How much (or little!) love is 'enough' for salvation?

[truthseekerjay]

Fair enough. Tell me – do you believe that Jesus founded the Church? And that He placed Peter and the apostles in charge? And promised that “the gates of hell [would] not prevail” against the Church He founded?

I actually believe all those things, but right now, what I’m trying to figure out is who the Church actually encompasses. Let me share a couple examples of my confusion.

I mentioned in my story that there was a point in which I had an “Evangelical mindset” and pretty much doubted RC, but would continue participating in RC activities ONLY due to a fear of my family. Did God view me as RC at this point? Were my confessions still leading to absolution/forgiveness? If a Muslim (and continuing to be Muslim in his heart) were coerced into getting baptized and confessing (perhaps due to social pressure), do these sacraments work?

Reading Church history, it seems as if people would split from the majority at different points in time. First, it was the Church of the East, then the Oriental Orthodox, then the Eastern Orthodox, etc. Prior to the actual “divorce,” the people would meet in councils to see if they could reconcile their differences and I think people would meet in councils even after the divorce. Suppose the official “divorce” between the Oriental Orthodox and the majority of the people with claims for Christ (I’m assuming you would call these people RC) happened on October 29. On October 28, does God STILL view the people who would eventually follow Oriental Orthodoxy as RC? Basically, the mindset of these people was already different from the majority and the ONLY thing that will be different on October 29 is their official lack of allegiance to the Roman pope. Is allegiance to the Roman pope the real definition of a Roman Catholic and the ultimate requirement to be a member of the invisible Church?

Again, fair enough. Yet, wouldn’t a scientist ask “what are the grounds for belief in this as truth?” rather than “hey! why don’t I try to re-prove it all again, from the start?”…? (I’m not asking whether it’s possible to prove… but whether what an inquiring scientist does is re-verify everything that has gone before him or whether he simply checks his sources to see what they say?)

I’m not really sure what you’re asking, but I would say that it depends on the situation. In this case, I personally felt that RC might be false, so I figured that it would be better to start from scratch so as to not give me any biases towards RC. I believed that if RC is the truth, it will eventually show me so, despite me starting from scratch.

This, too, is fair enough. Yet, as far as logic goes, there’s a problem here, isn’t there? If an Evangelical clues you in to the fact that your understanding of your Catholic faith is deficient, that doesn’t mean that his faith is more correct than yours – just that your understanding needs work. And, if he uses the deficiency of your understanding in your faith tradition as the way to assert that his denomination has the truth… well, that’s not only dirty pool (i.e., ‘sheep stealing’), but illogical, as well!

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here either. As I mentioned before, I wouldn’t say I have 100% confidence in the things that Evangelicals say either. Come to think of it, in the beginning, they didn’t really tell me to believe what they said. If anything, their message was to open my eyes and observe. I don’t know exactly what was said, but they did convince me that I was more sinful than I thought. They also made me realize that God can see right through me and knows the things that I secretly question. As a side note, even before encountering the Evangelicals, I already questioned certain things about RC, but if I’m honest with myself, the ONLY reason I didn’t actually try to find the answers was because I was comfortable with my situation and NOT because I had faith that God just made it that way. Therefore, when the Evangelicals pointed out that I couldn’t hide my doubts from God anyway, I decided to seek for answers in the Bible, from interviewing people, from reading books about Church history, etc.

 

[truthseekerjay]

2 of 2

We need to talk about this “worse than we think” issue – your example doesn’t imply it, let alone prove it… and I’m afraid it’s not even relevant!

Perhaps I didn’t provide a very good example, but my point was that a sin that we think isn’t grave hints at the possibility of us committing more grave sins. That minor sin still came from the same wicked heart. It’s like water. You put it in a freezer and it’s ice, in a glass and it’s liquid, and in an oven and it’s vapor. It’s still water. I don’t know if you consider taking a paper clip from work as a “not grave” sin. Anyway, you could be placed in one situation and your sin manifests as stealing a paper clip, but in another situation, it may manifest as stealing a car or even your friend’s wife. The fact of the matter is that you STOLE and you were just lucky that you weren’t placed in an environment for the more grave sin to manifest. Of course, God can change you over time. God can even change water so that it doesn’t turn into vapor when placed in an oven. However, we don’t know for sure how much God has changed us and what we’re STILL capable of doing.

