Irritated by "sheep stealing"

[GodIsGracious]

Oh, but the problem isn’t whether people are devout, it’s whether people are educated. People can be led to believe that Catholicism is pagan, idolatrous, cultish, and what have you without knowing any better. This is why I insist that before missionaries try to convert Catholics, they first learn about the faith from Catholic sources.

Indeed, many Catholics around the world know virtually nothing about the faith. Someone needs to teach them, before they are proselytized by often Anti-Catholic missionaries.

Not only that!

The problem I have, and it has been stated in this thread already, is why do “Christian” missionaries target Catholics? Why don’t they go target Muslims? Or even Jews? Pagans? Satanists?

It’s because to a non-Catholic Christian, converting a Catholic is like the holy grail of all conversions to them. Because they know, deep down and even though they deny it to themselves, that Catholics have the Truth.

 

[Bookworm88]

So do you believe a Christian cannot sin?

Of course not. We sin all the time. I just don’t believe that sin separates a believer form God, else Christians would constantly be separated from God, except for those brief moments between a sacrament and the next sin.

What Catholicism teaches is this: if a redeemed Christian still sins, this is not due to an imperfection of Christ’s redemptive act, but to the Christian’s choice not to avail himself of the grace which flows from that act.

What then is the result of the believer not availing himself of this grace? Is the believer still an indwelt believer but just not “redeemed”?

God’s command is certainly proportioned to our human capabilities (but these capabilities are informed by the Holy Spirit); the Christian, though he has fallen into sin, can always obtain pardon and enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit. (paraphrasing *Veritatis Splendour *by Pope JPII)

I’m wondering about the wording of “enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.” Is that saying that if a Christian has not obtained pardon that they do not have the presence of the Holy Spirit, or does it mean that they HAVE the presence, but they are unable to “enjoy” it in some way. What would that “enjoyment” of the presence entail? By the way, that comcept of having the presence, but not being able to enjoy it is the view that I personally take. I believe that as a Christian, i can never lose the presence of God in my life, but when I sin, I am not able to enjoy the blessings of peace and joy that I would otherwise have.

 

[SonofMonica]

And neither is the Catholic defintion. Unless you can show me the verse in the Catholic Bible that says, "The defintion of Christian is . . . "

Don’t need to. vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm

 

[SonofMonica]

I believe that as a Christian, i can never lose the presence of God in my life, but when I sin, I am not able to enjoy the blessings of peace and joy that I would otherwise have.

So eternal life begins now, but freedom from sin doesn’t? God just pretends you are a new creature? Where does the Bible say that? Mine says that [insert type of] sinners can’t enter heaven.

 

[Bookworm88]

Don’t need to. vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p2.htm

I only saw the word “Christain” used once in that link:
“all spiritual and rational Christians are recognized as members of this royal race and sharers in Christ’s priestly office.”
I would agree with that definition of Christian. Christians are people who are kings and priests through Christ. So there are some things that overlap in our definitions, but some things also that are different.

 

[SonofMonica]

I only saw the word “Christain” used once in that link:
“all spiritual and rational Christians are recognized as members of this royal race and sharers in Christ’s priestly office.”
I would agree with that definition of Christian. Christians are people who are kings and priests through Christ. So there are some things that overlap in our definitions, but some things also that are different.

The definition of Christian wasn’t the point… I simply am makin the point that once you admit there are truths about Christianity that must be contained outside the Bible, you must deal with the historical Catholic Church and its dogmas. You’ve attempted to circumvent this by making up a definition, though. So I can’t really say much about that.

 

[Sonic]

Do you guys get my drift?

It makes me sooooo that they have the gall to go down there and preach to Catholic CHRISTIANS and tell them that they are wrong, that they are not Christian.

I want to make angry faces all over the place!!!

I certainly understand where you are coming from, PureGrace. Three times in my life, I have been befriended by evangelicals simply for the sake of trying the convert me into their church. Each time I thought I was really good friends with these individuals. After I made it clear I was going to remain Catholic, these folks dropped me like hot potato… as if we had never been friends.

I’m sure not all protestants do that sort of thing. I just seem to have bad luck in coming contact with people like that.

 

[PRmerger]

It certainly would be nice if there were a verse that said, "the definition of Christian is . . . " but there isn’t, so meither one of us can claim that our definition comes straight from a Bible verse.

But of the two of groups, YOUR group is the one that claims that all things must come straight from a Bible verse. Yet you have no Bible verse here?

I’m pretty sure I was using Biblical concepts to explain my definition.

And Catholics use Biblical concepts to support all their doctrines as well. They just may not be explicitly proclaimed in Scripture, but the concept is there. Just like your concept of what a Christian is!

