Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

PDN

It's rather funny that the Protestant/Catholic debate thread seems to be developing into a debate on a subject (OSAS) that isn't really a Protestant/Catholic thing at all.

Modding this forum is like herding cats.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

It's rather funny that the Protestant/Catholic debate thread seems to be developing into a debate on a subject (OSAS) that isn't really a Protestant/Catholic thing at all.

No. But it does touch on the works vs. grace debate - on the former side of which One Church steers most certainly True.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree it cannot be easy. Which is why we must use the only common ground we have. The Bible. I gather Catholics believe too that scripture interprets scripture. If so, then there will be scripture that tells us that falling from grace means loss of salvation.

- There is no Judgement Day for me.

The Church interprets Scripture authoritatively. Scripture found its origin within the Church, Who then discerned which books conveyed the faith of the Church. The believer alone with his Bible, interpreting privately, is a novel idea that has no basis in the origin of the Church.

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

As Fulton Sheen might say, ''You'll believe it when you see it.''

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

santing

Donatello wrote: »

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

You are right, we don't want to do any work, to be part of God's family. But those who know God's family know that it is a hard working family

Donatello wrote: »

As Fulton Sheen might say, ''You'll believe it when you see it.''

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

"Truly , truly , I say to you, he who hears My word , and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life , and does not come into judgment , but has passed out of death into life ." John 5:24 NASB

Donatello

santing wrote: »

You are right, we don't want to do any work, to be part of God's family. But those who know God's family know that it is a hard working family

The 'work' I'm talking about (not 'work' as far as I'm concerned, or any Catholic, for that matter) is avoiding sin. We must do what Christ said so that our baptismal garments may be kept clean and our lanterns lit - using the Sacraments of the Church and prayer, and the oil of good works, so that the Holy Spirit may dwell in us, His temples.

Quo Vadis

PDN wrote: »

Modding this forum is like herding cats.

lol

lmaopml

Thanks a million for explaining the osas doctrine guys. I never actually realised that part of that is that you don't attend judgement, but go straight to heaven like the saints.

I understand how the doctrine could develop looking at the bible and various scriptural passages, particularly Romans and I think I understand more fully your position.

Also, from a Catholic perspective I would agree with everything the bible says about a person who is 'saved' of course..... and that we can never be lost once we have been saved etc.

However, we would distinguish that from your position - as we believe that we aren't actually saved till we expire and are judged, that we persevere in grace and repent of any sins that would offend God, that this is important right up to the end, keeping our souls clean for God is important and my feeling is that this 'effort' is seen as some kind of bad thing from your perspective, however from ours it is all part of growing in grace and accepting with honour the tremendous gift we have been given in Jesus Christ. As a Catholic we wouldn't judge ourselves saved, but would say we are in the process of being saved.

From a personal perspective I think the Catholic position fully marries all scripture, and is balanced and feels right (for me), but I understand we are all different in this Christianity.

Thanks for explaining your perspective more fully, it's an education as always.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

From a personal perspective I think the Catholic position fully marries all scripture, and is balanced and feels right (for me), but I understand we are all different in this Christianity.

Thanks for explaining your perspective more fully, it's an education as always.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to authority: who has the divine authority to interpret Scripture correctly?

Is it, as the CC holds, that the Lord has promised the Holy Spirit to keep the successors of Peter and the Apostles without error in the realm of faith and morals in their shepherding of God's people, or is it the case that the Lord has promised the Holy Spirit to guide each and every believer infallibly in his reading of the Scriptures? That would be grand, if not for the 30,000+ interpretations from everything to salvation theory to homosexuality, to sacraments, etc... And these, not fringe issues, but core doctrinal areas. And that's only denominations.

At the end of the day, we can sling verses at each other all day, but in the final analysis, it comes down to authority.

Quo Vadis

santing wrote: »

"Truly , truly , I say to you, he who hears My word , and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life , and does not come into judgment , but has passed out of death into life ." John 5:24 NASB

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 KJV

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

The Church interprets Scripture authoritatively.