I don’t know if this makes any sense, but tell me a “venial” sin you recently committed, so that we can discuss it. If you don’t feel comfortable doing so, just think of how that venial sin can actually be more grave had you been placed in a different situation. If water says to God, “But I was liquid.” God can say, “ONLY because you were in a glass. You’re just LUCKY that you were not in a freezer, but the problem isn’t the situation, but that YOU ARE WATER. The point is that you’re STILL WATER and I’m trying to change you INTO LIGHT.”

BTW, this isn’t the argument that the Evangelicals had used to convince me, but this example does have me thinking that I can be worse than I think.

 

[Gorgias]

Did God view me as RC at this point?

He still does.

Were my confessions still leading to absolution/forgiveness?

Absolutely. You were (and continue to be) a baptized Catholic; even though your state of catechesis was in free-fall, you were (and are) still able to receive the sacraments, and as long as you were contrite for your sins and had a firm purpose to amend your ways, the absolution was valid. We’ve covered that before. The answer hasn’t changed.

If a Muslim (and continuing to be Muslim in his heart) were coerced into getting baptized and confessing (perhaps due to social pressure), do these sacraments work?

Baptism requires faith. Therefore, a person baptized against his will is not justified. Therefore, an unwilling baptism does not lead to valid reception of the sacraments. That’s not your case, however, so you can’t point to it as if it represented a state in your life.

On October 28, does God STILL view the people who would eventually follow Oriental Orthodoxy as RC?

Depends on what you mean by “RC”. Prior to the split, there was the Christian Church – East and West. Following the split, there was still the Christian Church – but now identified as ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’.

Is allegiance to the Roman pope the real definition of a Roman Catholic and the ultimate requirement to be a member of the invisible Church?

I don’t know that ‘allegiance’ is the proper distinction; perhaps ‘doctrine’ is what you’re searching to identify. BTW, what’s the “invisible Church” that you’re alluding to, here?

I’m not really sure what you’re asking, but I would say that it depends on the situation. In this case, I personally felt that RC might be false, so I figured that it would be better to start from scratch so as to not give me any biases towards RC. I believed that if RC is the truth, it will eventually show me so, despite me starting from scratch.

I’m asking about your methodology as a scientist. If you thought that Copernicus was wrong, I would think that you wouldn’t say, “OK… I’m going to throw all this out, and try to re-do it myself.” Rather, a scientist would say, “OK… there are others who have given witness to the truth that Copernicus states. I need to acquaint myself with their thought (rather than re-doing their work from scratch, without even attempting to understand their research). If–and only if–I find their results unconvincing, I’ll go back and see whether Copernicus himself was wrong.” As a scientist, you’d have to admit that it’s possible that you had missed something that someone else had properly understood about him. Relying solely on your own understanding and judgment, then, would be a fatal flaw in your scientific process. Yet, it seems to be the process that many undertake in spiritual matters: “if I didn’t come up with it on my own, I can’t possibly accept it.” How odd!

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here either.

Easy enough – and your comments give witness to what I’m about to write:

If I wanted to ‘steal’ you from a position that you don’t fully understand, then I don’t need to “convince you of my position”. Instead, I just exploit your lack of understanding. I can, easily enough, convince you that you don’t fully understand your current position. If I can convince you that your understanding is faulty, I can easily enough convince you that your position (which you don’t understand anyway) is wrong – and yet, that’s both intellectually dishonest and vicious.

I don’t know exactly what was said, but they did convince me that I was more sinful than I thought.

Right… it was “Jay, you really, really misunderstand yourself and God!”. Based on what you’ve said here, I’d have to agree with them – you really didn’t understand what the Catholic Church teaches! (Not that it’s your fault, per se… but, you have to admit – you didn’t understand it!) Now… that doesn’t imply that the teaching is in error… just that your understanding is in error.

