Your paper fails to distinquish between spiritual final death in hell, (the second death, the lake of fire- Rev. 20:14-15) and physical death.
I John 5:16-17 has to be talking about physcial death, because he says, "he shall ask God", and "there is a sin that does not lead to death", and yet many other passages teach that eventually, we all die physically, because of sin. "The soul that sins, it shall die". Ezekiel 18:20, chapter 33. That is also what James 2:10 is teaching, along with Romans 3:23 and 6:23. That is what Jesus teaches in Matthew 5, on anger -- He is saying just because you didn't physically murder anyone, don't think you are "not guilty"; and matthew 5:28, just because you didn't commit physcial adultery, don't think you are not guilty.
God zapped Ananias and Saphira in Acts 5, Saul in Samuel, and the Corinthians for treating the Lord's supper in a caviliar fashion. But these are examples of God punishing people by physical death because of the seriousness of thier sins. I Cor 5 seems to say the same thing, "for the destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord Jesus."
So, there are degrees of seriousness of sin, obviously real physical adultery is worse than lust, in its effects on people, but Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:28ff that lust makes you guilty. The same for anger, which is leaves one just as guilty as far as sending us to hell as real murder. But real murder is obviously worse in the consequences and effects in this life. That is one of the differences between a crime and a sin. A crime is punishable by the state, but not all sins of thought are.
So, evangelical Protestants do believe in degrees of sin, but there are not degrees of guilt in the realm of sin that will send one to hell. That is the point of James 2:10 and Romans 3:23 and 6:23. One sin makes us all guilty and as far as our being able to stand before God ( justification), we are all guilty, unless forgiven and covered by Christ's righteousness.
I Cor. 6:9-12, Eph. 5:5 do not not teach what you claim. Read the whole passages, and they are teaching someone who continually is practicing those kinds of sins, will not inherit the kingdom of God. Same for Rev. 22:15, "practices lying" ( practices = a participle -- poiew. Same in Galatians 5:19-21, ". . . those who continually practice these things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."
I Cor. 6:9-10, "such were some of you" -- talking about their identity and continual lifestyle of those things.
True believers still sin, but hate their sin, stay in the battle, confess their sins, and keep trusting in Christ and His atonement and source of forgiveness, "If any one sins, we have an advocate with the Father. . . " I John 2:1
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and the blood of Jesus cleanses us from ALL sin." I John 1:5-10)
I am so glad for Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers who restored Biblical truth in this issue, for your way, the RCC way is bondage and legalism and perfectionism, and adds works righteousness of the work of Christ -- "if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died needlessly. Galatians 2:21
I would be the "Protestant" that actually asked the question. I come from a classic Wesleyan orientation, which we know is not Calvinistic. I have not eliminated the possibity of becoming RCC particularly if or when I move locations.
My question here is not in respect to classifying sins; it is more in respect to the light bulb salvation it implies..on/off/on..
I have been on a couple of RCC forums and the typical mindset in regards to mortal sin is quite disconcerting. For example ..fear of going to hell being in a plane before getting to confession .. debating whether drinking soda 1 hour before the Eucharist will send you to hell..etc.
If the RCC teaches that you work out, not work for, your salvation, then a big-time problem exists with how this is understood in the pews. No wonder us "Protestants" get the other impression.
What I read the Catechism it really seems quite vague. I can read it one way and conclude that I lose my salvation 100s of times each week. I can read it another way and conclude it is not that much different from classic Methodism. Hence my question.
It is a non-starter for me if my eternal destiny, heaven or hell, changes before almighty God as often as I turn the lights on and off in my house.
Rob,
Why would you want to become RCC, given your understanding and obserations and the vagueness of the Cathecism?
You have hit upon something that is a real practical outcome of the teachings and emphasis of the RCC; and you feel it at least at an emotional level, and a popular level, and this points to the false-hood of RCC doctrine, and the great need for the Protestant Reformation.
Also,
What do you mean by "non-starter" ? Meaning, I take it, you don't want to start that process of "on/off/on/off" if that is what the RCC teaches. "Your insights serve you well" (Obi Wan to Luke)
Robert Bellarmine called Protestant Assurance of Salvation is most dangerous heresy of all.
There is nothing attractive or true about all those RCC distinctives that set it in opposition to Evangelical Protestantism.
send me an email if you want to discuss more:
ktemple@trusted.net
There is much more I could say, but Dave may delete my recommendations of books by James White, R.C. Sproul, William Webster, Eric Svendsen, Jason Eweger, etc.
Dave likes Norman Geisler, so you should at least read his book, "Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences" by Norman Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie. (Baker Books, 1995)
Is your desire to become RCC based on the arguments of church history of John Henry Newman( and Dave A. and Scott Hahn and others), the Development of Doctrine, and the listing of the books in the Canon of Scripture not finalized or put all together until 367 AD with Athanasius?
Rob,
You said:
"My question here is not in respect to classifying sins; it is more in respect to the light bulb salvation it implies..on/off/on.."