Says the Church. How delightfully circular

Scripture found its origin within the Church, Who then discerned which books conveyed the faith of the Church. The believer alone with his Bible, interpreting privately, is a novel idea that has no basis in the origin of the Church.

It is your private interpretation that concludes Rome correct in what it claims. There is no substantive difference between you and me.

I'm a diy-er. You call in the tradesmen trusting somehow that he isn't a cowboy.

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

I've no objection to work. I just don't think it's rewards get deposited in the same account that you reckon your's get deposited in.

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

At least I argue. You post links and won't defend enquiry into what they say (remember Catholic answers??). You post reams of scripture references as if sheer weight of numbers makes the case for you - but don't respond to rebuttals.

You ain't nuttin but a drive-by apologist, Donny-boy.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

... I never actually realised that part of that is that you don't attend judgement, but go straight to heaven like the saints.

That's right. We are the saints according to the Bible, so we go straight to heaven like the saints!

santing

Donatello wrote: »

The 'work' I'm talking about (not 'work' as far as I'm concerned, or any Catholic, for that matter) is avoiding sin. We must do what Christ said so that our baptismal garments may be kept clean and our lanterns lit - using the Sacraments of the Church and prayer, and the oil of good works, so that the Holy Spirit may dwell in us, His temples.

My faith isn't big enough for this , if the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only guaranteed by my sinless life, I am sure I would have expelled Him long ago. No, the Holy Spirit dwells in me because God promised me that. It is guaranteed by God's promise. Why doubt God's word - do we make Him a liar?

And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever--the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. John 14:16, 17 NIV
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30 NIV

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Thanks a million for explaining the osas doctrine guys. I never actually realised that part of that is that you don't attend judgement, but go straight to heaven like the saints.

What do you mean 'like' saints. I am a saint.

I understand how the doctrine could develop looking at the bible and various scriptural passages, particularly Romans and I think I understand more fully your position.

Also, from a Catholic perspective I would agree with everything the bible says about a person who is 'saved' of course..... and that we can never be lost once we have been saved etc.

However, we would distinguish that from your position - as we believe that we aren't actually saved till we expire and are judged, that we persevere in grace and repent of any sins that would offend God, that this is important right up to the end, keeping our souls clean for God is important and my feeling is that this 'effort' is seen as some kind of bad thing from your perspective,

It is seen as some kind of bad thing because no matter how you try to dress it up, you end up at the same destination. And that destination is working for your salvation.

It just isn't feasible that someone could claim their effort isn't in anyway influenced by the thought of losing the prize of salvation. Leave alone the snapping at the heels brought abut by the prospect of Hell and Purgo. I don't mean not feasible to me, I mean not feasible to you, for yourself.

however from ours it is all part of growing in grace and accepting with honour the tremendous gift we have been given in Jesus Christ. As a Catholic we wouldn't judge ourselves saved, but would say we are in the process of being saved.

You haven't been given this tremendous gift yet. You've been permitted to run in a race with a tremendous prize if you manage to complete the race. This same race has potentially very negative aspects to it. There is nothing tremendous in that.

You could reasonably adopt a neutral stance. Not a tremendous one.

From a personal perspective I think the Catholic position fully marries all scripture, and is balanced and feels right (for me), but I understand we are all different in this Christianity.

I don't see how you can say that. Pauls Romans argument is a half a (long) epistle long. Closely knit, step-by-step, start-to-finish - demonstrating how it is that someone is brought from death to life (it's not by water being poured on your head btw). And how it is that that brings about a total, irreversable transformation.

Countering that, you've isolated 'proof-verses' strung together from all over the Bible glued together with Cathecism.

There isn't any comparison.

Thanks for explaining your perspective more fully, it's an education as always.

Always a pleasure

lmaopml

I am really glad for you that you are a saint and will not sit before Christ one day.

