Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

santing · 25-05-2011 10:48PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:00PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:00PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:12PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:20PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:30PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:32PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Christ a type of Adam is in the Bible

I said Christ is the new Adam.

antiskeptic · 25-05-2011 11:37PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:37PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:38PM

Donatello wrote: »

I said Christ is the new Adam.

I was more interested in Eve II. From scripture.

antiskeptic · 25-05-2011 11:40PM

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 · 25-05-2011 11:48PM

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 · 26-05-2011 12:03AM

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 · 26-05-2011 12:13AM

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 · 26-05-2011 12:15AM

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 · 26-05-2011 01:01AM

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 · 26-05-2011 09:57AM

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 · 26-05-2011 10:22AM

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 · 26-05-2011 10:31AM

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 · 26-05-2011 11:13AM

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 · 26-05-2011 11:17AM

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 · 26-05-2011 11:40AM

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 · 26-05-2011 12:22PM

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 · 26-05-2011 05:57PM

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 · 26-05-2011 06:01PM

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 · 26-05-2011 06:24PM

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 · 26-05-2011 07:48PM

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 · 26-05-2011 11:52PM

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 · 27-05-2011 12:14AM

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 · 27-05-2011 12:22AM

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.

Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

Comments