Search results

I think we need our ideologues to get to work articulating our political theories more succinctly because I just don't believe that we differ as much as we might appear to on the surface. I think we're 'talking past' each other in many cases. Could be wrong. There are way more just Americans...

My point was in the nature of the claims being made. "God exists" cannot be disproven, just analytically; logically (it's impossible to prove a negative). There isn't any evidence that can be discovered or supplied which will prove that God isn't real. For the Resurrection however it isn't...

So, didn't you just show that there is no 'Gospel' that involves works and lawkeeping? Viz., there is a Remnant "no longer of works."

And that would happen if you freely chose to stop believing, right? Is there some other way salvation could be lost while still continuing to believe in Christ?

Unless I'm missing something nobody in this thread is saying that salvation can be lost. As far as I'm concerned it's a dispute about 'losing' salvation versus that it can be walked away from, or that it can be given away willfully. Not 'losing' it. I'm reading you and Musterion saying that...

The only thing that's being discussed is whether someone can choose to not believe the Gospel, after previously choosing to believe it.

It ought to be strengthening for us to logically conclude that you can't prove God doesn't exist. But this doesn't prove that He does exist, just because you can't prove that He does not exist. But you could prove that the Resurrection of Christ was a fictional event instead of a nonfiction...

The saving grace is that even if the bishop is an outright fraud and doesn't even believe in Christ, when he presides over the sacraments when they are celebrated licitly then Jesus is really present there anyway. The CCP can't stop Jesus.

It's not explicit. It doesn't conflict with the idea that there is a 'pause' in there somewhere, but it also doesn't prove that any 'pause' happened either. In contrast the New Covenant is called "eternal" and or "everlasting" explicitly.

But if they didn't talk about it then it's an argument from silence that they taught it at all.

Man are you drunk?

We had a whole thread about that. It was never resolved, it's still an open question whether something called an "eternal" covenant could ever be 'put on hold' or 'paused' or anything like that. It was certainly never positively proved in or with any scripture.

Yeah basically agreed.

Catholicism is a 'goldmine' of freedom. But it's not 'Old Jed Clampett shooting a hole in the ground (because he missed what he was shooting at) and accidentally striking oil' freedom----you have to actually mine for it in Catholicism. You have to get to work! But what work? Study the...

You're right. It's unpersuasive. If we were to try to 'piece together' the New Covenant from just the Old Testament, what would we 'come up' with? It's a good thing that God did not leave that task for us to do, instead He provided Twelve Apostles. He trained them and taught them...

This is what I quoted (excerpted), Jeremiah 31:34 " for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." Are you trying to tell me that this doesn't sound like "Paul's Gospel of the uncircumcision" to you? (1st Corinthians 15:3 " ...Christ died for our sins according to...

No. Just the excerpt I quoted. The one I excerpted does.

But not necessarily exclusively.

Sad theological misunderstanding on the part of the priest.

Just sounds like "Paul's Gospel to the uncircumcision" to me.