I haven't mentioned anything from the Catechism once Antiskeptic, neither have I mentioned any bible verses strung together, that's not my style, I type in a narrative fashion. However, if you would like to enquire futher from me, it would be nice to just ask anything you feel curious about?

I hope to meet you one day in a better place, I mean that.

Donatello

santing wrote: »

My faith isn't big enough for this , if the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is only guaranteed by my sinless life, I am sure I would have expelled Him long ago. No, the Holy Spirit dwells in me because God promised me that. It is guaranteed by God's promise. Why doubt God's word - do we make Him a liar?

Nobody ever lived a perfectly sinless life, apart from the new Adam and the new Eve - Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

However, we are called to be perfect. God knows our weakness, so He gives us the sacraments. Even venial sin cannot cause the Holy Spirit to depart, but mortal sin drives the Holy Spirit from the temple.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Nobody ever lived a perfectly sinless life, apart from the new Adam

Christ a type of Adam is in the Bible

and the new Eve - Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Where's Mary a type of Eve .. in the Bible?


(The words ' expect a seriously oblique reference' just shot across my mind)

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christ a type of Adam is in the Bible

I said Christ is the new Adam.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I am really glad for you that you are a saint and will not sit before Christ one day.

Saint Anti (rather than Anto)


I'll sit, stand but first, in all likelyhood, I'll fall flat on my face in awe and wonder.

But just not in Judgement.

I haven't mentioned anything from the Catechism once Antiskeptic, neither have I mentioned any bible verses strung together, that's not my style, I type in a narrative fashion. However, if you would like to enquire futher from me, it would be nice to just ask anything you feel curious about?

Sorry. I didn't mean you, I meant the case as so often presented. Does a good exegetical exposition of Romans exist in Roman Catholicism? One that doesn't beg the questions being answered?

I hope to meet you one day in a better place, I mean that.

Me too. I pray you'll come out of Purgo no more than medium-rare (joke: I don't believe in Purgo to pray you through it)

santing

Donatello wrote: »

However, we are called to be perfect. God knows our weakness, so He gives us the sacraments. Even venial sin cannot cause the Holy Spirit to depart, but mortal sin drives the Holy Spirit from the temple.

Where do you get this distinction from? Where does it say that a sin drives the Holy Spirit from us? How long in the OT was God's Presence with the temple?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

I said Christ is the new Adam.

I was more interested in Eve II. From scripture.

antiskeptic

santing wrote: »

Where do you get this distinction from? Where does it say that a sin drives the Holy Spirit from us? How long in the OT was God's Presence with the temple?

edit. Unnecessary. Sorry

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I was more interested in Eve II. From scripture.

There's no 'banging my head on the wall' smiley. There ought to be.

Meanwhile... http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

There's no 'banging my head on the wall' smiley. There ought to be.

I couldn't agree more. I asked for a scriptural reference pointing to Mary being a second Eve. Something on a par with the scriptural references for Christ being the second Adam eg:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Cor. 15:22, 45[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . . 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Instead I got a link to "All Things Marian". Don't you have a scripture reference on a par with the one's pointing to Christ, the second Adam[/FONT]


[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Going once...[/FONT]




[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]:)
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Saint Anti (rather than Anto)


I'll sit, stand but first, in all likelyhood, I'll fall flat on my face in awe and wonder.

But just not in Judgement.




Sorry. I didn't mean you, I meant the case as so often presented. Does a good exegetical exposition of Romans exist in Roman Catholicism? One that doesn't beg the questions being answered?




Me too. I pray you'll come out of Purgo no more than medium-rare (joke: I don't believe in Purgo to pray you through it)

LOL, I will remember in future that I am speaking with saint Anti

When I think on the sit, stand, or even try to push my imagination there, I often think of the 'Dream of Gerontius' which is beautifully put...and speaks to me.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I asked for a scriptural reference pointing to Mary being a second Eve. Something on a par with the scriptural references for Christ being the second Adam eg:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]1 Cor. 15:22, 45[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. . . . 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Instead I got a link to "All Things Marian". Don't you have a scripture reference on a par with the one's pointing to Christ, the second Adam[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Going once...[/FONT]

The Scripture citations are there if you care to look.