But, if they’ve shown you the error in your thought, they’ve established a certain position of authority. That allows them to make assertions about what is ‘really’ true… without ever having to address whether what the Church really teaches is true. Let’s use a facetious example: let’s suppose that you erroneously believed that the Church taught that the moon was made of blue cheese. It would be easy enough to demonstrate to you that this is false. By doing so, I would only have shown you that your understanding is wrong. Yet, if I followed up with “and therefore, the Church is wrong that the moon is made of blue cheese – after all, as Evangelicals, we know that it’s made of cheddar cheese”, I would have led you in the wrong direction: without ever addressing what the Church teaches, I would have pushed you away from a teaching you don’t understand, in the direction of a teaching that you can’t say is more true. :nope:

when the Evangelicals pointed out that I couldn’t hide my doubts from God anyway, I decided to seek for answers in the Bible, from interviewing people, from reading books about Church history, etc.

And, if the understanding of Church teachings that you reached is indicated by your expositions on them here at CAF, then I’d say that your conclusions were faulty, at best. If you turned away from the Catholic Church based on your research, then I’d say that your research was not accurate, and therefore, it warped your conclusions.

(Note that I’m not even addressing your results, per se – rather, if your research turned up the points you’ve mentioned here, then it’s obvious that your understanding of Church teaching is in error. How can one reach a valid conclusion from bad data?)

 

[Gorgias]

Perhaps I didn’t provide a very good example, but my point was that a sin that we think isn’t grave hints at the possibility of us committing more grave sins.

Your example led me to point to Scripture. That reference still holds: God doesn’t hold us responsible for sins that we might “possibly commit in the future”; rather, we are judged only on what we have or have not done. If someone wants to make you feel guilty because you are capable of sin, then they’re teaching a doctrine that’s not found in the Scriptures – they’re teaching you a doctrine that the Pharisees believed in! (“Teacher, how can you eat with prostitutes and tax collectors?”… why, think of all the sins they might commit in the future!!!)

Anyway, you could be placed in one situation and your sin manifests as stealing a paper clip, but in another situation, it may manifest as stealing a car or even your friend’s wife.

Perhaps; but, what’s your point? That we are sinners? Yeah, we get that. You seem to be placing greater emphasis on concupiscence (the tendency to be tempted to sin) than on the forgiveness of God. Is that the ‘truth’ that took you away from the Church?

The fact of the matter is that you STOLE and you were just lucky that you weren’t placed in an environment for the more grave sin to manifest.

Unless you could prove that you would have committed the greater sin, this notion of “just being lucky” isn’t valid – it’s a counterfactual, which is a logical error!

I don’t know if this makes any sense, but tell me a “venial” sin you recently committed, so that we can discuss it. If you don’t feel comfortable doing so, just think of how that venial sin can actually be more grave had you been placed in a different situation.

Unless you can prove to me that I would have sinned gravely in that different situation, then you’re setting up a straw man argument: by pointing to the gravity of a (presumed and not real sin) and the reality of a venial (but actual sin), you convict me of the greater sin? That’s hardly reasonable. Imagine a court case, in which I demonstrate that you had no money in your pocket, but yet looked with longing at a TV in a store. Then, I claim that, had you had the means, you would have stolen the TV… and attempt to convict you on a charge of grand larceny. Tell me – would that claim ever hold up anywhere? Of course not. And yet, what is plainly a case of injustice is exactly what you’re claiming God does, with respect to us! I’m flabbergasted…

BTW, this isn’t the argument that the Evangelicals had used to convince me, but this example does have me thinking that I can be worse than I think.

Yes… and you’ve already told us that the Evangelicals were the ones who convinced you that you were worse than you thought. It’s damning testimony for your ‘conversion’ experience…

 

[truthseekerjay]

As a scientist, you’d have to admit that it’s possible that you had missed something that someone else had properly understood about him. Relying solely on your own understanding and judgment, then, would be a fatal flaw in your scientific process. Yet, it seems to be the process that many undertake in spiritual matters: “if I didn’t come up with it on my own, I can’t possibly accept it.” How odd!

