Do you have to repent to be forgiven

[Philthy]

Philthy,

Point 6. You have not explicated why sin is the rejection of Christ… you have only explained that sin is “contradictory” to what Christ IS. Christ IS the word of God… The commandment is the Word of God… Sin is a rejection of the commandment (the law)… So, in that sense, in the Old Testament to sin was to reject Christ… But Christ (as the law) died for us. Therefore we are not under the law any longer, but under Christ…

But it seems Catholics desire to be under the law (of which we were made free). To which Paul also addresses in Galatians 4:21 - 31.

John
www.gideonsword.net

OK John, lets try and wrap this up. You are stating that Sin is a “rejection of the law” and that because Christ died for us “as the law” that we are, therefore, no longer under the law. If I am understanding you correctly, you have just stated that it is impossible for a Christian to sin since sin only applies to those who are “under the law” and we (as Christians) are not. Is that your position - that Christians cant sin? Yes or No please and if No - meaning that Christians CAN sin, please explain where I have errored in the following syllogism:

Premise 1: Those who are in Christ(ie Christians) are no longer under any law
Premise 2: Only those under the law can sin
Therefore Christians cannot sin.

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,
If anything that I post is amiguous, it is not a result of the content of my statements, it is the result of your pre-conceived notions contending with the truth.

I see. So when I demonstrate inconsistencies in your posting you can simply ignore them and chalk it up to your improvable assertion that my “preconceived notions”, of which you havent even the slightest knowledge, are at fault. That seems just a little too convenient to me. As Bill O’Reilly would say - time to cut back on the Kool-Aid my friend. :yup:
And just for intellectual clarification, how is it that you get to decide that I have preconceived notions which are an impediment to the Truth yet you do not? Did you vote yourself in for that position?
ba:

Let me ask you this… If we, within ourselves have the power to deny selfishness and sinful desires, persevere in desiring not to sin, and to follow God in love… why would we need Christ?

Because we cant do it on our own - it requires Grace - and that comes from God. And that, unfortunately for you, completely invalidates your objection so the rest of your post is irrelevent.
ba:

Any atonement for sin that comes from man is not only not acceptable to God, but God holds it in distain. And that includes your repentive acts, and your intentions to do right.

Unless, of course, that atonement does not “come from man” but is an atonement united to the eternal sacifice of Christ on the Cross and therefore “comes from” Christ. Insofar as we now live in the flesh, we live by faith in Jesus Christ and we offer our bodies as a living sacrifice holy and pleasing to God.
And why is it holy and pleasing? Because it no longer comes “from man” but it is through the “new creation” that we are in Christ. Another deadly blow to your argument.
ba:

God has provided the sacrifice… why don’t you just accept that sacrifice and stop attempting to circumvent it by attempting to offer something better?
John

I do accept it John. And I dont attempt to circumvent it by attempting to offer something better - that’s simply a preconceived notion of yours. :yup:

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

I don’t have time to specifically answer each point of your arguments… but the jist of our contention seems to lie in the earlier posts regarding the judgement seat of Christ, and the Great white throne judgement.

It seems that you were trying to navigate the debate into whether “Christians” will receive more or less awards in heaven for good works at the judgement seat of Christ. That is not the argument… the point which pertains to repentance is whether or not the judgement seat of Christ is exclusively “Christian”… or is the judgement seat of Christ one in the same with the “Great White Throne judgement”.

Instead of sticking to the topic of “repentance” and how it relates to salvation you have attempted to hijack the thread to a discussion revolving around a controversial statement I made regarding reward in heaven. There are plenty of those we could discuss… start another thread or challenge me regarding my statements on my forums.