One other important thing to note is that the Catholic Church derives Her teaching from both Scripture and Tradition.

This idea the Bible falling out of the sky into the lap of the believer is alien to the whole concept of being a Christian. The Bible came from the Church - the community of believers. The faith of the Church is the faith of that body of believers that was established by Christ. The idea that you can take yourself off into the woods, Joseph Smith style, and come up with your own doctrine, as you have, is actually quite bizarre. Only in the heart of the Church is to be found the faith of the one Church of Jesus Christ.

Without the Church, you end up condoning sins, but we've been over that so many, many times in the past. Blinded by pride, we end up calling evil good, and good evil.

Unity—real unity—comes from one thing and one thing alone: oneness. That is, Christian unity comes from oneness with God as expressed by one reality, one truth, one belief, one faith, and one doctrine.

More here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrFBX03Bnno

Quo Vadis

What do people think of this simple analogy ?

Suggested improvements welcome.

We can choose to eat the apple (sin and disobedience) or refrain from it.

The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again, but only for those who choose to obey God and refuse the apple, and try to live life as innocently as Adam and Eve before the fall. The more innocently you live, the easier it becomes to avoid sin. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:13

santing

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What do people think of this simple analogy ?

Suggested improvements welcome.

We can choose to eat the apple (sin and disobedience) or refrain from it.

The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again, but only for those who choose to obey God and refuse the apple, and try to live life as innocently as Adam and Eve before the fall. The more innocently you live, the easier it becomes to avoid sin. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:13

The analogy won't go. Even after our conversion (having been saved) we will sin, and every single sin (incl. the smallest white lie) will separate us form a righteous God for all eternity.

1 John 1:8-10 NIV If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

Secondly, we cannot go back to the innocent state of Adam and Eve. They didn't know goor or evil, but we do. Natural man is completely corrupted by sin (nature) and the closer we come to God the more painful we will be aware of our own sin ... and the greater we can aprreciate God's love for us.

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

you don't attend judgement, but go straight to heaven like the saints.

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that the saints are not to be subject to final judgement?

Slav

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What do people think of this simple analogy ?

Suggested improvements welcome.

We can choose to eat the apple (sin and disobedience) or refrain from it.

The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again, but only for those who choose to obey God and refuse the apple, and try to live life as innocently as Adam and Eve before the fall. The more innocently you live, the easier it becomes to avoid sin. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

Sounds very good in theory but raises one important question: why Christ? What is his role in this world if we, who live with sin all around us and within us, can "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Because what was applicable and possible for Adam and Eve is not necessarily applicable and possible for their descendants:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Gen 5:1-3)

live life as innocently as Adam and Eve before the fall

So do you have any practical solution for that?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

The Scripture citations are there if you care to look.

You could have given me a link to a bible. The scripture citations would be buried in there somewhere too.

:rolleyes:

One other important thing to note is that the Catholic Church derives Her teaching from both Scripture and Tradition.

Which is another way of saying that even were I to sift through all the pages in your link, I likely wouldn't find any reference to Mary, the second Eve.

I've no problem with you saying it's a traditional thing. But let's not pretend scripture says it.

This idea the Bible falling out of the sky into the lap of the believer is alien to the whole concept of being a Christian. The Bible came from the Church - the community of believers. The faith of the Church is the faith of that body of believers that was established by Christ. The idea that you can take yourself off into the woods, Joseph Smith style, and come up with your own doctrine, as you have, is actually quite bizarre. Only in the heart of the Church is to be found the faith of the one Church of Jesus Christ.-

The Bible came from God. It was given to men by God and in the same way as he ensured what he wanted written would be written, he ensured what he wanted to be handed down would be handed down. Men do not take credit.


