Hell

[PRmerger]

Just a question. If one is regenerated by baptism and commits mortal sin does one get born again after they repent in the RC way?

After the Sacrament of Reconciliation, yes.

 

[earl40]

What is the basis for this statement? How do you know how God makes His plans? Do you have some particular insight superior to that of the Catholic Church?

Below you will see all things that happen are according to His will.

DAN 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: 35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou? PSA 135:6** Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did he in heaven, and in earth, in the seas, and all deep places.**

Don’t you understand that Scripture came from Tradition? And why do you believe any of the Reformers? What sign did they give that would imply that the Chruch had failed in the eyes of God and that thier’s was the right way. have you ever read the hateful words of Luther or Calvin describing the Church? Does that sound like it came from God?

Don’t you know that all scripture is God breathed and was discovered by His church?

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
What is the basis for this statement? How do you know how God makes His plans? Do you have some particular insight superior to that of the Catholic Church?

Sure,God’s will will be done, that much is certain to all. but that doesn’t preclude the Catholic teaching that God’s plan took into account man’s free choices. Your more limited view is that only man’s will or only God’s will can be done but not both simultaneously and that is a false view. God’s will can be accomplished while still allowing man to have free will. God is omnipotent - nothing is impossible for God, don’t you agree?
.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Don’t you understand that Scripture came from Tradition? And why do you believe any of the Reformers? What sign did they give that would imply that the Chruch had failed in the eyes of God and that thier’s was the right way. have you ever read the hateful words of Luther or Calvin describing the Church? Does that sound like it came from God?

So lets discuss HOW the new testament was discovered by His One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In 382 AD, Pope St. Damasus, in a council in Rome defined the new testament according to the following criteria:

1. the books had to be useful for teaching and liturgy
2. the books had to be apostolic
3. the books had to be universally known to the church
4. the books had to be consistent with Catholic Tradition.

Out of that council , the existing 27 books of the new testament were chosen. Pope St. Damasus then commissioned St. Jerome to translate all of these books into Latin which became the Latin Vulgate. So scripture is based on tradition. This is all very well documented.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

So lets discuss HOW the new testament was discovered by His One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In 382 AD, Pope St. Damasus, in a council in Rome defined the new testament according to the following criteria:

1. the books had to be useful for teaching and liturgy
2. the books had to be apostolic
3. the books had to be universally known to the church
4. the books had to be consistent with Catholic Tradition.

Out of that council , the existing 27 books of the new testament were chosen. Pope St. Damasus then commissioned St. Jerome to translate all of these books into Latin which became the Latin Vulgate. So scripture is based on tradition. This is all very well documented.

Something that bothers me from the Protestant line of reasoning: why are the OT contested books suddenly Apocrypha, but the NT disputed books are Canon? If they’re going to remove 7 of the OT books based on disputes that occurred when the Canon was first formed, they may as well be consistent and remove all the disputed books from the New Testament, as well. Which, from a brief search of the internet, seems to have included Revelation, among others. At least be consistent…

 

[fhansen]

Now concerning #1. I know God gets whatever He wants (including the salvation of those He desires to save) .

Did God want Adam to sin? Did He will that Adam sin?

 

[earl40]

Sure,God’s will will be done, that much is certain to all. but that doesn’t preclude the Catholic teaching that God’s plan took into account man’s free choices. Your more limited view is that only man’s will or only God’s will can be done but not both simultaneously and that is a false view. God’s will can be accomplished while still allowing man to have free will. God is omnipotent - nothing is impossible for God, don’t you agree?

Would agree that God uses men’s free will to accomplish His will. If so you are a “Calvinist”. The problem is that most think men are able to please God without faith.
.

So lets discuss HOW the new testament was discovered by His One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In 382 AD, Pope St. Damasus, in a council in Rome defined the new testament according to the following criteria:

1. the books had to be useful for teaching and liturgy
2. the books had to be apostolic
3. the books had to be universally known to the church
4. the books had to be consistent with Catholic Tradition.