My position is:

1. Repentance which leads to salvation is nothing more than a change of mind to accept God’s plan for salvation and reject your own.
2. Where the new testament (Paul) speaks of repentance of sin, he is only speaking to Christians who have the Holy Spirit and therefore are empowered to defeat sin (Christ in them).
3. Proof that repentance is not required for salvation lies in the distinction between the two judgement seats… The Great White throne judgement will condemn those who are not written in the lambs book of life… The judgement seat of Christ will not condemn anyone, but will judge “Christians” for their faithfulness (whether this includes a quantitive reward system or not is yet to be determined).
4. IF repentance of sin were required for salvation, there would be no need for Christ as our attempt to abstain from sin would have been a sufficient work before Christ’s payment.

John
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Philthy,

Originally Posted by ba
Let me ask you this… If we, within ourselves have the power to deny selfishness and sinful desires, persevere in desiring not to sin, and to follow God in love… why would we need Christ?
Answer by Philty
Because we cant do it on our own - it requires Grace - and that comes from God. And that, unfortunately for you, completely invalidates your objection so the rest of your post is irrelevent.

Exactly! It requires grace. Which is what we receive when we are saved. And that grace comes through the Holy Spirit which we are given as a testimony to our salvation, and as a “helper” in our Christian walk.

To approach this logically… the Jews before the time of Christ were very pious, they were morally righteous… but they did not please God. There had to be a sacrifice, or an innocent one to take the judgement for the sinful.

So did the jews before Jesus’ time have grace from God, or did they live morally by their own power?

John
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

John I have a question.

On another thred and we dont have to go into full detail, but you said those who drink wine can not be a true Christian.

Well do those who steal gum are they true Christians? Is drinking wine any different than stealing gum?

Odell, you have already brought this up earlier in this thread. I never said that someone who drinks wine, or steals, or anything else cannot be a Christian. In fact, I said the opposite.

The Apostle Paul in Romans 7 stated that he was a sinner with “the law of sin in his members”. Whatever sin Paul was experiencing he apparently did not like, and was trying very hard not to do… but it was to no avail… he said “that which I would, I do not and that which I would not, that I do”.

Paul had a desire not to sin, becuase a life of purity would ensure a perfect relationship with God, but, Paul was continually sinning against his own will.

It doesn’t matter what the sin is… whether it be stealing a pack of gum, or murdering someone… it seperates us from God… BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE OUR SONSHIP.

There is no scriptural evidence that after a person is saved, that they can lose their place of adoption into the family of God by a sin… only that our relationship is damaged by our sin… and a confession (agreeing that it is wrong) will restore that relationship.

I will use an illustration…

My daughter recently had an issue where she directly disobeyed me. The issue wasn’t even very serious, but she disobeyed me nevertheless. One morning we got up and were getting ready to leave, and I could tell something was different between us… I asked her if everything was alright and she assured me everything was fine.
Later that day I saw her again and she seemed a little distant. This went on for a couple of days until I realized that she seemed distant because she was in a state of rebellion. After thinking about it I realized the only possible thing she could have directly disobeyed me in was the thing I told her not to do a couple of days ago.
After some prodding I was able to extract the truth and I was right… she had done that thing which I told her not to do.

The relationship between my daughter and I was damaged, but not because of my anger toward her, and not because she was not my daughter anymore… but because she KNEW she had disobeyed me and the only possible outcome of rebellion is a seperation (damaged relationship).

She repented, and took the actions necessary to make right what she had done wrong and our relationship was restored to what it used to be… NOT because my anger was appeased, but because my daughter did not harbor the guilty feelings of rebellion anymore.

That is how God relates to Christians. When we sin we cannot possibly have a right relationship with God. That is not because of God’s anger toward us, but because of our rebellion. It is God’s desire to have a perfect relationship with His children, and the only way for that to happen is for us to be in a perfect state of submission (the opposite of rebellion). I don’t mean we have to be perfect… It just means that we have to change those things which God points out and commands we change, which is the Holy Spirit working in our lives to bring about “repentance”.

Confession, is not just telling someone what we have done wrong… but it is “conceding” to God’s commandment and “admitting” that the commandment is wrong. That is what my daughter did when I confronted her about her “sin”.