The doctrine I settle on is a product of me studying the bible supplied by God and viewpoints supplied by others. Your doctrine is the product of accepting other peoples viewpoint on the bible. You're in the same position as me except you lack your own input. Which isn't to say your position is necessarily worse than mine - at root it's a decision we both make personally.

Other than the assumption of One True Church (another doctrine you've accepted through personal interpretation of scripture and history), you're in no different a position than me.

Without the Church, you end up condoning sins, but we've been over that so many, many times in the past. Blinded by pride, we end up calling evil good, and good evil.

Unfortunately for this claim, you've no way of elevating your position above mine. You arrive where you do by personal intepretation/reasoning which concludes the truth lies in the Roman Church being the true authority.

antiskeptic

Quo Vadis wrote: »

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:13

What is one who is born (again)? A little child.

lmaopml

Slav wrote: »

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that the saints are not to be subject to final judgement?

Hi Slav,

No, probably poor expression on my behalf. I believe everybody gets judged both the saint and the sinner. It just sounded odd to my Catholic ears to hear that people deem themselves living saints before judgement. As far as I am aware in the Catholic faith we have two judgements, a particular judgement and final judgement in the end times. Although 'revelations' is not really an area of scripture that I am overly familiar with and various denominations views on this....

philologos

antiskeptic wrote: »

At the root of man lies the will. His thoughts (or rather, where he let's his thoughts rest) are a function of that will. So are his actions. Work then, is sourced in the will.

Correct, but it doesn't logically follow that everything done of the will is work.

antiskeptic wrote: »

If your salvation depends on an expression of your will in a particular direction during these times of trial then what substantial difference between you and anyone who follows any of the recognised works religions? We would agree that they try to establish their own righteousness through their own effort. But if you lost salvation you would be deemed unrighteous - rendering a direct connection between your performance and your righteousness.

I believe that God has saved everyone in the world (not just some alá Limited Atonement of the TULIP) if they are willing to accept it. That is an act of the will. It isn't work but it is acceptance. How can I be forgiven if I am not truly sorry for whatever I did? What meaning does that have then?

It follows that if at any point that someone knew and rejected that grace (which Hebrews 6:5-6 mentions) that they are no longer saved because they no longer accept salvation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

N'est ce pas?

There is a problem with the reasoning that every action of the will somehow constitutes a work. I would say that desire isn't work.

I believe there is a lot more uncertainty in the exact mechanics of salvation than either camp being the Arminian and Calvinist camp make out. For all intents and purposes I will say that we are saved by accepting Christ.

Quo Vadis

santing wrote: »

The analogy won't go. Even after our conversion (having been saved) we will sin, and every single sin (incl. the smallest white lie) will separate us form a righteous God for all eternity.

Secondly, we cannot go back to the innocent state of Adam and Eve. They didn't know goor or evil, but we do. Natural man is completely corrupted by sin (nature) and the closer we come to God the more painful we will be aware of our own sin ... and the greater we can aprreciate God's love for us.

Thanks for the reply, but maybe you read it a bit too quick

"and try to live life as innocently as Adam and Eve did before the fall." I didn't talk anywhere about going back.
Of course we can't, but we can try our best to avoid anything that is not innocent in nature. The point I'm making is that one of the keys to reduce your temptation to sin is to avoid situations, places, books, films where sin is shown as normal and acceptable, and especially to avoid company that don’t find such situations wrong. You are the company you keep. In other words a lot of modern society is hanging around and eating from the apple tree so to speak.

I'm not trying to change any doctrine here, or make this yet another a Catholic Vs Protestant game of eternal ping pong, or define a new type of salvation. I'm just in the process of developing some personal thoughts about avoiding sin, and trying to have an ecumenical chat about it.

Basically I find reminding myself that seeing any evil, hearing any evil, speaking any evil, or being in poor company is like being too close to the apple tree in the Garden of Eden, best to avoid it. It’s an analogy for sin and disobeying God, thats all

Quo Vadis

Slav wrote: »

Sounds very good in theory but raises one important question: why Christ? What is his role in this world if we, who live with sin all around us and within us, can "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Because what was applicable and possible for Adam and Eve is not necessarily applicable and possible for their descendants:

This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;
Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.
And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth: (Gen 5:1-3)

So do you have any practical solution for that?

