Heaven; what is NECESSARY to get there?

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thank you cooterhein for taking the time to respond; Thank you also PJM for your posts and clarifications.

By trying to remain on the OP topic; the necessity to get to heaven? We can agree “sin” not venial sin, but mortal sin, or sin that leads to death prevents one from getting there.

I believe we have engaged in a crossroads here, when it appears you are dealing with a spiritual aspect to this topic, and I am dealing with the flesh. Correct me if I have mistaken you; You believe once “born again” this person cannot commit a sin that leads to death, because you relate this action to a spiritual one?

I mentioned that a “born again” person can lose his salvation from an unconfessed (not prayed for sin) mortal sin, that leads to death, this deadly sin takes place in time when we subject our flesh to sinful desires.

Yet you interpret that a born again person cannot ever sin again according to the flesh, which leads to death?

How do you interpret the popular non catholic born again christian who are publicly exposed to sex scandals,such as adultery and or fornication? Have these subjected themselves to a sin that leads to death? How do you reconcile this example to your interpretation that a born again person cannot commit the sin that leads to death?

Scripture clearly defines TWO types of sin here. One that is not deadly (venial sin) and one that leads to death = mortal sin. From this teaching Philippians supports the epistles of those in obedience to the Church and slaves to sin "A working towards one salvation.

Philippians 2:12
10 11 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

For clarification, another crossroads gets revealed here, when you take your interpretation from a scholarly interpretation that only deals with what one who can view and touch those things at one’s disposal in the scholars life time, deriving from these an opinion to the scripture text.

These are good but they leave the battle field of “faith” to the comforts or safe haven of an opinion to what they can only see and touch,. and they do not possess the full deposit of faith. In short, the Catholic faith stands the test of time, whereby the opinions to the letter will be ever changing.

For your information the Catholic church does not interpret scripture, she only has done so from history from the negative position to refute heretics and heresies. This does not mean that bishops and popes do not interpret scriptures from their scholarly offices, yet they have the full deposit of faith from antiquity to support their interpretations. I think you should be aware of this.

In summary, your interpretation deals with the letter, whereby the interpretation that I hold to comes from both "the whole context from what is written and what is believed and practiced (from sacred Tradition) since the resurrection of Jesus, supported by the third leg which supports and defends the “full deposit of faith” in the magisterium from their unbroken Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, which is “Pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

So, can a born again Christian commit a mortal sin, or a sin that leads to death from his/her own flesh?

The grace of God is poured out upon sinners, especially over one who “repents”.

Cooterhein, you have not yet clearly defined what you interpret to be a “sin that leads to death”? stating that it is a separation from God eternally, is only half right, because this is dealing with the result if the soul dies in this sin, the soul is separated from God eternally.

Can you name a sin that caused this soul after death to be eternally separated from God?
Believing that it applies to unbelievers, does not equate a just God, because Jesus came to save them.

Now I agree with you that it can apply to those who have come to the Full understanding of Truth and then reject it, but this case is very rare and if this occurs, then a sin that leads to death was committed, although, this is not the same as those by ignorance or no fault of their own did not come to the Truth.

Peace be with you

 

[PJM]

=Gabriel of 12;7626360]Thank you cooterhein for taking the time to respond; Thank you also PJM for your posts and clarifications.

By trying to remain on the OP topic; the necessity to get to heaven? We can agree “sin” not venial sin, but mortal sin, or sin that leads to death prevents one from getting there.

I believe we have engaged in a crossroads here, when it appears you are dealing with a spiritual aspect to this topic, and I am dealing with the flesh. Correct me if I have mistaken you; You believe once “born again” this person cannot commit a sin that leads to death, because you relate this action to a spiritual one?

I mentioned that a “born again” person can lose his salvation from an unconfessed (not prayed for sin) mortal sin, that leads to death, this deadly sin takes place in time when we subject our flesh to sinful desires.

Yet you interpret that a born again person cannot ever sin again according to the flesh, which leads to death?

How do you interpret the popular non catholic born again christian who are publicly exposed to sex scandals,such as adultery and or fornication? Have these subjected themselves to a sin that leads to death? How do you reconcile this example to your interpretation that a born again person cannot commit the sin that leads to death?

Scripture clearly defines TWO types of sin here. One that is not deadly (venial sin) and one that leads to death = mortal sin. From this teaching Philippians supports the epistles of those in obedience to the Church and slaves to sin "A working towards one salvation.

Philippians 2:12
10 11 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

For clarification, another crossroads gets revealed here, when you take your interpretation from a scholarly interpretation that only deals with what one who can view and touch those things at one’s disposal in the scholars life time, deriving from these an opinion to the scripture text.

These are good but they leave the battle field of “faith” to the comforts or safe haven of an opinion to what they can only see and touch,. and they do not possess the full deposit of faith. In short, the Catholic faith stands the test of time, whereby the opinions to the letter will be ever changing.

For your information the Catholic church does not interpret scripture, she only has done so from history from the negative position to refute heretics and heresies. This does not mean that bishops and popes do not interpret scriptures from their scholarly offices, yet they have the full deposit of faith from antiquity to support their interpretations. I think you should be aware of this.

In summary, your interpretation deals with the letter, whereby the interpretation that I hold to comes from both "the whole context from what is written and what is believed and practiced (from sacred Tradition) since the resurrection of Jesus, supported by the third leg which supports and defends the “full deposit of faith” in the magisterium from their unbroken Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, which is “Pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

So, can a born again Christian commit a mortal sin, or a sin that leads to death from his/her own flesh?