Repentance is the effort to change that thing about ourselves which inhibits our relationship with God. That is what my daughter did when she took the steps necessary to make her wrong right.

John
www.swordforums.net

 

[Philthy]

Philthy,

I don’t have time to specifically answer each point of your arguments… but the jist of our contention seems to lie in the earlier posts regarding the judgement seat of Christ, and the Great white throne judgement.

My only gripe is that you brought up the Revelations 11:18 verse as a justification for the quantification of Reward in Heaven. You have been shown that that verse says nothing about differing rewards. You were wrong to quote it and you simply appear incapable of admitting that you were wrong to try and use it to prove your point. That is all. The rest of the debate regarding judgement seats is, while debatable, irrelevent to that point.
And BTW, you dont have time? You have averaged almost 7 posts per day for every single day since you joined - how much time would it really take to say that Revelations 11:18 doesnt really discuss differing rewards? It doesnt mean that differening rewards dont exist - you can continue to argue that point, it simply means Rev 11:18 isnt the verse or idea you should have introduced to justify your position. Very simple.

It seems that you were trying to navigate the debate into whether “Christians” will receive more or less awards in heaven for good works at the judgement seat of Christ.

Never. You brought it up. Go check the posts and quote each one like I have already done for you and you will see.

Instead of sticking to the topic of “repentance” and how it relates to salvation you have attempted to hijack the thread to a discussion revolving around a controversial statement I made regarding reward in heaven. There are plenty of those we could discuss… start another thread or challenge me regarding my statements on my forums.

John
www.swordforums.net

Its fine if you wish to blame me. The fact remains however, that you brought up the issue of Revelations 11:18, and not as a response to anything I said. It is also a fact that you were wrong to do so by your self-described “controversial” statement.

 

[Odell]

Philthy,
Exactly! It requires grace. Which is what we receive when we are saved. And that grace comes through the Holy Spirit which we are given as a testimony to our salvation, and as a “helper” in our Christian walk.

Im glad we agree on something. Jesus dying on the cross is the only way we can walk the Christian walk. Thanks for stating something we already know. So now you know
Your question

Originally Posted by ba
Let me ask you this… If we, within ourselves have the power to deny selfishness and sinful desires, persevere in desiring not to sin, and to follow God in love… why would we need Christ?

wasnt very smart we dont have the power within ourselves you know that:thumbsup: for all these things are part of the Christian walk. Thats why we need Christ. You understand now?

Odell,
Odell, you have already brought this up earlier in this thread. I never said that someone who drinks wine, or steals, or anything else cannot be a Christian. In fact, I said the opposite.

Its good to know I am still a true Christian even though I had wine at Church this sunday

It doesn’t matter what the sin is… whether it be stealing a pack of gum, or murdering someone… it seperates us from God… BUT IT DOES NOT NEGATE OUR SONSHIP.

:whacky:

There is no scriptural evidence that after a person is saved, that they can lose their place of adoption into the family of God by a sin…

Start a new thred you are wrong it is there I have quoted where Jesus him self said you will be tossed out. I have shown that if you do not remain in his kindness you will be cut off (Rom11:22).

John if you comit adultry aginst your wife if you blow up a school you will go to hell. God will judge you more serverly becaue you knew the truth and rejected the truth in your actions.

I will use an illustration…
The relationship between my daughter and I was damaged, but not because of my anger toward her, and not because she was not my daughter anymore… but because she KNEW she had disobeyed me and the only possible outcome of rebellion is a seperation (damaged relationship).

Great illustration.

Let me ask you a question those in Hell are they in hell because God is angry with them? Are they there because they where not made in the image of God? Are they there because God hates them and does not love them?

NO they are there because they freely disobayed God. You dont accidently fall into hell. You chose it and God alows it.