My post was nothing to do whatsoever about cutting out Jesus, did you miss ;

"The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again"

Without Jesus there is no salvation, I'm exchanging thoughts about how to live morally, by avoiding sin as much as possible, not define a new type of salvation.

Donatello

Quo Vadis wrote: »

What do people think of this simple analogy ?

Suggested improvements welcome.

We can choose to eat the apple (sin and disobedience) or refrain from it.

The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again, but only for those who choose to obey God and refuse the apple, and try to live life as innocently as Adam and Eve before the fall. The more innocently you live, the easier it becomes to avoid sin. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.

"I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 8:13

It's beautiful and true.

santing wrote: »

The analogy won't go. Even after our conversion (having been saved) we will sin, and every single sin (incl. the smallest white lie) will separate us form a righteous God for all eternity.

Secondly, we cannot go back to the innocent state of Adam and Eve. They didn't know goor or evil, but we do. Natural man is completely corrupted by sin (nature) and the closer we come to God the more painful we will be aware of our own sin ... and the greater we can aprreciate God's love for us.

Not according to 1 John. Some sin leads to death, but not all. You can check the reference yourself.

Slav wrote: »

Do you, as a Catholic, believe that the saints are not to be subject to final judgement?

At the Last Judgment, all will be revealed, all will be judged. The righteous lives of the saints and the miserable tyranny of the wicked.

Slav wrote: »

Sounds very good in theory but raises one important question: why Christ? What is his role in this world if we, who live with sin all around us and within us, can "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". Because what was applicable and possible for Adam and Eve is not necessarily applicable and possible for their descendants:
So do you have any practical solution for that?

Listen to the Church's moral teachings. Live a holy lifestyle. Pray. Use the Sacraments. Simple.:)

antiskeptic wrote: »

Other than the assumption of One True Church (another doctrine you've accepted through personal interpretation of scripture and history), you're in no different a position than me.

blah blah blah

The mistake you make is that, unlike the Ethiopian Eunuch, you don't go to the Church for the correct interpretation - the faith of the Church - you go it alone. That's the main error of Protestantism - Biblical interpretation outside the community of the Church - the very Church that gave us the Bible, and the very Church which has conserved the teachings and message - the Gospel of Jesus Christ in its undistorted entirety.

philologos wrote: »

How can I be forgiven if I am not truly sorry for whatever I did? What meaning does that have then?
I believe there is a lot more uncertainty in the exact mechanics of salvation than either camp being the Arminian and Calvinist camp make out. For all intents and purposes I will say that we are saved by accepting Christ.

Exactly. All mortal sin must be sincerely repented, otherwise, we are lost.

santing

Quo Vadis wrote: »

... I'm not trying to change any doctrine here, or make this yet another a Catholic Vs Protestant game of eternal ping pong, or define a new type of salvation. I'm just in the process of developing some personal thoughts about avoiding sin, and trying to have an ecumenical chat about it.

Basically I find reminding myself that seeing any evil, hearing any evil, speaking any evil, or being in poor company is like being too close to the apple tree in the Garden of Eden, best to avoid it. It’s an analogy for sin and disobeying God, thats all

Thanks for your correction. As an analogy, I probably would put more emphasis on the positive things ... not so much focusing on the apple, but on communication/fellowship with the gardener and landowner. The Christian life on earth is not a test, but a show case.

Donatello wrote: »

Not according to 1 John. Some sin leads to death, but not all. You can check the reference yourself.

It depends what our interpretation of death is in 1 John 5:16. Since John talks about a brother who sins, it is not the "second death" or eternal punishment that is in scope here. John talks about sins that call for divine capital punishment... (e.g. Ananias and Saphira) Cf with the OT. No sin that was "comtemplated" or "known to be a sin" when done, was forgivable under the Law of Moses. Only "accidental" sins.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote:

Not according to 1 John. Some sin leads to death, but not all. You can check the reference yourself.

