Doctrine Questions

[bjcros]

TobyLue:

bjcros

One thing to understand regarding the way Protestants and Catholics understand the Bible. The Catholic Church interprets it on a literal sense while Protestants are literalists. They say “This is what it says because that’s that way its written” rather than what is the writer trying to tell us. If you want to be a literalist because scripture says all have sinned, then look at Romans 3:10-11. “There is not a good man left, no not one; there is not one who understands, not one who looks for God.” So by the Protestant literalist interpretation **all **men are evil because it says “not a good man left”. Everybody is a dope because it says there is “not one who understands,” and we are all doomed because it says “not one who looks for God.” So nobody, not you, not I, not anybody is looking for God. See how it works?

I’m with Calvin on predestination so I hold that men are evil we are ignorant and are can’t look for God. It is only through God’s grace that we can seek him. How would you interpret that scripture?

 

[bjcros]

jimmy:

Where is the scriptural evidence of sola scriptura?

Where is the evidence against it? Besides it is the only thing that we can truly believe.

 

[bjcros]

MariaG:

This is from here at the CA Library. catholic.com/library/Immaculate_Conception_and_Assum.asp

But what about Romans 3:23, “all have sinned”? Have all people committed actual sins? Consider a child below the age of reason. By definition he can’t sin, since sinning requires the ability to reason and the ability to intend to sin. This is indicated by Paul later in the letter to the Romans when he speaks of the time when Jacob and Esau were unborn babies as a time when they “had done nothing either good or bad” (Rom. 9:11).

We also know of another very prominent exception to the rule: Jesus (Heb. 4:15). So if Paul’s statement in Romans 3 includes an exception for the New Adam (Jesus), one may argue that an exception for the New Eve (Mary) can also be made.

Well if we believed in Scripture alone, you may have a point, even though the article claims that you have the poor traslation from turning “full of grace” into “highly favored daughter”

But it is clear from the writings of the early church that Mary was considered free from sin.

catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp

I started in my explanation, the explanation of the Sacrament of Reconcilliation, also called Penance or Confession. The verses I referred to from the Bible show where Christ himself showed us how He wanted us to confess our sins. (John 20:21-23)

As for penance, we do something not because the work gains forgiveness for us, but because it shows we are truly sorry for what we have done.

I sense I do not understand your problem here. I came from a Evangelical background. You are more calvinist and I think there is something I just don’t get about your objections that stem from that.

In the churches I was in even before the Catholic one, they would say things like, “If you are truly sorry, that will include a desire to make things right”

Can you honestly say you are truly sorry for breaking someone’s window, truly repentent, if you don’t try in some way, to fix the damage you have done?

This too is from CA here Maybe this will help. catholic.com/library/Forgiveness_of_Sins.asp

For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God “had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8).

Good. Doesn’t make it right, and it probably happen again , but sometimes we all get tired of explaining the same misconceptions over and over again. When* I* get tired of it, I just try to take some time off

God Bless,
Maria

Firstly, sin causes death. A child bellow the age of reason can die. Therefore, A child bellow the age of reason has sin. That is the taint of original sin. And it is passed down through the man. If Mary was born without sin then either God was her father, and her mother a virgin, or her father didn’t have the taint of original sin, and his father and all the way back. Then Jesus isn’t of the line of David. Because David had the taint of original sin, because he died. If she wasn’t of the line of David neither was Jesus. Jesus would then not be the Messiah. So her father was of the line of David, and she was born with sin, and of the line of David. No human can escape the consequences of original sin. Original Sin causes death. Christ forgives our sins, but we still have to suffer a physical death. Just because the sins are forgiven doesn’t mean that there aren’t consequences.

Jacob and Essau were born of a man, Isaac. They both had sin, God choose Jacob over Essau. Paul is saying that God choose not due to anything that they had done, but because he is God. That is evidence of predestination, which I believe in. God chooses people, throughout the Bible, not because of any merit of their own, but rather who will best serve his purpose. His purpose is to bring himself glory.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I have a quick question so we can know how to better answer you, what denomination are you?

I also have a question about predestination, from the way I have heard it there are people who are selected to be saved and nomatter what they are the chosen ones so it no use for anyone else to even bother. So how badly did I misunderstand it?

