There's no OSAS

[guanophore]

God gave us a free will, but somehow that free will can not be used as something that works to bring about our salvation, or we could later boast that we made the “right choice” when we “chose” to work out our salvation. The bible is clear about that in Romans.

well, it appears that you have been misinformed. Choosing God does not give anyone a reason to boast, except to boast in the Lord. If we were not to apply our free will, why does God put a choice before us?

Deut 30:19-20
19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that** I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life**, that you and your descendants may live, 20 loving the LORD your God, obeying his voice, and cleaving to him; for that means life to you and length of days, that you may dwell in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them."

To choose, obey, and cleave are actions that men do. It is putting our faith in Christ. This is an act of the will, just as Thomas did in the upper room when he put his hands upon the wounds of Christ. It is our faith that makes us whole. This is why Christ frequently says “your faith has saved you”. Trust, and the act of the will, is what connects us to the saving Grace of God. We cannot be saved except by grace, through faith.

Heb 4:2
2 For good news came to us just as to them; but the message which they heard did not benefit them, because it did not meet with faith in the hearers."

We must stretch out with faith, and meet God’s grace. This is a choice.

Satan loses his power over a person’s soul once that person becomes a child of God; born from above into the Beloved through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Satan can still mess up a saved person’s effectiveness in living an increasingly sanctified life for God as he matures in God’s Grace. But Satan has forever lost the battle to bring that soul with him into the lake of fire.

I agree with what you say here, to the extent that a person abides in Christ. If not, then their last state becomes worse than the first.

(1 John 5:12-13, 18, 20) "He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Yes, and just as Jesus explained in the parable of the seeds, that life can sprout, then die.

Now an OSAS will say “he was never saved in the beginning”, but if that is the case, then this parable would make no sense. Only one of the four seeds fails to sprout.

1. “We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.”

Except that he fail to remain in Christ. If he falls away, he may be turned over to Satan.

The Holy Spirit would not have used just the adjective “eternal”, if “possibly” needed to preceed that word “eternal”. God is not the author of confusion.

Indeed not! This is one of the very great and precious promises to those who remain in Him. This is the very reason that salvation should not be considered “temporary and tenuous” as you have insinuated.

 

[guanophore]

My original point was that if you reject OSAS

We must reject OSAS, because it is a “different gospel” than what we received from the Apostles.

then you will end up believing in SALMOTBTJ, or Saved And Lost Millions Of Times Before The Judgment, because you will commit mortal sin, lose your salvation, get it back, sin again, lose it again, etc. millions of times before you ever get to the judgment.

No, this is your own personal formulation, which is not consistent with Apostolic Teaching. From the Apostles we understand that salvation begins at baptism, and is fulfilled after death. Therefore, we don’t "lose’ something we have not yet attained. This is the answer I gave you before that I thought you did not like.

So, all I can figure is that you don’t believe you can have “eternal life” here and now on this earth before you die. You speak of “sanctifying grace” or “being in a state of grace” but you don’t say anything about having eternal life, possibly because the latter has that troubling word “eternal” and if that life is eternal and you actually have it now, you may have to believe in OSAS…quote]

Yes, the Kingdom is for the here and now, and salvation has already come to us. However, in this world, we do not have the perfection that is to come. We have tasted of the goodness of the world to come, and we have been sealed and are being kept for that day.
Phil12123;3627491:

Now, you asked about the judgment and why would God need to judge us if we are already saved and sure of it. My answer to that is this. The judgment does not determine anyone’s eternal destiny and that is true of both the saved and the lost. Here’s why:

Well, I have to go to a meeting, so I will need to get to this later. Do you realize that each and every reference to the judgement is related to our works?

 

[po18guy]

Well, something came to mind to me just now. I must go to confession to receive absolution for my sins. I feel nervous about going but when I went a month ago I remember feeling nervous then also and I also remember how good I felt receiving forgiveness for my sins.
Luther would spend 7 hours at times in his confession of sins. He never felt forgiven and therefore believed that confession was unnecessary for salvation. He failed to realize that his unresolved anger with his father was at the source of his suffering, but, in those days they had no understanding of the “flesh”, which is the brain, and how important it was to have a secure attachment to parents in order to have a healthy sense of self. It was all in the bible especially if had read Sirach and saw that a righteous father gives his children roots in the soil. However, that was one of the books removed from the bible.
If anyone does not believe that Jesus instituted the sacrament of confession as God’s tool to be administered by the priest for God for the good of all of us, then there is no way of changing their belief in OSAS.