Repentance is the effort to change that thing about ourselves which inhibits our relationship with God. That is what my daughter did when she took the steps necessary to make her wrong right.

And that is what Catholics do to make our wrong right. And you come here telling us we dont have to repent and make our wrong right:whacky:

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Odell,

My daughter recently had an issue where she directly disobeyed me. The issue wasn’t even very serious, but she disobeyed me nevertheless. One morning we got up and were getting ready to leave, and I could tell something was different between us… I asked her if everything was alright and she assured me everything was fine.
Later that day I saw her again and she seemed a little distant. This went on for a couple of days until I realized that she seemed distant because she was in a state of rebellion. After thinking about it I realized the only possible thing she could have directly disobeyed me in was the thing I told her not to do a couple of days ago.
After some prodding I was able to extract the truth and I was right… she had done that thing which I told her not to do.

The relationship between my daughter and I was damaged, but not because of my anger toward her, and not because she was not my daughter anymore… but because she KNEW she had disobeyed me and the only possible outcome of rebellion is a seperation (damaged relationship).

John
www.swordforums.net

Thank you for using this part of your life as an example. Your daughter is blessed to have you as a father. I have a daughter as well maybe even close to the same age as yours.

As much as I hate to think about this, the possability exists that in the future your or my daugther could become involved in something so terrible that she may not be welcomed in the house until she turns away from that behavior or lifestyle. While not at all likely, the possibility does exist.

There is a point were as a parent, you must consider the welfare and safety of the rest of your family. Obviously, this would have to be a serious sin, something more than rebellion. As a parent, you would need to protect your family from the evil that has taken over your daugther, and there maybe only one way to do that, to isolate your daughter from your family until the behavior or evil lifestyle stops if it ever does.

During that time you would not stop loving or praying for your daughter. You would constantly hope that she turn from her evil ways, but until then you can’t take a chance on allowing her presences to endanger anyone else in your family.

Our best understanding of God is as a Our Father. It is something we can idenify with. I like seeing our relationship put in those terms. In our lives, there are behaviors and evils that people can choose to explore and we know they are against God the Fathers will, but people do them anyway.
Out of love, God could chose to isolate us as well.

 

[Philthy]

I have a daughter as well maybe even close to the same age as yours.

As much as I hate to think about this, the possability exists that in the future your or my daugther could become involved in something so terrible that she may not be welcomed in the house until she turns away from that behavior or lifestyle. While not at all likely, the possibility does exist…During that time you would not stop loving or praying for your daughter. …Our best understanding of God is as a Our Father. …I like seeing our relationship put in those terms. In our lives, there are behaviors and evils that people can choose to explore and we know they are against God the Fathers will, but people do them anyway. Out of love, God could chose to isolate us as well.

Until, of course, WE REPENT!!!

Good work Sean!

 

[Eden]

Eden,

I understand you objected to my assertion concerning Augustine and his teachings concerning “original sin”… but so far, you are the only Catholic I have heard that believes that (except Notworthy).

Before I amend that article, I will have to research the issue more.

If you would like to help me by providing some references I will be glad to look at them. But, as far as I can tell (by the Catechism, and other Catholics) the Catholic church teaches that Original sin is an Actual sin (ccc #289).

John

There shouldn’t be any question as to what Catholic teaching on original sin is at this point. I already referred you to the Catechism on original sin:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

The consequences of Adam’s sin for humanity

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

403 Following St. Paul, the Church has always taught that the overwhelming misery which oppresses men and their inclination towards evil and death cannot be understood apart from their connection with Adam’s sin and the fact that he has transmitted to us a sin with which we are all born afflicted, a sin which is the “death of the soul”.291 Because of this certainty of faith, the Church baptizes for the remission of sins even tiny infants who have not committed personal sin.292