If I wanted to ‘steal’ you from a position that you don’t fully understand, then I don’t need to “convince you of my position”. Instead, I just exploit your lack of understanding. I can, easily enough, convince you that you don’t fully understand your current position. If I can convince you that your understanding is faulty, I can easily enough convince you that your position (which you don’t understand anyway) is wrong – and yet, that’s both intellectually dishonest and vicious.

Perhaps how I chose to do my investigation was inefficient and perhaps the Evangelicals were being intellectually dishonest. However, if the tables were turned and a Muslim decided to do what I did about his beliefs or if RCs took advantage of a person’s lack of understanding of his beliefs to lead him into investigating Roman Catholicism, would you still have a problem with the methods? Maybe some people will reach the truth faster than others, but ultimately reaching the truth is what matters.

Absolutely. You were (and continue to be) a baptized Catholic; even though your state of catechesis was in free-fall, you were (and are) still able to receive the sacraments, and as long as you were contrite for your sins and had a firm purpose to amend your ways, the absolution was valid. We’ve covered that before. The answer hasn’t changed.

Yes, we have talked about it before and I really couldn’t articulate why this continues to bother me. Let me try this. Suppose my wife somehow knew that I really wanted to be with another woman, but I continued to do things with her because I simply wasn’t ready to tell her, is she really going to appreciate my activities with her? BTW, I know that God and my wife are very different. However, is God really so different that He ONLY cares that the activities are performed without true feelings?

Baptism requires faith. Therefore, a person baptized against his will is not justified. Therefore, an unwilling baptism does not lead to valid reception of the sacraments. That’s not your case, however, so you can’t point to it as if it represented a state in your life.

However, I was baptized as a baby and as you can see from the way things turned out, I would have refused being baptized had I been able to speak up. It may have been societal pressure that forced the Muslim to get baptized and my inability to speak that forced me to get baptized, but essentially neither one of us truly wanted it.

 

[truthseekerjay]

2 of 2

Depends on what you mean by “RC”. Prior to the split, there was the Christian Church – East and West. Following the split, there was still the Christian Church – but now identified as ‘Orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’.

I think we may be using different terminologies here, so let me ask you some questions first so that we can be on the same page.
|
|
|mainline
|
|------------------->Church of the East (COE)
| k
|
|mainline
|
|------------------->Oriental Orthodox (OO)
| m
|
|mainline
|
|------------------->Eastern Orthodox (EO)
|
|
|
mainline (Roman Catholicism?)

At point k, the COE split from the majority of Christ-based religions. At this point in time, how do you refer to the “mainline” believers? For example, are they considered the Church while the COE are no longer seen as members of the Church? Or perhaps, is everybody here still considered part of the Church while the mainline is seen as “members of the Church that agree to the Ephesus Council” while the COE are seen as “members of the Church the DON’T agree with the Ephesus Council?”

At point m, are the mainline believers the Church OR are they simply “members of the Church that agree with the Chalcedon Council” while the OO are seen as “members of the Church that DON’T agree with the Chalcedon Council?”

Now, I want to ask a couple of questions on the implications of being a Church member. If all of these people are STILL members of the Church, can they all continue to practice their respective activities to attain absolution and forgiveness? Can a person switch from one branch to another “without penalty” (ie you told me before that leaving RC for the Evangelical churches was a grave mistake, so is it the same if a RC became a member of COE)?

If someone wants to make you feel guilty because you are capable of sin, then they’re teaching a doctrine that’s not found in the Scriptures – they’re teaching you a doctrine that the Pharisees believed in! (“Teacher, how can you eat with prostitutes and tax collectors?”… why, think of all the sins they might commit in the future!!!)

Unless you could prove that you would have committed the greater sin, this notion of “just being lucky” isn’t valid – it’s a counterfactual, which is a logical error!

I don’t think my point is getting across. I’m NOT talking about FUTURE sins or being able to prove that a greater sin would be committed in the present situation. What I’m trying to emphasize is that the sin that is committed IN THE PRESENT is ALREADY a DEFIANCE to God NO MATTER how “minor” it is and ONLY God knows how that PRESENT DEFIANCE will manifest in different situations.