Out of that council , the existing 27 books of the new testament were chosen. Pope St. Damasus then commissioned St. Jerome to translate all of these books into Latin which became the Latin Vulgate. So scripture is based on tradition. This is all very well documented.

So are you saying the church did not know what was scripture between 100 and 382? To your #4 point you are placing Tradition = with the bible. By doing so you are placing tradition over scripture.

 

[earl40]

Something that bothers me from the Protestant line of reasoning: why are the OT contested books suddenly Apocrypha, but the NT disputed books are Canon? If they’re going to remove 7 of the OT books based on disputes that occurred when the Canon was first formed, they may as well be consistent and remove all the disputed books from the New Testament, as well. Which, from a brief search of the internet, seems to have included Revelation, among others. At least be consistent…

Here are some short consistent quotes.

From Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture:

The sense of “canonical” is used differently. Whitaker says this is the case with Augustine (among others): “Augustine himself, who writes thus… ‘The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred scriptures which are callled canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.’… Two things present themselves… The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical in the church – that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of great value in the church.”.

To this it is usually added that other councils and authorities rejected the apocrypha, such as the Synod of Laodicea, Melito of Sardis, and most famously Jerome.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Sure,God’s will will be done, that much is certain to all. but that doesn’t preclude the Catholic teaching that God’s plan took into account man’s free choices. Your more limited view is that only man’s will or only God’s will can be done but not both simultaneously and that is a false view. God’s will can be accomplished while still allowing man to have free will. God is omnipotent - nothing is impossible for God, don’t you agree?

I don’t think I understand your comment. Calvinist believe that all me are predestined to heaven or hell, do they not? Catholics believe that while some are predestined to heaven, no one is predestined to hell. All men have the opportunity to get to heaven if they cooperate with God’s grace. It’s hard to imagine anyone could cooperate fully with God’s grace without faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
So lets discuss HOW the new testament was discovered by His One, HOLY, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In 382 AD, Pope St. Damasus, in a council in Rome defined the new testament according to the following criteria:

1. the books had to be useful for teaching and liturgy
2. the books had to be apostolic
3. the books had to be universally known to the church
4. the books had to be consistent with Catholic Tradition.

So, Earl, does it make sense to believe so fully in the power of scripture without understanding its history? Surely you understand that the Catholic Church existed prior to a single New testament book being written. The word of God was passed on orally from Apostle to priest to layman just as it is today (with the exception that the bishops replaced the Apostles). When they talked of scripture, they were referring exclusively to the Old Testament at the beginning. Over time, people wrote down these traditions, some in the form of letters, others in the form of books. These were read as part of the Sunday liturgy and used by the faithful in teaching the faith to subsequent generation. Remember also that the church was underground until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, the subject of persecutions and that information passed more slowly than at present. There was no shortage of books and letters for the Church to chose from. In fact, then as now various heresies were in abundance. All the current new testament books and letters were circulated widely by 150 AD, but so were many heretical works. The church had to test them against what they knew as the Church’s tradition to decide what was trust worthy. And yes, it wasn’t until 382AD that the scriptures as we know them were defined.

To your #4 point you are placing Tradition = with the bible. By doing so you are placing tradition over scripture.

I would say it differently. I would say that scripture is a subset of Tradition. Catholic Tradition predates and encompasses more than the written scripture and scripture can not be properly understood without first understanding the tradition that brought it forth. At the same time, nothing in Tradition is in opposition with scripture properly understood. If you think there are inconsistencies, those are simply a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Remember the genesis of sola scripture in the Reformation. Martin Luther separated himself and his followers from Catholic Tradition and the Church leadership. His only link to Christ therefore was the Bible. He applied his own man made tradition to its interpretation and branded that sola scriptura. In reality, he simply was replacing the Apostolic Tradition with that of his own. Calvin and other Protestant leaders followed in his footsteps, creating their own intepretive traditions.

 

[paul_c]

Here are some short consistent quotes.

From Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture:

The sense of “canonical” is used differently. Whitaker says this is the case with Augustine (among others): “Augustine himself, who writes thus… ‘The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred scriptures which are callled canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.’… Two things present themselves… The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical in the church – that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of great value in the church.”.