404 How did the sin of Adam become the sin of all his descendants? The whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”.293 By this “unity of the human race” all men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as all are implicated in Christ’s justice. Still, the transmission of original sin is a mystery that we cannot fully understand. But we do know by Revelation that Adam had received original holiness and justice not for himself alone, but for all human nature. By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state.294 It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice.** And that is why original sin is called “sin” only in an analogical sense: it is a sin “contracted” and not “committed” - a state and not an act.**

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I don’t know what you are referring to with ccc #289 and your assertion that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin for all people is an “actual sin”. You can see from the entire section on the teaching above, that the Church does not teach that we are are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. We believe that we are born with original sin in the sense that we are born in a fallen state, not into “total depravity” as the Calvinist faiths believe.

 

[Eden]

But, as far as I can tell (by the Catechism, and other Catholics) the Catholic church teaches that Original sin is an Actual sin (ccc #289).

John

From New Advent, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the “division of sin”:

II. DIVISION OF SIN As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm#II

St. Augustine did not “invent” original sin:

IV. ORIGINAL SIN IN TRADITION

On account of a superficial resemblance between the doctrine of original sin and and the Manichaean theory of our nature being evil, the Pelagians accused the Catholics and St. Augustine of Manichaeism. For the accusation and its answer see “Contra duas epist. Pelag.”, I, II, 4; V, 10; III, IX, 25; IV, III. In our own times this charge has been reiterated by several critics and historians of dogma who have been influenced by the fact that before his conversion St. Augustine was a Manichaean. They do not identify Manichaeism with the doctrine of original sin, but they say that St. Augustine, with the remains of his former Manichaean prejudices, created the doctrine of original sin unknown before his time. It is not true that the doctrine of original sin does not appear in the works of the pre-Augustinian Fathers. On the contrary, their testimony is found in special works on the subject. Nor can it be said, as Harnack maintains, that St. Augustine himself acknowledges the absence of this doctrine in the writings of the Fathers. St. Augustine invokes the testimony of eleven Fathers, Greek as well as Latin (Contra Jul., II, x, 33). Baseless also is the assertion that before St. Augustine this doctrine was unknown to the Jews and to the Christians; as we have already shown, it was taught by St. Paul. It is found in the fourth Book of Esdras, a work written by a Jew in the first century after Christ and widely read by the Christians. This book represents Adam as the author of the fall of the human race (vii, 48), as having transmitted to all his posterity the permanent infirmity, the malignity, the bad seed of sin (iii, 21, 22; iv, 30). Protestants themselves admit the doctrine of original sin in this book and others of the same period (see Sanday, “The International Critical Commentary: Romans”, 134, 137; Hastings, “A Dictionary of the Bible”, I, 841). **It is therefore impossible to make St. Augustine, who is of a much later date, the inventor of original sin. **

newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm#IV

So, as I stated before, your article is inaccurate in its suggestion that St. Augustine created the teaching of original sin. I hope you will correct the error.

 

[Philthy]

There shouldn’t be any question as to what Catholic teaching on original sin is at this point. I already referred you to the Catechism on original sin:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p7.htm

I don’t know what you are referring to with ccc #289 and your assertion that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin for all people is an “actual sin”. You can see from the entire section on the teaching above, that the Church does not teach that we are are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. We believe that we are born with original sin in the sense that we are born in a fallen state, not into “total depravity” as the Calvinist faiths believe.

Eden -

How dare you? What do you think this is - a discussion where you can simply and politely demonstrate when someone is mistaken? What are you trying to do - learn something - or even worse - teach something. I suppose next you will be expecting acknowledgement that a mistake was made. That is so typical. Where is your humility? You must be trying to hijack the thread… or worse - trying to actually arrive at the truth! Please, lets not interupt confident speculation, inuendo and erroneous logic with something so mundane as facts - that is downright dirty and entirely uncalled for. Do you even have your own web page? The nerve…

 

[Eden]

Eden -

How dare you? What do you think this is - a discussion where you can simply and politely demonstrate when someone is mistaken? What are you trying to do - learn something - or even worse - teach something. I suppose next you will be expecting acknowledgement that a mistake was made. That is so typical. Where is your humility? You must be trying to hijack the thread… or worse - trying to actually arrive at the truth! Please, lets not interupt confident speculation, inuendo and erroneous logic with something so mundane as facts - that is downright dirty and entirely uncalled for. Do you even have your own web page? The nerve…

 

[bibleapologist]

Odell,

wasnt very smart we dont have the power within ourselves you know that for all these things are part of the Christian walk. Thats why we need Christ. You understand now?

