Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

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.

lmaopml

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.

Santing, who said the smallest white lie would seperate us from God for all eternity? That's wrong, very wrong..

Sometimes, I think our 'language' or terminology seems to get in the way of understanding eachother..and we come away with a false impression...


You have to remember that Catholics agree with pretty much everything you are saying as regards being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ...So from there, to battle on and try to understand eachother a little better..


We don't hold to the OSAS doctrine, or total depravity, or Calvinism or being predetermined.

I have a feeling that most of the posters on this thread speaking with us Catholics, hold on to at least one or more of all of these doctrines. So with that in mind, if you would permit me to try to explain for the sake of understanding and clarity...because it's very difficult to know what kind of doctrines are on any given posters mind who is debating with us Catholics.

I don't think we will convert eachother..lol..but I certainly think the exercise of 'understanding' is worth the effort, and it's what I would like to see for this 'mega' thread - THAT would be something

When from a Catholic perspective, we receive 'Confirmation' and the gift of the Holy Spirit, we believe that there is a 'process' by which one goes through in order to be finally saved and fully transformed and sanctified, that we're on a 'journey' of sorts - it's not a once off event in this lifetime and therefore, we are free to convince ourselves that we'll be ok without treasuring and honouring the spirit who resides within, or to take for granted that we are one of the 'elect'

- you must remember Catholics, as do many Christians hold fast to 'Free Will'... if we do something wrong, we only have ourselves to blame, not our nature.


We know that we will most likely sin after this initial conversion, we are still a child of God but we should not continue sinning or offending God, we should self examine and continue sanctification and repentance in order to more fully reflect the Spirit that resides within....'this' is not 'work', this is part of 'becoming' a Saint and honouring the gift of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

'Grave' sins or 'Mortal' sins are a clear and out right rejection of the Holy Spirit. He cannot live where he is despised, offended and rejected.

So for all intents and purposes, our difference doesn't lie in the 'fact' that Catholics believe we are children of God too from first conversion, but we do believe it is a journey, and perseverence is not to be taken lightly - in order to fully sanctify ourselves and fully do the will of God.......The Church and it's role, along with the Sacraments and community play a role on this journey to guard and strengthen us....

When we do the 'will' of God he is pleased, when we allow ourselves to more fully reflect God's attributes and kill our own desires we are exercising that free will and alligning it more fully with God's will....

The only 'merit' we receive for doing the will of God is when he finally lays us bare at judgement and rewards each according to their works....I can only imagine how much 'love' we gave etc. How much we allowed the spirit to shine through so to speak...

You have to remember though, that 'reward' is not the 'motivator' in order to gain some 'higher' place, it is not a bargaining chip either through 'works done in vain - the uniting more fully through love and 'for' love of God - that is why we are keeping ourselves sanctified and humbling ourselves on this journey presuming nothing but trusting fully....

The sacrament of reconcilliation helps us grow in grace. Sin, is not of the Spirit.

If nothing else I hope that we can get over the language thing and gain a little more insight into eachother and our respective views - that would be really nice.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

Santing, who said the smallest white lie would seperate us from God for all eternity? That's wrong, very wrong..

I can understand your reaction, but it shows that you either don't understand the nature of sin or the [nature of] God. A white lie, is still a lie and not compatible with the holiness of God and heaven. Did the Lord Jesus not pay the price of all sin, big and small? So in answer to your question, "who says so" - my God says so ...

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
1Cor 5:6,7 Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast--as you really are.

The tiniest bit of yeast can "corrupt" the whole dough...

lmaopml wrote: »

Sometimes, I think our 'language' or terminology seems to get in the way of understanding eachother..and we come away with a false impression...

You have to remember that Catholics agree with pretty much everything you are saying as regards being saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ...So from there, to battle on and try to understand eachother a little better..

Not at all. Not only are words such as "grace" and "faith" given a new unbiblical meaning, Catholicism very much says saved by grace plus ... Its the plus that makes the previous portion void.

lmaopml wrote: »

We don't hold to the OSAS doctrine, or total depravity, or Calvinism or being predetermined.