To this it is usually added that other councils and authorities rejected the apocrypha, such as the Synod of Laodicea, Melito of Sardis, and most famously Jerome.

Most famously, Jerome recognized that the Pope was the competent authority, not himself, and thus the deutorocanonical books were included in the Vulgate and all other approved versions of the bible published by the Church to this very day. True. Luther and others found it convenient to leave these 7 books out of their translations for the same reasons that 2nd century Jews pulled them out of their canons: they support Catholic Doctrine. Luther also changed the wording of of one of st. Paul’s epistles to include the term Faith alone and wanted to exclude the epistle of St. james as well since james 2 is so obviously against " Faith Alone" but could find no justification to do so.

 

[Neildown]

This is my first thread so please place criticism where necessary.

I have a friend who has converted from Protestant Southern Baptist to Universal Salvation. I am not to sure if many of you have heard of it. It is the belief that everyone is going to heaven at some point. They base most of their belief in the scriptures of St. Paul. Any way we have had many conversations on the topic of salvation and hell. I tell him if he is right and I am wrong then then no big deal because in your faith then we are all going to heaven but if I am right and your wrong then you aren’t going to the happy place. Any way during our conversations I have found some things he says to throw some doubt on the Christian teaching of hell. Essentially their idea of hell is a cleansing not a punishment. But we have talked about the difference between the relativism of mankind and the absoluteness of God. He asked a conceptual question that I would like the forum members to maybe look at and comment on.

Let say there are a 100 people in the world and 99 go to heaven and one goes to hell. In the human understanding of things that seems to be a victory for God. 1 out of a 100 isn’t too bad. But since God doesn’t deal in the relative, what does it mean to God if one soul is lost to hell? For that one person whose soul was lost to hell the temptation of the apple overpowered the sacrifice of the crucifixion. Can the power of sin be greater than the mercy of God?

This is something that makes me think about the eternal grace of God.

Looking forward to your replies

This is part of an essay I wrote awhile back - hopefully it will shed some light?

**Why is there a heaven, and why is there a hell? **
1 - God created man in His own image. 2 - God gave man free will. These are the two most important fundamental beliefs concerning this particular subject. Because man is created in God’s image, man has a natural need to be like Him, but adversely we have tendencies which, left unchecked, draw us towards abusing that nature. Ultimately it is up to us, whether to choose to stick with our natural needs or our abuses of those needs; one will ultimately win out at the end. There is a problem however; one of these choices leaves us compatible with God, and the other leaves us incompatible with God. In the latter we have a paradox:

• A human, made in the image and likeness of God, completely reliant upon God (who is the source of all life), possessing an immortal soul.
• This same human, via his or her free will, wants nothing to do with God and/or wants to live without Him.

Though our natural need is to be with God, it has been established that we aren't restricted in our choosing or rejecting Him. But choosing to live without God is akin to living without  water  -  it's nonsensical. We need God in order to live the way best suited for us, otherwise we become unbearably thirsty, our bodies fall into neglect, and our health begins to decay. Then there is another technicality; all humans have a soul which cannot be destroyed, unlike our mortal, physical bodies. Though a damned soul may cast itself away from the very source of life, it simply cannot "cease to exist" through doing so. It can't  be downgraded beyond anything less than a basic subsistence because it was made in the image and likeness of God, and a trait God shared with all of mankind is the gift of an eternal existence.  

The soul of a damned person is still "alive," but is casting itself into pure torment because it is struggling for all that isn't of God and against everything that is of God. This is essentially why hell is not just a place of banishment but also a place of absolute misery, because all that is good and natural for us is stored with God. Everything bad is out in the wasteland, as far away from God as possible. With this in mind it becomes easy to conceive the accurate notion that hell is full of pain, suffering, and overall wretchedness.

Conversely, the soul of a person in heaven is alive in the fullest sense possible. It is in its natural environment where it was intended to be, and doing what it was created for - fulfilling it's purpose. It has complete access to the wellspring it needs in order to be content and happy, and there is no conflict between the soul and God, but a flourishing communion between the two. Therefore heaven is a place of love and construction in comparison with hell, which is a place of hate and destruction. In summary, heaven and hell -  at least for us, specifically  - exist as an accommodation for the choices we may make with our free will.