If you commit a sin which leads to death then presumably you will die. What has your dying got to do with salvation? Everyone dies afterall.

lmaopml

I think it means that sin does affect your salvation antiskeptic - and not being too comfy, not that those who are comfy are not going to be 'saved' anyway, I don't know that - it's not over till judgement anyway

- but reconciliation and repentance is always important to stress till the end and judgement, it's responsible teaching to know and also understand that one must always be sincere and repent continually for all our failings....and then we can afford some 'confidence', that will most likely wither faced with truth, and mercy and love.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

If you commit a sin which leads to death then presumably you will die. What has your dying got to do with salvation? Everyone dies afterall.

It means death to the soul, not dying physically on the spot. Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul - that is, it drives the Holy Spirit from the temple.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it means that sin does affect your salvation antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

It means death to the soul, not dying physically on the spot. Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul - that is, it drives the Holy Spirit from the temple.

Did you read the passage? Why does John speak about "your brother who commits sin"? Why did he precede did passage with "I write these things ... so that you may know that you have eternal life."
Why is the passage followed up by: "We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him[self] safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We know that we are children of God, ..."

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it means that sin does affect your salvation antiskeptic[

You can justify thinking that way if you understand "death" in this particular instance to mean something other than mere death. By what means does the passage context permit you to read other than a plain meaning into the word death? Donatello has had a stab at it but the fatal flaw in his approach (he utilises eisegesis) is outlined in my response to him immediately below this post

Edit: we might as well clarify now whether you too believe that it is acceptable in discussion with me to utilise eisegesis/"the church says" as a means to support your view of scripture. If so, then there isn't much point in conversing since we have no common ground. Only in so far as you/the church can extract opinion from the text itself (exegesis), is there a means to compare views between us.

- and not being too comfy, not that those who are comfy are not going to be 'saved' anyway, I don't know that - it's not over till judgement anyway

I wouldn't agree. Here we have another use of the word death - which clearly can't be taken to mean commoner garden, drawing-your--last-breath kind of death.

John 5:24 wrote:

"I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.

1 John 3:14 wrote:

We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death.

John and 1 John's parallel passage clarifies that

a) Salvation is the product of belief (infant baptism get's no mention)

b) Crossing over is something that can be said to have occurred past tense.

c) We can know we have crossed over.

d) Jesus doesn't say we might not be condemend. He doesn't say might not be condemned if..

He says "will not be condemned".


You would of course argue that we can cross back the other way if we fail to perform in the manner expected of us. Could you provide passages that indicate this possible .. of someone who can clearly be said to have salvation?

- but reconciliation and repentance is always important to stress till the end and judgement, it's responsible teaching to know and also understand that one must always be sincere and repent continually for all our failings....and then we can afford some 'confidence', that will most likely wither faced with truth, and mercy and love.

You cannot have any confidence if you don't know where the bar is actually set. Donatello see's adultery as a mega-sin to be in the middle of on the point of death. He doesn't hear Jesus equate lust with adultery.

If you don't actually know the seriousness of the sin you commit all day long then how can you have any knowledge of where it is you fall on the accept/reject scale? How do you know you won't commit a mortaller just before you die?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

It means death to the soul, not dying physically on the spot. Mortal sin kills the life of grace in the soul - that is, it drives the Holy Spirit from the temple.

Somewhat predictably, you can't actuallyextract that doctrine from the (con)text.

I know it's only Wikipedia but..

Eisegesis (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with exegesis. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, eisegesis occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an eisegete, as someone who practices exegesis is known as an exegete. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

Since the text itself doesn't support the doctrine, you need to

a) establish the doctrine elsewhere

b) find someway of connecting the established doctrine with this text


.. before your claim is said to hold water. Until then it is safer to take the take the alternative view based on Acts/Corinthian texts, which clearly and exegetically illustrate sin which lead to the commoner-garden sort of death.