Well said. To doubt forgiveness is to doubt God Himself.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

Where are all the examples of the Apostles acts of forgiving and retaining sins in the Bible?
A book by the name of Acts should have plenty of them.

I sought. I found.

Acts 5:1-5 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet. Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened.

Here, sin is being held bound by Peter. It was not the unforgivable sin of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10), but rather was the sin of false witness and greed, both of which could have been forgiven.

And, again:

Acts 5:7-10 About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?” “Yes,” she said, “that is the price.” Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.” At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband.

Again, her sin was held bound, and was not forgiven. Also, consider that every healing the Apostles performed was, in itself, a forgiveness of sin. God punished the Hebrew sinner unto the seventh generation, and this punishment was seen, for example, in those with birth defects. Such Apostolic healings were forgiveness of sin.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

God gave us a free will, but somehow that free will can not be used as something that works to bring about our salvation, or we could later boast that we made the “right choice” when we “chose” to work out our salvation. The bible is clear about that in Romans.

Satan loses his power over a person’s soul once that person becomes a child of God; born from above into the Beloved through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Satan can still mess up a saved person’s effectiveness in living an increasingly sanctified life for God as he matures in God’s Grace. But Satan has forever lost the battle to bring that soul with him into the lake of fire.

This does not explain what happened to Judas. He was saved. He healed. He preached. He cast out demons. Satan’s house was not divided against itself. Satan entered Judas later. Your view appears to deny that this can happen. But, it’s pure scripture.

 

[po18guy]

Na; it’s histrionics.

I can’t refute your feelings.

That was a joke! Lighten up, dude!

 

[po18guy]

I’m a Protestant, and you’re absolutely right - there is no OSAS.

Only a handful of Protestant faiths embrace OSAS, by the way.

Thank you. Praise God! I apologize if this appears histrionic, or lurid in its fervency.

 

[po18guy]

Don’t forget to tell the priest every lacivious little detail, or your sins won’t be adequately confessed and you will still be in your sins, out of the state of grace, in danger of eternal damnation.

Very brotherly of you!

 

[po18guy]

I need some feedback. Did I appear harsh in the message I sent? I hope not because that was not my intent. If I appear harsh please accept my apologies.
Ron

Ron, you spoke the truth with charity. It has been rejected with insults. They really need prayer, just as we do.

Christ’s peace.

 

[guanophore]

Does Jesus breathe on the Pope, Bishops, and priests?
I should like to see that happen!!!

Breathe, Oh Breath of God! Not in the same sense that He did the Apostles. They passed on the gift through the laying on of hands.

Jesus prepared His Apostles to preach, not to be judges that go out forgiving and condemning whosoever they meet.

Exactly! That is why it only makes sense that they would be forgiving or retaining sins if people freely chose to come to them and confess their sins. Anyway, as you have accruately pointed out, those who are unrepentant are already condemned, so it is not the Apostles “condemning” but then condemn themselves in their sin, just as Ananias and Sapphira did. It was for Peter to announce it only.

It must be the preaching, or not preaching, of the gospel of Jesus that is what causes the forgiving or retaining of sins.

It is true that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (preaching). But conviction by the HS is only one part. Coming forward to confess sins and be forgiven publicly is more the outcome of the preaching. We see this from the Baptism of John.

Mark 1:5
5 And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

The Bible is clear about the effects of first hearing the gospel and then receiving it; which then causes the Blood of Jesus to remit the recipients sin.

Yes, hearing the gospel and receiving it is essential, and belief in the NT is always combined with Baptism, which is how we are able to individually apply the blood. Jesus’ blood is able to remit all sins, but we know that not all sins are remitted. One has to participate with Christ in order to have sins remitted.

Where are all the examples of the Apostles acts of forgiving and retaining sins in the Bible?

I find NT evidence very thin on this point. James enjoins us to confess sins, John makes it clear that authority was given to men to remit the sins. Peters actions in Acts show what happens when people hold back their sins. I bet people were beating down the doors after that to avoid “lying to the HS”!