I have a feeling that most of the posters on this thread speaking with us Catholics, hold on to at least one or more of all of these doctrines. So with that in mind, if you would permit me to try to explain for the sake of understanding and clarity...because it's very difficult to know what kind of doctrines are on any given posters mind who is debating with us Catholics.

Fair enough.

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think we will convert eachother..lol..but I certainly think the exercise of 'understanding' is worth the effort, and it's what I would like to see for this 'mega' thread - THAT would be something

When from a Catholic perspective, we receive 'Confirmation' and the gift of the Holy Spirit, we believe that there is a 'process' by which one goes through in order to be finally saved and fully transformed and sanctified, that we're on a 'journey' of sorts - it's not a once off event in this lifetime and therefore, we are free to convince ourselves that we'll be ok without treasuring and honouring the spirit who resides within, or to take for granted that we are one of the 'elect'

- you must remember Catholics, as do many Christians hold fast to 'Free Will'... if we do something wrong, we only have ourselves to blame, not our nature.

We know that we will most likely sin after this initial conversion, we are still a child of God but we should not continue sinning or offending God, we should self examine and continue sanctification and repentance in order to more fully reflect the Spirit that resides within....'this' is not 'work', this is part of 'becoming' a Saint and honouring the gift of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.

I agree that that sounds like a good summary of the Roman Catholic position .... and my position would be that someone on that path doesn't really know God or salvation, but is outside of the blessings of God, with other words not a Christian.

lmaopml wrote: »

'Grave' sins or 'Mortal' sins are a clear and out right rejection of the Holy Spirit. He cannot live where he is despised, offended and rejected.

Over and against the concepts of mortal and venial sin, the Bible does not state that some sins are worthy of eternal death whereas others are not. All sins are mortal sins in that even one sin makes the offender worthy of eternal separation from God. ALL sins are a clear and out right rejection of the Holy Spirit, of the Father and the Son. Remember it was only a wee bite of an apple that caused mankind to be separated from God.

lmaopml wrote: »

So for all intents and purposes, our difference doesn't lie in the 'fact' that Catholics believe we are children of God too from first conversion, but we do believe it is a journey, and perseverence is not to be taken lightly - in order to fully sanctify ourselves and fully do the will of God.......The Church and it's role, along with the Sacraments and community play a role on this journey to guard and strengthen us....

And what does it mean to be a child of God? Can you un-become a child of God? Do I need to behave myself in order to be a child of God, or do I behave because I am a child of God? The change in wording is subtle, but the change is character/position is enormous.

lmaopml wrote: »

When we do the 'will' of God he is pleased, when we allow ourselves to more fully reflect God's attributes and kill our own desires we are exercising that free will and alligning it more fully with God's will....

The only 'merit' we receive for doing the will of God is when he finally lays us bare at judgement and rewards each according to their works....I can only imagine how much 'love' we gave etc. How much we allowed the spirit to shine through so to speak...

You have to remember though, that 'reward' is not the 'motivator' in order to gain some 'higher' place, it is not a bargaining chip either through 'works done in vain - the uniting more fully through love and 'for' love of God - that is why we are keeping ourselves sanctified and humbling ourselves on this journey presuming nothing but trusting fully....

The sacrament of reconcilliation helps us grow in grace. Sin, is not of the Spirit.

If nothing else I hope that we can get over the language thing and gain a little more insight into eachother and our respective views - that would be really nice.

I can only agree with the last paragraph... insight and respect of each other and our respective views, but at the same time we need to challenge our views - we can be sincere and still be sincerely wrong.

lmaopml

santing wrote: »

I can understand your reaction, but it shows that you either don't understand the nature of sin or the [nature of] God. A white lie, is still a lie and not compatible with the holiness of God and heaven. Did the Lord Jesus not pay the price of all sin, big and small? So in answer to your question, "who says so" - my God says so ... The tiniest bit of yeast can "corrupt" the whole dough...
Not at all. Not only are words such as "grace" and "faith" given a new unbiblical meaning, Catholicism very much says saved by grace plus ... Its the plus that makes the previous portion void.
Fair enough.

