

In this excerpt from St. Cyprian’s letter, he again refers to both aspects of St. Peter’s role. St. Peter’s throne [i.e. his cathedra or chair] is located in the chief Church (i.e. Rome) from which priestly unity takes its source. Here St. Cyprian is describing the role of St. Peter and his successors as the Church’s principium unitatis in relation to which schism from the Church is defined.2 The visible source not only in time, but also presently in essence, of the unity enjoyed by the Church’s priests, is St. Peter’s unique authority. But St. Cyprian also points to the infallibility of St. Peter and his successors, when he says of this See, “to whom faithlessness could have no access.” It has to be the case that the magisterial touchstone of orthodoxy is inseparable from the principle of visible unity, otherwise we would potentially be forced to choose between the evil of heresy and the evil of schism. But God would never put us in such a situation. If there is to be a divinely established teaching authority, then it must also be the principle of unity. And if there is to be a principle of unity in the Church, then it must be the locus of divinely established teaching authority.

...My apologies if it looks like I'm trying to ignite another Roman-Eastern standoff. I have no dog in this fight, but I'm genuinely interested.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, first of all it is important to note that although we revere the words of the saints and consider them always worthy of study and careful reflection, we don't assume that they are right about everything. In fact they can't be, since different saints and Fathers of the Church sometimes directly disagreed with each other, so it's not possible for all of them to be right about everything at the same time. Both the Catholics and the Orthodox accept the writings of the saints as valuable, but fallible and sometimes opinionated. Thus, one possible response is simply "St. Cyprian was wrong about that", just as the Catholics believe that certain commonly-recognized saints were wrong about other things.

Another response is that yes, Christ set aside a special role for St. Peter, but said nothing about a monarchical line of succession. The Orthodox Church does not regard the bishops of Rome as being the only successors of St. Peter, pointing out that St. Peter also ordained bishops in many other places besides Rome, and was himself for a long time the head of the church in Antioch. In a sense, we believe that the "line of succession" from St. Peter has been intermingled with the lines of succession from all the other Apostles, such that it makes no sense to point to any one see or any one bishop as THE successor to St. Peter. All bishops are successors of St. Peter, and all bishops are successors of all the other Apostles as well.

As for the quote from St. Cyprian which mentioned "the chief Church whence priestly unity takes its source", I would have to read the entire letter in context, not just a few excerpted sentences, in order to respond. For example, was he implying that Rome is "the chief Church" of the world, or "the chief Church" of a region, like Italy for example, or the Western Mediterranean? In the latter case we would agree with him. In fact, we may even agree that Rome had the right to be "the chief Church" of the world if by "chief" is meant a position of honour - i.e. the most respected Church, the one whose opinion is most valuable - and not a position of authority.

In most of the religious controversies of the 1st millennium, the Orthodox Church actually believes that the Pope of Rome was correct. Among the various major bishops of the early Christian world, the bishop of Rome was the most reliable, the most likely to hold the orthodox position. What we believe about the Popes of Rome is basically that they were the greatest bishops of Christianity and then fell into heresy out of pride.

I'd also like to note (again, as I did some pages ago) that there was at least one Pope of Rome which is considered a heretic even by the Catholic Church itself. And there were many disputed papal elections, periods when multiple people claimed to be Pope, etc. So to claim that the Popes "enjoy a special divine protection from heresy" - in the sense that they cannot be heretics - is nonsense, and untenable even by Catholic standards. Popes were highly unlikely to be heretics in the 1st millennium, but certainly not completely immune to heresy. The assumption that because you have a great track record you cannot be wrong is precisely the kind of deadly pride I was talking about.