A book by the name of Acts should have plenty of them.

Actually confession went through a number of changes over the years. It was found that public confession that had been practiced since the time of John the baptist could be very detrimental when not all parties involved in sin were ready to confess.

The Ephesians seem to have made public confessions, though:

Acts 19:18
18 Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices.

I found one example of “loosing and binding”:
(Acts 15:28,29) “For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay no greater burden than these necessary things;”

“That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well.”

This is a good example, and is the pattern followed to this day. We can find many references in Paul’s letters to rules that he promulgates in the name of the Lord, and he distinguishes them from those that are just his (personal preference).

Another good example is the baptism of Gentiles. God revealed to Peter supernaturally that the HS was to be poured out on the Gentiles. He then pursuaded the other Apostles.

You don’t need a lawyer or Magisterium to figure those rules out. They make perfect sense too! Plus they are in the Bible !

On the contrary, they were not common sense. That is exactly why there were factions at work. This is why a magesterium is needed. There must be a final authority to decide in cases of unresolvable dispute. Jesus founded a Church for this purpose. Also, the reason they are in the Bible is because they represent Catholic Tradition, which is the entire source of the NT. It was the Magesterium that wrote those things, and decided which of those writings belonged in the Bible.

 

[guanophore]

So, all I can figure is that you don’t believe you can have “eternal life” here and now on this earth before you die. You speak of “sanctifying grace” or “being in a state of grace” but you don’t say anything about having eternal life, possibly because the latter has that troubling word “eternal” and if that life is eternal and you actually have it now, you may have to believe in OSAS.

What we experience now it part, we will experience then in full.

The judgment does not determine anyone’s eternal destiny and that is true of both the saved and the lost. Here’s why:

We all start out as sinners under sentence of death. Sinners have already been condemned according to John 3:18 which says, “Whoever believes in him will not be condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.” And John 3:36 says, “He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” So, when nonbelievers face the judgment they are already condemned, not having believed in Christ, the only remedy for their sins, in this life before they ever get to the judgment. They don’t appear at a judgment where God decides if they go to hell; they decided that in their lifetime by not embracing the Savior.

This is very Catholic.

For the saved, those believing, John 3:18 says they are not condemned.  **All their sins have been judged at the Cross when Jesus bore all their sins and they have believed in that Work of redemption, accepting it personally and individually for themselves.**

I can agree that those in Christ have been removed from condemnation. But please show where the rest of this theology originates (using Scripture, rather than Calvin’s works)

They have received God’s free gift of eternal life in this lifetime before ever getting to the judgment. So, what occurs at the judgment? Their works are judged, as to what sort they are, resulting in rewards or no rewards depending on the eternal value of those works (illustrated by “gold, silver, precious stones” vs. “wood, hay, stubble”) (1 Cor. 3:11-15).

So, saving faith gets you INTO heaven, works gets you rewards IN heaven. Someone asked about Matt. 25, which seems to teach that works got some into heaven and others, who lacked works, ended up in hell. When you compare that passage with Matt. 7, where those with arguably very good works (“many wonderful works in your name”) are rejected by the Judge, there has to be more involved than works or no works. Works can be an indication of the condition of one’s heart; not always, but the Judge knows the heart and is not swayed by “good” works performed by someone whose heart is not right with Him. Evidently, those in Matt. 7 did not have hearts right with Him in spite of their good works. Those in Matt. 25, who did unto the least of His brethren, had hearts right with Him and did those things not even realizing they were doing them as unto Him. We know from other Scriptures how a person gets his heart right with God, and it is not to simply and solely do good deeds; it is to repent and believe the Gospel of grace. Without that, no one’s heart is right with God and no amount of works makes any difference. Therefore it should be evident that those who entered the kingdom in Matt. 25 had hearts right with God, not by doing those things mentioned *per se *but by being right with God. Then out of that right condition, they served Him by serving others.

I cannot find anything in here that is not Catholic. Maybe some others will be able to help, but to me this seems to be Apostolic.

 

[Phil12123]

Do you really believe that Jesus did not give men the power on earth to forgive sins?

Yes, I really believe that He did NOT give men power to forgive sins, other than what everyone can, and should, do in forgiving those who sin against them, 70 times 7, etc.