It also demonstrates that you have doctrine of predestination, and believe you are virtually predestined and sinless, and not only that but 'chosen'. You believe that you are a living saint that does not sin..and has no urge by that virtue to lend yourself to any reason, beyond those boundaries.

Donatello

santing wrote: »

Remember it was only a wee bite of an apple that caused mankind to be separated from God.

You make it sound like having a nibble on a Granny Smith was the reason for the fall. The sin of Adam was not simply taking a little bite out of an apple - it was a massive sin of proud rebellion against God.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

It also demonstrates that you have doctrine of predestination, and believe you are virtually predestined and sinless, and not only that but 'chosen'. You believe that you are a living saint that does not sin..and has no urge by that virtue to lend yourself to any reason, beyond those boundaries.

I am not sure where you got that idea ... but I would agree with John: "

1John 1:8 If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." I have no idea how one could be "virtually" predestined, I do not think I am sinless - or ever will be sinless here on earth, and yes, I do believe that all (real) Christians are Saints ("1Cor 1:2 those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints"). Yes, I rejoice in the doctrine of predestination, but at the same time I also want to give the concept of free will a fair shot - where one of these is exalted over the other, you get problems. Keep them together (impossible though it may seems) and things fall into shape.

lmaopml

That, I can identify with.:)

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

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.

You're making the assumption that the RCC == Christian church. This simply hasn't been substantiated other than the fact that you say every good Roman Catholic should believe in it.

The universal Christian church (catholic means universal yet you use it to describe a particular denomination) gave us the Bible, gave us the Apostolic teachings, gave us the churches. I consider every Christian to be a part of this universal church of which there are many denominations. I don't see any valid reason to limit this to the Western and Eastern rites of the RCC.

antiskeptic

santing wrote:

And what does it mean to be a child of God? Can you un-become a child of God? Do I need to behave myself in order to be a child of God, or do I behave because I am a child of God? The change in wording is subtle, but the change is character/position is enormous.

Indeed.

Although God is omnipotent, we are not. And so God is limited (by our being limited) to utilising language/concepts/pictures that we can appreciate.

And when it comes to describing the relationship between those who have been born again and himself, the primary picture he uses is Father/Child. one of the many conclusions we can draw from that picture is the very impossibility of that bond being undone once it is made. It is impossible for the Father to cease being a Father or a Child to cease being a Child once the conception and birth has taken place.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

It also demonstrates that you have doctrine of predestination, and believe you are virtually predestined and sinless, and not only that but 'chosen'. You believe that you are a living saint that does not sin..and has no urge by that virtue to lend yourself to any reason, beyond those boundaries.

Salvation by grace alone doesn't demand that a person hold that they were predestined unto salvation.

Consider first one of the classic proof-verses posited to support predestination (unto salvation)

Ephesians 1 wrote:

4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonshipURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ephesians%201&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29212c"]c[/URL through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves.

He "chose us in him before the creation of the world" can be read (with difficulty imo) as meaning "he chose to put us (certain lost people) into Christ before the creation of the world". Predestination unto salvation in other words.

It is (far) easier to read it as descrbing what God predestined to occur to those who are found to be in Christ. In other words, before the creation of the world, God decided that whoever was found to be in Christ, would be made holy and blameless in his sight. He is, in other, other words, deciding what to do with a category of people called Christians.

The same idea is applied to the next section of the passage. Calvinists read his predestining us to sonship as meaning he predestined us to salvation. Whereas you can read it as God predestining what would occur to those people who were found to be in Christ. Making them sons is but one of the many things that is to occur to them.

Predestining people unto salvation vs. Predestining what is to occur to people who have been saved. There is no need to read it according to the former of the two.


Secondly. Let's suppose my own salvation represents a typical case - even if the details differ greatly from the story of others. In my case, I didn't believe in God at the point of my salvation. I didn't believe in Hell in order that anything I did (by way of asking an unbelieved in God for help) could be said to involve my establishing my own righteousness.

