Beware of Bible studies!

[Matt16_18]

Dan-Man916:

… they will not answer me on whether or not the Christian who accepts Christ and then goes out and murders, lies, steals, committs adultery, has other gods (sex money power), etc will still be saved.

I don’t know if it is possible to say what the two hundred plus flavors of Baptists believe about anything, but the largest Baptist sub-group in the USA, the Southern Baptists, believe in the antinomian flavor of OSAS. Every Southern Baptist that I have ever met told has said, when asked, that they believe that once you are “saved”, that there is NO sin, absolutely no sin even conceivable, that a “saved” man could commit that would damn him to hell for all eternity.

This, of course, means that a backslid Baptist could, in principle, become an unrepentant serial rapist, that died screaming blasphemies against the Holy Spirit while he committed suicide as an offering to Satan. Yep, no sin, means no sin, even the unforgivable sin – end of the discussion. Which means that Baptist can be unrepentant for the unforgivable sin, and still go to heaven. Just exactly what God would do with an unrepentant, unforgiven sinner in heaven, no Southern Baptist can ever explain. Since the belief that the “bigger the works on earth, the bigger the rewards in Heaven” theology is commonly held to be true by Southern Baptists, I suppose that the unforgiven Satan worshippers would not get nice mansions in heaven - perhaps only a rundown trailers in the seedy section of Paradise Court .

Don’t expect anything but evasion from a Southern Baptist if you ask for answers from these obvious questions. When you come up with an extreme scenario such as “saved” unrepentant Satan worshipping Nazis performing acts of genocide, the Southern Baptist may inadvertently blurt out, “that person was never really saved in the first place”. But all that means is that means is that the Baptist still has a functioning conscience that causes him to balk at the extremes of his OSAS theology, and that in his heart, he really does believe that a Christian has to live a moral life. When you ask the Baptist to explain what sin a Christian cannot commit because that would prove that they were never really, truly, really, really, saved in the first place, well, don’t expect an answer that question either.

The whole sordid theology of OSAS has blown up into the Lordship Controversy among the Fundamentalists. After two thousand years of Christianity, apparently Christians are trying to discern if Christians really do need to have Jesus as their Lord in order to be saved.

Billy Graham is a Southern Baptist, and try as I might, I cannot find anything on his website states that once you are “saved”, that there is no sin that you could commit that would bring about your damnation. The website dances around the question, and gives hints of hardcore antinomianism, but carefully avoids giving a direct quote that shows where Billy Graham stands in matter.

Don’t get frustrated at Baptist evasion, they are experts at not answering difficult questions about OSAS!

 

[Lamb100]

Forgive me, but as a new Catholic, I have a lot of unlearning to do. That passage about “you cannot sin” is fascinating–I had no idea it really meant “you Christians must not go out and sin”; that never would have occurred to me–just goes to show how dangerous private interpretation is without an authoritative magisterium. Out of curiosity–how do we know that interpretation is correct–how did scholars/the magisterium come to that conclusion–is it in the original Greek word or something?

Dan-Man (post 78)–In regards to Romans 8:10–you’ll just have to count me among the incredibly ignorant–because that passage does sound exactly like the Baptist interpretation. Can you enlighten me as to the true meaning–maybe I should, but I don’t see any other way to read that…Thanks!
Donna

 

[Lamb100]

Re: post 78–as a new Catholic, I have a lot of unlearning to do. I guess you’ll have to count me among the incredibly ignorant as to Romans 8:10–in reading it, I don’t see any other way to understand it than the Baptist way you mentioned, but I must be wrong…Could you please spell it out for me as to what the Catholic (and correct) meaning is? Thank you!
Donna

 

[Lamb100]

Oh, Jermosh–you are so, so right about the Eucharist! That’s how Christ revealed Himself to me and brought me into the Catholic Church–it means everything to me. During a dark time following the high of my conversion, the Eucharist was the only thing that kept me from running back to the Baptists…I know that’s hard for cradle Catholics to understand–but they aren’t all closed minded people–their theology of OSAS is based upon all the promises of God and how much He loves us and has said nothing will separate us from Him…I’m not saying it’s right–they have false premises and no sense of history…but sometimes we do talk past each other about basically the same thing. Most Baptists I meant were really just seeking reassurance of the love of God the Father–they weren’t trying to get away with sin–they were sincerely holy people who did do good works and try to follow the Lord.

I like to think of St. Therese and St. Faustina, and God’s overwhelming mercy, and their sense of a personal relationship with Jesus–that keeps me from getting so frustrated with Protestants–and my fellow Catholics! In many cases we’re speaking about very similar things. Lack of charity on both sides prevents listening to the truth.