The grace of God is poured out upon sinners, especially over one who “repents”.

Cooterhein, you have not yet clearly defined what you interpret to be a “sin that leads to death”? stating that it is a separation from God eternally, is only half right, because this is dealing with the result if the soul dies in this sin, the soul is separated from God eternally.

Can you name a sin that caused this soul after death to be eternally separated from God?
Believing that it applies to unbelievers, does not equate a just God, because Jesus came to save them.

Now I agree with you that it can apply to those who have come to the Full understanding of Truth and then reject it, but this case is very rare and if this occurs, then a sin that leads to death was committed, although, this is not the same as those by ignorance or no fault of their own did not come to the Truth.

Peace be with you

GREAT POST! Thank you!

In support of your position allow me to ask just One Question [a two parter]…

Is free-choice" Abortion, Murder and and a Mortal sin?

Are there NO [never -ever] any Christian "Born Again’s} who have had; or sat by; or aproved of this act?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cooterhein]

GREAT question the way it is worded. I’m not comfortable with the word “miraculous” which implies, “unable to be comprehended.” Amazing or Remarkable seems the better definition. The transformation is 1. A result of Grace offered. 2. Grace accepted and rightly applied. #1 is God’s initiative; #2 is humanities Freewill response.

“Miraculous” does cover a lot of ground- wonderful, amazing, extraordinary, marvelous, phenomenal, and superhuman represent some of that ground. Inexplicable, unaccountable, and incomprehensible are represented as well, though. The main reason I wanted to use the word “miraculous” had to do with identifying the salvific act of God as a “miracle.” So I hope that describing this act of God “as a miracle” does a better job than the adjective “miraculous”…I think that’s a little more specific.

Miracle- an extraordinary event manifesting divine intervention in human affairs. That’s pretty much the extent of what I wanted to indicate.

We agree. God does answer in an affirmative manner all request relative to our spiritual growth; when and how it best will benefit our souls. Other kinds of request ought not be surprised if God say’s “NO!” which too is an answer. Certainly; it is always God who decides “If” and “when” and “how.”

Cool I don’t know that we will necessarily agree that this applies to when and how God regenerates a person, though. My understanding is that all good Catholics believe it happens exactly when a person is baptized by Trinitarian formula…if that’s true, I would have to counter by saying my own baptismal regeneration must have been delayed by a solid half-dozen years. He didn’t even do it when I asked him to- the answer was eventually affirmative, but it finally happened only when God did it.

1. All Salvation FLOWS through Christ. 2. Salvation is not a possibility of any human effort ALONE. 3. God offers; and we get to choose to accept or reject God’s offer. 4. Unless [until] we die; we can change our choice.

Could you describe the transformation that God is responsible for among Christians? In my description, there would be a miracle at the beginning of a person’s existence as a Christian whereby God transforms a person into a Christian. Protestants usually refer to this as “regeneration,” although “renovation” and “conversion” may be used interchangeably. Applicable Scriptural terms include new birth, a resurrection, a new life, a new creature, a renewing of the mind, a dying to sin and living to righteousness, a translation from darkness to light, and so forth.

Do Catholics ever talk about this, or is it only possible to talk about sanctification as a means to salvation? It seems rather odd to me that Catholics would be so unconcerned with the question of whether or not God actually caused you to become a Christian…but perhaps the matter is simplified by equating every Trinitarian baptism with regeneration. I never did that, so I had to spend a considerable amount of time finding out if God had done this thing called regeneration and if the Holy Spirit was indwelling me…not based solely on whether I was baptized or not, or if I was “in a state of grace” or not, or if I was up-to-date with the sacraments, but based strictly on the presence vs. absence of the Holy Spirit and the reality/non-issue of God’s transformative miracle.

Are these the sorts of things Catholics don’t even think about? Do you just say “I was baptized Catholic” and that settles it? Are there some people who start by saying “God was supposed to regenerate me when I got baptized” and finish by saying “Guess what, God actually did regenerate me when I got baptized”? Or do most Catholics simply say “The Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration; have faith in the Church and do not attempt to verify one way or the other”?

I ask this because regeneration is not one of the topics I’ve had the most success with in discussion with Catholics. The thing is, it’s not just a teaching and it’s not just a doctrine. Baptism and regeneration aren’t things that are way off in distant history that we just talk about; they’re more personal things in the here and now. So when I learn that a person is Catholic and he/she has also been baptized, I generally want to know if God regenerated them at the time of their baptism. But most of the time, people act like I’m asking a weird question. The responses tend toward something like “I just told you what the Church teaching is; are you stupid or something?” Every time this happens, of course, I obviously understand what the CC’s teaching is. But I still want to know if it actually happened the way it was drawn up.

Personally, I can say God didn’t do it that way for me. But I’m always curious to know how many Catholics can say they were actually regenerated when baptized…not based on having faith in a doctrine, but based on the reality of actually being regenerated at that particular time.

Getting answers to this line of questioning has been mostly fruitless and usually accompanied by bad feelings on the Catholic side of things. Why do you think that is? What do you think is the best way for me to approach this issue without causing offense?

In God’s original plan for humanity [Created by God who desires to be loved and thanked] Isaiah 43: 7-21, it was a Utopia; a Shangri-La. No death, illness, fighting, or unmet want. Then Adam and Eve’s FREEWILL took over. They did the ONE thing God prohibited them to do. [PRIDE]. This resulted in what today is termed “Original Sin.”

