Questions about when people get "saved"

[guanophore]

Scripture does make specific reference to homosexual activity as giving into their own sinful lusts and makes reference to its abnormality. To me one needs to modify scripture reference to it being sinful to justify being normal.

You seem to be failing to make a distinction between attraction and activity. I may stand up and say that I am attracted to a woman that is not my wife. Frankly, I can’t imagine how such an action would be beneficial to the Body of Christ, but the condition of attraction, in itself, is not sinful. How I decide to act on my urges/orientation is another matter.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Scripture does make specific reference to homosexual activity as giving into their own sinful lusts and makes reference to its abnormality. To me one needs to modify scripture reference to it being sinful to justify being normal.

You seem to be failing to make a distinction between attraction and activity. I may stand up and say that I am attracted to a woman that is not my wife. Frankly, I can’t imagine how such an action would be beneficial to the Body of Christ, but the condition of attraction, in itself, is not sinful. How I decide to act on my urges/orientation is another matter.

Yes, I am not disagreeing.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Scripture does make specific reference to homosexual activity as giving into their own sinful lusts and makes reference to its abnormality. To me one needs to modify scripture reference to it being sinful to justify being normal.

You seem to be failing to make a distinction between attraction and activity. I may stand up and say that I am attracted to a woman that is not my wife. Frankly, I can’t imagine how such an action would be beneficial to the Body of Christ, but the condition of attraction, in itself, is not sinful. How I decide to act on my urges/orientation is another matter.

I can’t help but think that if someone would say “I am orientated to bestiality” we would counsel him to seek professional help. Personally I find the idea of sodomy no less offensive.

 

[guanophore]

Personally I find the idea of sodomy no less offensive.

Most heterosexual people do.

But there is a lot more to same sex attraction than even physical activity. That is like the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of it is mental, emotional, relational. Many people who suffer same sex attraction find it “normal” for themselves.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Personally I find the idea of sodomy no less offensive.

Most heterosexual people do.

But there is a lot more to same sex attraction than even physical activity. That is like the tip of the iceberg. The bulk of it is mental, emotional, relational. Many people who suffer same sex attraction find it “normal” for themselves.

We live in perilous times…

 

[Gorgias]

To have an attraction to sodomy is not ordered by God and therefore is sinful.

A couple of thoughts for you to consider:

• Same-sex attraction is not “an attraction to sodomy.” One living a chaste live might be attracted to a member of the same sex, while not being attracted to a particular act.
• An attraction is not a sin.

If the Church can allow a homosexual to take the place of Christ in the priestly role then it also has to make the claim that Jesus Christ may very well have been a homosexual. No?

No.

 

[Gorgias]

True, but it does create unnecessary scandal.

Only if one makes the (invalid) leap of logic that “attraction = act” or “attraction = sin”.

 

[Latin]

You are going to have to explain how Jimmy’s explanation of Predestined to Grace equates to Predestined to Hell?

What Jimmy says here seems perfectly logical. Where do you think he got it wrong?

God Bless

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.
.

You have two questions from me MT as follows:

a. You are going to have to explain how Jimmy’s explanation of Predestined to Grace equates to Predestined to Hell?

b. What Jimmy says here seems perfectly logical. Where do you think he got it wrong?
.
.

My answer of question a.:

Not Jimmy’s explanation of Predestined to Grace equates to Predestined to Hell.

Predestination to graces is a positive predestination to hell as follows:

Predestination to grace is a POSITIVE predestination and the DESTINATION of the predestined (for every one of them) is hell. – I hope you see it now MT and you understand it.
.

My answer of question b.

Everyone is wrong when looking for Bible verses for the reason to try to prove a positive predestination to hell, it is a fruitless exercise.
.

God has only one predestination:
Predestination to glory and the DESTINATION of the predestined is heaven.
.
.

In your post # 470 you have answered my question:

My question was; Do you believe MT; at their Initial Justification (everyone) receives God’s special grace His Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection of their Eternal Life?
.

Your answer MT as follows:
Yes and no. Yes for the ones predestined to glory, no for the ones predestined to grace.

I have to admit, if you believe predestination to grace then your answer is logical, because if they would receive God’s Gift of Final Perseverance which is an Eternal Protection and the aid of their Salvation/Eternal Life they would end up in heaven not in hell.
.
Did you ever meditate on MT, the so called predestination to grace (god refuse to give his people on their road to heaven His aid) takes every predestined to grace to hell, this fact portrays the most sadistic evil god far worse then the devil. – This is the god you believe in MT who takes away his aid from the people when they most need it and for this VERY REASON they have eternal torments forever in the pains of hell?!?!?
.

Continue

 

[Latin]

Continuation
.

I believe the God described in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence who provides His aid FOREVER to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each person.
.
.
.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence.

Life everlasting promised to us, (Romans 5:21); but unaided we can do nothing to gain it (Rom.7:18-24).

It is grace of Christ that delivers us (Rom.7:25); and makes us co-heirs with Him (Rom.8:17).

This, the beneficent purpose of an all-seeing Providence, is wholly gratuitous, entirely unmerited (Romans 3:24; 9:11-2).

It extends to all men (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4), even to the reprobate Jews (Romans 11:26 sq.); and by it all God’s dealings with man are regulated (Ephesians 1:11).

It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, “Hom. xxviii in Matt.”, n. 3 in “P.G.”, LVII, 354).

All things are created and governed with a view to man, to the development of his life and his intelligence, and to the satisfaction of his needs (Aristides, “Apol.”, i, v, vi, xv, xvi.

Again, from the fact that God has created the universe, it shows that He must also govern it; for just as the contrivances of man demand attention and guidance, so God, as a good workman, must care for His work (St. Ambrose, “De Offic. minist.”, XIII in “P.L.”, XVI, 41; St. Augustine, “In Ps.”, cxlv, n. 12, 13 in “P.L.”, XXXVII, 1892-3. End quote.
.

God bless you MT and God bless every readers of the CAF.

Latin

 

[MT1926]

Not Jimmy’s explanation of Predestined to Grace equates to Predestined to Hell.

Predestination to graces is a positive predestination to hell as follows:

Predestination to grace is a POSITIVE predestination and the DESTINATION of the predestined (for every one of them) is hell. – I hope you see it now MT and you understand it.

Nope Sorry. Repeating yourself three times doesn’t really make it any clearer.

The first time you said…

So, as I cannot believe both (a. predestination to grace, + b. no positive predestination to hell) I have chosen to believe b. no positive predestination to hell and rejected a. predestination to grace which is a positive predestination to hell.

Maybe I’m missing something but it sure looks like you gave the same answer, 2 more times, with different wording?

WHY are they guaranteed Hell?

Why do you believe …

the so called predestination to grace (god refuse to give his people on their road to heaven His aid) takes every predestined to grace to hell, this fact portrays the most sadistic evil god far worse then the devil.

Where does it say God refused Grace (His aid) to the predestined to Grace?

The Bible doesn’t say this, Jimmy never said this. This is your opinion (because you refuse to see it any other way). You think it has to be a yes or no, God gives you Grace or He doesn’t, this isn’t the teaching of the Catholic Church.

The problem here is that because of your theology it is actually you who believes…

This is the god you believe in MT who takes away his aid from the people when they most need it and for this VERY REASON they have eternal torments forever in the pains of hell?!?!?

You stated…

As Predestined to Heaven we have our IRROVACABLE salvation at our Initial Justification at our baptism.

Anyone die after one second of his valid baptism, goes instantly to heaven.

As you point out this occurs at our Baptism

You also stated…

Consequently, the whole future membership of heaven, down to its minutest details, has

been IRREVOCABLY FIXED FROM ALL ETERNITY.

So how is this done exactly?

1. Does God just chose who He wants to give IRROVACABLE salvation and who He doesn’t?

OR

1. Does God give IRROVACABLE salvation based on…

Predestination (Lat. prae, destinare), taken in its widest meaning, is every Divine decree by which God, owing to His infallible prescience of the future, has appointed and ordained from eternity all events occurring in time, especially those which directly proceed from, or at least are influenced by, man’s free will.

continued…

 

[MT1926]

I believe the God described in the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA Divine Providence who provides His aid FOREVER to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each person.

Could you give me a link to this?

I looked it up in two different encyclopedias and both say

It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, “Hom. xxviii in Matt.”, n. 3 in “P.G.”, LVII, 354), and embraces even what we think is due to our own initiative (Hom. xxi, n. 3 in “P.G.”, 298).

Neither one says “provides His aid Forever”? It seems this is what you think all of these verses put together equate to.

The problem is, if …

It extends to all men (Romans 2:10; 1 Timothy 2:4), even to the reprobate Jews (Romans 11:26 sq.); and by it all God’s dealings with man are regulated (Ephesians 1:11).

It extends to every individual, adapting itself to the needs of each (St. John Chrysostom, “Hom. xxviii in Matt.”, n. 3 in “P.G.”, LVII, 354).