But oh–the Eucharist! I could think about Him all the time and never run out of things to do–never get bored. I’ll never leave the Catholic Church, because of the Eucharist.

Thank you for bringing it up. )
In Him,
Donna

 

[mayra_hart]

to lamb 100: can you tell me as former baptist what is there thinking about dead people. the moderator of the bible study i use to go say that they don’t pray to the dead, as a matter of fact they won’t even go an watch movies like sixth sense:bigyikes: . do they believe in the idea that once you died your soul goes to heaven or the purgatory:yup: . thank you for expressing so well about the eucharistic is so sad that for other fundamentalist the eucharistic is just a piece of bread. i will pray hard so someday they will find the real meaning in that little piece of bread. iam doing the bible study of scott hahn iam truly like it a lot, i hope you like it too. god bless your friend god bless

 

[pacersFan]

cestusdei:

As to Vatican II and ecumenism. I am all for it. But I am not stupid. When someone says they have an interfaith Bible study and use it to steal my parishioners that isn’t ecumenism. It is wolves in sheeps clothing. We don’t have to allow ourselves to be taken advantage of.

I have a little trouble with the statement above. I would use the word “steal” to describe a group of Mormons or Islamics converting Catholics; however, at the end of the day, Protestants and Catholics both report to the same guy. It’s more like moving divisions, but staying within the same company. Also, “Wolves in sheep’s clothing,” seems a bit harsh to use to describe our brothers and sisters in Christ.

I would rather see a Catholic move to Protestantism, than to see him lose his faith altogether. I encounter too many people in the world that USED to be Christain.

I mean no disrespect with my post, but I am troubled by all of the energy that is spent in arguing over details, when there are so many others out there that need saving.

 

[cestusdei]

While they are Christians that doesn’t mean they cannot or do not “steal”. That is a fair description of their tactics.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

pacersFan:

Protestants and Catholics both report to the same guy. It’s more like moving divisions, but staying within the same company. Also,

.

I have no military background, but do different divisions within the same company conflict with and contradict one another in vital ways?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Matt16_18]

Lamb100:

Forgive me, but as a new Catholic, I have a lot of unlearning to do. That passage about “you cannot sin” is fascinating–I had no idea it really meant “you Christians must not go out and sin”; that never would have occurred to me–just goes to show how dangerous private interpretation is without an authoritative magisterium. Out of curiosity–how do we know that interpretation is correct–how did scholars/the magisterium come to that conclusion–is it in the original Greek word or something?

That interpretation is so obvious to a Catholic, that they are typically dumbfounded when they first hear the Calvinistic interpretation that “cannot sin” means incapable of committing a sin.

Imagine a teenage girl that gets in trouble with her mom, and her mom tells her daughter that she is grounded, and that she cannot go outside for the rest of the day. No one thinks that the daughter is incapable of sneaking out of the house just because mom told her she isn’t *allowed * to go outside of the house.

Take it that it is a given that Catholics believe that free will is a precious gift from God. For Catholics, it is obvious that when John says the Christian cannot sin, he does not mean that saving grace destroys the Christian’s free will and turn them into meat robots incapable of sinning!

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

Matt16_18:

That interpretation is so obvious to a Catholic, that they are typically dumbfounded when they first hear the Calvinistic interpretation that “cannot sin” means incapable of committing a sin.

Imagine a teenage girl that gets in trouble with her mom, and her mom tells her daughter that she is grounded, and that she cannot go outside for the rest of the day. No one thinks that the daughter is incapable of sneaking out of the house just because mom told her she isn’t *allowed *to go outside of the house.

Take it that it is a given that Catholics believe that free will is a precious gift from God. For Catholics, it is obvious that when John says the Christian cannot sin, he does not mean that saving grace destroys the Christian’s free will and turn them into meat robots incapable of sinning!

Is it your understanding that when one is saved that person has the ability to sin but God will not allow it? If God does not allow something it would seem that one is incapable of it. Where am I misunderstanding you?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Matt16_18]

Lamb100:

Re: post 78–as a new Catholic, I have a lot of unlearning to do. I guess you’ll have to count me among the incredibly ignorant as to Romans 8:10–in reading it, I don’t see any other way to understand it than the Baptist way you mentioned, but I must be wrong…Could you please spell it out for me as to what the Catholic (and correct) meaning is? Thank you!
Donna

Paul is talking about concupiscence.