Shangri-La is an excellent term. I wasn’t familiar with it before. Thank you for introducing it to me.

 

[cooterhein]

Predestination is the way you apply it denies and prohibits God from “being a ‘perfect’ God”. And it also denies humanities God-Given-RIGHT to choose for themselves; where they will spend eternity.

Predestination in the way I apply it is largely in line with Augustine and Aquinas…not that Augustine and Aquinas necessarily say completely identical things (which they don’t) or that I am able to perfectly quote large portions of either man’s writings from memory (which I can’t), but I would imagine that if you and I sat down with Summa Theologica and opened up to the section entitled “On Predestination” (which is part one question 23, I think? I didn’t check), I’d imagine that I would take the side of Aquinas in every example of nearly so, and you would have more of a tendency to be on the side of the challenges that are given in questioning what he says of predestination.

That’s an exercise for another time and place, though. But it is something that I’d like to do. You want to?

So language aside: your understanding attempts to limit a God who has no limits.

That was certainly not my intent.

Just a bit as an Old time Latin Mass Catholic and Mass Server. But the History of the Catholic bible [we are the ones who “gave it to the world… Collected the OT books and authored the entire NT; and Codified it.] is quite interest ring.

Can you do me a favor? Take a look at the various councils that are responsible for codifying the NT canon, look at where they all happened, and see how many of them are in Western territory and how many are in Greek/Eastern Orthodox territory.

Don’t forget that the Septuagint is a Greek translation given to you by the Greeks…and how often do you speak to the Greek Orthodox with gratitude on that point?

And It was St. Jerome doing as directed by the Pope; transcribed the Hebrew; Greek and Aramaic books into the “common language” of Latin. His Translation was approved by four Church Councils; who are made up of a GREAT many of the World’s Bishops; and signed off on by the Pope. That’s heady censorship; worthy of my belief.

It’s an excellent translation, and just perfect for anyone who actually speaks Latin. For those who don’t speak Latin, however, it’s less than ideal, and for various reasons that are entirely out of Jerome’s control, he didn’t have all the necessary tools at his disposal that are necessary for making an even better translation. Language of origin aside, there are a half-dozen modern English translations that are of higher quality than the Vulgate. That is to say, they are more accurate and more trustworthy- none of them are perfect. No translation is perfect. No translation of the Bible should be treated as if it actually is the Bible. All of them are “translations thereof” and imperfect ones at that, and as such, no translation is “worthy of belief” to the extent that you don’t ever need to check and see if it translates something rightly. If you know the ancient languages and can use the necessary tools, it’s always worth it to check- and sometimes, the Vulgate is found wanting. Which is true of any translation- but for the Vulgate, it happens more frequently than it does with the very best modern translations. It does better than most, but it’s no longer in elite company.

**A God who is Perfect, MUST also be ‘Just.” **A murder is more serious than say a cuss-word.

Murder is more serious than a cuss-word…I absolutely agree.

Both are sins. Can or will a JUST God, render the same punishment for both of these actions?

Can or will a just God render an identical punishment for non-identical sins, particularly when one is clearly more serious than the other? Absolutely not. The book of Revelation certainly indicates that the damned incur varying types and degrees of punishment, and that the redeemed will be given varying types and levels of rewards and responsibilities in heaven. The redeemed all go to one place and the damned all go to one place, but different kinds of things happen to different people based on God’s judgment.

If necessary, I apologize for using the d-word. I actually thought it was a less-offensive alternative than the “elect/reprobate” option.

 

[cooterhein]

These words and Teaching my friend deal with the usually GRAVE / Mortal sin of Presumption. Presuming for example that ; Faith Alone will actually get one to heaven, or he other common error; OSAS.

Where’d you hear about this sin of presumption? I’m not familiar with that one. Why should I believe it exists?

As to Sola Fide, I believe it’s a solid doctrine that accurately conveys an important aspect of Biblical truth. But it’s not like I believe something to the effect that my faith will get me to heaven. I believe God gets me into heaven through His finished work on the cross and by means of transforming me into someone who’s going to heaven instead of someone who’s going to hell. He’s actually done this transformation thing already. I like to refer to it as a miracle.

Neither are Biblically founded; Both are from Human origin; Neiter are From or OF God; and BOTH do not point the way to salvation as explained in the [Using the Entire] Bible.

And by way of contrast, you talk about a “mortal sin” called “presumption”? The one place you thought the Bible talks about mortal sin doesn’t actually talk about mortal sin, although the words do appear in some translations of the Bible when a certain passage is translated inaccurately. And the part about presumption…I know there’s no passage that actually talks about it, and I don’t even know that you think there is.

Do you think there is? I’d be happy to demonstrate that it does not.

“Only a fool thinks that they can Follow Christ in Glory; WITHOUT ALSO and First; folowing Him in suffering.” [Bishop Sheen]

I can agree that Protestantism as a whole could use more of an emphasis on a theology of suffering; it’s not completely non-existent, however, and there is something to build on. As to what it’s building to…it won’t be anything like redemptive suffering, and I’m glad of that.

The Greek word for presumption is ἀλαζονεία, Strong’s 212, btw. Comes up in James 4:16 and 1 John 2:16. Can you find a description of your sin of presumption in or around either of those passages?