No matter whether you are godless like me or worshipping a false/twisted version of god like the muslims or Jews (or in many cases Catholics), no-one can believe in the true God until God makes himself known to the person. And if that occurs after you are born again then nothing you do prior to that can said to be a work. Work is the attempt to establish (or in the case of Roman Catholicism, maintain) your own righteousness. Work is an attempt to obey the law to aid a positive afterlife outcome. Work isn't possible for one who doesn't believe there is an afterlife to come. Which describes me before I was saved.

philologos

Admittedly I'm very torn between predestination and free will. This was a debate that was had long before the rise of Protestantism in Medieval Christianity. As far as I'm concerned it is still unresolved. I know that God's will predestines things to a degree, and I know that our will directs us in this way and that to a degree. The issue is in reconciling both. It isn't really a Protestant vs Roman Catholic issue.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

You're making the assumption that the RCC == Christian church. This simply hasn't been substantiated other than the fact that you say every good Roman Catholic should believe in it.

The universal Christian church (catholic means universal yet you use it to describe a particular denomination) gave us the Bible, gave us the Apostolic teachings, gave us the churches. I consider every Christian to be a part of this universal church of which there are many denominations. I don't see any valid reason to limit this to the Western and Eastern rites of the RCC.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Denomination refers to the Protestant Ecclesial communities which arose following the Protestant Revolt.

The Apostolic teachings? Protestants don't believe in the Eucharist, yet Catholics do, just as from the beginning the Catholic Church has believed in the Eucharist. Is the Church schizophrenic? Because according to your view, the Apostolic teachings contradict themselves. (Well, I'm not actually confused, but it's a good smilie.)

philologos

Donatello: You would claim that there are two rites to the Roman Catholic Church namely the Western and the Eastern and in those there are denominations of either such as the Maronite Church in Lebanon or the Assyrian Church in Iraq. I simply follow your conclusion to include all Christian churches which you call "ecclesial communities" in a derogatory fashion.

In mathematical terms the RCC can only be a subset of Christianity even if it contains about 50% of Christians. I think that's being fair and reasonable or at least in comparison to your approach.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

Donatello: You would claim that there are two rites to the Roman Catholic Church namely the Western and the Eastern and in those there are denominations of either such as the Maronite Church in Lebanon or the Assyrian Church in Iraq. I simply follow your conclusion to include all Christian churches which you call "ecclesial communities" in a derogatory fashion.

In mathematical terms the RCC can only be a subset of Christianity even if it contains about 50% of Christians. I think that's being fair and reasonable or at least in comparison to your approach.

I would not claim that there are two Rites in the Catholic Church. There are more than two Rites within the Catholic Church - all of them in communion with the Roman Pontiff. This article is fascinating - I must read it myself - it explains the whole thing in a good way:

The Various Rites and Churches of the Catholic Church

Denomination, as a word/term, has absolutely no use, meaning, or application within the Catholic Church. According to the Catholic Church, denomination is a word that is used to describe the various ecclesial communities that resulted from the Protestant Revolt and which are not in Communion with the Pope.

This video may be useful:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqXDu7mmMY

I wish you'd stop insisting Catholics follow your use of terms, according to your Protestant understanding. You keep doing it and it is deeply upsetting! You can't force the Catholic to accept your understanding of the Church or to embrace your use of terms by repeating them.

philologos

You can use whatever terms you like provided you can substantiate them. Otherwise they will be questioned. Seems fair to me. You've took me up on my use of "denomination" and on my use of "catholic" to describe the universal church before people decided to reinterpret it to suit them. I feel I should have the same liberty.

The Reformation (not 'Protestant revolt') happened for a reason, and I think you know this if you look to the state of the RCC at the time that it occurred. Without the Reformation you wouldn't have an English Bible. Much of Christian tradition and practice even if you are not of a Reformed church came out of the Reformation. It's just a shame that the RCC didn't allow the Reformers to reform from within.

As for videos and articles - I will be expecting explanation in your own terms as this is much more fruitful.

wolfsbane

Donatello wrote: »

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.

Yes, I see your point. It's no use appealing to Scripture, if Scripture can only mean what the RCC says it does. Authority is THE issue.