You are confusing the “Christian walk” with salvation itself. You seem to think that when we are first converted it is a result of our own effort of repentance… but to live a Christian life it takes the grace of God.

Christ was sent to save us, not just to be a helper after we are saved.

NO they are there because they freely disobayed God. You dont accidently fall into hell. You chose it and God alows it.

Yes, people are in hell because they freely chose to go there… but not because they disobeyed the commandments of God, but becuase they rejected Christ who is the propitiation for sin.

And that is what Catholics do to make our wrong right. And you come here telling us we dont have to repent and make our wrong right

If repentance of sin is the necessary act for salvation… then you had better make sure you know EVERY last sin you have committed from childhood to death, and you’d better make sure you don’t miss anything because even ONE ungodly thought will send you to hell.

The truth is, that is IMPOSSIBLE. You can NEVER know all the sins you have committed. But, it doesn’t matter because the gospel is that Christ died for sinners… sinners only have to believe and accept that payment for their sins.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Sean Boyle,

Our best understanding of God is as a Our Father. It is something we can idenify with. I like seeing our relationship put in those terms. In our lives, there are behaviors and evils that people can choose to explore and we know they are against God the Fathers will, but people do them anyway.
Out of love, God could chose to isolate us as well.

I agree with everything you said in your post, but I don’t believe that isolation means the same thing as making that child no longer part of the family.

It is impossible to change the fact that my daughter or your daughter would still be our daughters… even in isolation.

The Apostle Paul spoke of one being turned over to Satan for the destruction of the body, that the soul might be saved… He was speaking of isolation from the local church body for the protection of the rest of the church… not that the unrepentant Christian would lose his salvation.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[bibleapologist]

Eden,

I don’t know what you are referring to with ccc #289 and your assertion that the Catholic Church teaches that original sin for all people is an “actual sin”. You can see from the entire section on the teaching above, that the Church does not teach that we are are born with the guilt of Adam’s sin. We believe that we are born with original sin in the sense that we are born in a fallen state, not into “total depravity” as the Calvinist faiths believe.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that “original sin” did not refer to guilt… but that original sin only refered to the state of death of a person as a result of Adam’s sin.

Now in this post you quoted CCC 404 "he whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. That is to say, that I have been implicated in Adam’s sin by Augustines “Rationes Seminales”. So, you are saying that I was predestined to be guilty of sin… because Adam sinned.

In CCC 402 it states (as I already quoted) That all men are implicated in Adam’s sin. Hence, we are all GUILTY of Adam’s sin.

The problem I have with this is that a person cannot be guilty of a crime they did not commit. Not only is that not logical, it is not biblical. This whole thread has been filled with Catholic posts regarding judement being enacted on people who have commit wrongdoings… how does original sin fit in with that?

The truth is, to be biblical…

1. Man can only be guilty of a sin he committed.
2. Man can only be implicated in Adam’s sin by his state of death being passed to his posterity in a practical sense.
3. Since Jesus was not guilty of sin, and His flesh was obtained by Mary (from Adam)… Rationes Seminales cannot Biblically pass all the proofs to migrate from a theory to a law.
4. Since “Rationes Seminales” as a proof for “original sin” cannot be rectified Biblically… the teaching of “Rationes Seminales” must be questioned.
5. Since the Catholic doctrine of original sin hinges completely on “Rationes Seminales”; the doctrine of original sin must be questioned.