Why do you think evil in your heart?

Matt 9:4-8
“Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise and walk’? 6 But that you may know that the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” - he then said to the paralytic - “Rise, take up your bed and go home.” 7 And he rose and went home. 8 When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men."

I don’t think evil. Jesus had authority to forgive sins—He is God! They glorified God who had given such authority to Jesus, assumed by them to be just a man, hence "to men."

John 20:23
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

That is a serious mistranslation, which many translations suffer from. The New American Standard has it correct:

"If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

If you look at the context of the Great Commission passages, this is as close to them as John gets in his Gospel. The way people get their sins forgiven is not going to an apostle and confessing sins. It is hearing the apostles preach the Gospel, repenting, and believing Jesus died for their sins and rose again. You would probably add baptism, since Mark includes it, but we see nothing of confessing and absolution in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Luke tells us what Jesus did and said as follows:

**Luke 24:
45. Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures,
46. and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day;
47. and that repentance for [or “and”] forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in His name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem.” **

**Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in essence, tell us that preaching the Gospel gets people’s sins forgiven when they hear it, repent, and believe it. And that is what we also hear and see throughout the Book of Acts. Peter said, “Be converted that your sins may be blotted out” (Acts 3:19), not, confess to me and I will forgive your sins. What the apostles were doing, to fulfill John 20, was preaching the Gospel and if the hearer repented and believed it, their sins were remitted, forgiven by God, and the apostle could declare to them that they “had been forgiven” as a result thereof.

Furthermore, the way the RCC teaches it, confession it is primarily for believers who sin after their baptism, not sinners to whom the Gospel is being preached to get them saved. Where do you ever see in Acts or in any epistle any admonition for believers to go to any church leader for forgiveness of sins, or confession?**

James 5:16
16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed.

No apostle, bishop, or priest mentioned here; it is to one another. If you want to use this verse to prove your version of confession, you fail to do so. No special, exclusive right to hear a confession or to grant forgiveness to the repentant person confessing is seen in this verse.

Indeed! and such a generous God that He has allowed men to participate in His ministry of reconciling the world to Himself.

All believers are granted the privilege and duty to share in God’s ministry of reconciliation:

2 Cor. 5:
17. So whoever is in Christ is a new creation: the old things have passed away; behold, new things have come.
18. And all this is from God, who has reconciled us to himself through Christ and given us the ministry of reconciliation,
19. namely, God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting their trespasses against them and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
20. So we are ambassadors for Christ, as if God were appealing through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

 

[Phil12123]

This is very Catholic.

**Please, if it is scriptural, that is all I care about. If it is “very Catholic” then to that extent I would commend the RCC for being scriptural! **
"Phil12123:

For the saved, those believing, John 3:18 says they are not condemned. All their sins have been judged at the Cross when Jesus bore all their sins and they have believed in that Work of redemption, accepting it personally and individually for themselves.

I can agree that those in Christ have been removed from condemnation. But please show where the rest of this theology originates (using Scripture, rather than Calvin’s works).

**1 Peter 2:24 says, “He himself bore our sins in his body upon the cross, so that, free from sin, we might live for righteousness.”

1 Peter 3:18 says, “For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God.”

Many verses affirm that “Christ died for our sins.” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; etc.)

Isaiah 53 is the picture of the suffering Servant, Who was bruised for OUR iniquities:**

** 4. Yet it was our infirmities that he bore, our sufferings that he endured,
While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted.
5. But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins,
Upon him was the chastisement that makes us whole, by his stripes we were healed.
6. We had all gone astray like sheep, each following his own way;
But the LORD laid upon him the guilt of us all.
7. Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth;
Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth.
8. Oppressed and condemned, he was taken away, and who would have thought any more of his destiny?
When he was cut off from the land of the living, and smitten for the sin of his people,
9. A grave was assigned him among the wicked and a burial place with evildoers,
Though he had done no wrong nor spoken any falsehood.
10. [But [COLOR=“red”]the LORD was pleased to crush him in infirmity.]
If he gives his life as an offering for sin, he shall see his descendants in a long life, and the will of the LORD shall be accomplished through him.
11. Because of his affliction he shall see the light in fullness of days;
Through his suffering, my servant shall justify many, and their guilt he shall bear.
12. Therefore I will give him his portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty,
Because he surrendered himself to death and was counted among the wicked;
And he shall take away the sins of many, and win pardon for their offenses.**

