This thread actually has nothing to do with Infidelity or Marriage. But I started a series of threads that do, and they provoke some heated religious, philosophical, and theological discussions and arguments.

So I’m going to try to transfer that part of the discussion here and leave the other threads more dedicated to the theme exploring some psychological effects of certain doctrines on marriage. Since in fact the theme is completely alien to the whole website, I figure I might as well put it in General Questions II where people will see it now and then can quickly forget it when interest dies off and it sinks down to page 23 in day or two.

ForeverHers posted on my other thread:

Let me say before I get started how much I appreciate reading your posts on threads other than mine. You have valuable insights. Did you see on a pornography thread how we both jumped in when the Christian faith was insulted? You’ve certainly earned that I respond fully to your many long posts full of important issues.

I apologize but I begin to suspect your good faith, ForeverHers. I have repeatedly explained that I do not want to discuss the actual justification of the beliefs whose psychological effects I wish to explore on my "Catholic Doctrines & Marital Happiness" threads. You repeatedly ignore that request and TJ by asserting that they are not true and presenting the competing theology which you believe. You are distracting my posters and myself by forcing us to defend the beliefs rather than expore their effects on marriage.

I don’t wish to discuss religion with you at all for a number of reasons.

First of all, are you sure it’s appropriate to have this kind of religious discussion at all on a board dedicated to building up marriages? I don’t see how this is going to build up anyone’s.

Second of all, I’m not sure of your intentions towards me. Are you concerned for my personal salvation? Is being a Catholic a risk to my eternal bliss? As far as I can tell from introspection, I still have the fiducial faith that Jesus Christ is my only hope of salvation and I’m not trusting my good works to get me into Heaven. I just do them out of love for Him, because He told us to love each other, thanking Him for the grace of knowing Him at all and wanting to do good works. As far as I understand Protestant theology I should still be saved, no?

Are you trying to convert me to Protestantism? I should warn you then that between February and May 2005 I faced a terrible spiritual and intellectual crisis and spent those three months in deep prayer, reflection, and study of the Scriptures. At the end I felt that I faced a choice between becoming a Catholic or a complete skeptic. Do you think it’s better for a man to be a Catholic and keep his faith in Jesus or become a complete skeptic and lose it?

So, with this background, I don’t feel there’s any way I can become a Protestant again unless we go into very long and very complex discussions of philosophy, Biblical exegesis, the relationship of faith and reason, the nature of texts and language itself, the history of Christianity and its dogmas, the typology of heresy, and possibly some other things. You would have to convince me of all kinds of propositions in those other areas to recreate the ability for me to keep my faith as a Protestant. I have already spent a great deal of time thinking over these things carefully and chose to become a Catholic. I feel that there’s a significant risk that if you succeed in detaching me from the Roman Catholic Church I will just lose my faith altogether. Are you willing to undertake the long, hard discussions necessary for me to become a Protestant? Do you have the time and the knowledge for it?

Aren’t you concerned about possible damage to BSs on this board who are Catholic? Surely their attachment to their current denomination is an important ally in their struggle to save their M. Whatever denomination it happens to be, the church a BS attends at the moment is the connection with Our Lord, God’s Word, and the community of Christians. Aren’t you afraid that you might jeopardize their connection to their denomination without being able to replace it with one to a Protestant denomination? IF our salvation is not at risk for being Catholic, it seems more charitable on your part to refrain. I certainly felt on my first thread that you and MEDC were so busy attacking the doctrine of the indissolvability of marriages that you did not notice several of your sisters in Christ had structured their whole M around that belief. What would have happened to them if you had succeeded?

What about me? Is it even ethical for me to reply to your arguments? What about Protestant BSs on here? What if one of my arguments detached a BS from her denomination without convincing her of Catholicism? Wouldn’t that damage her in the middle of the worst nightmare of her life? If you read my first five or six posts, you’ll see that while lurking I recognized that LilSis was a cradle Catholic estranged from the Church. I suggested she go to Confession for spiritual strength. As we discussed it, it turned out her WH was an anti-Catholic Dutch Reformed and she hadn’t practiced Catholicism since she was a girl. For all intellectual and spiritual purposes she’s more or less a Protestant. I MYSELF RETRACTED MY SUGGESTION. Because I judged that reconciling with the Catholic Church would actually harm her M. Perhaps my understanding of charity is mistaken. What do you think? Should I have tried to convince her to return to what I consider the true faith even though that would have obviously created more problems in her M?

Are you just trying to convince me that some Catholic teachings or some of my opinions are wrong? Many of my opinions are almost certainly wrong. I would appreciate being shown if they are. But as for Catholic teachings, one of my (Catholic) first principles denies the validity of private interpretations of Scripture in areas where the Catholic Church has spoken. So it’s a waste of time for you to try to convince me, for example, that Protestants are right about what St. Paul meant in Romans, until you’ve altered that first principle. But altering that first principle is the same as converting me to Protestantism. In the meantime, EVEN IF I can’t respond to your arguments I will trust the Catholic Church and not you when it comes to interpreting Scripture.

Do you see now why I didn’t want to discuss all this?

Dear ForeverHers,

Another thing: I feel your zeal against Secular Humanism is making you misunderstand what I’m trying to do in my threads. I’m not a Secular Humanist. I used to be an atheist so there may well be traces of that left in me, but I pray the love of Christ will so grow and fill me to expel them completely.

I AM trying to use my human reason to understand God’s will for us in marriage.

I suspect that you don’t get what I’m doing because of our differing positions on the relationship of Faith and Reason and on the relationship between God’s Justice and God’s Goodness. But that’s something we could discuss.

Dear ForeverHers,

I think we have a lot of common ground already so maybe we should explore that first, before we start shouting at each other about the Confessional and what Paul’s letter to the Romans actually means? Might make the discussion more pleasant, more Christian, more useful. Everything I say below is an assumption as to what you believe so please correct me if I’m mistaken.

Revelation

We both believe that God has revealed Himself in the Old and New Testament books. We believe almost all the same books are Holy Scripture. I assume you don’t accept certain books of the Old Testament, which you call “Apocrypha,” that I do, and call “Deutero-Canonical.” We both believe there’s such a thing as truth. We both believe that religions are not all equal and do not all teach the same thing, but vary as to their worth based on the degree to which they teach or depart from that truth. We believe God has revealed truth to men out of His love for us.

God and Christ

We both believe Jesus of Nazareth was the Jewish Messiah and the Son of God. Beyond that I’m unsure. Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Him? Do you believe that He was both fully God and fully man? Do you believe He was the Divine Word made flesh? Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is actually one being with God the Father? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?

History of Salvation

We both believe He died on the Cross but rose again. We both believe this event is the central event in human history and makes possible our salvation. We both believe He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. We both believe that human souls are immortal and will be in either bliss or agony. Do you believe that in the resurrection we will be reunited with our physical bodies, transformed and glorified?

Were my assumptions right? Can you think of any other common ground?

Dear ForeverHers,

Our differences seem to be on:

The relationship between Faith and Reason
How Revelation functions
Authority in the interpretation of Scripture
The existence and role of the Church
The history of Christianity
Methods of Biblical exegesis
The relationship between Faith, Works, and Salvation
The means by which Our Lord currently forgives sins
The process of Justification

I’ll bet we disagree about the Eucharist, as well, but I’m just guessing based on general Protestant tradition.

Can you think of anything else that's come up so far?

Dear ForeverHers,

For the record, this is my position in outline:
(Protestant BSs please close your eyes!)

I completely reject your claim that Catholic theology is anti-Biblical and anti-Apostolic. On the contrary I think Catholicism fits the whole Bible, the actual history of Christianity, human reason and human nature much better than Protestant theology. That’s why I became a Catholic – because it seemed more Biblical, not less. (Do you see how we do share some first principles? Being Biblical matters to me.)

I believe Protestantism fits exactly the historical typology of heresies. I think it's an example of "another gospel" which has promoted human misery. I think the doctrine of "Salvation by Faith Alone" is an idiotic misunderstanding of St. Paul who was trying to reassure his converts they could be saved without circumcision, and ignores the gospel of Matthew and the letter of James. I think it leads fairly quickly to a belief that one's own salvation is assured and that leads to complete disregard for the Biblical moral law, as numerous BSs on this board attest. It also leads directly to Calvin's double predestination, which contradicts the Biblical dogma that God is loving and wills the salvation of all men.

I think the first principles of Protestantism are absurd, self-contradictory, annul themselves, promote pride, and make nonsense of the very idea of Revelation.

Dear ForeverHers,

And please pray for me! Hopefully we’ll meet in front of the Throne and sing hymns to the Lamb together -- whoever’s right! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Well, that was a relief to get off my chest, after bending over backwards to be nice to people for a couple of weeks.

MB, meet Athanasius in Plan F/U. I wonder if I should go to Confession now?

God, I hope no one actually reads this thread.

Just in case MEDC ever shows up here:

Dear MEDC,

Your comments on my first thread were all emotional, not intellectual. So here’s my heart-felt not-at-all-intellectual response to the lot of them:



Please come back to the Church.

We need you inside.

I need you inside.

We need your fire.
We need your zeal for righteousness.
We need your love of truth.
We need your courage, your moral fiber, your quick insight.

We need you inside, rebuilding…not outside, tearing down.

I don’t feel you really care about the theological disputes. Please don't take that as a DJ -- I just notice that you ignored the intellectual questions posed to you and kept responding emotionally. Your emotions hint that you don’t really believe the Protestant claim that the RCC stopped teaching the true Gospel eighteen hundred years ago. I feel your terrible rage shows that you feel betrayed…not by one denomination among many…and a particularly corrupt one….but by the true Church. The worst betrayal possible.

I pray that you’ll return to the Church and join or start a lay organization…something like a union for the laity…so the hierarchy can never betray the laity again as they did….I pray that someday Cardinal Rigali or his successor has to sit across a negotiating table from YOU and explain what safeguards are in place and how they’re working. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I pray I someday get to see a weaselly bishop squirm in front of your rigor, your fire, your thirst for justice.

This has to be done. I want any children I may have to be safe. But I can’t do this. I don’t have the personality or the history. I need you. We need you.

Noah’s Ark, the Bark of Peter, looks a bit like it’s sinking right now. Some of the officers deserve a court-martial. It stinks in here. I’m chest-deep in bilge water trying to fix the leaks. No one blames you for jumping off. But please get back on the ship and start helping. Help us by court-martialling the officers who drilled all the holes.

Or would you rather spend the rest of your life swimming?

Come back. Stop being another victim of this. Become a saint.

Wouldn’t you be happier?

hmm...

interesting thread kind of... i have not ready any of the threads of yours or FH's, so i certainly won't even try to comment on those.

my 2 cents is this: i personally do not believe in "religion" whether is be baptist (which is what i am now), catholic (which is where i started), or any other religion for that matter. the bible even states to be careful of "religions". i believe in the bible. i believe everything it says. i go to the church i go to because i find that it most closely does exactly was the bible states. no fluff, no pomp and circumstance. cut and dried word of god. i have no problem with the catholics, i run an afterschool program at a catholic school and sub there. the only issue i have them is teaching kids to pray to saints, the bible says we do not need to pray to anyone but GOD, and are not supposed to. once we accept christ as our savior, we are a saint. i go straight to the source. i confess my sins straight to the source. if you choose to go to confession i suppose that is entirely up to you, but the bible says go straight to god for confession. i always thought it was the silliest thing that you confess to a priest, he tells you to go and say a few hail mary's and all is better. but, that is just a "religion" thing.

i personally just stick with the bible facts. as long as you accept christ as your savior, you are saved. i don't care what church you go to, thems just the facts. god, not church, has been my complete and utter source of strength and i personally put all of my cares in his hands and he gladly takes care of me each and every day. i do happen to have a wonderful church family as well who has been there for everything for me.

many, when faced with marital issues and infidelity, find church and god to be a complete comfort. again, to me, as long as you know the bible to be the truth and that is what you believe it matters not to me where one attends church. i personally, cannot attend one that doesn't follow what the bible states, or one that adds a lot of unecessary fluff. i want a church that sticks the facts. that is me.

for me, "religion" is NOT what the bible is all about. i think many religions just add a lot of tradition, a lot of ceremony that means absolutely nothing to god.

bottom line is: marriage is supposed to be sacred. my ex and i made that vow before god in the church. (baptist it happened to be). marriage is to be taken seriously. my ex cheated more times than i can count. i had 2 choices. put it in god's hands and stay in the marriage and try (which i did at first) or end the marriage, which, according to the bible, i had every right to do once that first infidelity happened. my gut told me, my inkling from god was, get out because he is never going to change. in god's eyes, NONE of us has to stay in a marriage once there has been adultery. god HATES adultery! it is straight up in the bible. if my ex had just made a mistake, was remorseful, turned to god, wanted forgiveness, etc.. i would have stuck it out. but he did not. he had no remorse, no interest in god, and just kept going and going from woman to woman. nope, i don't have stay for that. i do believe god is pretty specific about that.

it is churches and religion that make any other rules outside of this. because of adultery, i can divorce and still remarry in my church because god says i can divorce on those grounds.

and off on a tangent i went.
sorry.

long story short, i believe in the bible, and not in religion.

that would have been a lot more short and sweet now wouldn't it?? lol

mlhb

Athanasius ~ this thread is beautiful.

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Thank you for that lovely post. Much appreciated. I do have a lot of emotion tied up in my dealings with the church. I will tell you that I deal with the church at least several times per month regarding the issue of safety for children in the flock.

A, I am very happy where I am right now in terms of my relationship with God. I still care about the church and do not want to see it torn asunder. In fact, I want it to thrive... otherwise I would not bother to bring to their leadership the issues that are helping tear it down. I would love to see a response from the church that gives me reason to question my decision to walk away. To date, I have yet to see that.... and it isn't because I am not looking. I too pray for a brighter day for the church. God is surely at work with some of the leaders and many of the followers that still call themselves Catholic. As I have said before... one of the most Christian people I know is my brother and he is Catholic to his core.
I have a difficult time right now discussing any intellectual issue concerning the RCC without having my emotions enter into the discussion. Because some of the things that I have helped bring to the attention of its leadership are still being supported by that same leadership, I do feel betrayed beyond words. But I will say that I have seen some good come out of what has happened. I know that today the children are safer than they were just 5 years ago. I know that today the leadership, while still painfully slow to respond to past offences are more careful how they handle todays offenders (even if they are being motivated by something other than their conscience).
For now I must continue my efforts from the outside. But rest assured, I want nothing more than to see the church live up to its promise. Bottom line in my thinking is that even though there are divisions in Christs Church which have resulted in far too many denominations (and non denominational) churches... we are all Christians and children of God. Our salvation rests in our hearts and our relationship with God... not whether we say Hail Mary's or "talk" with God. The Lord sees what is in our hearts.... man.... those that divided the church look upon the flesh... God sees in our hearts. Mine right now is calling me to stay the course, pray and to be an advocate for the small voices in the house of God.
I will promise you one thing though...I plan on returning for a service (oops, mass) some Sunday soon(I actually make a point to go to services at churches other than my own quite frequently but have avoided the RCC). I will leave my anger at the door and pray for His direction.
Thank you again for your kind and
inspiring" words.

MEDC

"The Arguing about Religion Thread"

Gee, how novel, we've never had one of these. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Jo (a Believer)

Athanasius - I can argue both sides of the Catholic/Protestant things. Just give me a bit of time to figure out which side I'm on today.

Very interesting.

I hate the way we can find ourselves labelled ‘Catholic’ or ‘Protestant’. I’ve never been a ‘Catholic’ but I’ve never considered myself a ‘Protestant’ either. I’m just simply a ‘Christian’ and I just go straight to the source of God’s word for answers and help and knowledge of Him.

I grew up in a church that was considered a cult. I don’t regret in any way the way I grew up, but looking back at our doctrinal beliefs I now understand how wrong they were. If I have read and understood correctly what you meant when you said:

“one of my (Catholic) first principles denies the validity of private interpretations of Scripture in areas where the Catholic Church has spoken.

Then I can identify with this as I was taught to trust the leadership of our church, not questioning them (or you were dis-fellowshipped) and that you had no validity to interpretations of Scripture where the church had spoken. I’ll never fall into that trap again. I have learned to ‘work out my own Salvation’ (Phil 2:12) and look to God’s word for truth, because all we need to know is written right in it. Not a church, not a religion, not a pastor or priest. The Bible has the answers to everything we need an answer for. For me, whatever ‘religion’ you are, whatever ‘denomination’ we belong to, if something is being taught that is not in direct line with the written Word of God, it’s false teaching. I’ve been there, done that and will never do it again. (That tends to mean I’m a little more on the sceptical side of things now because I want to see everything and anything which is taught backed up by Scripture).

I’m now part of a different church, who has minor issues I don’t agree with, but who’s basic doctrinal beliefs I feel are totally in line with the Bible. I don’t think I will ever find a church where I will agree with everything spoken from the pulpit, but that’s ok. In the end, we’ll answer to God for everything and He’ll show us all where we’ve been wrong. But our Salvation rests in our belief in His Son and no-one else, and just as importantly, we need to be spreading the good news of the Gospel (because faith without works is dead).

Just my VERY humble opinion <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Lucyloo,

Right on! Brilliantly written...

Athanasius--

From my perspective, Protestant vs. Catholic vs. Reformed vs. Orthodox vs. Martian . . . all noise in the BIG picture.

Look in any one of those groupings and you'll find sub-groups that secretly or openly distance themselves from each other. Even those religions viewed as "cults" can't keep a cohesive organization most of the time.

For me, it comes down to some Essentials -- facts, beliefs, tenets that should be consistent across any group that claims the broad category of "Christianity" be they Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Independent or Methodist . . . etc (there are many so I didn't omit any one group intentionally).

For me, the essentials should be those core beliefs that can be used to distinguish between Christianity and other religions. Many of the topics that we use to "divide" ourselves in Christianity are (or at least should be) preferences or personal choices.

Again, my opinion, but the essentials are (somewhat abridged):

• The authority of Scripture: who authored it, how trustworty is it, what is its purpose
• The existence of a triune God: one who is self-existant, omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and loving who created the universe
• Nature of man: a physical and spiritual being who was created in the image of God but is separated from Him by sin -- man's personal transgressions against God's laws and deserving of eternal separation from God
• Jesus Christ: fully God and fully man, came to earth for the purpose of providing the substitutionary sacrifice as the only means to restore man's fellowship with God and be saved from eternal separation from God. He physically died and rose and will one day return.
• Purpose of the Church: a God-ordained institution headed by Christ that is intended to provide for the fellowship, worship, support and building up of believers.

Certainly, there's a lot more on each subject, but I'm trying to be brief.

What's not on the list? Communion/Lord's Supper/Eucharist; Baptism; Confession; King James vs. NIV vs. Living vs. NASB; Tithing; Marriage; Divorce; Drinking; Dancing; homosexuality; Revelations; tongues; etc, etc, etc

I'm not saying that "Christians" can't have or shouldn't have strong OPINIONS on these topics -- I think a mature Christian should have opinions based on their study of scripture and prayer and teaching.

What I'm trying to say is that I believe it is possible for Christians to disagree about the topics NOT on the "Essential" list and still be God-fearing, Going-to-heaven-when-you-die Christians. Will some of us be right about those topics and some of us be wrong? Sure.

The point is that, for me, the Essentials are the core beliefs that I believe people must agree upon to be considered Christians, whether or not they also want to tack on the title of Catholic or Baptist or Lutheran or Episcopalean or .........

Disagree on the essentials and I think you've got a hard time lining yourself up Scripturally with Christianity.

Not judgemental -- just the definition of the group.

Not trying to be exclusionary -- just trying to create boundaries to help determine where individual beliefs align.

Such is my take on things.

And I'll be quiet now.

Thanks

You also need to think about the "religion vs relationship" angle as well. Anyone can become religious about anything, but to me, it's my own personal relationship with God-the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that puts me in the catagorey with other God fearing Christians. BUT, I've seen Christianity become a religion and not a relationship. I think I like how Artor has put it in this line:

Disagree on the essentials and I think you've got a hard time lining yourself up Scripturally with Christianity.

Of course, now there will be debates on the essentials, but look to God's Word and you will find the answers.

Lucyloo and Artor.... both very well said!

A... this is the one thing you said that concerns me the most.



Put aside "private interpretations" and think about this for a minute... and open your Bible and read the references here and let me know what you think. One of the issues that I have always had with the Church is that many feel that they are unable to question the leadership...and that only leads to a corrupt bunch of leaders. YOU are the Church. YOU should be willing to stand up to the leaders of the Church... as you implored of me yesterday.. and make them accountable for their teachings as well as their actions. JMO.

The Bible teaches that it is Scripture (not papal authority) that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. The verse even says that even an angel from Heaven, if they teach things that are not scripturally based are doomed.

You asked if there was an attempt to have you switch to another church or to renounce your current faith. I will say, for me, emphatically "no." You do not need to leave the church in order to be a saved Christian. You have found your faith in God and you should be where He has called you to be. But please just remember that the leaders of your church... from the pope on down..are men and as such have made terrible mistakes. Put your faith in God and not the church. Again, JMO.

“I don’t wish to discuss religion with you at all for a number of reasons.”

Athanasius – you have the right to discuss or not discuss any subject you wish to discuss or ignore. That is your right, as it is the right of everyone.

You seem to want to seek to “divorce” discussion, i.e., about marriage, confession of sin, etc., from God and what God has to say about it. That is certainly your right if you choose that path, but as a believer yourself, I would assume that you also believe that those things are intimately connected to a belief in God as the “one who has the word of ‘right’ and ‘purpose’ for those things, or in “self” as an autonomous individual without God.

So the “logical” question would be “how do you ‘divorce’ God from the subject matter and keep the discussion purely theoretical or ‘humanistic’ in focus? Psychology is interesting as it pertains to relationships, even relevant, especially with reference to infidelity, but that is pretty much the focus of Marriage Builders as a method of ending or preventing affairs, and in building a loving marriage based upon meeting the needs of the spouse.

When you move the subject matter into areas of faith, you automatically bring God and His view into the discussion, not I.

This is precisely what you did on the previous thread to which you refer; Catholic Doctrines & Marital Happiness -- #2 -- Confession and Fog .

You tied Roman Catholic doctrines directly to the discussion, and now you make assumptions about my “motives” in posting and perhaps even direct attacks on my “sincerity” or my own “faith” in Jesus Christ. For those who have been around here for a while, it is no surprise to them what my position is. Some agree and some disagree, but they are all (hopefully) pretty clear about what I believe. So let me spend a minute addressing that for you in response to your questions that reveal you may be making “disrespectful judgments” of your own toward me, my beliefs, and my motivation for posting.




Many have preceded you in this view. Many do not want God and His purpose for marriage to “enter the picture.” But as a believer I have to admit to a little surprise in hearing this same sort of argument from you. You do believe that marriage is a covenant with God, don’t you? It is not merely some “animalistic” bonding of chance, convenience, and natural instinct that “evolved” over time, is it?

There have been many on this system who do have a faith in God and in the Covenant of Marriage in Christ who come with questions, doubts, fears, uncertainty, attacks on their faith, etc. who do appreciate that the infidelity problem is not “divorced” from God but is, in fact, an expression of sin and willful defiance against God and their “one flesh” marriage. They come, as I did and you cannot in your “singlehood,” in the smoking devastation that craters a marriage, and yes, even one’s faith in God, that adultery visits upon a marriage, and especially upon the Faithful Spouse (Betrayed Spouse). Are you arguing that it is “inappropriate” to building up marriages to involve God in the solution to the problem of infidelity in their marriage and their relationship with God?




Yes, Athanasius, if you hold to what was underlined, you are saved and justified before God. There are many who identify themselves as Roman Catholics who hold to the same belief.

However, that is not the official position of the Roman Catholic Church. One would think that if one is going to “identify” with a given “religion” then one would embrace ALL the teachings of that “religion.” To “call” oneself something is not necessarily the same thing as “being” what they claim to be. Many have left the Roman Catholic Church for that very reason. Claiming to be a Roman Catholic, a Protestant, a Mormon, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Jew, an Atheist, etc. conveys to others that you embrace the teachings, doctrines, and beliefs of that particular “religion.”



No. Conversion is up to God, not me. My only responsibility is to stand ready to answer the question, “Why do you believe what you believe” to inquiring minds and to stand ready to “defend” the gospel message when various “messages” are presented. This is precisely what Jesus was saying when He responded to do the devil, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’” (Matt. 4:4)

Responding is no different from what Jesus did in responding to the errors of the teachings of the Pharisees. It is not an “attempt to convert you.” It is addressing error in teaching that is “at odds” with the Scripture (the Word of God).




Neither. There are people within the Roman Catholic Church who believe as you stated in the piece I earlier underlined.

But your question also reveals a potential fundamental difference between the Roman Catholic faith and the biblical Christian faith.

There is no “losing” of one’s salvation if one is truly born again ("No one can snatch the out of my hand"). That is not the same thing as saying someone could “lose their faith” in a given religious doctrine of a given “Religion.” Being “skeptical” also does not equate to “losing one’s faith in Jesus.” Skepticism is more related to either pre-belief views concerning God and Jesus Christ or to a “baby in Christ” who has not yet proceeded along the path of “maturing in the faith” wherein those areas of “skepticism” or “doubt” or “confusion” or “lack of knowledge” have not yet been explored and addressed.

The Roman Catholic teaching, however, teaches that a believer CAN lose their salvation. That is the inherent teaching of the concept of “Mortal Sins,” and was, hence, the basis of my original question to you regarding the need for Confession to a Catholic Priest about adultery.




I have no desire to “detach” you from the Roman Catholic Church. You have stated your belief in your salvation and justification before God rests in Jesus, and in Jesus alone. But are also correct that as a believer, albeit a “young” one, the issues and topics you raised (i.e., Biblical exegesis, the relationship of faith and reason, the nature of texts and language itself, the history of Christianity and its dogmas, the typology of heresy) are things that you will need to address over time. They are fundamental to “maturing in the faith,” and I’m sure you would agree that only God’s position, as revealed to us in His Word, is the “right” position regardless of what “religious denomination” we choose to associate with. It may result in someone coming to the conclusion that they cannot in all good conscience continue in a religion that does not adhere to God’s clear teaching, but that is a personal decision for each person to make for themselves.


As for the questions you asked; “Are you willing to undertake the long, hard discussions necessary for me to become a Protestant? Do you have the time and the knowledge for it?” , I am willing to discuss the “difficult” as well as the “easy.” I will make the time available, over time and not to the exclusion of all of my other responsibilities, to discuss these things with anyone who is sincerely inquiring about them. As for the “knowledge for it,” I have more than some and less than others, but I always base it upon the Scripture and defer to Scripture anytime I might “feel” something that would conflict with God’s Word.

“Free Will” is just one of those “difficult issues” and is what is wrapped up tightly in Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, and Reformed thinking and doctrine with respect to how people are Justified by God. I will give you another post that touches on that very issue.




Of course I am concerned about possible damage to BS’s and WS’s on this board, regardless of their faith. I have “bowed out” of many threads when it became obvious, or was stated, that they had no interest in the biblical perspective on their situation. By the same token I have not “meekly run away” from threads that adamantly attacked God and the gospel message, not to change the mind of the poster or hurt potential readers, but to stand for the gospel against untruths that are presented as “gospel” (for example evolution vs. creation).

To put your argument into perspective, and to potentially answer your questions, let me ask you if you think Paul should have “kept quite” and not confronted Peter and the church in Jerusalem about the issue of “works” being added to faith as a requirement for justification? Certainly there might have been those within hearing of Paul’s arguments who could have been “damaged,” as you say, by Paul’s “calling into question” the requirement that “Gentile believers” must also be circumcised. Should Paul have remained silent and not spoken for God’s truth and allowed “error” to go “unchallenged” in love?



Athanasius, I will NEVER ask you to simply “trust me” simply because I might say something. I will ALWAYS defer to Scripture and encourage anyone to check all things against the Word of God. “Man,” all men including me, are NOT free from potential error. That also, in opposition to RCC doctrine, includes the Pope, both current and all previous Popes. When you say you will “trust the Catholic Church” my response would be simple a question. Will you trust the Catholic Church over the Word of God when they are “in conflict” with each other? In whom IS your trust, God or the Church? Consider the 7 churches in Revelation in this respect. The "lampstands" in that passage of Revelation seem to very clearly be the "leaders" of each of the 7 churches and not angelic beings.

There was no “Roman Catholic Church” in the beginning. But there was Jesus Christ and there was the Word of God, the Scriptures. Faith and standing before Holy God is NOT dependent upon any earthly “religion,” it is based solely upon Jesus Christ.



Yes, I think I do. But then you launched into a series of posts doing just that.


God bless.

Athansius – there is nothing at all “wrong” with trying to use human reason to try to understand God’s will for us in marriage. I agree that God’s will in this area is vital to and understanding of marriage as God intended it. I only question your “approach” when you try to go against your own herein stated premise and try to “divorce” the discussion from God and His purpose.



I agree, it is something that we could discuss.

Athanasius, you asked me some questions and since you have not been around long enough to know my positions on these questions, let me answer them for you.


“Do you believe Mary was a virgin when she conceived Him?”

Yes.


“Do you believe that He was both fully God and fully man?”

Yes.


“Do you believe He was the Divine Word made flesh?”

Yes.


“Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is actually one being with God the Father?”

Yes, along with the Holy Spirit. But since your question is not precisely clear let me state it this way…… ONE God, Three "persons" = the Trinity, the Triune God,

“Do you believe in the Holy Trinity?”

Yes. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three in one.



We both believe He died on the Cross but rose again. We both believe this event is the central event in human history and makes possible our salvation. We both believe He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead. We both believe that human souls are immortal and will be in either bliss or agony. Do you believe that in the resurrection we will be reunited with our physical bodies, transformed and glorified?” [/i]

Yes.


“Were my assumptions right? Can you think of any other common ground?”

Yes. And Yes. From your previous statement of “Faith alone” there is likely to be common ground there too, unless you misspoke earlier.


God bless.

Athanasius, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to believe, as am I and as is everyone else.

“Sincerity of belief” is not, and never has been, the issue. Anyone can be “sincerely wrong.”

You bring up the issue of Paul and try to “parse” his argument to Peter as “merely” being applicable to “reassuring his converts.” That argument doesn’t stand on it’s own merits. Paul could just as easily have stayed in the “Gentile lands” and raised up churches according to his teaching and left the Jewish churches to the “misguided” teaching of Peter and the Jerusalem church. He didn’t, and Peter and the church learned from Paul’s opposition to the “untruth” of works being needed.


“I think it leads fairly quickly to a belief that one's own salvation is assured and that leads to complete disregard for the Biblical moral law, as numerous BSs on this board attest.”

That it CAN lead to a disregard of biblical teaching is nothing new, not within Protestantism or Roman Catholicism, or in any “faith” that relies on the works of the individual to merit justification in God’s sight. That has been the “lot” of mankind since the beginning. It is one reason why we are told to love the Lord with all of our heart, mind and soul. It is engaging our total being in the process of learning and of becoming more “Christ-like” in our lives.

Paul addresses this very issue of abusing “Christian liberty,” and we could discuss that at length too.


“Being Biblical matters to me.”

If this is truly how you feel, then I am in agreement. If this is truly how you feel, then my next post to you may take on greater relevance to opinions you stated such as “I think the first principles of Protestantism (or from my vantage point, Roman Catholicism) are absurd, self-contradictory, annul themselves, promote pride, and make nonsense of the very idea of Revelation.

God bless.

Athanasius – the real question you are asking, and arguing from your own perspective, is “why do I believe what I believe?” That is consistent with the biblical directive to stand ready to give an answer to that question to anyone who asks, “why do you believe what you believe?”

So let me answer your question very briefly before getting into more “detailed” specifics.

Sola Fide – Faith Alone

Sola Scriptura – Scripture Alone

Those are the fundamental beliefs (or concepts if you prefer) of the Christian faith, regardless of any “denomination.”

The fundamental difference between traditional Protestant religion and Roman Catholic religion is found in those two areas. They speak to the heart of doctrine, correct gospel or “another gospel.” The Roman Catholic position believes in Faith, but rejects “Alone.” The Protestant position is that Faith Alone is what justifies believers before God and that “good works” have no part in the “justifying.” Rather, “good works” come as a result of a changed nature that strives to be pleasing to God, a “natural” outflow of a “changed nature” that is worked by God, not by us.

These two issues have a direct bearing on the concept of “Justification” before God. Roman Catholics “hang their belief” in whole, or in large part, on James and his comments about faith and works. This is done in a misinterpretation and misunderstand of what James was trying to teach. In essence, James was addressing the idea that a mere profession of faith is “not enough” be a truly “born again” Christian. True faith is seen in(results in) the works that follow becoming a “new creation” by the act of God, not by the act of ourselves. In addition, they(RCC) “add” to that position a Semi-Pelagian position that Man is “capable” of “good works” independent of God that reach to the level of “self justification” before God. In short, they argue that we become justified, or attain justification (a purely forensic term), before God based on our own merit and efforts.

This justification is declared by God and is His judgment of believers. Where this “justification” comes from and why God considers a believer “justified” is at the heart of the difference between Roman Catholic teaching and reformed teaching (Protestant).

To summarize the key difference we can look at the key difference between the two views concerning how we are justified before the Lord.

Roman Catholic View ---- > Faith + Works ---- > Justification

Reformation View --------- > Faith ---- > Justification + Works


To quote from Faith Alone by R.C. Sproul, pages 167-138:
“James, far from denying sola fide, is showing that the faith that justifies is not a faith that is alone. His treatment does not vitiate either Paul’s or the Reformers’ doctrine, though indeed it deals a fatal blow to all forms of antinomianism.

In Romans Paul declares: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Rom. 3:27-28 NKJV).

The word therefore signifies that an apostolic conclusion is about to follow. Paul concludes unambiguously – that justification is by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

Charles Hodge says of this: “If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther’s version, therefore, ‘allein durch den glauben,’ is fully justified by the context.

Hodge also notes that, though modern Roman Catholics protest Luther’s insertion of the word allein, Catholic translators before Luther had done the same: “So in the Nuremberg Bible (1843), ‘Nur durch den glauben.’ And the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538), ‘per sola fide.’””


God bless.

Praying on your behalf is a privelege. Thank you for asking.

By God's grace we shall meet before the throne of God through the imputation of Christ's holiness to us, resting in what He did for us and not on anything that we did to merit being justified by God.

God bless.

Ditto what MEDC said!

That's a relief.

Er, I have some things to do IRL so it will take a while before I respond to the rest of this.

Dear ForeverHers,

My doubts about your “good faith” were only about your good faith as an intellectual interlocutor, never about your Christian faith, your zeal for truth or your commitment to practicing charity. Now that you’re treating me with respect and discussing first principles as I requested, those doubts have gone away.

I want to clarify something. It seems to me that Sola Fides is not actually one of your first principles.

Rather, Sola Fides seems to be a conclusion that you have reached from studying the Holy Scripture, according to the first principle Sola Scriptura. You are presenting Biblically-based arguments for Sola Fides, and attacking Catholic Biblically-based arguments against it: that makes it a conclusion, not a principle.

A number of the other posters seem to concur with Sola Scriptura without necessarily being convinced of your rigorous version of Sola Fides.

Is it correct to say that you are arguing that the Bible, when read according to the principle Sola Scriptura, teaches Sola Fides?

I assume you would reject any argument from Tradition, the Consensus Patruum (the argument from the agreement of the Fathers of the Church, for the non-theological bystanders), the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, the Authority of the Catholic Church, papal encyclicals, etc., since none of those count, according to the principle Sola Scriptura.

But does the mere fact that the RCC considers such arguments while interpreting the Holy Scriptures make it unbiblical, in your eyes? In other words, do you accuse the RCC of being unbiblical solely because it is not teaching the doctrine of Sola Fides, which you claim is the content of the Biblical revelation, or do you also accuse it of being unbiblical because it does not read the Bible according to the principle Sola Scriptura?

Athanasius - I owe you an explanation. I am leaving the forums. You can read about the reasons if you care to that were posted on your other thread.

I owe you the courtesy of answering, even if it is briefly, your questions in your last post, so I will do that and then consider my participation at an end.




This is incorrect. Sola Fide is a key principle and a key defining difference between Roman Catholic and Reformed (Protestant, if you will) beliefs. It is the defining difference between the two and the basis of the Reformation inaugurated by then RCC priest Martin Luther.




Again I would have to disagree with your conclusion or your understanding on this issue. Sola Fide certain is a conclusion in the same vein that one could call a decision to surrender one's life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is a "conclusion" based upon Scripture concerning Jesus.

But it is not a "conclusion" in the sense of "concluding," or making an opinion, about something that is not clearly revealed in Scripture (i.e., pre, mid, or post tribulation rapture). It is a conclusion reached as a surrender to what the Scripture clearly and unabiguously teaches, just as clearly teaches that Jesus was both fully God and fully human. That's not something that our finite minds can really "get around," but it is nonetheless true because Scripture clearly states it. God requires, if you will, our surrender to Him, not necessarily our full understanding.

If I were to continue our discussion I would give you several Scripture references that make it clear that Faith Alone is what saves us and not anything at all that we do.

That would lead into an area that is fraught with disagreement and misunderstandings, but is also nonetheless vital to the issue of how we are Justified in God's sight and what we, as fallen sinners before we are saved, are even capable of doing because of that sin-nature.

Suffice it to say that Paul makes it very clear that ONLY faith is what saves. Jesus makes it clear that when we are saved, we are saved for all eternity because of HIS power, not our power or anything we can do. Nothing can snatch us out of His hand and we cannot lose our salvation.

That having been said, what we are talking about is growing in the knowledge and understanding of the truth, as it is revealed to us in the Scripture. We are NOT talking about someone losing their salvation, which is one of the teachings of the RCC that I obviously disagree with on biblical grounds, not personal opinion.



Naturally. I never said they didn't. But once again, it is relatively "unimportant" what I or anyone else may "sincerely believe" or "insincerely believe." What is important is what God actually teaches in Scripture, because the Word of God is how God has chosen to reveal Himself and His will to us.

Before I really took on the task of studying this issue of Free Will and how it applies to Faith Alone, I also leaned toward the idea that I "chose" God on my own. But even that sort of "choosing" begs the question that is at the heart of the "problem." If I "choose" God, on my own, without God first choosing me, then I have, in effect, performed a "work" that by itself is meritorious in the sight of God and becomes something that I can "boast about" because "I chose God!" The reality is that as an unsaved sinner I am/was incapable of choosing God by the very sin-nature I was born with. But to go further than this would require much more back-and-forth discussion that I no longer have available. I would suggest a couple of books for you to read, if you are interested in learning more about this. The first is called Willing to Believe, by R.C.Sproul. That would be a good starting point that really traces the history the struggle over the issue of Free Will and saving faith.

The second book is also by R.C. Sproul and it is called Faith Alone.

Neither of them are "quick reads" because they really prompt one to reflect and think about the issues.




That's almost a "chicken or the egg" sort of question. Let me answer it this way. If one does not believe that the Scripture IS the Word of God, inerrant and inspired in the original writings, then it would logically mean that anyone could "pick and choose" what appealed to them and what they wanted to dismiss. If one accepts the Word of God as the inerrant and inspired revelation of God, then what it contains and what it reveals IS the Word of God on the "matter" and it really doesn't matter a lot if I happen to personally "like it or not." God is Sovereign, not me and not any man.




Too big of an issue to answer briefly. So let me just answer it this way; insofaras they are consistant and in harmony with the Scripture I would have no problem with them. When they in "conflict" with Scripture, God trumps the opinions of Man.




When you include the word "soley," as in "do you accuse the RCC of being unbiblical solely because it is not teaching the doctrine of Sola Fides," you are "missing the point" by trying to limit the areas of disagreement to just one issue. Having said that, the issue of the differences in opinion of "Sola Fide" IS where the "pivotal branching" of the teachings of the churches divide. On the "one side" is faith alone, saved by the unmerited grace and mercy of God according to His good will. On the "other side" is faith plus the works of man, beginning with man choosing God without God choosing him and then continuing into being Justified by faith plus works or your salvation can be lost. Very big topics and much discussion required to air areas of confusion and question. But the books I recommended to you would do a much better job than I could of looking at both sides of the issue.

God bless and may God continue to illumine your mind with His understanding.

[Gulp]

You're already doing more than I dared hope for in my most wild presumption....

I'm truly humbled, MEDC.

Thank you.

(I figured your relationship with the Church was something like a BS who had had a D....but you're more like a BS who's WS won't promise NC....the lava makes a lot more sense now.)


Er, may I make a plug for my own liturgical preferences? Have you ever attended a traditional Mass? They threw out the traditional Mass in 1969 and banned it for twenty years...and it's still hard to find...but it is the way Western Catholics worshipped from at least Gregory the Great (i.e. 600 AD) until 1965. I really prefer it, personally.


Please pray for me!

I wish to clarify that the harsh things I said about Protestantism are intellectual critiques of a system of thought.

I believe that this system of thought is internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.

I certainly mean no disrespect or hostility towards individuals who are participating in this system of thought or living according to it.

On the contrary, I'm quite sure that millions of Protestants are better Christians and living the Gospel with more faith, hope, and charity than I am.

Well said. And yes, that is where the lava comes from. I would be so very proud of the Church if they saw the problem... recognized that action needed to be taken and made clear and concrete steps to rectify things. I would be so proud. I think it is just a matter of time. The leaders of the church are a stubborn bunch that need to be pulled along. I had posted that article about father Mac.. I believe with all my heart that if and when a man of his stature ascends to a leadership position in the Church, she will reach her true potential. Right now there is a flock in need of direction and an influx of spirit. That will only come from change and heart. YOU have that heart... it is obvious. Be willing to question everything and YOU will help bring about the change that will make your Church... your heart...such a wonderful place... worthy of being called a House of God.

Ant... I will once again thank you for your words. They are very kind. I will pray for you.

My first "return" to mass will be at the church where I have some demons to slay. God has made it clear to me that it is time to return there. I will keep your suggestion in mind though.

Prayers,

MEDC

MEDC,

I have a question about this whole catastrophe. Are most of the perpetuators and the concealing bishops in a tight age range? Between 50 and 70, especially between mid-50s and mid-60s?

ForeverHers,

I welcome your decision to withdraw from this discussion, which I do not feel will do anyone any good, and may harm some, and will certainly tempt me into all sorts of not-very-charitable thoughts, emotions, and statements.

If people wish to read Catholic or Protestant apologetics they can go to any bookstore in the country and pick up something about it.

I think the most Christ-like resolution of this situation is for us to agree to pray for one another without further personal communication.

If you do wish to resume this discussion, please do so on THIS thread only.

Athanasius – I will give you one more post (this one) out of courtesy and respect, and I will “restrict” my post to this thread as you requested, but I do not wish to “resume” any discussion. The sole purpose of even this last post is to provide you with some last information and to ask you to consider rereading your thread about Confession from beginning to end after you have let a few days or more pass. Perhaps you will see that I was not attempting to “threadjack” as others have accused, nor was I attempting to get you to abandon the RCC. I was attempting to speak to you as a brother in Christ, not as a member of any church that may, or may not, be founded in Scripture.


Tempers began to rise when you posted your feelings of anger, and others began to quickly jump on the bandwagon. As I told you, your declaration of your own personal faith being “in faith alone” is biblical and is all that is needed for anyone to be a Christian, regardless of what church or worship style in a given church they might happen to like or be more comfortable with.

I remain at a loss as to why you became so “outraged,” because I never called your faith in Jesus Christ into question. But, be that as it may, I am cannot control how someone feels about anything anymore than any BS can control what their WS feels. The feeling of anger may be justified or it may be unjustified, but allowing the emotions to control the responses is detrimental to all discussions, here or in a marriage.

So let me make a few closing comments, and then after 5 years on the system of trying to help others, though imperfectly at times, I think it best that I simply “go away.”





Okay. And my comments were equally said as “intellectual critiques of system of thought.” But I obviously don’t have the same right to speak it or discuss it, as several posters put it, including Pep’s interesting judgment of “rude rude rude.”

I understand that from your perspective “this (I assume you mean Protestant) system of of thought is internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.” Would it possible that you might grant me the same “belief” (or opinion) of the RCC official church positions on many areas to be equally “internally incoherent and often damaging to those who participate in it.?”

There are areas of disagreement, but the “authority” in all matters “Christian” is the Scripture, the Word of God, wouldn’t you agree? I suspect your answer would be “no,” only because you stated it clearly and definitively; “I am a convert to Catholicism so cannot ignore ANY of the Church's teachings although there are many I do not understand.”

If I misunderstood and you would say that the authority is the Scripture(which you also did, I believe) and not the “church leaders” when they might say something that is in conflict with the Scripture, then it would seem to be simple logic that your statement of “cannot” might be more appropriated phrased “will not”, as in a choice and not in a lack of capacity to exercise your God-given free will.



As MarriedForever stated, he does not believe in Sola Scriptura. He puts the Pope, when the Pope is speaking about the RCC, on the same level as Scripture, with the added emphasis of the Pope being infallible.

As MarriedForever put it; “This concept of sola scriptura is probably one of the most crucial ones to explain….because once you understand WHY we do not believe in sola scriptura, it’s much easier to see where we have gotten our “other” traditions…we can get more into it, but basically we don’t believe in sola scriptura because IT ISN’T SCRIPTURAL!!!! You will not find that concept ANYWHERE in the bible…..and so to then turn around and say that you “only” believe what’s in the bible, and nothing else, kind of goes against the whole concept of sola scriptura ….like, Scripture alone is the supreme authority in every principle of faith…in every belief that we have….EXCEPT in this one, since the bible never says a THING about sola scriptura!!!! Kind of confusing, isn’t it?”

That was his opinion, and I would disagree with his opinion in that the Scripture does truly teach that the Word of God (the Scripture) IS the authoritative Word of God. Jesus, for example did not use “his own interpretation”(“ex cathedra”) of Scripture(though of anyone HE certainly had the authority to write any “new” Scripture he might have wanted) when refuting the Devil, he quoted the Scripture as being authoritative, definitive, and final. “It is written…” But that’s too involved to get into in this last post, so I would simply leave you with a request you reconsider your “cannot” and read the thoughts of the Reformers (i.e. Martin Luther) and others on the issue of “Free Will” as it relates to salvation and justification before God. Learn about Pelagius and the RCC rejection of Pelagianism, but how the RCC embraces a “semi-Pelagian” view. The fact that the RCC does place the teaching of the Pope on a level of “perfection, infallibility, of the same level of inspiration as the Scripture” is what MarriedForever wrote about; “"ex cathedra" - that is, on Peter's throne, as the head of the Catholic Church....so, he is only infallible in MATTERS OF THE CHURCH.” It would seem logical that “matters of the church” also applies the doctrines of the church, but I guess I could be wrong.

To my knowledge there has only been one perfect man, one infallible man, and that was Jesus Christ. It is equally obvious that Peter himself was not infallible and not perfect in what he said and did. I previously gave you one example of that about Peter’s teaching , or “going along with the Jerusalem Church, that Gentile believers needed to be circumcised in order to truly become Christians. That he recanted that position is also equally clear. Peter’s position before Paul came to meet with church in Jerusalem WAS “on matters of the church,” and was not infallible. The NT Scripture was not yet written at this point. If the Pope truly “sits on the throne of Peter,” then it would seem possible that he, too, might be just like Peter and not infallible when what he says is in conflict with the now finalized Scripture. The Scripture is authoritative and not the men. None of us IS an apostle. That “role” was fulfilled in the beginning and that role ended with the death of John, in so far as I know he was the last living apostle to die.




I share your sentiment and that is exactly why I have chosen to end my participation in Marriage Builders.




Well if you feel that you were “challenged, slapped down, and ignored” by me, then please accept my apology. Perhaps some day when you have the time to reread the posts without the current emotional involvement you will see that I did try to engage you in conversation and discussion and did not try to slap you down and ignore you.





Though this was posted on your other thread, and I am not posting there per your request, I just wanted you to know that you will not have to worry, I will be posting no longer anywhere (other than perhaps a few “good byes” to some I’ve worked with for a while and then no more).

Athanasius, this was the premise and objective that you laid down for your other thread. When I participated in your objective, it didn’t take long for you to become angry for others to pile on the anger bandwagon. Here is what you gave as the purpose and intent of that thread:


“This is part of a series of threads that are more speculative than practical. They involve discussing some Christian and/or Catholic doctrines and the effect on marriage of believing those doctrines. I, a bachelor, seek to gain insight from the married.”

Now you have concluded; “I feel it impossible to get this help if ForeverHers continues to participate or if the other participants reply to him here.”


It IS your thread Athansius and you are entitled to do what you want with it and to request participation or to request someone to refrain from participating.

Far be it from me to make anything “impossible” for you.


May God grant you the wisdom you seek and the ability to know His will.

God bless and go in peace.

not true

I think this thread is the PERFECT place for you to dish whatever you think the Catholic Church has coming!

sincerely ~~~> [color:"red"] go for it FH[/color]

I see this as a boundary issue ... I want a safe place to discuss MY CATHOLIC MARRIAGE NEEDS without having to defend the church at the same time...

so I say to you FH, thanks for bringing your views HERE

Pep

Thank you.

May the grace of Our Lord guide you and protect you always.

Hi Pep,

Thanks for your support. It means a lot to me. You, too, BrambleRose.

Pep - your disrespectful judgments and justifications are showing when you posted this:

"I think this thread is the PERFECT place for you to dish whatever you think the Catholic Church has coming!

sincerely ~~~> [color:"red"]go for it FH[/color]"

I nowhere said anything about anything that I "think the Catholic Church has coming." You seem to put words in my mouth from your own anger and seeming "fogfilter."

You answer like a WS and it is confusing. All that I ever did was to say, in effect, "okay, if that is the 'teaching' that an individual wants to embrace for themselves, wouldn't it be prudent to examine the arguments for and against that 'teaching' with the Scripture (that both claim as being authoritative) as the "referee" and "measure."

When Athanasius listed all the things that he wanted me to answer, ostensibly to determine in his mind if I was Christian at least on the fundamental beliefs of what being a Christian means, I answered him. When he told me that he believed he is saved by faith alone and not by any works he did or may yet do and asked if I thought that made him a Christian, I answered him truthfully "yes." "Being a Christian" is not dependent upon which "group" you choose to associate with. All the group does, as a group, is determine if what is being taught is "of God or of men."


Pep, Athanasius is a "young in the faith, and perhaps zealous, recent believer. I don't know the details of his struggle that he alluded to, but in one respect it is irrelevant. God brings us to GOD, not to a "Church." But we still live in a fallen world and in a fallen body, not having yet received our glorified bodies. Therefore, it seems logical, since God instructs to love God "with all of our heart and our mind," that we EXAMINE what we believe, what is said to us, what is offered as "biblically correct," to determine for ourselves that it IS biblically correct. After all, our heart should be for GOD, not for the church or for any person, first and foremost.

Disagree with that position of mine if you will. But if you do disagree, then at least give the reasons why you disagree. That is the basis of DISCUSSION and evaluation, and NOT of "blind faith."

The official position of the Roman Catholic CHURCH is that no one can BE a Christian if they are not a part of the Roman Catholic Church. They (the RCC leadership) restrict God's ability to save whomever He wishes whenever and whereever they may be. In the rare cases where they grant someone has become a Christian, they require that the person become a Roman Catholic in insure their salvation through submission to the Church (not submission to God) as the primary method of maintaining their faith (they believe that you CAN lose the salvation that you were sealed by the Holy Spirit with when you became saved).

What you argue for is for someone, similar to a BS, allowing a WS to continue in their path without thinking through the full ramifications of their choices and actions, and how they may well impact them, and others, in the future.

I believe you take that position because you have a sort of "foglike" set of blinders on with respect to the thread in question, the one on Confession, that Athanasius began.

One more time, simply for the purpose of clarification, if you want a thread that is restricted to just Catholics and Catholic thought, then by all means start one. But that is NOT what Athanasius started and for the Catholics on that thread to demand that it be ONLY about Catholic thought and doctrine and Catholic opinion IS a "threadjacking" of the thread as it was set forth. One last time, THIS is what Athanasious SET as the parameters of his thread and it was NOT, by his stated intention, to be a thread restricted to or only about Roman Catholic doctine and opinion:

“This is part of a series of threads that are more speculative than practical. They involve discussing some Christian and/or Catholic doctrines and the effect on marriage of believing those doctrines. I, a bachelor, seek to gain insight from the married.”

Pep, I will be celebrating my 32nd wedding anniversary in a few months. I don't know for certain, but I thought that perhaps being married as long as Athanasius has been alive might have given me a little of the 'insight' that he said he might be looking for. Couple that with the fact that I have actually gone through a horrendous affair (6 years) and a Recovery of 4 years, emerging on the other side of it with a Recovered Marriage and with both of us walking closer with the Lord, and that too might have given me a little 'insight' of the sort that he was looking for. Suffice it to say that learning what God has to say about a LOT of things (i.e., marriage, roles of husbands and wives, forgiveness of sin, justification in God's sight, Free Will, reconciliation, etc.) was a BENEFIT of the whole adultery mess in that God used it for HIS purpose according to Romans 8:27-37.


"I see this as a boundary issue ... I want a safe place to discuss MY CATHOLIC MARRIAGE NEEDS without having to defend the church at the same time."

And, Pepperband, you are entitled to have just such a thread if that is what you want. Make it simple on all of us and just clearly and definitively state, "For Roman Catholics Only," and I'm sure that everyone who is not a Roman Catholic would respect your wish. I know I would have, as I have respected the wishes of others, regardless of their belief, who wanted to restrict their thread to, or from, any particular thoughts and ideas.

well said FH.

you are correct

please accept my apology

I was angry, you are correct

Pep

Accepted without reservation Pep.

It is my hope that you will continue as you always have, "fighting the fight" for those who have been ravaged by adultery.

God bless.

God Bless you too

MEDC, do you see how you're applying the Sola Scriptura principle? You're asking me for my private interpretation of the Holy Scripture. So there are two levels in this debate: a disagreement about principles and a disagreement about content.

As to content, I genuinely do not think that, even read according to Sola Scriptura, the Bible teaches Salvation by Faith Alone.


The problem you raise here is very valid. This first principle can lead easily to just trusting whatever some cleric claims the Church says. Or even whatever some cleric does.

But don't worry about me. I'm not prone to clericalism. I'm actually very suspicious of clerics.

OK FH,
i've listened to enough of this debate to actually come of of my normal lurking mode and say to you, YOU CANNOT LEAVE THIS FORUM. YOU CANOT SOMEHOW PICK UP YOUR FOOTBALL AND GO HOME BECAUSE SOMEON HURT FEELINGS.
You are a great Christian, AND you would walk away because...... Hmmmmmmmm,,,, is that what Christ did?
you have been jerked out of your comfort zone, and have decided you don't want to post here anymore?
From a man of the cloth, does this sound like a copout from you or what?
Did Christ back down in the face of His enemies? Did not Peter denie his Christ 3 times in the face of His trials?
If you leave now, in the face of trial, I will never again have any respect for you in all the yaears that I have been reading these forums.