John
www.gideonsword.net
www.swordforums.net

 

[Eden]

Eden,

Now you are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that “original sin” did not refer to guilt… but that original sin only refered to the state of death of a person as a result of Adam’s sin.

Now in this post you quoted CCC 404 "he whole human race is in Adam “as one body of one man”. That is to say, that I have been implicated in Adam’s sin by Augustines “Rationes Seminales”. So, you are saying that I was predestined to be guilty of sin… because Adam sinned.

In CCC 402 it states (as I already quoted) That all men are implicated in Adam’s sin. Hence, we are all GUILTY of Adam’s sin.

I posted the same page from the Catechism in my second request that you remove your error regarding St. Augustine as the “inventor” of original sin, that I had pasted in my first post requesting that you edit your article. Nothing I posted has changed since the earlier post. I can see that you are playing games in the hopes that you will wiggle your way out of your error. Again, you are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. The Catechism does not teach that we carry the guilt of Adam’s sin, only that we are all born in a fallen state because of it. Original sin is* not an actual sin*.

When you quoted 402, you left out a significant part:

402** All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms**: "By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners": "sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned."289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men."290

The problem I have with this is that a person cannot be guilty of a crime they did not commit. Not only is that not logical, it is not biblical. This whole thread has been filled with Catholic posts regarding judement being enacted on people who have commit wrongdoings… how does original sin fit in with that?

Original sin is not an actual sin. The Catechism is clear that “original sin” is called “sin” only in an analogical sense, " it is a sin ‘contracted’ and not ‘committed’ - a state and not an act." What part of this is difficult to understand?

The truth is, to be biblical…

1. Man can only be guilty of a sin he committed.

And man is not guilty of original sin. Why do you continue to argue something is not biblical that is not taught by the Church? Is the urge to be contrary too strong?

1. Man can only be implicated in Adam’s sin by his state of death being passed to his posterity in a practical sense.

So, in practice people die but not in reality? I don’t get what you are saying. Perhaps you can rephrase this point.

1. Since Jesus was not guilty of sin, and His flesh was obtained by Mary (from Adam)… Rationes Seminales cannot Biblically pass all the proofs to migrate from a theory to a law.

We do not believe Mary was born with original sin. It’s called the “Immaculate Conception”.

1. Since “Rationes Seminales” as a proof for “original sin” cannot be rectified Biblically… the teaching of “Rationes Seminales” must be questioned.

Since not everything that St. Augustine wrote about is a teaching of the Church, your attempt at distraction by suggesting we must question “rationes seminales” adds nothing. Stick with what the Church teaches about original sin as written in the Catechism:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs…m/p1s2c1p7.htm

So far, you have avoided addressing what the Catechism shows the Church actually teaches about original sin and instead continue to cling to St. Augustine. This only works to highlight your misunderstanding of his contributions to the understanding of original sin.

1. Since the Catholic doctrine of original sin hinges completely on “Rationes Seminales”; the doctrine of original sin must be questioned.

How does the Catholic doctrine of original sin hinge on the work of St. Augustine? The doctrine was already there from the beginning. St. Augustine borrowed from the work of eleven earlier early Church Fathers when writing about original sin in response to the Pelagian heresy. Which takes us back to my original request, which was that you remove the implication that St. Augustine invented original sin from your article, since such an implication is false.

 

[Odell]

Odell,
You are confusing the “Christian walk” with salvation itself. You seem to think that when we are first converted it is a result of our own effort of repentance… but to live a Christian life it takes the grace of God.

Dude you are geting DESPERATE. First of all you cant read my mind and nowhere have I sugested that I can live a Christian life without God grace. Our that my conversion was a result of me and not god grace working threw me. You are trying to prove a pont. When you dont have a point.