 

[GodIsGracious]

After I made it clear I was going to remain Catholic, these folks dropped me like hot potato… as if we had never been friends.

That’s because you never were friends. I’ve had that happen to me. My friends who weren’t Catholic, and were not trying to convert me, are still my friends.

 

[authenticity]

Hi,

I no longer consider my Catholic (I am now a sort of atheist agnostic). However…

The “stealing” of Catholic “sheep” by Evangelical Christians REALLY gets to me.

I find it interesting that you don’t consider yourself Catholic anymore, yet it upsets you when the Church is put down. I’ve had the same thing happen with other issues around Catholicism before I had any thought of returning to the Church.

It’s made me wonder if religion is really a choice. I’ve tried a lot of other avenues in terms of spirituality and religion, but at the bottom there has always been this basic conflict… whether I admit or not, I am a Catholic trying to be a [fill in the blank].

 

[PRmerger]

I suppose you could say that it’s just once, but it’s a continual, life-long once. I only got married to my wife once. I don’t have to keep getting married to her.

Interesting. It seems that in this marriage analogy of our relationship to God your system does not have the equivalent of the One Flesh Union. Or, you could say you unite once, and that’s enough?

I don’t believe that I lose the Holy Spirit after I get saved, just as I don’t lose my marriage, so I don’t have to keep engaging in getting the Spirit over and over again. I have it at the start of my salvation and engage in it continually, in a life-long relationship.

So how does a “divorce” happen? You can never do anything which would divorce you from God?

 

[GodIsGracious]

I find it interesting that you don’t consider yourself Catholic anymore, yet it upsets you when the Church is put down. I’ve had the same thing happen with other issues around Catholicism before I had any thought of returning to the Church.

It’s made me wonder if religion is really a choice. I’ve tried a lot of other avenues in terms of spirituality and religion, but at the bottom there has always been this basic conflict… whether I admit or not, I am a Catholic trying to be a [fill in the blank].

When I was lapsed and considered myself agnostic (I was turned off my atheists because in my whole life I met but ONE atheist who did not talk about God or religion and I wanted to get AWAY from all of that) I think I could accurately use your line to describe myself, “I am a Catholic trying to be an agnostic.”

I too would get offended at attacks against the Catholic church. I know for me it wasn’t so much that I was against the church, per se, I was just pissed off by the hypocrisy of the lay that I associated with the Church itself (only to realize there is a definite distinction) and I had other issues with Church teachings.

I can certainly understand where the OP is coming from.

 

[PRmerger]

So if the indwelling of the Spirit does not leave us when we sin, then can we actually say that sin in a believer’s life separates that believer from God? If you still have the Spirit indwelling you, then you are not separated from God.

In one sense, no, we are never separated from God in that He is omnipresent and dwells within us. However, when we sin we divorce ourselves from that Spirit. We turn away from Him.

Scripture tells us that : "You are slaves of the one whom you obey. Sin which** leads to death, **or obedience which leads to righteousness."Romans 6:16; Sin “when it is full grown, brings forth death.” James 1:15

 

[Bookworm88]

The definition of Christian wasn’t the point… I simply am makin the point that once you admit there are truths about Christianity that must be contained outside the Bible, you must deal with the historical Catholic Church and its dogmas. You’ve attempted to circumvent this by making up a definition, though. So I can’t really say much about that.

What do you mean that the definition of “Christian” wasn’t the point? I was asking a question about the Catholic definition of Christian and I was giving some of my own understanding (from the bible) of what being a Christian would mean.

 

[PRmerger]

II don’t think you are going to find many Protestants saying that there are dead spirits up in Heaven.

I just did a cursory search on google and found this;

-from a Baptist: Prayers To** Dead** Saints

Although some may deny such a practice, it is a well-known fact that this is a doctrine and practice of the Catholic religion. While we believe that all born-again Christians are saints, the Catholic Church Saints are those approved by the Vatican’s rules and they are all dead.

-from another forum: But in answer to your question about praying to saints, I don’t think God smiles on us trying to talk to dead people (see 1 Samuel 28)

and from this CAF: If Bible teaches that the those who died know nothing and do not celebrate God how could they pray for us? If God said not to ask the dead He did not say BUT-there were not buts about it church added buts,and church play gods. Church puts the words in God’s mouth,can they do that? If my friend prays with me he is here alive,not dead,not in heaven-

So, you see, Bookworm, there are many folks out there who consider those in heaven to be dead.

But I’m glad to see that you’re not one of them!

 

[PRmerger]

What do you mean that the definition of “Christian” wasn’t the point? I was asking a question about the Catholic definition of Christian and I was giving some of my own understanding (from the bible) of what being a Christian would mean.

Our definitions of a Christian can be found in the Catechism, which is the source that SonofMonica gave you.

But here’s some excerpts for you:

Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, Christians are “dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus” and so participate in the life of the Risen Lord.(Rom 6:11)Following Christ and united with him,(Jn 15:5) Christians can strive to be “imitators of God as beloved children, and walk in love” (Eph 5:1-2) by conforming their thoughts, words and actions to the “mind . . . which is yours in Christ Jesus,” (Phil 2:5) and by following his example.(Jn 13:12-16) (CCC 1694)

“Justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God,” (1 Cor 6:11) “sanctified . . . [and] called to be saints,” (1Cor 1:2) Christians have become the temple of the Holy Spirit. (1 Cor 6:19) This “Spirit of the Son” teaches them to pray to the Father (Gal 4:6) and, having become their life, prompts them to act so as to bear “the fruit of the Spirit” (Gal 5:22, 25) by charity in action. Healing the wounds of sin, the Holy Spirit renews us interiorly through a spiritual transformation.(Eph 4:23) He enlightens and strengthens us to live as “children of light” through “all that is good and right and true.” (Eph 5:8,9) (CCC 1695)

 

[PRmerger]

What then is the result of the believer not availing himself of this grace? Is the believer still an indwelt believer but just not “redeemed”?

The best way to answer this is for me to send you to the Catechism’s section on Justification here

I’m wondering about the wording of “enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit.” Is that saying that if a Christian has not obtained pardon that they do not have the presence of the Holy Spirit, or does it mean that they HAVE the presence, but they are unable to “enjoy” it in some way. What would that “enjoyment” of the presence entail? By the way, that comcept of having the presence, but not being able to enjoy it is the view that I personally take. I believe that as a Christian, i can never lose the presence of God in my life, but when I sin, I am not able to enjoy the blessings of peace and joy that I would otherwise have.

Exactly! It’s like you’re living in the same house, but not speaking to each other. (Certainly, in this analogy, it’s not the fault of the Perfect Bridegroom, but of the imperfect Bride!)

 

[authenticity]

When I was lapsed and considered myself agnostic (I was turned off my atheists because in my whole life I met but ONE atheist who did not talk about God or religion and I wanted to get AWAY from all of that) I think I could accurately use your line to describe myself, “I am a Catholic trying to be an agnostic.”

I too would get offended at attacks against the Catholic church. I know for me it wasn’t so much that I was against the church, per se, I was just pissed off by the hypocrisy of the lay that I associated with the Church itself (only to realize there is a definite distinction) and I had other issues with Church teachings.

I can certainly understand where the OP is coming from.

When that happens for a Catholic-- they have turned from their faith, but defend their faith-- I think it is the Spirit calling them back. Ultimately, they cannot deny was is true in their hearts. It comes out in a reactionary way because the intellect is disagreeing with the heart.

 

[Bookworm88]

But of the two of groups, YOUR group is the one that claims that all things must come straight from a Bible verse. Yet you have no Bible verse here?

And Catholics use Biblical concepts to support all their doctrines as well. They just may not be explicitly proclaimed in Scripture, but the concept is there. Just like your concept of what a Christian is!

And I have been enjoying the examination of those concepts that our exchanges have been providing for me, such as the analogy of marriage from the Catholic perspective and the Catholic understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Yet as I explained my understanding of the Biblical concepts, SonofMonica stated “Can you show me that definition of “Christian” in the Bible?” I had to tell her that there wasn’t a specific verse that said "The definition of Christian is. . . " but she didn’t seem to accept that as an acceptable answer. Oh well.

 

[Bookworm88]

Interesting. It seems that in this marriage analogy of our relationship to God your system does not have the equivalent of the One Flesh Union. Or, you could say you unite once, and that’s enough?

So how does a “divorce” happen? You can never do anything which would divorce you from God?

I think that one of the reasons that God is so much against our human marriages ending in divorce is that a divorce muddies up the picture of the perfect, indissolvable union that God has with a Christian in the spiritual marriage. So no, I think God is so faithful that I could never do anything that would remove his love and his Holy Spirit from me. No man, not even myself, can pluck me out of God’s hand.

In regards to your first question, how many times do a husband and wife have to have sex before they have consummated their marriage? They just need to do it once and they are IN their one-flesh relationship. They don’t then stop being in the one-flesh relationship once they get out of bed. (Sorry to be graphic here, not that I’m being that graphic, but I’m just pointing out that the human marriage one-flesh act doesn’t have to be engaged in over and over again for the relationship to BE a one-flesh relationship. The very first time makes it that.)