Slav

lmaopml wrote: »

Hi Slav,

No, probably poor expression on my behalf. I believe everybody gets judged both the saint and the sinner. It just sounded odd to my Catholic ears to hear that people deem themselves living saints before judgement. As far as I am aware in the Catholic faith we have two judgements, a particular judgement and final judgement in the end times.

Thanks for the clarification lmaopml. That's how I understand the Catholic position as well.

Although 'revelations' is not really an area of scripture that I am overly familiar with and various denominations views on this....

Well, the book of Revelations was the last one universally accepted by the Church. Many generations of Christians lived happily without it.

santing

antiskeptic wrote: »

Helaas Pindakaas!

En wat kunnen de board lezers hiermee? Kunnen we een vertaling geven

Slav

Quo Vadis wrote: »

My post was nothing to do whatsoever about cutting out Jesus, did you miss ;

"The death and suffering of Jesus paid the debt of Adam and Eve and personal sins, and opened the gates of eternal life again"

Without Jesus there is no salvation, I'm exchanging thoughts about how to live morally, by avoiding sin as much as possible, not define a new type of salvation.

I can assure I did not skip the "opened the gates of eternal life" bit in your post. This still makes Christ something that happened long time ago between some Jews and Romans. Someone who only opened the gates (btw what exactly does that mean?), paid the debt, etc. In this model the important thing for us is the outcome: that the gates are open now and our accounts are not in overdraft anymore, but you don't really have to know who opened the gates of who paid you debt. Equally it's not necessary to be friends with the guy or have any relations with him. However he said that you'd better behave now because he'll be back soon to judge you and if you touch the apple again you'll be in trouble. He also set up a body and delegated it some of his powers so you can go to it anytime if your account is in overdraft again - but did not the Temple sacrifices served roughly the same purpose? That body will also guide you in the questions of faith and morals - but did not Moses and the prophets do the same? Effectively by eliminating one law he introduced another, or in other words, he did not fulfill the Law but reinforced it.

Maybe I'm not getting it at all as I don't subscribe to either Catholic or Protestant viewpoint, but being an outside observer I see the questions that Protestants are asking Catholics as valid and generally unanswered. I think sola fide for Reformation was not a revolt against our works as it was seen by Trent. Sola fide was kind of a christological issue: it's not about our works but solely and exclusively about works of Christ.

santing

Slav wrote: »

Well, the book of Revelations was the last one universally accepted by the Church. Many generations of Christians lived happily without it.

Probably because it repeats "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." It seems the established position is "We only hear what the church allows the spirits to say."

Slav

Donatello wrote: »

Listen to the Church's moral teachings. Live a holy lifestyle. Pray. Use the Sacraments. Simple.:)

Too simple. Dreadfully simple I'd say. Looks exactly like the Old Testament Church.

Btw, did you intentionally put the Sacraments to the last place after the moral teachings, prayers, etc.?

antiskeptic

santing wrote: »

En wat kunnen de board lezers hiermee? Kunnen we een vertaling geven

Ik ben al 13 terug maar blijven die Nederlandse uitdrukkingen nog steeds naar boven vlotten.

Slav

santing wrote: »

Probably because it repeats "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." It seems the established position is "We only hear what the church allows the spirits to say."

I don't think so. The book was widely accepted by Rome and the West but it took few more centuries for the East to stop debating on its canonicity. There were two major objections: first, the apostolic origin of the book was not clear, and second, it did not seem to add anything to or clarify something in the gospel, i.e. by many the four Gospels, Acts and the Epistles were deemed to be enough for full and complete canon. Maybe there were also some concerns that due to the prophetic and mystic nature of the book the people will focus more on eschatology rather then soteriology so they'll start deciphering 666 or speculate whether it's going to be a pre- or post- tribulation rapture or have some other fun - pretty much same things that many Christians entertain themselves with nowadays.