If you look instead at Strong’s 213 for the word ἀλαζών (the word origin of 212) and then look up Romans 1:30 and 2 Timothy 3:2 where it appears, do you imagine that the “boastful” listed among the “haters of God” and “lovers of money” and “insolent, arrogant, revilers,” etc. are representative of all the Protestants who believe in the perseverance of the saints? Do you think this is how someone gets included among the “boastful”?

 

[PJM]

=cooterhein;7647775]Predestination in the way I apply it is largely in line with Augustine and Aquinas…not that Augustine and Aquinas necessarily say completely identical things (which they don’t) or that I am able to perfectly quote large portions of either man’s writings from memory (which I can’t), but I would imagine that if you and I sat down with Summa Theologica and opened up to the section entitled “On Predestination” (which is part one question 23, I think? I didn’t check), I’d imagine that I would take the side of Aquinas in every example of nearly so, and you would have more of a tendency to be on the side of the challenges that are given in questioning what he says of predestination.

That’s an exercise for another time and place, though. But it is something that I’d like to do. You want to?

That was certainly not my intent.

Can you do me a favor? Take a look at the various councils that are responsible for codifying the NT canon, look at where they all happened, and see how many of them are in Western territory and how many are in Greek/Eastern Orthodox territory.

Don’t forget that the Septuagint is a Greek translation given to you by the Greeks…and how often do you speak to the Greek Orthodox with gratitude on that point?

It’s an excellent translation, and just perfect for anyone who actually speaks Latin. For those who don’t speak Latin, however, it’s less than ideal, and for various reasons that are entirely out of Jerome’s control, he didn’t have all the necessary tools at his disposal that are necessary for making an even better translation. Language of origin aside, there are a half-dozen modern English translations that are of higher quality than the Vulgate. That is to say, they are more accurate and more trustworthy- none of them are perfect. No translation is perfect. No translation of the Bible should be treated as if it actually is the Bible. All of them are “translations thereof” and imperfect ones at that, and as such, no translation is “worthy of belief” to the extent that you don’t ever need to check and see if it translates something rightly. If you know the ancient languages and can use the necessary tools, it’s always worth it to check- and sometimes, the Vulgate is found wanting. Which is true of any translation- but for the Vulgate, it happens more frequently than it does with the very best modern translations. It does better than most, but it’s no longer in elite company.

Murder is more serious than a cuss-word…I absolutely agree.

Can or will a just God render an identical punishment for non-identical sins, particularly when one is clearly more serious than the other? Absolutely not. The book of Revelation certainly indicates that the damned incur varying types and degrees of punishment, and that the redeemed will be given varying types and levels of rewards and responsibilities in heaven. The redeemed all go to one place and the damned all go to one place, but different kinds of things happen to different people based on God’s judgment.

If necessary, I apologize for using the d-word. I actually thought it was a less-offensive alternative than the “elect/reprobate” option.

Tanks,

I read your reply and enjoyed it.

God Bless,
pat

 

[PJM]

=Gabriel of 12;7626360]Thank you cooterhein for taking the time to respond; Thank you also PJM for your posts and clarifications.

By trying to remain on the OP topic; the necessity to get to heaven? We can agree “sin” not venial sin, but mortal sin, or sin that leads to death prevents one from getting there.

I believe we have engaged in a crossroads here, when it appears you are dealing with a spiritual aspect to this topic, and I am dealing with the flesh. Correct me if I have mistaken you; You believe once “born again” this person cannot commit a sin that leads to death, because you relate this action to a spiritual one?

I mentioned that a “born again” person can lose his salvation from an unconfessed (not prayed for sin) mortal sin, that leads to death, this deadly sin takes place in time when we subject our flesh to sinful desires.

Yet you interpret that a born again person cannot ever sin again according to the flesh, which leads to death?

How do you interpret the popular non catholic born again christian who are publicly exposed to sex scandals,such as adultery and or fornication? Have these subjected themselves to a sin that leads to death? How do you reconcile this example to your interpretation that a born again person cannot commit the sin that leads to death?

Scripture clearly defines TWO types of sin here. One that is not deadly (venial sin) and one that leads to death = mortal sin. From this teaching Philippians supports the epistles of those in obedience to the Church and slaves to sin "A working towards one salvation.

Philippians 2:12
10 11 So then, my beloved, obedient as you have always been, not only when I am present but all the more now when I am absent, work out your salvation with fear and trembling.

For clarification, another crossroads gets revealed here, when you take your interpretation from a scholarly interpretation that only deals with what one who can view and touch those things at one’s disposal in the scholars life time, deriving from these an opinion to the scripture text.

These are good but they leave the battle field of “faith” to the comforts or safe haven of an opinion to what they can only see and touch,. and they do not possess the full deposit of faith. In short, the Catholic faith stands the test of time, whereby the opinions to the letter will be ever changing.

For your information the Catholic church does not interpret scripture, she only has done so from history from the negative position to refute heretics and heresies. This does not mean that bishops and popes do not interpret scriptures from their scholarly offices, yet they have the full deposit of faith from antiquity to support their interpretations. I think you should be aware of this.

In summary, your interpretation deals with the letter, whereby the interpretation that I hold to comes from both "the whole context from what is written and what is believed and practiced (from sacred Tradition) since the resurrection of Jesus, supported by the third leg which supports and defends the “full deposit of faith” in the magisterium from their unbroken Apostolic succession in the Catholic Church, which is “Pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Timothy 3:15).

So, can a born again Christian commit a mortal sin, or a sin that leads to death from his/her own flesh?

The grace of God is poured out upon sinners, especially over one who “repents”.

Cooterhein, you have not yet clearly defined what you interpret to be a “sin that leads to death”? stating that it is a separation from God eternally, is only half right, because this is dealing with the result if the soul dies in this sin, the soul is separated from God eternally.

Can you name a sin that caused this soul after death to be eternally separated from God?
Believing that it applies to unbelievers, does not equate a just God, because Jesus came to save them.

Now I agree with you that it can apply to those who have come to the Full understanding of Truth and then reject it, but this case is very rare and if this occurs, then a sin that leads to death was committed, although, this is not the same as those by ignorance or no fault of their own did not come to the Truth.

Peace be with you

While I agree with nearly all of your comments; the final one seems at least incomplete?

In the current age of readily available technology and quick access to informtion; and in the midst of "it only “right / wrong” if I SAY SO world we live in; as seem often on this Forum, truth is simply denined or glossed over; despite providing eviene of it’s merits.

I fear that a lagre number of non-catholics who reagullarly post and read these comments, and then opt not to act on them, may have a GREAT deal of explaining to do before God at the Judgment.

Not seeking the TRUTH, is no excuse for not knowing the truth. God will Judge based on what we CAN [and therefore ought to know] as if we DID know and chose to ignore it.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[PJM]

Bible verses which refute eternal assurance

Because the doctrine of eternal assurance is so bound up with sola fides and salvation by a single profession of faith, many of the verses which refute those doctrines are relevant to refuting this one.

In Matthew 24:13 we are told that those who persevere to the end will be saved – a clear refutation of the notion of eternal assurance. Romans 11:22 speaks on a similar theme. In Philippians 2:12 we are told to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” - not only does this refute the idea that works are of no avail, but also shows – when read in the context of the whole passage – that the idea of eternal assurance is foolish.

I Corinthians contains two particular passages – 9:27 and 10:11-12 which speak very clearly on this subject. In fact, I Corinthians 10:11-12 refutes eternal assurance explicitly – saying that those who think they are secure may fail! II Timothy 2:11-13 says that we must “hold out to the end” in order to be saved.

There are also passages which speak specifically about those who have received Christ and have then fallen away. Galatians 5:4, Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-27 refer to people who are Christians (and, therefore, saved) but then commit sins and, while remaining Christians, are not likely to inherit Heaven.

Additionally, if we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense for Christ to require us to pray, “And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors,” which he explained is required because “if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses” (Matthew 6:12-15).

The illogic of eternal assurance

Eternal assurance is an illogical position for the same reason that sola fides is illogical – it denies free will and the very existence of sin. If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin? It in fact means that sin does not exist – there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that will offend God. This means we cannot choose God, and hence do not have free will. If there is no sin and we have no ability to choose sin or God, what need do we have for a savior? Eternal assurance in fact denies the very purpose for Christ’s incarnation.

The sin of presumption

The sin of presumption is the name given to the belief in eternal assurance; it is presuming on God’s mercy. It is not just a theologically incorrect position to hold, but is also one which is a sin because it makes one proud and think that one has no need of God’s further assistance. The person thinks they are already permanently “saved” and so they do not need God, the Church or anything else.

The sin of presumption does not include making statements such as “when we are in Heaven . . .” or by talking about seeing God face to face and all the other benefits of Heaven as something which we know will happen. Catholics who are in a state of grace (and it is possible to know when you are in a state of grace as only mortal sin takes that away, and you are always aware of when you have committed a mortal sin) are assured Heaven at that moment. The sin of presumption refers to a belief that regardless of mortal sins one will still merit Heaven.

Because of the nature of the culpability for sins committed, it is impossible to know if anyone else is going to Hell. This is the flipside of the sin of presumption. Although it is reasonable to assume that someone who is not Catholic and engages in regular sins for which he or she has no remorse is going to Hell, one cannot state so with certainly.

This does not mean that a Catholic evangelist cannot tell the person he or she is very likely, unless he or she bucks his or her ideas up, to go to Hell – but rather that the evangelist simply cannot be totally certain. We, as humans, do not know what special graces and merits God may apply to any individual – nor can we be certain of the level of culpability for sins.

The Catholic Church teaches that – although we know that Hell is populated (based on the words of Christ that not all will be saved – therefore some will be damned) – we cannot know if any individual is in Hell.

 

[cooterhein]

Bible verses which refute eternal assurance

Well, this can be a depressing game. I could very easily look up a few sites that include lists of verses and arguments declaring “Biblical certainty of eternal security,” but I learned awhile ago (before having an account on CAF) that with good reason, these kinds of exercises belong on websites and not on forums. So I’ll refrain from looking up these sites based on what I see as “bad form.” However, I will cherry-pick a few of these in order to point out some references that could use a bit of extra attention from you. So you can see which ones a Protestant will look at and think “That could have been more convincing.”

In Matthew 24:13 we are told that those who persevere to the end will be saved – a clear refutation of the notion of eternal assurance.

Any type of Calvinist and almost any non-Arminian will immediately jump to the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, a doctrine that upholds a divine primacy and for which a certain way of interpreting this verse is rather central. You should definitely assume that Protestants have seen this before and interact with it in a particular way. It works to your advantage if you know this and address it.

Romans 11:22 speaks on a similar theme.

Good reference, well done.