 

[earl40]

I don’t think I understand your comment. Calvinist believe that all me are predestined to heaven or hell, do they not? Catholics believe that while some are predestined to heaven, no one is predestined to hell. All men have the opportunity to get to heaven if they cooperate with God’s grace. ** It’s hard to imagine anyone could cooperate fully with God’s grace without faith**.

Your last sentance shows the inconsistant thought process. Without faith it is impossible to please God to which you alluded to. Now if you hold to men having the ability to please God without the regenerating work of The Holy Spirit you indeed have to imagine that men can please God without faith. One thing man can do to please god is to believe in Him and fallen man CANNOT please God because they do not have faith. So I take it you believe ALL men have the ability to believe in God contrary to what Epesians says that faith is a gift that is NOT of ourselves.

So, Earl, does it make sense to believe so fully in the power of scripture without understanding its history? Surely you understand that the Catholic Church existed prior to a single New testament book being written. The word of God was passed on orally from Apostle to priest to layman just as it is today (with the exception that the bishops replaced the Apostles). When they talked of scripture, they were referring exclusively to the Old Testament at the beginning. Over time, people wrote down these traditions, some in the form of letters, others in the form of books. These were read as part of the Sunday liturgy and used by the faithful in teaching the faith to subsequent generation. Remember also that the church was underground until the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, the subject of persecutions and that information passed more slowly than at present. There was no shortage of books and letters for the Church to chose from. In fact, then as now various heresies were in abundance. All the current new testament books and letters were circulated widely by 150 AD, but so were many heretical works. The church had to test them against what they knew as the Church’s tradition to decide what was trust worthy. And yes, it wasn’t until 382AD that the scriptures as we know them were defined. .

Did you not read what Jerome or Augustine wrote that I quoted?

I would say it differently. I would say that scripture is a subset of Tradition. Catholic Tradition predates and encompasses more than the written scripture and scripture can not be properly understood without first understanding the tradition that brought it forth. At the same time, nothing in Tradition is in opposition with scripture properly understood. If you think there are inconsistencies, those are simply a misunderstanding of one or the other.

Remember the genesis of sola scripture in the Reformation. Martin Luther separated himself and his followers from Catholic Tradition and the Church leadership. His only link to Christ therefore was the Bible. He applied his own man made tradition to its interpretation and branded that sola scriptura. In reality, he simply was replacing the Apostolic Tradition with that of his own. Calvin and other Protestant leaders followed in his footsteps, creating their own intepretive traditions.

I agree Luther and the reformers started a “tradition” based soley on the bible. The RC makes the bible into a “wax nose” to be formed to her traditions. I woukld not even know where to start for the examples are so any it was mind boggling once I read what the bible teaches vs. what a RC teaches.

Just a quick question why do you not believe The Gospel? Or better yet explain to me why The Gospel does not work for those who end up in hell?

 

[earl40]

Most famously, Jerome recognized that the Pope was the competent authority, not himself, and thus the deutorocanonical books were included in the Vulgate and all other approved versions of the bible published by the Church to this very day. True. Luther and others found it convenient to leave these 7 books out of their translations for the same reasons that 2nd century Jews pulled them out of their canons: they support Catholic Doctrine. Luther also changed the wording of of one of st. Paul’s epistles to include the term Faith alone and wanted to exclude the epistle of St. james as well since james 2 is so obviously against " Faith Alone" but could find no justification to do so.

Jerome REJECTED the deutorocanonical as did Augustine. Pope or no pope. I agree Luther inserted “alone” though that alone, which was added was knowing that we are justified by faith apart from any grace produced work we do. Also he (Luther) did recant his mistake on James.

Here is a good read. Try it you may like it.

[apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/](http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/)

 

[PRmerger]

Jerome REJECTED the deutorocanonical as did Augustine. Pope or no pope.