If grace is given to every single individual when they are Baptized. And grace is capable of adapting to the needs of the individual… then this would either mean

1. that ever individual who gets Baptized receives “IRREVOCABLE salvation”

or

1. God first gave His grace in Baptism, then He refused to gives His aid (adapt grace to the needs of the individual). This refusal would portray the most sadistic evil god far worse then the devil.

It has to be one or the other because the only other thing that would make sense is that God predestine some of the Baptized to Grace. He adapted this Grace to the individuals need, and yet the individual refused to respond to this calling.

If God doesn’t take into consideration anything we do right (while being guided by His grace) or wrong (while refusing to cooperate with the Grace He has given us), to give us the additional grace we need to get to Heaven. Then He cannot hold us accountable for anything we do right or wrong (because of the fact that He did not give us the Grace of irrevocable salvation).

If it’s all God’s Grace, and He does not take into consideration our cooperation with Grace, when we are predestined to heaven.

Then it is all God who refuses to give us the Grace we need to get to heaven. Which could only mean God predestined us to Hell.

You Thoughts?

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

To have an attraction to sodomy is not ordered by God and therefore is sinful.

A couple of thoughts for you to consider:

• Same-sex attraction is not “an attraction to sodomy.” One living a chaste live might be attracted to a member of the same sex, while not being attracted to a particular act.
• An attraction is not a sin.

If the Church can allow a homosexual to take the place of Christ in the priestly role then it also has to make the claim that Jesus Christ may very well have been a homosexual. No?

No.

Is it possible that Jesus could have had same sex attraction? If no, why not?

 

[Wannano]

guanophore:

True, but it does create unnecessary scandal.

Only if one makes the (invalid) leap of logic that “attraction = act” or “attraction = sin”.

Would you allow your nine year old son to go on a camping trip with a priest who confesses to be gay?

 

[guanophore]

First I want to make it clear that I am not the author of the last line quioted above:
topic:457722":

Only if one makes the (invalid) leap of logic that “attraction = act” or “attraction = sin”.

Second,it seems to me that this is off topic in this thread.

Third, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Fourth, the initial rabbit trail was related to the fact that the church does not equate attraction or temptation to sin with having committed a sin, so the question about camping is even further down the rabbit trail.

I would suggest, if you wish to continue this rabbit trail, that you start a new thread, so as not to derail this one.

 

[Gorgias]

Is it possible that Jesus could have had same sex attraction? If no, why not?

My answer, off the top of my head, is “no”. Same sex attraction isn’t a sin, but it is objectively disordered. So, by definition, Jesus would not have struggled with anything that could lead to sin.

Would you allow your nine year old son to go on a camping trip with a priest who confesses to be gay?

These days, priests shouldn’t be going on overnight trips of any sort with any youth group…

 

[Gorgias]

First I want to make it clear that I am not the author of the last line quioted above:

Of course not… he quoted me, which is what his post shows.

Second,it seems to me that this is off topic in this thread.

Very much so.

Third, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

There is a surprising lack of nuance in that statement, making it not terribly useful for discussion.

I would suggest, if you wish to continue this rabbit trail, that you start a new thread, so as not to derail this one.

 

[Wannano]

First I want to make it clear that I am not the author of the last line quioted above:
topic:457722":

Only if one makes the (invalid) leap of logic that “attraction = act” or “attraction = sin”.

Second,it seems to me that this is off topic in this thread.

Third, most pedophiles are heterosexual.

Fourth, the initial rabbit trail was related to the fact that the church does not equate attraction or temptation to sin with having committed a sin, so the question about camping is even further down the rabbit trail.

I would suggest, if you wish to continue this rabbit trail, that you start a new thread, so as not to derail this one.

This new format makes it look like that quote was attributed to you. The gray bar on the left side indicates whose quote it was. Just so you know I did not mix up the posts.

You are right, this is off topic, which I never intended. My apologies.

 

[MT1926]

I am really enjoying this thread. Although I am sad that TS is no longer with us.

Not sure how much free time I will get the next two days so…

I just wanted to say thank you to all who have joined in, and Wish everyone a Blessed Christmas.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

I am really enjoying this thread. Although I am sad that TS is no longer with us.

Not sure how much free time I will get the next two days so…

I just wanted to say thank you to all who have joined in, and Wish everyone a Blessed Christmas.

God Bless

Merry Christmas.

 

[Gorgias]

Although I am sad that TS is no longer with us.

“TS”.…?