In Philippians 2:12 we are told to “work out your salvation with fear and trembling” - not only does this refute the idea that works are of no avail, but also shows – when read in the context of the whole passage – that the idea of eternal assurance is foolish.

This one is not as good- especially since you talk about reading the context of the whole passage. Verse 12 ends mid-sentence, and I’m sure you know how that sentence ends.

“…for it is God who works within you, both to will and to do His good pleasure.”

By isolating verse 12, the Protestant mind (which I am more than adequately familiar with ) immediately assumes that you aren’t taking verse 13 into account, along with its emphasis on the divine agency of the willing and the doing and the working. This is not quite as central to the doctrine of perseverance as the first passage, but it’s kind of important. You’d be doing yourself a favor if you figured out what to say about verse 13 right upfront.

I Corinthians contains two particular passages – 9:27 and 10:11-12 which speak very clearly on this subject.

Good passages to use and work with. Very nice.

There are also passages which speak specifically about those who have received Christ and have then fallen away. Galatians 5:4

“Fallen away from grace” indicates a serious problem with depending on anything besides grace. To me, this actually looks like support for sola gratia. And even if you don’t see that, I can’t imagine that you think a Protestant is generally the sort of Christian who “would be justified by the law.”

Hebrews 6:4-6 and 10:26-27 refer to people who are Christians (and, therefore, saved) but then commit sins and, while remaining Christians, are not likely to inherit Heaven.

These are good ones to work with. I think there’s a set of 4 from Hebrews that is usually handled all together.

Additionally, if we were forgiven all sins, past, present, and future, it would make no sense

It’s probably best to bring this up only when the Protestant across from you introduces this phrase and wishes to stand by it and provide a defense. It’s not really a doctrine, and it’s not well-loved by all.

The illogic of eternal assurance

You should assume that it at least has internal consistency. We do ok with logic- Protestants are a product of the Enlightenment to a greater extent than Catholics are.

Eternal assurance is an illogical position for the same reason that sola fides is illogical –

None of this is illogical, even if you do believe it’s wrong. Saying otherwise is the same as announcing that you are not adequately familiar with the material.

it denies free will and the very existence of sin.

Mildly absurd.

If one is eternally assured of salvation after stepping into some “group” of the saved, then what does it matter if we sin?

It’s described more like a transformative miracle whereby God causes a non-Christian to be a Christian, and when you ask “What does it matter if we sin?”, this is seen as a relatively easy hypothetical adequately dealt with directly from Scripture.

It in fact means that sin does not exist – there are no moral absolutes and there is nothing that will offend God. Eternal assurance in fact denies the very purpose for Christ’s incarnation.

Very absurd, and a mistake.

The sin of presumption

I’m still a little bit curious about the biblical support for that.

The sin of presumption is

I know what it is.

Catholics who are in a state of grace (and it is possible to know when you are in a state of grace as only mortal sin takes that away, and you are always aware of when you have committed a mortal sin)

Awhile back, I did a poll on the knowability of whether or not you’re in a state of grace. There were three options indicating that a Catholic can know one way or the other all the time or nearly so, never except in extraordinary circumstances, or somewhere in-between that is relatively middle-ish.

The CAF results were not quite what I expected. I was hoping for a group-wide answer that leaned heavily in some direction, but instead, each of the three options received the exact same number of votes. I bumped it a couple of times to try and get a few more hits, but I didn’t get the definitive results I’d hoped for. When the thread died, it was still a three-way tie.

I know which one you’d vote for, but please understand that this is why I don’t think you speak for all the Catholics using this forum.

 

[PJM]

cooterhein;:

7649224]Well, this can be a depressing game. I could very easily look up a few sites that include lists of verses and arguments declaring “Biblical certainty of eternal security,” but I learned awhile ago (before having an account on CAF) that with good reason, these kinds of exercises belong on websites and not on forums. So I’ll refrain from looking up these sites based on what I see as “bad form.” However, I will cherry-pick a few of these in order to point out some references that could use a bit of extra attention from you. So you can see which ones a Protestant will look at and think “That could have been more convincing.”

Any type of Calvinist and almost any non-Arminian will immediately jump to the doctrine of Perseverance of the Saints, a doctrine that upholds a divine primacy and for which a certain way of interpreting this verse is rather central. You should definitely assume that Protestants have seen this before and interact with it in a particular way. It works to your advantage if you know this and address it.

Good reference, well done.

This one is not as good- especially since you talk about reading the context of the whole passage. Verse 12 ends mid-sentence, and I’m sure you know how that sentence ends.

“…for it is God who works within you, both to will and to do His good pleasure.”

By isolating verse 12, the Protestant mind (which I am more than adequately familiar with ) immediately assumes that you aren’t taking verse 13 into account, along with its emphasis on the divine agency of the willing and the doing and the working. This is not quite as central to the doctrine of perseverance as the first passage, but it’s kind of important. You’d be doing yourself a favor if you figured out what to say about verse 13 right upfront.

Good passages to use and work with. Very nice.

“Fallen away from grace” indicates a serious problem with depending on anything besides grace. To me, this actually looks like support for sola gratia. And even if you don’t see that, I can’t imagine that you think a Protestant is generally the sort of Christian who “would be justified by the law.”

These are good ones to work with. I think there’s a set of 4 from Hebrews that is usually handled all together.

It’s probably best to bring this up only when the Protestant across from you introduces this phrase and wishes to stand by it and provide a defense. It’s not really a doctrine, and it’s not well-loved by all.

You should assume that it at least has internal consistency. We do ok with logic- Protestants are a product of the Enlightenment to a greater extent than Catholics are.

None of this is illogical, even if you do believe it’s wrong. Saying otherwise is the same as announcing that you are not adequately familiar with the material.

Mildly absurd.

It’s described more like a transformative miracle whereby God causes a non-Christian to be a Christian, and when you ask “What does it matter if we sin?”, this is seen as a relatively easy hypothetical adequately dealt with directly from Scripture.

Very absurd, and a mistake.

I’m still a little bit curious about the biblical support for that.

I know what it is.

Awhile back, I did a poll on the knowability of whether or not you’re in a state of grace. There were three options indicating that a Catholic can know one way or the other all the time or nearly so, never except in extraordinary circumstances, or somewhere in-between that is relatively middle-ish.

The CAF results were not quite what I expected. I was hoping for a group-wide answer that leaned heavily in some direction, but instead, each of the three options received the exact same number of votes. I bumped it a couple of times to try and get a few more hits, but I didn’t get the definitive results I’d hoped for. When the thread died, it was still a three-way tie.

I know which one you’d vote for, but please understand that this is why I don’t think you speak for all the Catholics using this forum.

THANKS for your comments!

I have no doubt that your correct in that I DO NOT speak for every RC on the Forum. Given the fact that the second largest religious denomination in America is “fallen away catholics,” your right. I Do however express the Teachings of the RCC.

In that logic plays such a signifiant role to the Protestant community; consider this.

Among the BILLIONS of plants, stars and galaxies; even with “deep-space” exploration; only One; earth can sutain life as we know it.

On planet earth with Hundreds of Thousands of “Living-Things,” only One; humanity can love. As love requires the aplication of our “spiritual selves.” Mind, Intellect; Freewills, and souls can be demonistrated; but not quantified.

Becuase “like” can only come from “like”;physical to physical; spiritual to spiritual; we can know that a “God” [our term] exist. Further these gifts are so powerful [frewil for example] that logically they must; in an absolute sense have been given by there source for a precise reason.

That reason is "Love desires to be Loved!} And only humanity can do so.BUT becaue of freewil, humanity can just as easily choose not to love. It is this capacity to choose that eliminates any possibility of OSAS being an actual possibility.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[fhansen]

Matt. 7: 13-14… "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide **and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. **2.[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, **and those who find it are few. **

It’s in the Bible and therefore it MUST BE True?

It seems reasonable that NOT everyone; not even all “Christans” are going to get to heaven.

So my friend, WHAT is necessary; what is essential to getting to heaven"

Sinlessness, which is a somewhat inferior way of saying that we need to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. And Jesus is the only way to this kind of Love.

 

[cooterhein]

In that logic plays such a signifiant role to the Protestant community; consider this.

I am considering it; I’m still trying to fit some of the pieces together, so I apologize for not addressing this earlier.

Among the BILLIONS of plants, stars and galaxies; even with “deep-space” exploration; only One; earth can sutain life as we know it.

On planet earth with Hundreds of Thousands of “Living-Things,” only One; humanity can love. As love requires the aplication of our “spiritual selves.” Mind, Intellect; Freewills, and souls can be demonistrated; but not quantified.

Becuase “like” can only come from “like”;physical to physical; spiritual to spiritual; we can know that a “God” [our term] exist. Further these gifts are so powerful [frewil for example] that logically they must; in an absolute sense have been given by there source for a precise reason.

This is the strong anthropic principle. I’m reasonably familiar with it, although most of my interaction with the strong and weak anthropic principles have been in the presence of atheists. The strong anthropic principle certainly fits with my religious beliefs; however, I must confess that I can’t legitimately claim to be able to demonstrate that the logic is more sound than that of the weak anthropic principle. The concept of an infinite number of universes that constitute a near-infinite number of “failed experiments” does seem a little shady, but there is a lot we don’t know about our own universe and enough material coming from the field of quantum physics that I can’t legitimately wave them aside as if I absolutely know they don’t exist.

I know my way around the principle decently well; what I’m not as familiar with is the practice of linking the strong anthropic principle to free will…in particular, a certain kind of free will. (There are two basic kinds of free will, you know).

I believe in free will. But I also believe in the sovereignty of God- something that you could crudely describe as divine determinism. It coexists with a particular kind of free will and the two do not contradict each other or tear one another apart. This kind of free will is not quite the same as libertarian free will, and the proponent of libertarian free will is of course an incompatibilist who believes my idea of compatibilism is just inconsistency and that I don’t believe in free will at all. Nevertheless, it is my contention that I do believe in a certain kind of free will…though perhaps not exactly the same as the sort of free will that you believe in.

One thing that’s worth mentioning is that there’s tons of Catholic theologians throughout history who, like me, were compatibilists. Almost all the heavy hitters took the compatibilist stance pre-Reformation, and they still believed in the loss of salvation- Molina was the first member of Team LFW to gain a major following. I don’t think being on Team Compatibilism as opposed to Team LFW necessitates that someone believe one thing or another on the matter of losing ones’ salvation; I actually think this is demonstrably true and not really a matter of opinion. I’m just curious about what specific kind of free will you’re linking the strong anthropic principle to and your thoughts on why it can or can’t be linked to another expression of what free will is. I’m just trying to better understand the details of your argument.

That reason is "Love desires to be Loved!} And only humanity can do so.BUT becaue of freewil, humanity can just as easily choose not to love. It is this capacity to choose that eliminates any possibility of OSAS being an actual possibility.

So far I’m assuming that you’re an incompatibilist…correct me if I’m wrong. FYI, though, incompatibilism is a bit more intuitive for someone who’s more of a novice on this topic, but philosophers throughout history have demonstrated that this position is significantly harder to defend as compared to compatibilism. Number one, I have a pretty good idea of why that is, and number two, all of this logistical difficulty happens before you even completely cross over from the realm of philosophy to the realm of theology and get the Bible involved- so given that you only just heard about what incompatibilism is, you should know that it’s less easy to defend even if you know your way around the issue extremely well. Oh, and number three, this eventually takes us really far away from the OP so we might have to do this off-thread.

Anyway, assuming you are an incompatibilist and you’re linking the strong anthropic principle to a free will that is specifically LFW, could you tell me why you can or cannot link the same principle to a compatibilist kind of free will? Because compatibilist free will is where I wind up at…for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the anthropic principle (which is completely normal), but if there is a link to be made, what is there to be said about it?

There’s a couple of other things I’m wondering about…first and foremost, once you establish a certain kind of free will which I assume is LFW, why does that preclude the doctrine of perseverance? Additionally, compatibilists may or may not believe in the loseability of salvation. Whether it goes one way or the other seems to have very little to do with their perspective on the relationship between free will and determinism (or on free will and predestination). Do you think it should? Why or why not?

And the last thing I’m wondering is who you give credit to for inspiring you to link the strong anthropic principle to libertarian free will (if that is what you’re specifically linking it to). Wherever you got it from, I’d like to take a look at the source and see how the argument’s put together there.

 

[PJM]

=fhansen;7653131]Sinlessness, which is a somewhat inferior way of saying that we need to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. And Jesus is the only way to this kind of Love.

I agree in part.

What else is necessary?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[fhansen]

I agree in part.

What else is necessary?

God Bless,
Pat

Well, in following the OP I’m trying to be as concise as possible here, and since, implied in love, is the fulfillment of the Law (obeying the commandments), feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc, plus faith and hope, I’m not sure what could be added to love.

St Paul basically said in 1 Cor 13 that when we have love, the greatest of the virtues, we have it all.
St Augustine said, **“Love, and do what you like.” **
And St John of the Cross said, “At the evening of life, we will be judged on our love.”

 

[avemaria297]

Simple answer: Catholics believe the soul must be in a state of grace in order to achieve salvation after death. Grace can be acquired in two ways; the sacraments and prayer. Both are considered essential for Heaven and Catholics are supposed to recieve grace through both of these ways as often as possible. You can probably still be saved if you die in a state of mortal sin, because God is seen as a forgiving deity who may not damn someone that is sorry for their sins and the Virgin Mary and saints can intercede for someone in Purgatory, but that is not viewed as a guarantee.

 

[PJM]

=avemaria297;7656646]Simple answer: Catholics believe the soul must be in a state of grace in order to achieve salvation after death. Grace can be acquired in two ways; the sacraments and prayer. Both are considered essential for Heaven and Catholics are supposed to recieve grace through both of these ways as often as possible. You can probably still be saved if you die in a state of mortal sin, because God is seen as a forgiving deity who may not damn someone that is sorry for their sins and the Virgin Mary and saints can intercede for someone in Purgatory, but that is not viewed as a guarantee.

Thank you my friend for sharing

Allow me a few clairifications.

NO-one; NOBODY with unrepented; unconfessed; unforgiven Mortal sin will get into heaven. God is Mercyiful and Loving; BUT MUST also be Just.

Not Only can Mary, and the Saints intercede for those in purgatory; anyone in th “state of Grace can; and should do so.”

Grace is always a FREE GIFT from God. In God’s Mercy we can and are invited [Catholics in the State of Grace] to receive the Eucharist; Christ Himself; the GREATEST source of Grace; so in a sense we can “merit” grace through the Sacramemts. Confession too is a source of Grace; and another way we can “merit” Grace.

Other than Sacramnetal Grace which provide the Graces they signify; Grace necessary for onespersonal slavation is a FREE Gift of God; given to whom it oleases Him and in the amounts he determines. It is Noteworty to NOTE: Grace can be refused by our dreewill choices.

How is it my friend, that you know so much about Catholism?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[cyberwolf001]

The more I read this stuff the more convinced I become that no one can give a straight answer on it :hypno:

 

[allyl]

Matt. 7: 13-14… "Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide **and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. **2.[14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, **and those who find it are few. **

It’s in the Bible and therefore it MUST BE True?

It seems reasonable that NOT everyone; not even all “Christans” are going to get to heaven.

So my friend, WHAT is necessary; what is essential to getting to heaven"

Can One know fo SURE in this life; where they will spend Eternity?

I don’t think that being a Christian guarantees you a license to heaven.
There’s the whole repentance aspect.

 

[ILOVEYOUMYLADY]

When we die, God will judge us on our works and our sins. We must be in a state of grace.

 

[PJM]

=cyberwolf001;7663003]The more I read this stuff the more convinced I become that no one can give a straight answer on it :hypno:

IMO were this true; then either noone gets to heaven how can they if they don’t know how?} or predestination it’s strictest sense must be true; and IMO it’s not.

God Bless,

Pat