The following situation may get too “philosophical,” but hear me out. You have a man who has never committed a sin. One day at work, he needs to copy a document and goes into the room with the copy machine. In this room, he sees a box of paper clips. He steals a couple paper clips for home use and an earthquake destroys the building and kills the man. Now God is about to judge the man for his SINGLE sin.

I’m sure the man would probably tell God that he only committed a minor sin. However, God can say that he was simply lucky that the copy machine was in room 1. Had it been in room 2, instead of paper clips, he would have encountered his boss’s wallet and stolen that instead and had the copy machine been in room 3, he would have encountered one of his married coworkers seducing him and stolen her from her husband. Perhaps some people have been changed so much by God that they actually wouldn’t steal the wallet or the coworker if these opportunities were presented, but can the man really ask God to prove if he is one of those people? The fact of the matter is that he DEFIED God in stealing and that for this particular man, the situation actually influences the gravity of the sin. Does God judge based solely on the situation or by what’s actually in the person’s heart? By situation, I’m not referring to the other factors that would influence accountability such as killing someone in self-defense.

 

[Gorgias]

Hi, Jay! Good to see you’re back after a busy week…!

However, if the tables were turned and a Muslim decided to do what I did about his beliefs or if RCs took advantage of a person’s lack of understanding of his beliefs to lead him into investigating Roman Catholicism, would you still have a problem with the methods?

YES. First of all, ‘sheep stealing’ is the epitome of un-Christian behavior. Moreover, the Church teaches that “the ends do not justify the means”; that is, it is sinful to do evil so that good might result. So, being deceitful – even if it leads someone to join the Church – is sinful. So, yeah – what you’re describing is, in fact, sinful, and yeah, I’d have a problem with those methods of bringing someone into the Church.

Yes, we have talked about it before and I really couldn’t articulate why this continues to bother me. Let me try this. Suppose my wife somehow knew that I really wanted to be with another woman, but I continued to do things with her because I simply wasn’t ready to tell her, is she really going to appreciate my activities with her?

The prerequisite for absolution is that you really do have contrition and intend to amend your life. You’re only saying that your presence in the Church was due to your respect of your family. Are you saying that, when you went to confession, you didn’t have contrition? You’ve never made that claim, so when you mention this part of your story, I always assume you mean that you really did feel contrition (even if your allegiance to the Church was wavering). Is that what you mean?

If so, then the answer stays the same (i.e., valid absolution); and, if so, then your example doesn’t fit the situation. Rather, the example should be that your relationship with your wife is on the rocks; but, you continue to do the things that the two of you do – not because you’re only going through the motions, but because you really do mean the things that you’re doing (even if the relationship, in general, is rocky). Can you see how your example describes a different life situation than the one you’ve presented to us here?

(On the other hand, if what you were saying was that you were going to confession, but didn’t really have contrition or a desire to amend your life, then we would have to say that God knows that you’re trying to pull a fast one on Him… so, good luck with that. But, that’s not a new conclusion, either – we’ve mentioned (in the other thread) that you can’t fool God, even though you might fool a priest in the confessional.)

BTW, I know that God and my wife are very different. However, is God really so different that He ONLY cares that the activities are performed without true feelings?

I think it’s important to clear up this point before moving on: are you saying that you only went through the motions in confession, without contrition or resolve to amend your life? That’s new to the analysis, if it’s the case.

However, I was baptized as a baby and as you can see from the way things turned out, I would have refused being baptized had I been able to speak up.

This is why I was hesitant to go down this path; to do so puts us in the position of discussing the Church’s stance on the baptism of infants. If you want to go there, please start a new thread to discuss why the Church baptizes infants. In the context of this discussion, though, let it suffice to say that, whatever you decide as an adult (based on later life experiences (including sin)) does not affect the fact that, as a baby (without personal sin), you would have accepted Christ and the opportunity for life in heaven and the baptism which makes that possible.

It may have been … my inability to speak that forced me to get baptized, but essentially neither one of us truly wanted it.