 

[bjcros]

**I also don’t understand confession. When I sin against someone else, there are two I need to confess to. They are the one I sinned against and God. **

Read John 20:20-23. Jesus here breathes on the Apostles alone and commissions them as the Church. As the Father sent Him, He sent the Apostles to do what Jesus had done while on Earth—forgive sins. ‘If you forgive sins, they are forgiven’—what does this mean to you? How can the Apostles know what sin to forgive on earth if they do not know what that sin is? Seems to me that if one desired to receive forgiveness for their sins, they had to confess it to one who had authority to forgive them, no?

Read Matthew 18:15-18 and tell me who Jesus authorizes to forgive sins. Here Jesus is speaking to the apostles. Here we see in the background, sin the issue. If someone sins, take it to the brother in Christ. If the sin is a sin that persists, and the person refuses to change his ways, he must be taken to the Church. Therefore, there are people assigned by the Church who are to be listened to. The sinner must repent to the Church, and if he does not repent of his sins, his sins are in effect still bound. Whatever they (the apostles) bind on earth is bound in heaven, and whatever is loosed on earth is bound in heaven. The context is a dealing with sin. So this passage not only speaks to the apostles having authority to bind truth, as that which is in heaven, but more directly if sins are committed, the church on earth has authority to either bind or loose in heaven. This is just like John 20:22-23, when either the sins are remitted or not remitted.

2 Cor.5:17-20/James 5:13-16—read these. Verse 18 mentions SPECIFICALLY the ministry of reconciliation. Verses 19-20 actually say that the Apostles, and by allusion, the Church, is the avenue for reconciliation with God. In James, the context is the jobs/authority that the elders held—one being anointing of the sick and, in verse 16, hearing confessions and confessing THEIR sins to an elder.

Finally, 2 Cor.2:5-10—Verse 10 is Paul saying, ‘What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the person of Christ’. Seems to me that the Apostles were to forgive sins in the person of Christ, just like our priests do. Jesus told his apostles ‘He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you rejects me’ (Lk. 10:16). As is evidenced by the above Scriptures, Jesus gave this authority to forgive sins to the apostles and their successors. If one rejects this way, because they want to go the way of ‘me and Jesus’ alone, they are rejecting Jesus’ own commission on the forgiveness of sins. Jesus himself ordained that we get forgiveness of sins (John 20:22-23), through the priest, or successor to the apostles.

Are you then placing a higher importance on confessing sins to a human who may receive power from God(priest), than to God who gives the power? If I didn’t sin against the church then it is not to the church I should repent. I go to the person I wronged and say I was wrong and ask forgiveness, and then to God. If the person doesn’t forgive me then it doesn’t matter to me, because it is between them and God. because Jesus says we should forgive 7 times 70, he uses these numbers to illustrate forgive all the time. If I sin in private then I go and repent to God. God forgives all sins. Whether or not I confess to a priest or not. It is God who forgives the sin not the priest the priest is only there to offer assurance that your sin is forgiven. It isn’t by the apostle or priest that sin is forgiven. The apostle or priest can’t pay the debt for my sin. Only Christ can. My sins are just as forgiven if I repent to God.

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

I have a quick question so we can know how to better answer you, what denomination are you?

I also have a question about predestination, from the way I have heard it there are people who are selected to be saved and nomatter what they are the chosen ones so it no use for anyone else to even bother. So how badly did I misunderstand it?

I attend a non-denominational church. I probably agree with southern baptist values the most. You didn’t misunderstand that much. Think TULIP. Total depravity, we can’t choose God on our own. Undeniable Grace, God choose us not because of anything we did, and we can’t reject him. Limited Atonement, Christ’s death pays for the sins of the choosen. Irresistable Grace, if Christ payed for our sins we can’t reject him. Perseverance of the Saints, we will never loose salvation.
Tak a look at bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm
or cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm, this to understand both Calvin’s view and the Catholic view. These sites are biased towards the Catholic view though, because they are from catholic websites.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

bjcros:

I attend a non-denominational church. I probably agree with southern baptist values the most. You didn’t misunderstand that much. Think TULIP. Total depravity, we can’t choose God on our own. Undeniable Grace, God choose us not because of anything we did, and we can’t reject him. Limited Atonement, Christ’s death pays for the sins of the choosen. Irresistable Grace, if Christ payed for our sins we can’t reject him. Perseverance of the Saints, we will never loose salvation.
Tak a look at bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm
or cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm, this to understand both Calvin’s view and the Catholic view. These sites are biased towards the Catholic view though, because they are from catholic websites.

I dont get this, you gave me Catholic Apologetic pages denouncing that tulip stuff?
So is there no such thing as evil men, because its simply what God wanted? This means that Hitler could be one of the elect? How do you know if your the lucky one? This stuff doesnt make sense, its like if your chosen you have the green light to commit every sin under the sun. So you could be the only one in your family God cares about the rest are going to burn?

 

[bjcros]

**I have problems with the implications of the statement that Mary was without sin. An implication that I see would be that Mary was not human. because all humans have sin. **

So you’re saying that a 2 month old baby has personal sin? How about a mentally handicapped person? How about a baby in the womb? How about Jesus, being FULLY human? Personally, I cannot see any of these persons having personal sin. And as such, we must therefore acknowledge exceptions from ‘all humans have sin’. Now, Mary’s sinlessness is NOT implicit but rather is explicit in Scripture. Luke 1:28 is the proof. No doubt, you have an English translation which probably says something like, ‘Hail, highly favored one.’ The Greek word for this is ‘kecharitomene’, which does not mean ‘favored’, but rather, ‘SHE WHO HAS BEEN PERFECTED IN GRACE’. If you are perfected in grace, how does personal sin apply to you? Simple, it does not. The only other place in Scripture where one is called ‘filled/full of grace’ is in John 1 when Jesus is called the same thing, and we all know Jesus had no sin.

Yes, Yes, Yes, No. The first 3 had the taint of original sin. They do have sin, because all three of them can die. They also were born of man. Jesus didn’t have the taint of original sin, because he wasn’t born of man. But he took the sins of the elect upon him before he died. When I looked up the definition of ‘kecharitomene’ it had both definitions. It would seem that because there is more scriptual evidence that everyone has sin, it makes more sense to go with the definition that would logically follow. Even Christs’ death doesn’t stop me from dieing because of original sin. Even though I am forgiven. If you are perfected in grace, then original sin doesn’t apply.

GoodSamaritan:

**I am not saying that Jesus had sin, because the original sin is passed down through man, not woman. Jesus wasn’t born of a man but of God.

**Maybe you should read Luke 1 again. Verse 35 says, ‘the Holy one that is BORN OF THEE’. Galatians 4:4 says Christ was ‘made of a WOMAN’.
The Scripture you use to talk about all having sinned deals with PERSONAL sin, not Original sin. Now, if an exception (more than one, as we’ve seen) exists for personal sin, why could one exist for Original sin? Considering Adam and Eve were created without original sin, it is not inconceivable that God could create another human in this state, is it? If you were Jesus, and you could create your mother any way you want, would you create her in iniquity and sin or would you create her immaculately and preserved from sin? Keep in mind that Mary did not merit this honor but rather received it in a passive way through God’s mercy. God made Mary just as Eve was before the fall.

Yes, Christ was made of WOMAN. Original sin isn’t passed through woman but rather through man. So Christ was without the taint of Original Sin. No matter what we still have to deal with the consequences of sin. Original Sin’s consequence is death. Yes, because then Jesus’ death wasn’t a neccessity and there was another way. I’m not Jesus. I don’t see any evidence of “God made Mary just as Eve was before the fall”.

 

[bjcros]

GoodSamaritan:

**In the garden Jesus asks God to let the cup pass from him, and if there was any other way. There wasn’t another way(but if Mary was without sin there would have been another way). Christ’s death was neccesary. In Romans it says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.

**Read that again. Jesus never asks if another way exists. He merely asks that if it was God’s will, to take that which he was about to go through from him. Your assertion seems to say that God was bound by the only manner of salvation via Jesus’ death. This is a false assumption—God is bound by nothing and used another way so that His son could come into the world and save us all. In other words, he applied the fruits of the Crucifixion to Mary (and then some) before he applied them to us. Remember, God is in eternity, outside of time and space.

I meant that When Jesus asks God to let the cup pass from him, he asks God not to have him do this if there is another way. What was the other way for which we could be redeemed? I don’t think there was another way. Christ is the only acceptable sacrifice for sin.

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

I dont get this, you gave me Catholic Apologetic pages denouncing that tulip stuff?
So is there no such thing as evil men, because its simply what God wanted? This means that Hitler could be one of the elect? How do you know if your the lucky one? This stuff doesnt make sense, its like if your chosen you have the green light to commit every sin under the sun. So you could be the only one in your family God cares about the rest are going to burn?

I thought you wanted to understand it from what Catholics believed. No, rather all men are evil. If Hitler were one of the elect he would have accepted Christ and he wouldn’t have gone through with the holocaust. He wasn’t one of the elect. If you accept Christ then you are one of the elect. You wouldn’t even be able to accept Christ if you weren’t part of the elect. But it has nothing to do with luck. It is just because of God’s grace. If you are choosen then you can sin, but you won’t want to. Not because of fear, but rather because you owe it to God. It is possible that you are the only one from the elect in your family. It doesn’t change the fact that you should spread the Gospel. Those who never accept the Gospel aren’t part of the elect. If there is universal atonement, as Armenians believe then there are sins that Christ’s blood doesn’t cover, or else no one would go to hell. If you accept total depravity, then there is a logical progression through TULIP. Does this help

 

[bjcros]

mayra hart:

luke writes that mary is full of grace, highly favored.LK1:37:" for with god nothing will be impossible". she is the “woman” of gen3:15 whose enmity with satan and sin is absolute. she is the ark of the covenant(ex 25:11–21) made to hold the living Word of God; a holy tabernacle made not of the purest gold, but of the purest flesh. st. paul is emphasizing the universal aspect of sin extending to jews and gentiles alike. babies have not sinned; adam and eve before the fall had not sinned; jesus never sinned. these are some exceptions that fall outside st paul’s condemnation. Mary is another.

If babies haven’t sinned then why do they die? Mary was born of a sinful man just as babies and everyone following Adam and Eve. Except Christ, who was born of God. So there are no exceptions. All of those people had sinned because all of those people died, or are able to die. The sins of the elect were placed on Jesus before he died, so he could pay the price for them. But he didn’t have the taint of original sin. Does Catholic doctrine teach Original Sin?

 

[davidv]

bjcros:

If babies haven’t sinned then why do they die? Mary was born of a sinful man just as babies and everyone following Adam and Eve. Except Christ, who was born of God. So there are no exceptions. All of those people had sinned because all of those people died, or are able to die. The sins of the elect were placed on Jesus before he died, so he could pay the price for them. But he didn’t have the taint of original sin. Does Catholic doctrine teach Original Sin?

Babies die because phyical death enter the world because of the original. Personal sin, of which the baby is innocent, principly causes spiritual death.
To clarify, doctrines don’t teach anything, they are what are taught by the Church

 

[Catholic_Dude]

bjcros:

No, rather all men are evil. If Hitler were one of the elect he would have accepted Christ and he wouldn’t have gone through with the holocaust. He wasn’t one of the elect. If you accept Christ then you are one of the elect. You wouldn’t even be able to accept Christ if you weren’t part of the elect. But it has nothing to do with luck. It is just because of God’s grace. If you are choosen then you can sin, but you won’t want to. Not because of fear, but rather because you owe it to God. It is possible that you are the only one from the elect in your family. It doesn’t change the fact that you should spread the Gospel. Those who never accept the Gospel aren’t part of the elect. If there is universal atonement, as Armenians believe then there are sins that Christ’s blood doesn’t cover, or else no one would go to hell. If you accept total depravity, then there is a logical progression through TULIP. Does this help

I guess I can accept the all men are evil part. But there seems to be a problem with Hitler as well as us, and that is we can sin any sin as long as we are sorry and later accept Christ, so technically the door is open for Hitler. So the mere fact that I accept Christ means I am part of the elect? The only reason I know about Christ is because I was born into a Christian family, otherwise I would be like the majority of the world who never heard of Him, is this in Gods plan? It sounds like the luck of the draw to me, what about all that stuff about Christ suffering for all men?
The second part deals with sinning, so you can sin but you wouldnt want to? Are you saying you have never sinned after being one on the few elect? It goes back to the hitler problem again, how do we know he wasnt one of the elect if it doesnt matter if he sins? How can there be no punishment for sinning after being chosen, the way I see it you have a one-up on God, He cant stop you from sinning, and yet He has to let you into Heaven.
So what sins did Christ not cover? It sounds like satan won this game if Christ is not able to save everyone.

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

I guess I can accept the all men are evil part. But there seems to be a problem with Hitler as well as us, and that is we can sin any sin as long as we are sorry and later accept Christ, so technically the door is open for Hitler. So the mere fact that I accept Christ means I am part of the elect? The only reason I know about Christ is because I was born into a Christian family, otherwise I would be like the majority of the world who never heard of Him, is this in Gods plan? It sounds like the luck of the draw to me, what about all that stuff about Christ suffering for all men?
The second part deals with sinning, so you can sin but you wouldnt want to? Are you saying you have never sinned after being one on the few elect? It goes back to the hitler problem again, how do we know he wasnt one of the elect if it doesnt matter if he sins? How can there be no punishment for sinning after being chosen, the way I see it you have a one-up on God, He cant stop you from sinning, and yet He has to let you into Heaven.
So what sins did Christ not cover? It sounds like satan won this game if Christ is not able to save everyone.

If you hold that Christ payed for everyone’s sin, and someone rejects Christ, and Christ didn’t save everyone. God will reveal himself to those he chooses. I don’t know why your using Hitler. He completelyt rejected Christianity. He took crosses out of the churches and hung swastika flags in them. You think that Christ blood covered his sins and he went to heaven. If all men are evil, then how can they choose on their own a good God? Or how can they choose to do good? They can’t, they won’t. Christ was able to save everyone he wanted. God choose the people he wanted to save. Satan has no power in deciding this. Satan has limited power and can’t go against God. Satan is condemned to hell like those who reject Christ. I have sinned, even I choose Christ. The things you do now affect your reward in heaven. I think that this is scriptural but I may be wrong. There are still consequences for sinning. but it isn’t lose of salvation. There are the physical consequences. If one of the elect gets a std then that is the physical consequence of their sin and they have to live with it.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

bjcros:

If you hold that Christ payed for everyone’s sin, and someone rejects Christ, and Christ didn’t save everyone. God will reveal himself to those he chooses. I don’t know why your using Hitler. He completelyt rejected Christianity. He took crosses out of the churches and hung swastika flags in them.

Im just saying that the worst of the worst if they are elected (for example Hitler) would be fine in God’s eyes because God wont punish them because they have the golden ticket. So the question I must be getting wrong is the idea of when God “elects” someone. If Hitler accepted Christ as a little boy and converted 1000 people to Christianity before the age of 10 would he be considered “elected”? If he was, then what he does later in life is of no cosequence, God doesnt worry about what he does because God cant touch him.

You think that Christ blood covered his sins and he went to heaven. If all men are evil, then how can they choose on their own a good God? Or how can they choose to do good? They can’t, they won’t. Christ was able to save everyone he wanted. God choose the people he wanted to save.

The answer to if H went to Heaven is I dont know. Can God not forgive anyone anytime anywhere? If you say yes, then that means that all H had to do was say sorry and he accepts Christ on his death bed and Heaven is his, because the elect are going to Heaven.
About the all men. They cant, but God didnt slam the door on them, He sent Prophets, Writers, Apostles, and ultimately Jesus, all were sent by Him so that they would know of God and have the chance to go to Heaven. Why did Christ have to die if a select few were already chosen, that means that the Sacrifice was not needed. God can choose who He wants when He wants, and His Son doesnt have to go suffering and die so a nobody human can go to Heaven. Jesus doesnt have to die, if God wants someone saved they are saved.

Satan has no power in deciding this. Satan has limited power and can’t go against God. Satan is condemned to hell like those who reject Christ. I have sinned, even I choose Christ. The things you do now affect your reward in heaven. I think that this is scriptural but I may be wrong. There are still consequences for sinning. but it isn’t lose of salvation. There are the physical consequences. If one of the elect gets a std then that is the physical consequence of their sin and they have to live with it.

If Satan has no power in deciding then whats the big deal about him? God chose, Satan is of no consequence. So they way I see your putting it God didnt want to save Adam and Eve thats why they sinned, and as for the snake/apple stuff that didnt mean anything.
You have sinned even though you chose Christ? So are you sure your going to Heaven? If I was sure I was going to Heaven I wouldnt worry if I broke a commandment here and there, I might feel bad, if I robbed a bank and gave the cash to the poor I wouldnt worry. If I bowed down to an Idol it wouldnt matter. Same questions can be asked of you. The 10 Commandments mean nothing if you hold a one way ticket to Heaven. I must have missed some major part of this “doctrine” because it makes no sense.
You also talked about physical consequences? If someone robbed a bank then they wouldnt get an std, they would be free from physical punishment. Also how did one of the elect get an std if they are supposed to be better than that? By your argument a person could break every commandment everyday and still go to Heaven? Even if they did get a physical punishment does that diminish their great reward?

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

Im just saying that the worst of the worst if they are elected (for example Hitler) would be fine in God’s eyes because God wont punish them because they have the golden ticket. So the question I must be getting wrong is the idea of when God “elects” someone. If Hitler accepted Christ as a little boy and converted 1000 people to Christianity before the age of 10 would he be considered “elected”? If he was, then what he does later in life is of no cosequence, God doesnt worry about what he does because God cant touch him.

The answer to if H went to Heaven is I dont know. Can God not forgive anyone anytime anywhere? If you say yes, then that means that all H had to do was say sorry and he accepts Christ on his death bed and Heaven is his, because the elect are going to Heaven.
About the all men. They cant, but God didnt slam the door on them, He sent Prophets, Writers, Apostles, and ultimately Jesus, all were sent by Him so that they would know of God and have the chance to go to Heaven. Why did Christ have to die if a select few were already chosen, that means that the Sacrifice was not needed. God can choose who He wants when He wants, and His Son doesnt have to go suffering and die so a nobody human can go to Heaven. Jesus doesnt have to die, if God wants someone saved they are saved.

If Satan has no power in deciding then whats the big deal about him? God chose, Satan is of no consequence. So they way I see your putting it God didnt want to save Adam and Eve thats why they sinned, and as for the snake/apple stuff that didnt mean anything.
You have sinned even though you chose Christ? So are you sure your going to Heaven? If I was sure I was going to Heaven I wouldnt worry if I broke a commandment here and there, I might feel bad, if I robbed a bank and gave the cash to the poor I wouldnt worry. If I bowed down to an Idol it wouldnt matter. Same questions can be asked of you. The 10 Commandments mean nothing if you hold a one way ticket to Heaven. I must have missed some major part of this “doctrine” because it makes no sense.
You also talked about physical consequences? If someone robbed a bank then they wouldnt get an std, they would be free from physical punishment. Also how did one of the elect get an std if they are supposed to be better than that? By your argument a person could break every commandment everyday and still go to Heaven? Even if they did get a physical punishment does that diminish their great reward?

Yes, God can save who he sees fit. The people he saves sins were paid for by Christ on the cross. I’m not saying your free to sin. I am saying that sinning will not lead to loosing your salvation. Now here is where it gets interesting. if you blatently choose to sin, are you part of the elect? First of all, Hitler didn’t do those things. He didn’t even like Christians, he persecuted them like he did the jews. I disagree with this statement, “Jesus doesnt have to die, if God wants someone saved they are saved.” And I think that Catholics would to. For a man to be saved he has to overcome a sin debt. We can’t pay this sin debt. Doing what we already supposed to do doesn’t make up for the sin debt. That is why Christ came, he came to pay the sin debt. Throughout the Bible mainly in the OT. Sacrifice is required. The lambs were offered to God as payment for the sin. That was an acceptable sacrifice until Jesus died. He was the final sacrifice. From that point any one who rejects him, is condemned to hell. If someone robbed a bank they would go to jail. First of all just because people are part of the elect does not make them sinless. They still sin. I don’t really like these what ifs. Not by my arguement can anyone “break every commandment everyday and still go to Heaven.” I would then argue that they are not a part of the elect. I don’t know the answer to this “Even if they did get a physical punishment does that diminish their great reward?” I am not God, and I don’t give the awards out. STDs aren’t the only physical consequences. There are many more. I don’t know of a member of the elect having a std but I was just using that as an example. We aren’t bound by the law, Paul even says this. God can touch him, b/c if he wasn’t a part of the elect. if Hitler were part of the elect then he wouldn’t have done those things.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

bjcros:

… I’m not saying your free to sin. I am saying that sinning will not lead to loosing your salvation. Now here is where it gets interesting. if you blatently choose to sin, are you part of the elect?.. First of all just because people are part of the elect does not make them sinless. They still sin.

So what is the big deal with sinning AFTER you are part of the elect? Before sin does anything to anyone it is primarily an offense to God. By your argument that doesnt matter, because your salvation cant be lost. Sin in a choice, and by your admission the elect still sin, so blatantly sinning is just fine. You dont see anything wrong with your statements?

I don’t really like these what ifs. Not by my arguement can anyone “break every commandment everyday and still go to Heaven.” I would then argue that they are not a part of the elect. I don’t know the answer to this “Even if they did get a physical punishment does that diminish their great reward?”

For the underlined parts:
Why do you need to argue that they are not part of the elect? You said yourself the elect still sin, and sinning doesnt make you lose your salvation. So why argue that someone “is not” when from what I see it doesnt matter as long as they are elected.
My other point is that a physical punishment is nothing compared to going or not going to Heaven. In otherwords would someone worry about getting the electric chair because they murdered someone if they knew that they were going to Heaven nomatter what? There are many sins where you wont get punished with an std or jail, in fact in a lot of sins the only two who know about them are God and the sinner, so is it ok to do them?

Questions:
1)Are you one of the elect?
2)How do you know for sure?
3)You still sin, so why should you stop if it has no effect?

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

So what is the big deal with sinning AFTER you are part of the elect? Before sin does anything to anyone it is primarily an offense to God. By your argument that doesnt matter, because your salvation cant be lost. Sin in a choice, and by your admission the elect still sin, so blatantly sinning is just fine. You dont see anything wrong with your statements?

I don’t think that I am condoning blatantly sinning. The idea that sin is fine is very unbiblical. And I don’t think that is what I am saying. What I am saying is that the Christ paid for the sins of the elect on the cross. God choose who he was going to save and reveal himself to. Those are the people who make up the ‘elect’. I don’t think you understand. I never said sinning is fine. If someone breaks a rule and isn’t punished, does that mean that it is fine to break that rule. I think you have a problem with God forgiving sins. I’m pretty sure that even Catholics hold that all sins can be forgiven.
Catholic Dude:

Why do you need to argue that they are not part of the elect? You said yourself the elect still sin, and sinning doesnt make you lose your salvation. So why argue that someone “is not” when from what I see it doesnt matter as long as they are elected.
My other point is that a physical punishment is nothing compared to going or not going to Heaven. In otherwords would someone worry about getting the electric chair because they murdered someone if they knew that they were going to Heaven nomatter what? There are many sins where you wont get punished with an std or jail, in fact in a lot of sins the only two who know about them are God and the sinner, so is it ok to do them?

I don’t know why I need to argue. The only thing that matters is what God states. I don’t know what a murderer worries about. I’m not sure what Catholics teach, but I think it is that any sin can be forgiven, if it is confessed. I think of myself as a ‘murderer’. because I am in part responsible for Christ’s death because I am one the people he died for. It is never right to sin. because sinning is always wrong.
Catholic Dude:

Questions:
1)Are you one of the elect?
2)How do you know for sure?
3)You still sin, so why should you stop if it has no effect?

1. I would say that I am one of the elect.
2. I know this because I have confessed Christ as Lord and believe it in my heart.
3. It does have an effect on my life. When I choose to blatantly sin, I feel guilty and feel as though the Holy Spirit is conficting me. Sin seperates us from God. But I am always going to be forgiven of my sin.

Could you tell me what you believe so that I can understand where your coming from and help answer your questions better.
If creation’s existence hinges on you looking behind you, and God told you not to do it. Would looking behind you be wrong, even though it seems it is for the good of creation? Going against God’s commands is ALWAYS wrong, no matter the situation. We will always need God’s help.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

bjcros:

1. I would say that I am one of the elect.
2. I know this because I have confessed Christ as Lord and believe it in my heart.
3. It does have an effect on my life. When I choose to blatantly sin, I feel guilty and feel as though the Holy Spirit is conficting me. Sin seperates us from God. But I am always going to be forgiven of my sin.

Could you tell me what you believe so that I can understand where your coming from and help answer your questions better.

The Church teaches just what the Bible teaches, one of the main parts of salvation is that is you cant just sin and get away with it, and that the road to Heaven is a lifelong process. On that road one must prove themself through works. If at any time you trip/sin you must confess and right the wrong if possible. If you stray from that path you cant go to Heaven, but the option to get back on the path is always open. There is never any guarantee that Heaven is yours.

 

[bjcros]

Catholic Dude:

The Church teaches just what the Bible teaches, one of the main parts of salvation is that is you cant just sin and get away with it, and that the road to Heaven is a lifelong process. On that road one must prove themself through works. If at any time you trip/sin you must confess and right the wrong if possible. If you stray from that path you cant go to Heaven, but the option to get back on the path is always open. There is never any guarantee that Heaven is yours.

Does The Church teach that we(humans) choose God first? I don’t think I ever said that you get off scotch free when you sin. If I did I know that is wrong. There will always be consequences. Granted those consequences may not be immediate but there will be some. So you believe Christ’s blood doesn’t cover all your sins?