**His suffering and death for our sins is known as the vicarious or substitutionary atonement. He died in my place, i.e., it was MY sins He died for, not His own (He had none). He took my place and the Father let Him suffer and die for my sins, though He was sinless. It is what has been called “the Great Exchange”— He took my sins and I got His righteousness, in terms of my standing before God (2 Cor. 5:21). **

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I really believe that He did NOT give men power to forgive sins, other than what everyone can, and should, do in forgiving those who sin against them, 70 times 7, etc. I don’t think evil. Jesus had authority to forgive sins—He is God! They glorified God who had given such authority to Jesus, assumed by them to be just a man, hence "to men."

How do you suppose the gospel writer misunderstood? Why did he not write “man”? Who are the other “men” referenced here? How do you suppose that the Apostles all misunderstood, and passed on this misunderstanding to the bishops, priests, and deacons they ordained?

How do you suppose that Christians misunderstood for 1800 years? Even Luther believed in sacramental confession.

That is a serious mistranslation, which many translations suffer from. The New American Standard has it correct:

**“If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven **them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”

I guess maybe I am missing the point. How is this not passing on HIs authority to forgive sins?

** If you look at the context of the Great Commission passages, this is as close to them as John gets in his Gospel. The way people get their sins forgiven is not going to an apostle and confessing sins. It is hearing the apostles preach the Gospel, repenting, and believing Jesus died for their sins and rose again. You would probably add baptism, since Mark includes it, but we see nothing of confessing and absolution in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. Luke tells us what Jesus did and said as follows:**

I have no arguement with this, either. At baptism, all sins, original and personal are washed away.

**
Furthermore, the way the RCC teaches it, confession it is primarily for believers who sin after their baptism**

This is not a “Roman” phenomenon, as you seem to think. All the ancient Churches that were founded by the Apostles do this.
Phil12123;3630773:

** you want to use this verse to prove your version of confession, you fail to do so. No special, exclusive right to hear a confession or to grant forgiveness to the repentant person confessing is seen in this verse.**

Certainly not. Catholics don’t take single verses out of scripture and create doctrine with them, so “proving” things with a verse seems ridiculous to me. We understand the meaning of the Scripture by the TEaching that comes from Jesus and the Apostles. In the light of that teaching, and their practices it is clear that the persons being called upon are the presbyters (where we derive the English word "priest) and that their prayers result in healing and forgiveness.

All believers are granted the privilege and duty to share in God’s ministry of reconciliation:

Good. Glad we agree upon that point. The priest acts in the person of Christ, to assist a person to be reconciled to God.

You gave a great answer following this, but you did not respond to my question.

**
For the saved, those believing, John 3:18 says they are not condemned. All their sins have been judged at the Cross when Jesus bore all their sins and they have believed in that Work of redemption, accepting it personally and individually for themselves. **

Please show me scripturally where 1) “all their sins have been judged at the Cross…when they 2) accept it personally and individually for themselves”.

You gave me verses pertaining to Jesus bearing the sins of the world on the cross. That is not the point of the question. These two points above are the question.

** Please, if it is scriptural, that is all I care about. If it is “very Catholic” then to that extent I would commend the RCC for being scriptural! **

Well, maybe you do not realize that the context of the NT is the Catholic Church. It was written by, for, and about Catholics. The doctrines reflected in it’s pages came from the Teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. The Bible is not the source of any Catholic doctrine, because the Bible came later. The Source is Jesus. That is why Catholicism is not considered a “bible based” religion.

**
Many verses affirm that “Christ died for our sins.”**

(Rom. 5:8; 1 Cor. 15:3; etc.)

Yes, of course. It is your formulation of how one acquires the benefits of that sacrifice that I am questioning.

**His suffering and death for our sins is known as the vicarious or substitutionary atonement. He died in my place, i.e., it was MY sins He died for, not His own (He had none). He took my place and the Father let Him suffer and die for my sins, though He was sinless. It is what has been called “the Great Exchange”— He took my sins and I got His righteousness, in terms of my standing before God (2 Cor. 5:21). **

Right, but not everyone cashes in the voucher, do they? Some are not covered. You gave (above) a formula about how this atonement applies to you, when it does not apply to all humans. It is the method by which you vicariously acquire I am asking about.