As a baby, you were unable to say “I want food” or “I need my diaper changed”; but does that imply that you did not truly want these things? Of course not. Likewise, in that state of innocence, it’s unfathomable to think that you would reject Christ.

 

[Gorgias]

At point k, the COE split from the majority of Christ-based religions. At this point in time, how do you refer to the “mainline” believers?

They continued to call themselves the “Christian Church”.

For example, are they considered the Church while the COE are no longer seen as members of the Church?

By whom? By ‘mainline’ Christians? Or by COE members?

Or perhaps, is everybody here still considered part of the Church while the mainline is seen as “members of the Church that agree to the Ephesus Council” while the COE are seen as “members of the Church the DON’T agree with the Ephesus Council?”

Well… let’s not forget about Chalcedon, right? In any case, I’m not sure what you’re asking: at each split, each group called themselves by a name and assigned a name to the other group. What, exactly, are you asking?

(The question is further complicated, of course, by the fact that some from these Churches returned to the Catholic Church.)

Now, I want to ask a couple of questions on the implications of being a Church member. If all of these people are STILL members of the Church, can they all continue to practice their respective activities to attain absolution and forgiveness?

From a Catholic perspective, absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation requires a valid priesthood. So, from this perspective, sacramental absolution would depend on this question. (And, without looking up the current status of each of the successor groups of these churches, I wouldn’t be able to say definitively whether the Catholic Church says that they have valid priesthoods.)

Can a person switch from one branch to another “without penalty” (ie you told me before that leaving RC for the Evangelical churches was a grave mistake, so is it the same if a RC became a member of COE)?

There’s not a “COE” in the way that there once was, though, right? However, if you’re asking whether a Latin Rite Catholic is able to participate in Eastern Catholic sacraments, the answer is ‘yes’. If you’re asking about conversion to and/or from Catholicism and Orthodoxy, then the situation is more complicated. Yet, your question seems predicated on the status of churches: and, the Catholic Church asserts that both she and the Orthodox Church are valid Churches. Is this what you’re asking?

I don’t think my point is getting across.

No… I think that I do understand your point. I think it’s not a relevant consideration, though, since it deals with counterfactuals.

I’m NOT talking about FUTURE sins or being able to prove that a greater sin would be committed in the present situation. What I’m trying to emphasize is that the sin that is committed IN THE PRESENT is ALREADY a DEFIANCE to God NO MATTER how “minor” it is

I agree with this.

and ONLY God knows how that PRESENT DEFIANCE will manifest in different situations.

This is the part that’s irrelevant.

He steals a couple paper clips for home use and an earthquake destroys the building and kills the man. Now God is about to judge the man for his SINGLE sin.

I’m sure the man would probably tell God that he only committed a minor sin.

That would seem to be correct: venial sin.

However, God can say that he was simply lucky that the copy machine was in room 1. Had it been in room 2, instead of paper clips, he would have encountered his boss’s wallet and stolen that instead and had the copy machine been in room 3, he would have encountered one of his married coworkers seducing him and stolen her from her husband.

This is the part that makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that God judges us on sins that we haven’t committed? If so, please show me the Scripture that God judges us on what we haven’t done but are capable of doing. (It’s just not there…!)

In other words, this is not something that Christianity teaches; people might beat their breasts and convict themselves of being sinners… but God never condemns us of sins we haven’t committed. That’s just a dynamic that’s not part of Christianity. Don’t get me wrong – I understand what you’re saying – but I just disagree that this is a reasonable consideration in a Christian context.

can the man really ask God to prove if he is one of those people?

He doesn’t have to: God doesn’t hold him responsible for sins he hasn’t actually committed.

The fact of the matter is that he DEFIED God in stealing and that for this particular man, the situation actually influences the gravity of the sin. Does God judge based solely on the situation or by what’s actually in the person’s heart? By situation, I’m not referring to the other factors that would influence accountability such as killing someone in self-defense.

I really want to answer you, but I don’t understand what you mean by ‘situation’ if you don’t include in that concept things that might be mitigating factors…

 

[truthseekerjay]

Gorgias, I’ve been getting more involved with the activities in my local church, so I may only respond once or twice a week from now on.