However, the RCC claim to authority can be tested on its own basis. It claims, in your words, 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

Where do we see the Lord make such a promise? No where in Scripture. Scripture only shows that promise to the apostles. No such promise to any individuals in the succeeding generations.

What the Church HAS been given is the infallible word of the apostles - the Bible. All our doctrine must be established from that. We have the Holy Spirit to keep us from fundamental error, and to cause us to grow in our knowledge of all the rest.

It would be convenient to have an infallible interpreter of the Bible, just as the apostles were. But that was not what Christ promised - as He knows best, what we have must be the best way of leading us on in His grace and knowledge. Study, prayer, teaching and admonishing one another from the word.

Finally, if the RCC has such apostolic understanding, how come we are left to puzzle and dispute over various doctrines - the End Times and Evolution being big controversies that trouble many? When the apostles were here, the local church just wrote to them for the truth.

***************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

wolfsbane

lmaopml said:

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.

Good!

However, we would distinguish that from your position - as we believe that we aren't actually saved till we expire and are judged,

The Scripture teaches we were saved, are being saved, and will be saved. It seems you only hold to the latter two. Proof of the former:
Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

2 Timothy 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,

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.

Far from being a bad thing, it is a mark of the true Christian. Not that any obey perfectly, but true Christians will repent of any sin they commit in their Christian life. What we differ on with the RCC is in making that obedience a part of the price the atonement. It is a consequence of the atonement of Christ, not a part of it.

As a Catholic we wouldn't judge ourselves saved, but would say we are in the process of being saved.

As a Biblical Christian, we say both.

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.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts/understanding with us. It is good to speak of eternal things, comparing our thinking to the Word of God.

*******************************************************************************
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

Finally, if the RCC has such apostolic understanding, how come we are left to puzzle and dispute over various doctrines - the End Times and Evolution being big controversies that trouble many? When the apostles were here, the local church just wrote to them for the truth.

***************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.

End Times is not really a big issue. The preoccupation with End Times stuff is not a Catholic thing. You see where that kind of silliness gets people like we saw recently... I'm still here, and so are you!

Evolution is a theory which will be explored using scientific methods. We know that science cannot contradict truth so it's a non-issue. We know God made the world and everything in it.

As regards authority, there is today a need for a final authority. We see the disagreements among Catholics and Protestants on artificial birth control as one example, or the doctrine on the Eucharist. Poles apart. There is one truth and the Lord promised us that we would have certain guidance in finding it, through the Church He established, not through private interpretation of Scripture which can be twisted to our own destruction.

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Salvation by grace alone doesn't demand that a person hold that they were predestined unto salvation.

Consider first one of the classic proof-verses posited to support predestination (unto salvation)



He "chose us in him before the creation of the world" can be read (with difficulty imo) as meaning "he chose to put us (certain lost people) into Christ before the creation of the world". Predestination unto salvation in other words.

It is (far) easier to read it as descrbing what God predestined to occur to those who are found to be in Christ. In other words, before the creation of the world, God decided that whoever was found to be in Christ, would be made holy and blameless in his sight. He is, in other, other words, deciding what to do with a category of people called Christians.

The same idea is applied to the next section of the passage. Calvinists read his predestining us to sonship as meaning he predestined us to salvation. Whereas you can read it as God predestining what would occur to those people who were found to be in Christ. Making them sons is but one of the many things that is to occur to them.

Predestining people unto salvation vs. Predestining what is to occur to people who have been saved. There is no need to read it according to the former of the two.


Secondly. Let's suppose my own salvation represents a typical case - even if the details differ greatly from the story of others. In my case, I didn't believe in God at the point of my salvation. I didn't believe in Hell in order that anything I did (by way of asking an unbelieved in God for help) could be said to involve my establishing my own righteousness.

No matter whether you are godless like me or worshipping a false/twisted version of god like the muslims or Jews (or in many cases Catholics), no-one can believe in the true God until God makes himself known to the person. And if that occurs after you are born again then nothing you do prior to that can said to be a work. Work is the attempt to establish (or in the case of Roman Catholicism, maintain) your own righteousness. Work is an attempt to obey the law to aid a positive afterlife outcome. Work isn't possible for one who doesn't believe there is an afterlife to come. Which describes me before I was saved.

Hi Antiskeptic.


I think I understand what you are saying. I must say that, in my opinion, in order to truely appreciate the nature of the fall and also of God himself, a Christian must try to marry both predestination and freewill. It requires some mental aerobics, but like 'understanding' itself, it's a work in progress and worth talking and thinking on...It's an old one that...

Your definition of the 'work' seems odd to me though - from a Catholic perspective the 'work' is that of doing the will of God, and not doing our own will. Also, even though we are saved by Grace, we must remember that after an initial conversion that when Christ died on the cross for our sins - and in 'that' knowledge - we recognise that any future sins are adding to Calvary, that is something we should avoid by repenting?

lmaopml

wolfsbane wrote: »

lmaopml said:

Good!


The Scripture teaches we were saved, are being saved, and will be saved. It seems you only hold to the latter two. Proof of the former:
Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

2 Timothy 1:8 Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

Titus 3:4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, 5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,


Far from being a bad thing, it is a mark of the true Christian. Not that any obey perfectly, but true Christians will repent of any sin they commit in their Christian life. What we differ on with the RCC is in making that obedience a part of the price the atonement. It is a consequence of the atonement of Christ, not a part of it.


As a Biblical Christian, we say both.


Thank you for sharing your thoughts/understanding with us. It is good to speak of eternal things, comparing our thinking to the Word of God.

*******************************************************************************
John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

Hi Wolfsbane,

They are beautiful passages, and carefully chosen.

If I may have a look at just one of them and what it says to me...

Romans 8:23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.

The 'firstfruits of the Spirit' and are eagerly awaiting 'adoption' - In other words, the way I would read this is that we are 'converted' and eagerly awaiting the Spirit to 'fully' reside within and redeem us.

'For we were saved in this hope' - The 'hope' that the Spirit lives within, if the Spirit does reside within and we actually accept this gift it is precious.

'But hope that is seen is not hope' - To my very lay mind this is a warning against being too proud at this initial 'conversion' for it is a 'gift' a 'gift' of 'hope', and 'hope' that is seen is not hope it is early 'pride'...

'But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly await it with perseverence' - Absolutely.

I think this is possibly what Jesus spoke of when he mentioned the three stages as such, or what replaced the old law - 'Hope, Faith, and Charity ( sometimes called 'Love' ) but above all is 'Love' and that is our destination on our journey - It's the ultimate expression of the Spirit.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I think I understand what you are saying. I must say that, in my opinion, in order to truely appreciate the nature of the fall and also of God himself, a Christian must try to marry both predestination and freewill. It requires some mental aerobics, but like 'understanding' itself, it's a work in progress and worth talking and thinking on...

As pointed out, I don't see any particular brain-hurdle in marrying the two. God predestining what is to occur to any who should become Christians at some future point impacts not at all on freewill. Does the State predestining those who might be found drunk driving to prison sentences in anyway affect the freewill of those who choose to drink and drive? Not at all.

Your definition of the 'work' seems odd to me though - from a Catholic perspective the 'work' is that of doing the will of God, and not doing our own will.

..in order that your salvation have a better chance of being retained. You forgot to say.

Now you might argue that that isn't your motivation, but if that is indeed the prize then no one can honestly say their motivation is pure. "There's a gun pointing at my head but I'm going to act as if there isn't" just can't cut it.

Also, even though we are saved by Grace, we must remember that after an initial conversion that when Christ died on the cross for our sins - and in 'that' knowledge - we recognise that any future sins are adding to Calvary, that is something we should avoid by repenting?

It would be more accurate to say that you have been tentitively saved by grace. Or saved to a degree by grace. Or by grace you have been given the opportunity to be finally saved.

Your salvation-by-grace has riders on it. Conditions. Those conditions being performance-related render the salvation not actually by grace.

A 90% grace based salvation isn't a grace based salvation. Nor is a 99.999% grace based salvation. A grace based salvation is only grace-based.