 

[Ronald_E]

I just returned from my morning Rosary Run and I love what God shows me!
It is only in silence that we truly experience God. True silence is the absence of the noise of our thoughts. Just with Mary and Joseph we are shown a dynamic that perhaps needs to be understood as a basis from which we Catholics understand our faith.
With Joseph the angel came to him in a dream to convince him to marry Mary. If he were conscious would he have been able to have that internal silence needed to receive God’s message?
The angel came to Mary when she was fully awake. Why? The thought that came this morning was that sin creates a lack of clarity and division in our relationships. Joseph had to be free from the effects of sin in order to receive God’s message clearly.
Mary, who was free from sin and consequently free from the effects of sin could receive God’s message perfectly. Her last statement in scripture is to “…do what He tells you.”
Did you know that mothers retain the cells from their children throughout their lives which means that they are always a part of them. What does that imply about Mary and Jesus?
The core of understanding of scripture must begin from the above relationship. If that relationship is devalued then understanding of scripture is clouded.

 

[VociMike]

Don’t forget to tell the priest every lacivious little detail, or your sins won’t be adequately confessed and you will still be in your sins, out of the state of grace, in danger of eternal damnation.

Interesting that you should bring this up. There is a segment of Protestantism that over the centuries has reveled in propaganda relating to the “lacivious little details” of Catholic confession. Sort of a Protestant soft-core propaganda porn, you might say. It’s popularity down the ages, of course, says nothing about Catholicism but says quite a bit about those who wrote and those who read and spread those stories.

 

[brkn1]

Interesting that you should bring this up. There is a segment of Protestantism that over the centuries has reveled in propaganda relating to the “lacivious little details” of Catholic confession. Sort of a Protestant soft-core propaganda porn, you might say. It’s popularity down the ages, of course, says nothing about Catholicism but says quite a bit about those who wrote and those who read and spread those stories.

I was not being as serious about that silly offhand statement I made as you seem to believe. I should not have posted that comment though.

The mention you make about some Protestants revelling in a sort of “soft-core propaganda porn” relating to the “lacivious little details” is not something that I have come across, although it likely does exist.
Your defense against it, using the words “soft-core propaganda porn”, could be the Catholic reverse propaganda method of doing the same thing they complain about being done to them.

Name calling on both sides, accomplishes no good.
I will try to be more careful in my offhand remarks, but that will not prevent me from giving what I consider an honest assessment of what I believe, even though I know it will not be received well by some.

 

[VociMike]

I was not being as serious about that silly offhand statement I made as you seem to believe. I should not have posted that comment though.

The mention you make about some Protestants revelling in a sort of “soft-core propaganda porn” relating to the “lacivious little details” is not something that I have come across, although it likely does exist.
Your defense against it, using the words “soft-core propaganda porn”, could be the Catholic reverse propaganda method of doing the same thing they complain about being done to them.

The fact is, there is a history of anti-Catholic Protestant fiction (often falsely claimed to be fact) that is inordinately focused on innocent girls (both village girls and young nuns) and the defilement of same by wicked priests, and which has as one obvious aim to titillate the reader. To say more would be to risk derailing this thread, so I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

The fact is, there is a history of anti-Catholic Protestant fiction (often falsely claimed to be fact) that is inordinately focused on innocent girls (both village girls and young nuns) and the defilement of same by wicked priests, and which has as one obvious aim to titillate the reader. To say more would be to risk derailing this thread, so I’ll just leave it at that.

**Also this titillation promotes the spread of this fiction as Titillating Gossip. And if it is not titillating, the fiction still spreads as Scandalous Gossip. **

 

[distracted]

I’m a Protestant, and you’re absolutely right - there is no OSAS.

Only a handful of Protestant faiths embrace OSAS, by the way.

I don’;t think it is just a handful… it seems that even those who profess not to believe in OSAS live like they DO believe in it… for instance, i know Christians who reject OSAS but treat others like dirt (and do other things), never seeming to repent or apologize or what have you… They don’t seem to fear God - or what happens in the afterlife… So, to me, they DO believe (virtually) OSAS is true…