You said

Originally Posted by ba
Let me ask you this… If we, within ourselves have the power to deny selfishness and sinful desires, persevere in desiring not to sin, and to follow God in love… why would we need Christ?

I responded by saing
we dont have the power within ourselves you know that for all these things are part of the Christian walk. Thats why we need Christ. You understand now?

How is that confusing anything???

John we dont have the POWER to do any of this. OK
It is by the grace of God that you repent in your conversion and it is by the grace of God that we continue to repent of sins we comit in our Christian walk. Do you disagree with this? If so than quit trying to tell me that I am confusing somthing when I am not. IT IS ALL BY THE GRACE OF GOD!

Instead I said
Christ was sent to save us, not just to be a helper after we are saved.

Man you are so smart how did you come up with this one. I had no clue he came to save me. Do me a favor and save your fingers from typing something evryone on this thred knows. Do you think that you are proving a point when stating a truth that both Catholics and protestants both believe?

Yes, people are in hell because they freely chose to go there… but not because they disobeyed the commandments of God, but becuase they rejected Christ who is the propitiation for sin.

we have beat this one to death but we all know to disobey what Jesus comands you are not just rejecting the Commandments but Jesus also.

If repentance of sin is the necessary act for salvation… then you had better make sure you know EVERY last sin you have committed from childhood to death, and you’d better make sure you don’t miss anything because even ONE ungodly thought will send you to hell.

Not necesarily I dont think I could forget that I comiting a mortal sin. how about take some time to learn what we actually teach on this.

The truth is, that is IMPOSSIBLE. You can NEVER know all the sins you have committed. But, it doesn’t matter because the gospel is that Christ died for sinners… sinners only have to believe and accept that payment for their sins.

You are not accepting the payment if you go out and continue to live a un moral life. NO way around it we have to respond to Gods grace by our faith and our charity.

Catholics like to deminstrate our faith threw our actions just as the bible clearly wants us to do. But we have people like you who try to deter us in doing what the word of God says. As I have said before SATAN GET BEHIND ME!

 

[Sean_Boyle]

I agree with everything you said in your post, but I don’t believe that isolation means the same thing as making that child no longer part of the family.

It is impossible to change the fact that my daughter or your daughter would still be our daughters… even in isolation.

The Apostle Paul spoke of one being turned over to Satan for the destruction of the body, that the soul might be saved… He was speaking of isolation from the local church body for the protection of the rest of the church… not that the unrepentant Christian would lose his salvation.

Of course our daughters will always be our daughters and part of our family. Just as we will always be part of God’s creation no matter what choses we make in life. We are all sons and daughters of God.

Christian’s are on the path to salvation. It’s like being a parent and watching your children grow in to a responsible independant adult. There is no guarantee that our children will be responsible and independant even with our best parenting skills and all the love they require from us. We must hope that they get there.

God is our father. He’s given everything to us that we will need for salvation. We the faithful are on the path to salvation. The rest is up to us.

 

[Philthy]

Odell,
You are confusing the “Christian walk” with salvation itself.

Well, one of us is confused, that’s for sure.

You seem to think that when we are first converted it is a result of our own effort of repentance…

False, of course. How many times can we say that salvation is BY GRACE THROUGH FAITH and yet not be heard? It is all by Grace - the gift of salvation and the Christian walk and the perseverance in love - all by Grace, John. For we are his handiwork created in Christ Jesus for the good deeds that He prepared in advance that we should walk in.

If repentance of sin is the necessary act for salvation… then you had better make sure you know EVERY last sin you have committed from childhood to death, and you’d better make sure you don’t miss anything because even ONE ungodly thought will send you to hell.

Ahhh, false again…we can not pray as we ought, but the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with inexpressable groanings…

The truth is, that is IMPOSSIBLE. You can NEVER know all the sins you have committed.

Don’t need to.

But, it doesn’t matter because the gospel is that Christ died for sinners… sinners only have to believe and accept that payment for their sins.

Believe or “believe and accept”?