If you consider every sin to be "mortal" -- then, yes it leads to a binary concept of salvation.
If however, you take into account the concept of "venial" sins, this binary off/on does not hold.
I'm not an apologist, but I'll try to provide some explaination -- let me start with an analogy:
If you are looking at a light source, you can describe your relation to it several ways. You can be facing it, or turned away from it -- this is a binary perspective -- one or the other.
From another perspective, I can describe how many degrees I have turned to not face the light source. If I turned 1 degree away, I am still mostly facing the light. If I turn 180 degrees... I have turned my back to the light & have completely turned away.
Venial sin is like turning away little by little... it adds up over time, but you didn't completely turn away in one attempt.
Mortal sin is turning 180 degrees.
I think Dave's very first answer best describes what I have been taught in regards to your question -- God is the judge of whether or not you end up in Heaven or Hell.
If you knowingly commit a mortal sin...and you want to repent, then God will know what is in your heart & will take that into account at time you are judged.
If you commit a mortal sin & have ZERO intent of repenting,then God will know what is in your heart & will take that into account at time you are judged.
Remember -- by definition, a mortal sin has to have all 3 qualities that Dave mentioned...
Usually in Catholic vocabulary in the pews... "mortal sin" typically means "grave matter". But, if the other 2 condition of "mortal sin" aren't met, then the sin, while grave in matter, is venial.
I have found that if I'm not sure if your sin is mortal, then I go to confession -- the sin will be forgiven, and I am absolved from it in either case. In your question, we do not know the state of the mind of the deceased sinner. Was he planning to repent? Did he have all three conditions of "mortal sin" met?
It's not a binary question.
Some of the examples you give of people in forums being concerned over "dying before confessing a sin" sound a bit hyper-reactionary. From a Catholic mindset -- sin is a HUGE concern. You must submit to God's judgement when you die & you do not want to be found to be so unworthy that you end up in Hell. We have a mechanism to allow those sins to be stricken from the record, so to speak, it's "confession"... If you look at the definition of mortal sin again, this is what the Catholics are concerned over -- was the matter grave? did I reflect before committing the sin? Did I commit the sin KNOWING it was grave?
If you err on the side of caution and go to confession for each sin that you realize you have committed, it looks like you are treatng the sin in a binary
(looks like my last line was truncated...)
If you err on the side of caution and go to confession for each sin that you realize you have committed, it looks like you are treatng the sin in a binary perspective. But upon closer inspection ,it isn't.
--Werner
Rob,
I am not sure what you are reading. There is the concept of mortal sin but they are not so hard to avoid. Why would you think you lose your salvation often? Having a soda too close to mass would not send you to hell. Paul does talk about treating the Lord's supper in a caviliar fashion as a serious sin. That is not something that a sincere Catholic will ever do.
For me the doctrine of mortal sin just makes sense. It is biblical. If you doubt that read this: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSW...NSWERS/
LOSS.htm
The other way it makes sense is it fits with my experience. Christians who commit adultery have their faith life destroyed. Same with those who stop going to church. You go through all the sins the church calls grave and I know people who do these things cannot maintain their faith. I don't need to make some wierd appeal to participles. The scriptures are clear and they match what expereince and common sense tell you.
Is suicide the one mortal sin of which one can't repent (aka the unforgivable sin) according to the RCC?
.
Ken,
You asked, "Is your desire to become RCC based on the arguments of church history of John Henry Newman( and Dave A. and Scott Hahn and others), the Development of Doctrine, and the listing of the books in the Canon of Scripture not finalized or put all together until 367 AD with Athanasius?"
Is the fact that Rob is trying to understand what is being taught by the Church that you are objecting to? Or was this question trying to go somewhere else?
If you are going to consider entering the Church (or any other denomination), isn't it a good idea to ask basic questions?
Dave tried to answer Rob's question...
Rob did NOT ask "What do the reformation theologies teach?" He asked about what the Catholic Church taught.
--Werner
Suicide is not unforgivable. You normally don't have a chance to repent of it. Suicide is a grave sin but might not be mortal if it wasn't done with full knowlege and/or consent. In such a case it would be forgiven if the person was in a state of grace.
I will be systematically dismantling Ken Temple's replies here. I got sidetracked today, so it will be late tonight or tomorrow or the next day.
I'm happy to let Ken rave on on this blog (feel free) with endless Protestant garden-variety arguments but sometimes it is just too much, so that I feel I have to make a response in order to dispatch of weak arguments. This is one such case. I saw several glaring errors, just glancing at it. I'm sure there are more, once it is closely examined.
So prepare for a thorough reply, Ken, my friend!
Werner,
No problem. You make a good point. Rob is trying to understand.
I was curious as to why he is attracked to RCC, because he seemed to not be on the venial sin/mortal issue. (Maybe there are other areas that are very attractive; the history, the unity, the mystery, etc.)
It just seems that he is perceiving a real problem, and I was wondering if his attraction was coming from the history/Newman/canon argument, because he seemed to not like the lack of assurance of salvation/justication/faith/venial and mortal sins concept in RCC (in his words, lighton/off/on/off)
But, of course, his question and Dave's article are also helping me understand it too. (smile)
Ok, Dave, I am prepared! But I am not infallible. (smile)
Yes, Dave, your replies are always quite thorough! You are amazing in the amount of material you pump out. I don't see how you do it.
Regarding Rob's comment about "drinking soda one hour before communion" --
I am just curious, is this true? is there a rule that you cannot drink a coke or sprite, etc. one hour before communion?
If so, why?
I've always been a bit baffled by Protestant objections to the concept of mortal and venial sins. What could possibly be more obvious? Some sins sever your relationship with God, while some merely damage it. This is just like my relationship with my wife or my sister, and isn't the Christian life entirely about being in relationship with God?
I had always presumed, based on Protestants raising James 2:10, that the objection was to the concept of venial sin. I see from Ken's posts, however, that the objection is actually to the concept of mortal sin! Protestants from the Calvinist and Lutheran traditions have hung their hats on "assurance of salvation." They honestly don't believe they can commit any sin that severs their relationship with God! No wonder this is the most "pernicious of all Protestant errors." I fail to see how any Protestant can reject the concept of mortal sin and rescue themselves from antinomianism. Perhaps Ken can enlighten us:
Ken, if it is not possible to commit any sin that severs my relationship with God, what is the limitation that prevents me from "sinning boldly" every day?
Hello:
The question that was on the forum was this:
"I saw my friend drinking diet coke just before mass began yesterday, so I told her she isn't supposed to eat or drink except water for 1hr before recieving the Eucharist..."
Answers include:
"According to the rubics the person has behaved in a sacrilegious way and committed an offence against God...a mortal sin if done so with full knowledge and willfulness."
"The sin of sacrilege is grave matter. This woman has full knowledge of the Church's ruling on fasting before Communion, and she freely consents to breaking the fast. Looks like it can't be disguised under the "Oh, I don't believe it's a mortal sin" copout."
"Sacrilige against the Eucharist is no "minor regulation"."
Admittedly there were other answers
"I must say I am disgusted by some of the attitudes and comments posted thus far."
There have been other similar questions and similar answers. In regards to light bulb salvation..one guy said (paraphrase)..if (these answers) are true then God would be constantly writing and then erasing my name from the Lamb's Book of Life. An answer was (paraphrase) "yes your point being". Another guy was frantic with a fear of dying while committing a mortal sin before being able to repent." ..and so forth..
I have come to realize that maybe forums are best for understanding how the rank-and-file thinks; not for getting definitive answers. However, if this is typical of the rank-and-file mindset, then there are problems. No wonder Protestants think Catholics are working for their salvation, not working out their salvation.
BTW to the best of my understanding the best answer would be James 1:12-16..where death is the last step of a spiritual decline process (sin when fully conceived leads to death).
In more practical terms, as a Christian I have a relationship with Christ. That relationship has not yet been severed because of my sin, mortal or otherwise, even if I knew what I was doing (which I always do). However, when I sin, that tends to be all that God is speaking to me about until it is corrected. And if I continue growing more stubborn and compounding that with more sin, well that is a different story. Eventually it will lead to death.
This seems much different than "you go to hell immediately if you break one of the 10 commandments and you knew and consented to what you are doing". I do that 100s of times each week.
Long story on what is attracting me to the Catholic Church. Short: they are Christian and they are (if not the One True Church), the historic Christian Chiurch.
Mr. Hunstrong,
Is your church afraid to say that Judas went to hell because they might need to make a saint out of him one day?
F.G.
DelRayVa,
Ken, if it is not possible to commit any sin that severs my relationship with God, what is the limitation that prevents me from "sinning boldly" every day?
I'm not Ken, but a couple of things come to mind. Prov 16:6 says, "Through love and faithfulness sin is atoned for. Through the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil." One reason to avoid sinning is the consequences it may bring from God. Another is love. If you truly love your wife, will you beat her when she makes a mistake? Verbally ridicule her when she misspeaks? Publicly embarrass her when she does something wrong? If none of those things would sever the relationship between your wife and you, why not do them? The short answer is you love her, and that's not how you treat someone you love; and you have a healthy fear of her (you never know what she'll do to you when you're sleeping
)
Regarding losing one's salvation by sinning.
John 10:27-30 (who didn't see this one coming?) says, "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all ; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." But if Satan can tempt one to commit a mortal sin knowingly & willingly right before he dies, then he (Satan) has effectively snatched that person from God's hand. But we see from this passage that can't be. We also see in this passage that "no one" which would include the person himself can snatch a person from God's hand.
Protestants believe that people who ultimately "turn away" from God were never saved in the first place. This would be in keeping with the phrase Jesus used in John 10: "eternal life". By its very definition, this phrase indicates that one can't lose his salvation. If he could, we'd have to say God gave him eternal life but then gave him eternal death. Maybe it's just me, but I thought eternal meant forever.
.
Del Ray and Rob,
All sin blocks a relationship with God for us all until we are saved, or justified. (Romans 3:9ff, 3:23, 6:23) After a person is justified( saved), we have an advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous -- I John 2:1. Christ's death on the cross paid the legal guilt of our sin in full, there is nothing to add to it.
So "sin" is used in 3 aspects:
1. legal guilt (Romans 3:25-25, I John 2:2, 4:10, John 1:29, Hebrews 9-10, Romans 8:1)
2. a nature, principle, or power within us (I John 1:8, Romans 7:13-8:2) or
3. actions, sins, (I John 2:1) that must be confessed for the joy and fellowship to be restored; and which true beleivers want to do and eventually do, but not always perfect or immediately.
All sin creates a break in fellowship with God, IF you are a true Christian, until it is dealt with. The joy of fellowship is broken; but the relationship is not severed.
I John 1:3-2:2 answers those questions. There is nothing in this passage that says the relationship is completely severed, but rather the joy and fellowship is broken.
A true believer does not want to "sin boldly" everyday, because his/her nature has been changed, 2 Cor. 5:17, 2 Peter 1:3-4, Romans 6-8.
Those that go back show they never really knew Christ. Matthew 7:23, I John 2:19; and their nature was never changed, 2 Peter 2:20-22; they are still pigs and dogs.
The objection is to both categories of venial sins, and mortal sins, yes, because any and all sin can send a human being to hell. Matthew 5:22-30 -- anger and hatred make us guilty, just as real murder. Lust makes us guilty before God, just as real physical adultery; but the actual acts are worse than the evil thoughts.
But, it seems to me that the examples of "mortal sin" in I John 5:17-18, are the times when God chooses of His own free will, to bring people home quicker than old age, because we all die eventually. (Ananias and Saphira, King Saul, Corinthians in 11:28-34, I Cor. 5, "for the destruction of his flesh, that his soul may be saved on the day of Christ Jesus.")
But the legal guilt of sin has been taken away by Jesus at the cross -- Romans 3:25-26, 8:1, I John 2:2, 4:10 -- that is what propitiation means -- the satisfaction of the justice (wrath) of God against sin. There is now now condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
James 1:13-15, to me, does not teach anything about venial and moral sins, rather it shows the progression of human desire, temptation, lust, sin, then death. Death is the result of all sin, immediately, unless there is a mediator, an Advocate, Jesus Christ the righteous -- I John 2:1.
James' point is that our temptations come from our own internal desires, we cannot blame God, or even the devil (in this passage). James is saying we have to take responsibility for our own sins, because they came from within us.
But temptation is not sin (Matthew 4:1-11, Heb. 4:15, Hebrews 2:17-18.).
Rules about fasting before communion seem like adding to the Scriptures, as in Mark 7 and Matthew 15, putting "traditions of man" over the Word of God, the Scriptures.
Here's a non Biblical argument against one sin (even a serious one) sending someone to hell. I guess it's Biblical in that the parent-child relationship mirrors the God-man relationship. Suppose you and your child have a very good relationship. Like all children she breaks your house rules periodically. And like most children, she always comes and says she's sorry when she realizes how much it hurt you.
One day you have a big dispute over the fact that you won't let her date as our culture does but would rather she be "courted". She says, "I've been thinking about this for months, and I'm going on a date with Bob. We're going to dinner, the movies, and then a party; I'll be back at 1:00 am (her curfew is 11:00 pm) She then walks out knowing good and well that she's disobeying one of your core values. She then gets in a car accident and is in a coma.
Do you help her? Do you visit her? Do you provide for her? What she did would be akin to a mortal sin between a father and daughter. If you let her final "sin" be the deciding factor, you won't help her. She chose to disobey one of my core rules...so be it. That's ludicrous to think, isn't it? But that's not what a father who said, "You're my daughter forever" would do, is it? Even though she's in a state that makes it impossible for her to reconcile the relationship, you would forgive her "sin" and care for her.
Matt 7:9 says, "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake. If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" This isn't directly dealing with mortal sins, but it does show that God is far more compassionate, loving, and merciful than earthly fathers are. If an earthly father wouldn't let one final "sin" sever a relationship, is it reasonable to assume our heavenly father would?
.
Here's the account of the Lord's Supper in Mark, "While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, 'Take it; this is my body.' Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, and they all drank from it." (Mark 14:22-23)
They ate and drank immediately beforehand. If Jesus didn't command it, encourage it, or even model it (in fact, he modeled the exact opposite), why would the RCC make it a mortal sin (or even a venial sin for that matter) to eat or drink one hour prior to the Lord's Supper?
I realize this digresses from the main topic, so if anyone else wants to discuss it, I'll look for your comments in the Open Forum.
.
Rob,
The "catholic" church (0-500 AD) (lets don't rehash all that again as to how and when and why do you choose 500 AD, etc. -- it is an easy date to grab, for the sake of argument. We already covered that lots, but basically and generally, it covers the period of time of the first four ecumenical councils, early creeds, the doctrine of hte Trinity and 2 natures of Christ, and it is before the power of the pope came to mean more than "first among equals" in honor.)
Also, the Early Church fathers had a strong concept of a Pre or nascent form of "sola Scriptura" -- Athanasius, Ireneaus, Jerome, etc. although sometimes they did not always live up to it or apply it.
The "catholic" church slowly changed into the Roman Catholic Church and added doctrines, and this is why Newman recognized that the Vincent of Lerin's axiom was not workable or true, so he came up with his clever form of "development of doctrine". (all doctrine can develop to some extent, but it should not "go beyond what is written" ( I Cor. 4:6); and it should not change or be corrupted or turned on its head, as in many Roman C. Dogmas and doctrines.)
Protestants and Orthodox are 'catholic"(first 500 years or so) also, but we are not Roman Catholic.
Please read:
"The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" by William Webster (Banner of Truth)
and
"Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith", 3 volumes, by David T. King and William Webster.
www.christiantruth.com
These 4 books, show all, or most of the early fathers believed in the final authority of Scripture, not the church or pope.
Rob,
Don't go by what some guy on a forum says is a mortal sin. Go by what your priest, bishop, and pope says.The fast before mass is there as a sign of respect for the holiness of what you are about to consume. You don't want to mix the body and blood of Jesus with pizza and beer that you ate just before mass. It is also good to come to mass hungry. The physical hunger for food connects us with our spiritual hunger for Jesus. Sins related to the mass won't seem serious to you because your tradition does not understand how holy the mass is. Once you grow in understanding of the mass you will understand why Paul talks about being to casual about the mass as a sin that lead to death.
In more practical terms, as a Christian I have a relationship with Christ. That relationship has not yet been severed because of my sin, mortal or otherwise, even if I knew what I was doing (which I always do). However, when I sin, that tends to be all that God is speaking to me about until it is corrected. And if I continue growing more stubborn and compounding that with more sin, well that is a different story. Eventually it will lead to death.
Here you agree with the concept of mortal sin. That is that there are some sins can that lead to death and kill you relationship with God. The question then is what sins do that. That is the definitionof mortal sin so your use of that word is not quite right here.
The other thing to understand is the sacrament of confession. If you fall into mortal sin God simply asks you to use the sacrament and recieve forgiveness. It's like when you offend your wife and you say "sorry, sorry". If she says your crime is more serious than a "sorry, sorry" and you need to buy her flowers then you buy her flowers. If you refuse you are not really sorry enough to do what it takes to repair the relationship. Anyway, God wants us to acknowlege the seriousness of our sin and he has given us a way to do that in the sacrament. Failure to do that is really denying God's right to declare which sins are serious and what is required to demonstrate sufficient contrition.
Protestants teach that a simple sorry is always good enough. No matter how many time you commit adultery if you just whisper "sorry Lord" as you pull up your pants then you are fine. There is not need to tell anyone else. Most protestants know in their heart this is false. When they commit serious sins they often visit the pastor and talk about it. They might go forward at an altar call and confess it. They can sense they have severed their relationship with God and need more than a routine "forgive all my sins" clause to fix it.
Webster shows that a radical change took place in history from the Early church to the Roman CC doctrines in the issues of confession of serious sin and the private confession to a priest.
http://www.christiantruth.com/
pe...ncehistory.html
The Catechism of the Catholic Church affirms the above historical facts related to the change that took place in the practice of penance:
During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery) was tied to a very rigorous discipline, according to which penitents had to do public penance for their sins, often for years, before receiving reconciliation. To this “order of penitents” (which concemed only certain grave sins), one was only rarely admitted and in certain regions only once in a lifetime. During the seventh century Irish missionanes, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on, the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament. It allowed the forgiveness of grave sins and venial sins to be integrated into one sacramental celebration. In its main lines this is the form of penance that the Church has practiced down to our day’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church (Rome: Urbi et Orbi, 1994), #1447).
The Council of Trent makes the comment that from the very beginning the Church had practiced secret confession to a priest and it anathematizes anyone who denies this. But such an assertion is simply unsupportable by the historical evidence. Once again the Roman Church makes dogmatic assertions which, like so many of its teaching on Tradition, the papacy and Mary, can find no historical support.
Just to note: "Some" Protestants believe that those who "Turn Away" were never saved in the first place. Us Wesleyan types see it a little differently.
In the end it is an issue that I prefer not to argue about, because in fairness I can't say that it is antinomain either as long as the proper caveats are in place.
It just seems to be a slant one could take on Scripture that is difficult to prove/disprove either way. It is my perception that the earliest church fathers did not have this particular slant, so it is my preference not to go there. Keep it simple.
Randy,
Suicide is a grave sin but might not be mortal if it wasn't done with full knowlege and/or consent.
I understand someone could be coerced into suicide which would aleviate "full consent", but what does "full knowledge" mean? Does that mean they don't realize suicide is a sin?
.
Randy wrote:
"Protestants teach that a simple sorry is always good enough. No matter how many time you commit adultery if you just whisper "sorry Lord" as you pull up your pants then you are fine."
No way. The way you put that was ugly and offensive. You have forgotten the writings of godly Reformed folks who would never express repentance in the manner you just did. (Look at Piper or MacArthur or the Puritans or Sproul about repentance or Berkhof -- they will all exude a holy seriousness over sin, and question someone's salvation who repeats serious sins.
Some people may act this way, (they are probably not regenerated or born again in the first place), as a true Christian has godly sorrow and hates his own sin (Psalm 97:10, Job 42, Proverbs 8:13but the caviliar attitude portrayed here is not true repentance, especially for the more serious sins of adultery -- obviously it is more serious than mental lust.
Repentence involves:
1. Mind -- intellectual judgment on my sin as wrong
2. Emotions -- godly sorrow, 2 Cor. 7:9-12, Psalm 51, 38, 32
3. Will - the choosing to change the actions, though patterns by the renewing of the mind and disciplined obedience. 2 Cor. 7:9-12, 2 Tim. 2:25-26. Ephesians 4:17-26, Colossians 3:1-12, Romans 8:13.
4. Results in confession ( Proverbs 28:13, I John 1:5-2:2) and behavior change -- Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, Acts 26:20
"And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." I John 2:3-4
Rob,
Yes, Weslyan theology has a different take on these issues.
One of my favorite hymns is Charles Wesley's "And can it Be" -- it actually teaches Reformed Theology:
"Long my imprisoned spirit lay, fast bound in sin and chains of night
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray, I woke, the dungeon flamed with light
My chains fell off, my heart was free;
I rose, went forth, and followed Thee.
Amazing Love, How can it be?
That Thou my God should die for me?
May the Lord guide you as you wrestle with the issues. Take time to read the other side on the links and books I mentioned.
Good discussion, guys. Keep it up! I need to work on my book today first (having been distracted by many serious and troubling things "in real life" lately). Once I get in my "quota" for the day, this is next on my list of stuff to do. I love a good biblical argument with a Protestant. Oh boy! LOL
Many thanks to Ken and Grubb and now Rob (and any other amiable, thoughtful Protestants who comment) for their opinions and willingness to discuss them with us lowly, spiritually-blinded papists under the yoke of Rome, so that it is not dull and boring around here . . .
Randy wrote:
>"Protestants teach that a simple sorry is always good enough. No matter how many time you commit adultery if you just whisper "sorry Lord" as you pull up your pants then you are fine."
I agree with Ken that this is an offensive gross caricature of mainstream Protestant soteriology. Virtually no Protestant would ever teach such a ridiculous thing, just as no Catholic would teach that it is okay to confess, go out and sin again, confess again, etc., over and over.
In both cases, in both systems, clearly no true repentance has taken place, and that is what is required, not just lip service. And many Protestants (esp. Calvinists) would question whether such a person was "saved" at all (just as we would claim that they are in a state of wanton mortal sin) - which works out practically the same on both belief-systems: such a person would (likely) go to hell.
Protestants themselves fight against such notions of cheap grace and distortions of what sola fide or assurance or perseverance of the saints means. Only a tiny wacko fringe would actually teach this wicked notion.
So, c'mon guys. Let's be fair to our Protestant brethren just as we want so much for them to be fair and charitable towards our views. Golden Rule . . .
Sorry if that comment offended anyone. I did say most protestants don't REALLY beleive that. I have met people who push sola fide to that extreme. There is nothing in protestant theology that tells them they are wrong. There is no limit to how serious a sin must be or how often it is committed before you say this is just not christian.
Repentence involves:
1. Mind -- intellectual judgment on my sin as wrong
2. Emotions -- godly sorrow, 2 Cor. 7:9-12, Psalm 51, 38, 32
3. Will - the choosing to change the actions, though patterns by the renewing of the mind and disciplined obedience. 2 Cor. 7:9-12, 2 Tim. 2:25-26. Ephesians 4:17-26, Colossians 3:1-12, Romans 8:13.
4. Results in confession ( Proverbs 28:13, I John 1:5-2:2) and behavior change -- Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, Acts 26:20
Agreed. But this is NOT sola fide. Suddenly one step has become four. The last step sounds a lot like works.
And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. I John 2:3-4
It is interesting to see Ken find texts to show that some level of obedience is required for salvation. Once saved always saved says there is nothing you can do to lose you salvation. This guy I was think of when I wrote that was a serious christian once. He has large sections of the New Testement memorized. He has had pastors assure him many times he could not lose his salvation. Then he falls into a life of sin and keeps hanging on to this idea. You can tell him his initial relationship with Jesus was a sham but I don't think that's the truth. I think he was sincere back then.
This is a brief answer specific to the question of "drinking a soda 1 hour before communion"
From the EWTN website:
By ancient tradition Christians abstain from profane food prior to receiving the sacred food of the Eucharist. Until the pontificate of Pope Pius XII the Eucharistic fast was from midnight. Pope Pius reduced it to three hours, and after Vatican II, Pope Paul VI reduced it to one hour. The current Code of Canon Law states,
Canon 919
1. One who is to receive the Most Holy Eucharist is to abstain from any food or drink, with the exception only of water and medicine, for at least the period of one hour before Holy Communion.
2. A priest who celebrates the Most Holy Eucharist two or three times on the same day may take something before the second or third celebration even if the period of one hour does not intervene.
3. Those who are advanced in age or who suffer from any infirmity, as well as those who take care of them, can receive the Most Holy Eucharist even if they have taken something during the previous hour.
The Eucharistic fast is before Holy Communion, not the Mass. It is a fast from food and drink, water is alright, as is medicine. The moral theology tradition teaches that to be food it must be a) edible, b) taken by mouth, and c) swallowed. In addition to breakfast, lunch and dinner, candies, breath mints, lozanges and anything that is put into the mouth to be dissolved or chewed meets these conditions once the dissolved contents are swallowed. Chewing gum does not break the fast, but it is disrespectful of the Sacred Liturgy and once the juice is swallowed the fast is broken. The tradition also teaches that the fast is strict - one hour, that is, 60 minutes. Given that until recently the fast was from midnight, this seems very little to ask of Catholics.
[The same FAQ then refers to St. Paul:]
1 Corinthians 11:28-29 28 Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. 29 For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself.
While this certainly applies first and foremost to belief in the Real Presence, it also applies to the practical application of that belief, how we receive Holy Communion. If we had the opportunity to have an intimate meeting with the President or the Pope we would not have our minds, hearts and attention wandering all over the place. How much less ought they to be when receiving Holy Communion.
Hopefully, this answers the direct question about the 1 hour fast.
--Werner
Werner,
I commented in the Open Forum on the "food thing".
.
Regarding the unforgiveable sin against the Holy Spirit. This is commonly thought of as suicide, but it's actually final impenitence, i.e. obstinant refusal of God's mercy. http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSW...RS/
UNFORGIV.HTM
Suicides are associated with this because they are often the result of despair, despair that the persons situation or sin is greater than God's mercy. In that sense, it's a subtle and diabolical sort of pride.
I wrote:
"4. Results in confession ( Proverbs 28:13, I John 1:5-2:2) and behavior change -- Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, Acts 26:20"
The key is "results in" -- the fruits and results.
Randy wrote:
Agreed. But this is NOT sola fide.
Yes it is, because repentence is always inside of true faith. They are two sides of the one coin of conversion. Mark 1:16
when John says, "believe, that you may have eternal life", etc. repentance is understood within true faith, just as when Peter says, "repent" (Acts 2:38 or Acts 3:19), faith and trust is understood within it.
"Suddenly one step has become four. The last step sounds a lot like works."
Yes, but the key is the word, "resulting in", as in the Bible in Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, and Acts 20:26, 'Bring forth fruit in keeping with repentance" means, demonstrate that real repentence was there. But if real repentance was there, which includes real faith, the person is justified before God, because it is complete trust in the work of Christ on the cross, not what I can add to it by baptism or fastings or saying prayers to Mary.
And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, 'I have come to know Him', and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. I John 2:3-4
Randy says a guy he knows was sincere, but according to this verse, the guy was proved to be not sincere, and that is my main point, "the one who says, I have come to know God" -- John calls him a liar, if he acts the way you descibe.
Reformed folks never kottle people in their sin by a theological pillow of "once saved, always saved", only some forms of dispensationalism and easy believism and anti-nomianism do that.
"It is interesting to see Ken find texts to show that some level of obedience is required for salvation."
Good works are the necessary and immediate results and fruits of real salvation.
"Once saved always saved says there is nothing you can do to lose you salvation."
But expressing it that way is leaving out half of the doctrine; which is only part of the doctirne of the "perseverance of the saints", that is that true beleivers WILL NOT continue in sin as a lifestyle and continuous practice, that they will hate their sin and have a godly sorrow, and that they will not turn away from Christ and reject Him outright. A person who says "I have come to know to Him", but also, does whatever sin he wants to" shows that he was never saved and is a liar and is not sincere.
We need to put the bible before experience.
"This guy I was think of when I wrote that was a serious christian once."
That was your sincere but mistaken interpretation, you don't know really if he was really converted on the inside.
"He has large sections of the New Testement memorized."
Randy, I am surprized that you think that makes some some one a real Christian.
"Depart from Me, you who practice wickedness, I NEVER KNEW you!" Matthew 7:23
“He has had pastors assure him many times he could not lose his salvation.”
Those pastors are wrong, someone living in deliberate, willful, continuous sin has no assurance of salvation.
Randy continues:
“Then he falls into a life of sin and keeps hanging on to this idea. You can tell him his initial relationship with Jesus was a sham but I don't think that's the truth. I think he was sincere back then.”
Not according to Jesus in Matthew 7:23
Grubb
I have some info on a couple of questions you asked regarding the un-forgivable sin and suicide.
As a child when I first heard of the sin against the Holy Spirit, I asked my father what it was so I could aviod it. At the time the answer he gave me seemed vauge. Later I read in the explanation portion of his 120yr old bible a understandable description, I'll give you what I made of it. The angels who rebelled agains God were beyond forgiveness, largely because they sinned against a God they knew and saw regularly. there was no faith involved, they sinned against all that was Holy. We who walk by the light of faith have not seen and yet believe. This is an avenue of grace but also mercy, for often we sin against a weak impression of what we, often times erroneously, believe God is and he takes that into account when judging us. The fallen angels held no misconceptions about whom they were betraying. Much like the accusors of our Lord, who witnessed miracles and knew in their hearts that Jesus was the Messiah, saw him fulfill the prophecys they had studied, yet denied the truth for political gain. Their sin mirrors that of the rebel angels, they betrayed the truth they KNEW in their hearts.
As for suicide: Most instances of suicide are the result of a massive untreated depression that leades to clinical insanity. Niether God nor the Church condemns those beyound reason.
Of course I'm no scholar or cardinal and these reasonings make sense to me, I thought they would be of interest to you. If I am found to be in error, I submit to the Magisterium and Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Joseph
Mat 7:23.
This certainly doesn't speak well for faith alone since it follows Mat 7:21-22 ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'" Jesus here is speaking of deeds, not faith. He is distinguishing the deeds of hypocrits, those whose deeds were for their own grandizement as being unworthy. The hypocrits apparently have faith in Jesus in that they are pleading with Him, yet their deeds say they prefer themselves. Jesus never knew these people because their deed were never for Him to begin with. He's not talking about someone who's faith and deeds were real, but later lost.
John,
I agree, in that Jesus is not talking about someone who's faith and deeds were real, but later lost, that is the Evangelical Reformed postition -- Jesus never knew them at all, ever! They did not have faith or good deeds. Obviously, if Jesus says "I never knew you", this means that there was not real faith at all, only a "said-faith", saying Lord, Lord is not real faith.
Since you also believe that faith is the inititial step of conversion in an adult, Jesus here in Matthew 7 and (the whole canon), presupposes faith. Just because those verses don't mention faith, the way John or Acts or Paul does in Gal. and Romans, does not make your argument logical. God is consistent and the Evangelical Reformed position takes the most consistent and reasonable interpretation of this passage.
"I agree, in that Jesus is not talking about someone who's faith and deeds were real, but later lost, that is the Evangelical Reformed position -- Jesus never knew them at all, ever!"
I'm not following you on this one. I'm saying that there are people who are hypocrits who profess faith in Jesus and have done the deeds, but who's profession was alway a sham and deeds done for show. There are other people who's faith and deeds were real at the time, but are at some point lost, i.e. the grain that sprouted and wilted or choked out by weeds (Mk 4:4-7). Jesus here is talking about the former, not the later; and would not have denied knowing the later for as long as they knew Him.
John,
I see your point. The seed that fell among the thorns takes root and starts to grow. I take it you believe Jesus would "know" a person when the seed takes root and sprouts but then disown him when the thorns choke it out. If that's not the point you're making, I apologize for attempting to put words in your mouth.
But look further down where Jesus reveals what the parable means: "The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful. But the one who received the seed that fell on good soil is the man who hears the word and understands it. He produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown." (Matt 13:22-23)
Notice the difference between the two. The first hears the word, but the worries of the world choke it out. The second hears the word and understands it. There's no indication that the first man understood the Word and accepted it as the second man did. This very nicely fits in with Reformed theology that one who ultimately rejects God never truly knew and understood the Word. I believe John 3:36 ratifies this when John says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." Can one have eternal life and then lose it or even willfully reject it? Then it wasn't eternal, was it?
But John says that those who truly believe in Jesus have eternal life. This is a paradox for those who say one can be saved and then lose his salvation. Don't you agree?
.
The translation I'm looking at has a subtle but important difference: "But the seed sown on rich soil is the one who hears the word and understands it, who indeed bears fruit and yields a hundred or sixty or thirtyfold." "...who indeed bears fruit" makes perseverence as another criteria along with hearing and understanding, not a consequence.
My translation of John 3:36 is also subtly but importantly different, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." "rejects" is more than lack of belief, but an act of the will whether one believes or not. "disobeys" directly implies that one's actions must also square with their belief.
Wow! This site is fantastic. It's professional and to the point. I like it a lot. ritalin manufacturer propecia cut quarters aciphex bactroban ziac
Commenting by HaloScan