He did initially. But then he deferred to the authority of the successor of Peter and included them in the translation.

 

[PRmerger]

Would agree that God uses men’s free will to accomplish His will. If so you are a “Calvinist”.

Actually, that makes Calvinists very Catholic when they proclaim this.

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Here are some short consistent quotes.

From Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture:

The sense of “canonical” is used differently. Whitaker says this is the case with Augustine (among others): “Augustine himself, who writes thus… ‘The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred scriptures which are callled canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.’… Two things present themselves… The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical in the church – that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of great value in the church.”.

To this it is usually added that other councils and authorities rejected the apocrypha, such as the Synod of Laodicea, Melito of Sardis, and most famously Jerome.

That is EXACTLY my point. Jerome and others also contested New Testament writings. There was little consensus, especially with Revelation. Why, then, was it not removed as well?

bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

bible.ca/b-canon-disputed-books.htm

Like I said, BE CONSISTENT. If you’re going to remove OT books because they are disputed, do so with the NT books as well. Revelation was highly disputed, and apparently Hebrews and the epistles of John, as well. At least Luther wanted to remove some from the NT. He was consistently ridiculous. Modern Protestants won’t even consider removing disputed NT books, even though they use the same arguments for the OT books they tossed. Contradictory much?

 

[PeaceInChrist]

Here are some short consistent quotes.

From Whitaker’s Disputations on Holy Scripture:

The sense of “canonical” is used differently. Whitaker says this is the case with Augustine (among others): “Augustine himself, who writes thus… ‘The calculation of which times is not to be found in the sacred scriptures which are callled canonical, but in others, amongst which are also the books of Maccabees.’… Two things present themselves… The first, that these books are not, in truth and fact, sacred and canonical. The other, that they are nevertheless held canonical in the church – that is, read publicly, set forth, and esteemed of great value in the church.”.

To this it is usually added that other councils and authorities rejected the apocrypha, such as the Synod of Laodicea, Melito of Sardis, and most famously Jerome.

Also, I’d like a reference to the whole text from Augustine. He could have been talking about 3 and 4 Maccabees for all I know, and I would expect something like that in a Protestant argument against Canon. No offense. I just want to make sure.

 

[fhansen]

Jerome REJECTED the deutorocanonical as did Augustine. Pope or no pope. I agree Luther inserted “alone” though that alone, which was added was knowing that we are justified by faith apart from any grace produced work we do. Also he (Luther) did recant his mistake on James.

Here is a good read. Try it you may like it.

[apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/](http://www.apuritansmind.com/apologetics/apocryphama(name removed by moderator)age/)

I don’t understand this line of reasoning. What difference could it posibly make what Augustine or Jerome thought? The Church’s role is to issue the final verdict on such matters; at the end of the day she lstens to God, not Augustine or Jerome or the Puritans or me or yourself.

 

[earl40]

I don’t understand this line of reasoning. What difference could it posibly make what Augustine or Jerome thought? The Church’s role is to issue the final verdict on such matters; at the end of the day she lstens to God, not Augustine or Jerome or the Puritans or me or yourself.

If I,a former RC and now a “rabid” protestant, can help you understand that scripture alone is the ultimate authority for faith and pratice you my one day attend a good solid reformed church.

 

[earl40]

Also, I’d like a reference to the whole text from Augustine. He could have been talking about 3 and 4 Maccabees for all I know, and I would expect something like that in a Protestant argument against Canon. No offense. I just want to make sure.

So if I show you the complete reference you would change your mind? IOW if Augustine and Jerome did indeed disagree with what the RC now teaches would it make any difference?

 

[PRmerger]

If I,a former RC and now a “rabid” protestant, can help you understand that scripture alone is the ultimate authority for faith and pratice you my one day attend a good solid reformed church.

But, earl, you are following a man-made tradition. “Scripture alone is the ultimate authority” can not be found in the Bible.

You heard a man say this, who heard another man say this, who heard another man say this…

but no one ever read: “Scripture alone is the ultimate authority” in a single page of the Bible.

That is a man-made tradition you have been duped into belling, earl. :sad_yes: