Non-Catholics, a question

  • Thread starter Thread starter kalt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Janet1983 said:
That is definitely a good question and there are two answers to this:
Option 1: I would have been paying lip service to God the whole time and just lived a religious life. I would have never been repentant and contrite because of my sin. In this case it would not matter whether or not I went to church all the time because I would have been unregenerate and a hard heartened sinner who cannot please God.
Option 2: I would have let the devil get the best of me for a little while. Even though we still sin we cannot stay there because God will not let us. That goes for all sins… To God hatred is as bad as murder because He knows us. If I am saved I am saved and my own actions cannot snatch me from the hand of God (even though my behavior will make me miserable and God will chastise me in addition to the local authorities). In this case it would not matter if I am a murderer. I was a murderer at heart before I got saved and this heinous act still does not snatch me from the hand of God. I am a fallible creature and I do things I am not proud of and I do repent of them because I know how God views these things.
I do fail, but I bear good fruit because of the grace of God and because of my salvation.
The difference between option 1 and 2 is that option 2 means that I would be truly repentant of this hideous act if I was saved.
Click to expand...
So, you don’t know if you’re saved until the end, because you don’t know what hideous act you might commit or if you will be truly repentant of it. Being repentant for something you do, necessarily comes after the act, since it’s illogical to tell God that you are sorry for something you haven’t done, as if a general “I’m sorry for everything I might do in the future.” would cover all manner of atrocities. To be truly repentant you have to examine what you’ve done after you’ve done it. So true repentance comes after the act, if at all.

And what of free will? God asks us to follow him, but he forces no one. It’s not true that a “saved” person can’t fall away from God, because God won’t allow it. It’s true that a person in a state of grace is “saved”, but that person puts his salvation on the line when he commits those hideous acts. Since you’ve admitted that the “devil” can get the best of you, which is definite proof that God does allow us to reject his offer of salvation at any time in our lives. You can’t follow both God and evil. When you follow evil you aren’t following God. When you’re not following God, you aren’t saved. Just as you have free will to stray from God to the “dark side” ;), you have free will to stay there. God, again, doesn’t force anyone to follow him. So, while you were once in a state of grace, you weren’t always in a state of grace. OSAS just doesn’t square with what we know about God, man, and free will. If God were about forcing people to follow him, everyone on the planet would be a Christian. There’s no reason to believe that he gives us free will to become Christians, but then takes that free will to keep us there once he’s got us.
 
kalt said:
In reading another thread, I see that some non-Catholics who post here are annoyed at the vigor with which Catholics defend the faith.

I’m wondering, were you surprised (when you first came here) that Catholics defend the faith? Were you surprised that Catholics aren’t really that open to the evangelical efforts of those outside the CC? Did you expect Catholics to be more willing to compromise on doctrine?
Click to expand...
when i first came here, i thought i entered the corridor of hell. i was invited by a catholic friend to simply come and see what a catholic believed. i must say, i learned alot about your religion, yet hardly anything about god. i found no hope here. and there was no sense of love. it just seems empty and very argumenative, and i can’t see getting caught up in this kind of stuff. i do tell people to go here and see what they think, maybe they could help me see differently, as to what i have concluded. the one word that comes to mind with your church on how it responds to the truth is “offended”. matt. 13:53-58. my question for you is how can you teach unless you remain teachable? good luck on your quest…
 
meandean said:
when i first came here, i thought i entered the corridor of hell. i was invited by a catholic friend to simply come and see what a catholic believed. i must say, i learned alot about your religion, yet hardly anything about god. i found no hope here. and there was no sense of love. it just seems empty and very argumenative, and i can’t see getting caught up in this kind of stuff. i do tell people to go here and see what they think, maybe they could help me see differently, as to what i have concluded. the one word that comes to mind with your church on how it responds to the truth is “offended”. matt. 13:53-58. my question for you is how can you teach unless you remain teachable? good luck on your quest…
Click to expand...
You good luck to you with your quest. 🙂

By teachable do you mean willing to accept opposing views as truth?
 
Mickey said:
Exactly! I have said this dozens of times on various threads. We are save by grace through faith in Christ and our good works are the fruit of that faith. The works cannot be separated from the faith. You cannot say that we are saved by “faith alone”. Yet many of the protestants continue to argue. Do you know why?
Click to expand...
I don’t really care what your opinion is on this. No offense.
 
Mickey said:
Exactly! I have said this dozens of times on various threads. We are save by grace through faith in Christ and our good works are the fruit of that faith. The works cannot be separated from the faith. You cannot say that we are saved by “faith alone”. Yet many of the protestants continue to argue. Do you know why?
Click to expand...
If a forest fire ALWAYS burns down trees and the fire is ALWAYS accomanied by smoke, is it true to say that trees are burned down by fire AND smoke?
 
Janet1983 said:
We are saved and then we grow in faith.
For example, if someone believes that he can lose his salvation then he might fall into the error of trying to keep his salvation by what he does. This is a serious error (Gal. 3:1-3). On the other hand, if he believed he could not lose his salvation then, he might fall into the error of sinning willfully because he believes it can’t be lost no matter how much he sins. This also is very wrong (Rom. 6:1-2,11-12). The proper understanding of salvation is that works play no part in salvation itself (Rom. 4:5), that it is a free gift (Rom. 6:23), and that it is received by faith (Eph. 2:8-9). Once we are saved we are to live a holy life (1 Thess. 4:7) and bring forth good fruit…
Click to expand...
You are right Janet. I love the way you answer your reply’s with scripture. There are a couple of guys on this forum who have no clue what they are saying. God Bless.
 
Mickey said:
We have already determined that we are not saved by works of the law.
But your theology states that he/she was never saved to begin with???
Wrong again. Faith without works is a dead faith. (James 2:26)

And we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. (Phil 2:12)
Click to expand...
Thank you, Mickey! 👍
 
Frankly I’ve found the ‘defences’ here to be pretty dissapointing from an intellectual perspective. There is a remarkable lack of critical thinking, charity and rigor among many posts and many people here just seem to blindly accept whatever they are taught (and expect everyone else to be the same) by their leaders. There are some exceptions, and thankfully the Catholics I have met in real life and tend to read in books are better and more respectful in their apologetics.
 
Greg27 said:
Frankly I’ve found the ‘defences’ here to be pretty dissapointing from an intellectual perspective. There is a remarkable lack of critical thinking, charity and rigor among many posts and many people here just seem to blindly accept whatever they are taught (and expect everyone else to be the same) by their leaders. There are some exceptions, and thankfully the Catholics I have met in real life and tend to read in books are better and more respectful in their apologetics.
Click to expand...
Can you give an example of a point that wasn’t defended well here?
 
Sellers1 said:
If a forest fire ALWAYS burns down trees and the fire is ALWAYS accomanied by smoke, is it true to say that trees are burned down by fire AND smoke?
Click to expand...
Your analogy about fire and smoke doesn’t work, because smoke is a product of the burning process. When the tree is burned down, smoke is one of the products. The tree doesn’t disappear but is converted to something else.

We’ll use the analogy anyway.

Remember the fact that fire doesn’t always produce smoke and that faith without works is dead.

Fire (faith) without smoke (works) will not save you. Faith (fire) must be accompanied by smoke (good works). Saying “Lord”(being on fire) isn’t enough, no matter how much you believe (burn).
 
Sellers1 said:
I don’t really care what your opinion is on this. No offense.
Click to expand...
It is not my “opinion” my brother in Christ. You do not offend me.

It is Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. It is truth.

God bless you. 🙂
 
kalt said:
Your analogy about fire and smoke doesn’t work, because smoke is a product of the burning process. When the tree is burned down, smoke is one of the products. The tree doesn’t disappear but is converted to something else.

We’ll use the analogy anyway.

Remember the fact that fire doesn’t always produce smoke and that faith without works is dead.

Fire (faith) without smoke (works) will not save you. Faith (fire) must be accompanied by smoke (good works). Saying “Lord”(being on fire) isn’t enough, no matter how much you believe (burn).
Click to expand...
👍
 
kalt said:
I’m wondering, were you surprised (when you first came here) that Catholics defend the faith? Were you surprised that Catholics aren’t really that open to the evangelical efforts of those outside the CC? Did you expect Catholics to be more willing to compromise on doctrine?
Click to expand...
I thought nothing much had changed in the last fifty years, until I realised that the Catholics on here aren’t typical.
 
mathematician said:
I thought nothing much had changed in the last fifty years, until I realised that the Catholics on here aren’t typical.
Click to expand...
mathematician,

That’s an engaging assertion. What’s your idea of a typical Catholic?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
 
SSTeacher said:
mathematician,

That’s an engaging assertion. What’s your idea of a typical Catholic?
Click to expand...
Thankfully I think the Catholics I meet in my immediate locality; or the ones I met many years ago when I was at university, are more typical than the ones on here - for whom the Second Vatican Council might just as well never have happened…
 
mathematician said:
SSTeacher;5548103:
mathematician,

That’s an engaging assertion. What’s your idea of a typical Catholic?

Curiously,
Mick
👍
Click to expand...
Thankfully I think the Catholics I meet in my immediate locality; or the ones I met many years ago when I was at university, are more typical than the ones on here - for whom the Second Vatican Council might just as well never have happened…
Click to expand...
I understand. I wonder if others share your view. Do you mind if I start a new thread on the subject?

Cordially,
Mick
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top