The prerequisite for absolution is that you really do have contrition and intend to amend your life. You’re only saying that your presence in the Church was due to your respect of your family. Are you saying that, when you went to confession, you didn’t have contrition? You’ve never made that claim, so when you mention this part of your story, I always assume you mean that you really did feel contrition (even if your allegiance to the Church was wavering). Is that what you mean?

I have always feared punishment including when I identified as RC, while I was participating in both RC and Evangelical activities, and today. When I was straddling the fence, I participated in RC activities ONLY to please my family and participated in Evangelical activities because I actually felt that they made me more aware of my sinfulness and helped me to reach a state of what RC’s call perfect contrition. God knew that I was STILL seeking Him, but that I just didn’t believe in the effectiveness of RC activities. Does this matter to Him or does He only care that I continue to participate in RC activities despite not believing in them?

As a baby, you were unable to say “I want food” or “I need my diaper changed”; but does that imply that you did not truly want these things? Of course not. Likewise, in that state of innocence, it’s unfathomable to think that you would reject Christ.

Well as you can see from my current situation that I wouldn’t reject Christ, but I would reject infant baptisms, so given the chance when I was an infant, I probably would have rejected the baptism.

In a state of innocence, I wouldn’t have rejected Allah or Buddha either, but that doesn’t mean that I truly want them.

Well… let’s not forget about Chalcedon, right? In any case, I’m not sure what you’re asking: at each split, each group called themselves by a name and assigned a name to the other group. What, exactly, are you asking?

First, let me start by asking which of those four groups in the diagram does God view as part of His Church?

Secondly, let’s just say God stopped viewing the members of COE as members of His Church after point k in the diagram. Let’s say point k happened on October 1. On September 30, does God still view the would-be members of COE as members of His Church? Similarly, while I was straddling the fence, did God view me as a member of His Church? Does He view me as a member of His Church now?

This is the part that makes no sense to me. Are you suggesting that God judges us on sins that we haven’t committed? If so, please show me the Scripture that God judges us on what we haven’t done but are capable of doing. (It’s just not there…!)

With the human judicial system, no one can be punished for what he hasn’t done. However, it would seem strange TO ME, PERSONALLY, if you stole a paper clip from your father-in-law’s study room after following your young child there and your wife just punished you for that act IF SHE SOMEHOW KNEW that you would have stolen her dad’s wallet had you gone into the bedroom instead. It almost seems like you were just “lucky” that your child went into the study room instead of the bedroom. Does luck play a role in our ultimate salvation?

Don’t get me wrong. I’m NOT necessarily saying that God would judge us on sins we actually haven’t committed. Honestly, God can do whatever He wants with the knowledge He has. It just seems strange to me that He would consider a person as baptized when this person actually died before his baptism JUST BECAUSE this person desired baptism in HIS HEART, but would ignore the wickedness in a person’s heart.

YES. First of all, ‘sheep stealing’ is the epitome of un-Christian behavior. Moreover, the Church teaches that “the ends do not justify the means”; that is, it is sinful to do evil so that good might result. So, being deceitful – even if it leads someone to join the Church – is sinful. So, yeah – what you’re describing is, in fact, sinful, and yeah, I’d have a problem with those methods of bringing someone into the Church.

Perhaps you should explain more about what you mean by sheep stealing and I should tell you more about what the Evangelicals did. I’ll start. I don’t know if I mentioned this, but the first set of Evangelicals that I encountered didn’t really say anything to convince me of their position. All they did was encourage me to ask the questions that were ALREADY brewing in my heart. BTW, there were things that bothered me about the Evangelicals back then (and EVEN today), so my questioning would have AFFECTED THEM and STILL affects them TOO.

Come to think of it, I don’t think ANYONE completely understands their respective religion, so in a sense, ANYONE proselytizing (including Muslims, Mormons, RCs) would be taking advantage of the potential target’s misunderstanding. How were the Evangelicals different? What would your approach be to a non RC?