CONCUPISCENCE. Insubordination of man’s desires to the dictates of reason, and the propensity of human nature to sin as a result of original sin. More commonly, it refers to the spontaneous movement of the sensitive appetites toward whatever the imagination portrays as pleasant and away from whatever it portrays as painful. However, concupiscence also includes the unruly desires of the will, such as pride, ambition, and envy. (Etym. Latin con-, thoroughly + cupere, to desire: concupiscentia, desire, greed, cupidity.)

Pocket Catholic Dictionary - John A. Hardon, S.J.

**Catechism of the Catholic Church

2515** Etymologically, “concupiscence” can refer to any intense form of human desire. Christian theology has given it a particular meaning: the movement of the sensitive appetite contrary to the operation of the human reason. **The apostle St. Paul identifies it with the rebellion of the “flesh” against the “spirit.” ** Concupiscence stems from the disobedience of the first sin. It unsettles man’s moral faculties and, without being in itself an offense, inclines man to commit sins.

2520 Baptism confers on its recipient the grace of purification from all sins. But the baptized must continue to struggle against concupiscence of the flesh and disordered desires. With God’s grace he will prevail

- by the virtue and gift of chastity, for chastity lets us love with upright and undivided heart;

• by purity of intention which consists in seeking the true end of man: with simplicity of vision, the baptized person seeks to find and to fulfill God’s will in everything;
• by purity of vision, external and internal; by discipline of feelings and imagination; by refusing all complicity in impure thoughts that incline us to turn aside from the path of God’s commandments: “Appearance arouses yearning in fools”;
• by prayer

 

[Dan-Man916]

Matt,

just as an aside, i thought it funny that in my debate with this baptist, he pointed out that baptists do have writings of the early fathers to back up what they say, and then mentioned menno simons as the early church writer.
haha isn’t that a good one!

 

[angelictouch]

Hi

I totaly agree with you but when you go to many churches to ask for bible studies or do one myself and then get told by Priest that no I can’t or they don’t have them and also show the lack of interest of bible studies. I live in Canada and I am having the hardest time to mingle with my parish. I went to another Parish and still the bond among themselves is so thick that I can’t cut through especially to start a bible study.

Love and Peace
Loretta

 

[Matt16_18]

Lamb100

The Baptist/Gnostic understanding is that the “flesh” is corrupted, and that we receive a new spirit by being born again. But the “flesh” that we are struggling against is not just our bodies; we also struggle with our minds that want to dwell upon what we should avoid. For neither has the evil intent of human art misled us,
nor the fruitless toil of painters,
a figure stained with varied colors,
whose appearance arouses yearning in fools …
Wisdom 15: 4-5

"You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matt. 5:27-28 The Baptist typically does not think that being born again also sanctifies the body – it is only a regeneration of the “inward man”. But our bodies are made holy by the grace that we receive in baptism, because sanctifying grace makes our bodies Temples of the Holy Spirit. Paul gives an example of a sin that is against the sanctified body.

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.” But he who is united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own; you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.
1 Cor. 6:15-20

You might want to check out these two books by Catholic authors:The Sanctified Body: A Gripping Investigation of Bilocation, Levitation, Supernatural Energy and Other Mystical Phenomena.
Author: Patricia Treece

The Incorruptibles: A Study of the Incorruption of the Bodies of Various Catholic Saints and Beati
Author: Joan Carrol Cruz

 

[Matt16_18]

Catholic4aReasn:

Is it your understanding that when one is saved that person has the ability to sin but God will not allow it?

No, that is not what I mean. The saved person has the ability to sin, and God has given him the freedom to commit sin if he desires to be disobedient.

The hyper-Calvinist believes that so-called “irresistible” grace would prevent a Christian from sinning. “Irresistible” grace is better named “corrosive grace” since this so-called grace destroys man’s free will and turns human beings into meat robots incapable of sinning.

If God does not allow something it would seem that one is incapable of it. Where am I misunderstanding you?

There is a difference between God’s perfect will, and God’s permissive will. It was God’s perfect will that Adam and Eve should avoid eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. But Adam and Eve had the gift of free will, and they were free to choose disobedience to God’s perfect will. God’s allowed Adam and Eve to commit sin by his permissive will.

The Calvanist struggles with this because he has to come to grips with the fact that Adam and Eve were not created “totally depraved” in Paradise. They were created holy, and they were able to do disobey God’s perfect will.

The Calvinist also struggles with the fact that Christians can commit mortal sin and bring damnation upon themselves through their free will choice for disobedience to God’s perfect will.

 

[Matt16_18]

Lamb100:

It seems like Catholics are in a time warp or something. I remember 30 years ago in my Presbyterian church hearing about how feeding the 5000 was a “miracle” of sharing. How the possessed boy had mental illness (OK, that one I’ll grant–maybe). What it did, over the years, was both weaken my faith and create deep in my heart a spiritual depression I couldn’t shake until the Lord poured out his grace on me by revealing the Real Presence. Then, I went to a Catholic church, expecting this great Christian fellowship like the book of Acts or something, and WOW…reality check.

Thank you so much for allowing me to vent–I haven’t really been able to share this with other Catholics very easily.

Pax et bonum,
Donna

Feel free to speak your mind, and don’t let the dissenters and the cafeteria Catholics get you down.

Reality check indeed! Seek out the faithful remnant in your church for fellowship – there must be some around, somewhere. Perhaps you can sneak up and catch one kneeling in prayer before the tabernacle (if the tabernacle hasn’t already been moved to the broom closet).

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

angelictouch:

Hi

I totaly agree with you but when you go to many churches to ask for bible studies or do one myself and then get told by Priest that no I can’t or they don’t have them and also show the lack of interest of bible studies. I live in Canada and I am having the hardest time to mingle with my parish. I went to another Parish and still the bond among themselves is so thick that I can’t cut through especially to start a bible study.

Love and Peace
Loretta

I’ve run into that same thing. How about starting one in your home?

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Lamb100]

oops–my mistake–re posts 82 and 83–I didn’t think 82 had gone through, so I reposted in the form of 83–and now I see they both went through. Sorry for the duplication!
–donna

 

[Lamb100]

Matt16_18:

That interpretation is so obvious to a Catholic, that they are typically dumbfounded when they first hear the Calvinistic interpretation that “cannot sin” means incapable of committing a sin.

This is fascinating–because even though I’ve been Catholic almost a year, I was basically Presbyterian (Calvinist) for the previous 50. It’s hard to root it all out all at once–lol! I was just as dumbfounded to hear for the first time the Catholic interpretation of this verse…it really never had occurred to me to look at it that way. Even though I’ve always believed the truth is somewhere in between pure free will (what do they call it–antinomianism or Arianism–I forget, but you know what I mean) and complete predestination (in other words, faith is both a gift of God’s grace and a work, requiring human will and decision)–lifelong training predisposes one to look at the Bible a certain way without even realizing it. That’s kind of scary…
That’s why we must never stop learning. Thanks for setting me straight.

Mayra–about your post…since I never was actually Baptist (just spent 2 years in Bible study with them and almost joined), I’m not sure I can answer your question properly, but I’ll try. Protestants do not believe in purgatory, period–when you die, you either go to heaven or hell. About praying to the dead–that’s another area where I need the help of Catholic apologists here, due to a lifetime of learning conflicting Protestant theologies, believing it was all one Christian truth…I still have some trouble with that. It’s very clearly spelled out in Scripture that we’re not supposed to invoke the dead (necromancy)…so…to whom can we talk? Is it only the official saints of the Church? (I accept that they’re not dead but in heaven, but what about people who may or may not still be in purgatory–may we ask their intercession?) What about the blesseds? How about those whose cause is being presented for sainthood? I’ve heard of advocates of those in the last category who do pray for the intercession of their candidate, and I know the early church just automatically assumed martyrs were in heaven interceding for them. I really would like to know, because one of my patrons for confirmation is a Catholic virgin martyr-saint, Faith, and another is Rachel Joy Scott, the Protestant Columbine martyr. I feel it’s rude to pray to one and not the other…but is it allowed? I believe in my heart, as much as it is possible for me to speculate, that Rachel is in heaven because she died a martyr’s death.
In Him,
Donna

 

[Lamb100]

Matt16_18:

Feel free to speak your mind, and don’t let the dissenters and the cafeteria Catholics get you down.

Reality check indeed! Seek out the faithful remnant in your church for fellowship – there must be some around, somewhere. Perhaps you can sneak up and catch one kneeling in prayer before the tabernacle (if the tabernacle hasn’t already been moved to the broom closet).

Lol!!!–Thanks for the humor and the advice. ) Things are looking up–I’ve found a parish that hopefully seems really faithful to the Magisterium, and since getting involved in Christ Renews His Parish, I have found that faithful remnant, thank God. Now, my task is to somehow bring up my qualms about the Bible we’re using–the NAB St. Joseph’s edition is full of scholarly notes that, while in many ways are excellent, show that same tendency to undermine traditional faith. Scott Hahn addresses this problem with the historical-critical method in an essay in his book Scripture Matters…I think I need to not let the turkeys get me down, as you say, and spend more time thinking of the positive things going on.

Thanks again, and God bless!
Donna