You have a prospective that augments these forums, in spite of yourself. It has nothing really to do with you, but rather, what god may wish to impart to his people.
Urrrrrr..... did you ever stop to consider this?
And thus you have decided to go away.
Let me ask you point blank,,,Is that what Christ did? Was He not dispareged by the Pharisses and the Sanhedrid(sp?).
You must understand, I am a RC. But I know in my heart of hearts that Christ wants you and I to worship oneday, under the same altar..
It is the ultimate sacrilige under God that you and I can be Christian brothers, but do not offer our gifts from the same table. It offends our God beyond our understanding. WHEN WILL WE BECOME ONE?????

All Blessings from a no nothing,
Jerry

shinethrough (Jerry) - I truly appreciate your words, but I'm not "running away."

For me to leave really doesn't have much to do with "hurt feelings." I am well aware of Christ's warning to anyone who would attempt to stand for Him about how they might be received.

Rather, I have been here for almost 5 years now. This latest incident is merely one in a long line and I have seriously considered Pepperband's questions and have concluded that she may well be right. Standing for God IS "offensive" to many and the perception that anyone has will determine how they may receive discussion about things which they may hold an "opposing" opinion about.

I am sensitive to fellow believers, however, and really don't want to put a "stumbling block" rather than a "helping hand" in discussions about the "deeper" issues of the faith.

Devout Roman Catholics have a markedly differing outlook on many of those issues and the other thread merely resulted in emotional reactions taking over rather than reasoned thought. MarriedForever, for example, made the claim that he had "refuted" my previous statements(this goes back to October) when he had, in reality, done nothing of the sort. He had presented opposing opinions which in his mind amounted to a "refutation," but that is not the same thing as "refuting" or "proving the opposite" if you will.

He stated official Roman Catholic position as "fact," because to him it is fact. Athanasius has been doing the same thing. None of that is "surprising" because they both fervently believe the RCC position on things. My only point is that "sincerity of belief" does not automatically equate to being right for me or for them. Scripture is the "final authority," regardless of the opinions of men and it is to Scripture that we should turn when areas of "difficulty" arise to see what God has said about it.

Let's take just one brief point as an example.

I believe, along with many who are of the "Protestant" persuasion, that the Scripture clearly teaches that we are saved eternally by the power of Jesus Christ when we have a true saving faith. That sort of faith is not something that we, as fallen humans, can "muster" on our own. Free Will, and arguments for it as it relates to "choosing God," appeal to "human reason." But we have to consider what the Scripture says in totality simply because it IS God's Word.

Therefore, in our fallen state we are incapable of "choosing God." God must first choose us and change our nature so that our Free Will is drawn to Him and can choose to surrender to Him. The RCC position is that man is capable of choosing God independent of God first choosing him/her. This "debate" about this issue is one that has gone on for centuries and will likely continue until Christ returns. But the bottom line is that it is the indwelling Holy Spirit who guides and illumines our understanding as we study in order to bring us into a closer relationship with God. We can understand the things that God has revealed to us and some things God has retained for Himself and we will not fully understand them until we are with Him. The doctrine of election, clearly taught in the Scripture as being true, "confounds the human mind" because we have a hard time understanding it because it doesn't seem "fair" to our human reason. That may be the case, but we cannot ignore it either because it is taught as truth and it is taught as being "God's will," not Man's will.

Our "position," if you will on this issue is not, imho, "vital" to whether or not we are saved. It does bear on our "maturing in the faith" as the writer of Hebrews put it; "But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. (this also speaks to Athanasius' issue of "private interpretation") Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity..." (Heb.5:14-6:1a)

God is not bound by what we do or don't do, what we understand or don't understand. God wills as God wills. A careful examination of the issue presents arguments for and against a "biblical truth," and then we have to choose (exercise our Free Will) what makes sense according to God's Word. Sometimes that choice seems "against human reason," but that's okay. God's truth does not have to "jibe" with human reason. One "easy" example of that is the issue of marriage. God clearly reveals that the "two are no longer two, but one flesh." WE humans can't really understand this mystery or how it happens, and we can choose to "reject" the stated truth because we "know" that there are still two of us, a husband and a wife. But if we are to be true to God and not "Man's reasoning ability," then we, as believers, have to accept what God has said as being TRUTH whether we understand it fully or not.

The same holds true for the issue of Salvation and Justification. We must look at the whole of Scripture, not just the "parts that support our opinion," if there are other "parts" that speak to a position that would be contrary to our opinion.

There is a position taken by the RCC that someone can lose their salvation through the commission of what are referred to as "Mortal Sins." ONLY by going through the rites established by the RCC and one "regain" their salvation and justification before God. That, in essence, is the equivalent of "do it my way, or God can't do 'His thing'."

The "opposing position is that a truly born again believer CANNOT lose his/her salvation because it is maintained NOT by the person, but is maintained by Jesus Christ("No one can snatch them out of my hand"). When Christ tells people in the future, "Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you," it means that Christ NEVER knew them. They were never saved to begin with. It is not "Away from me, I knew you once upon a time, but I don't know you any longer."

That is at the heart of what the writer of Hebrews meant when he wrote "It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance, because to their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to disgrace." (Hebrews 6:4-6, emphasis added)

What the writer is talking about is a very simple "what if" scenario. Given that no one can snatch a believer out of the hand of Christ, our bridegroom, the writer postulates the hypothetical condition "what if it were possible?" The writer then concludes that it would be impossible for them to regain the salvation they would have lost because it would then be tantamount to Christ having to die a SECOND, or THIRD, or ad finitum potential number of times for their sins instead of ONE time, ONCE FOR ALL.

This is NOT a situation where the writer is saying that a believer CAN lose his salvation. It is a situation where the writer in effect says, "Okay, let's assume it WAS possible for a believer to lose his salvation. IF that happened then what would be the possibility that that person could again 'become' saved?"

No, the "logical" conclusion is that Jesus had it right all alone. "I NEVER knew you," meaning that they were never saved to begin with.

IF a believer falls into sin, such as adultery, it does NOT mean that they "lose" their salvation as a result, but it does mean that if they are truly saved they WILL repent. If they remain unrepentant it is prima facia testimony that they NEVER WERE saved despite any of their claims to be a "Christian," in the same way that someone who denies Christ is the Son of God CAN "claim" that they are a Christian, but they really are not.

This is the basis of the objection that those who Jesus tells "Away from me you evildoers" use to try to justify themselves based upon THEIR OWN merits. It does not matter how "good" they or their works were when it comes to Justification before God. This is also the RCC position of Faith plus Works equals Jusfication.




Yes, Jerry, I always considered this. It is NOT our job to "save" anyone or convert anyone. That is God's "job."
It is our responsibilty to stand ready to give an answer as to why we believe what we believe, to "plant seeds" if you will that the Gardner (God) can bring to maturity according to HIS will, not our will.

That is what has kept me posting for so long. But there also comes a time when it is time to move on to "another field" and I think that time has come. If I am wrong in that assessment, I have no doubt that God will do something to show me that I am wrong and that He still has "things for me to do." But I won't stay stay based in "pride" or any such thing that "benefits" me. If it serves God, then fine, but if not, then there is no "point" in remaining.



Since you ask, yes, that is exactly what Jesus did. He "went away" until it was His time. He also went away after answering the questions of the Pharisees.

The apostles, most notably Paul, left many places. Jesus instructed some of them to "shake the dust off their feet" as they left some places.

It isn't an issue of being "disparaged." It is "where best to spend my time" to honor God. Not always an easy answer to that question either.




Jerry, I understand what you are saying and I want to be very sensitive in my answer, as incomplete as it might be.
"WHEN WILL WE BECOME ONE????? " We ARE all "one in Christ" as believers. We will "become" one when sin and evil are banished in the new heaven and the new earth.

In the meantime, we each need to examine ourselves and the beliefs we hold to make sure that we truly are in Christ and not following some "other gospel."

God bless.

P.S. There are no "no nothings" in Christ. Just a bunch of learners who are differing points in their learning, but we all KNOW Christ....and that is enough to begin the learning and maturing.

FH, in what will truly be my last post ever to you, this, in a nutshell, is exactly why I find your posts offensive. I said before that my beliefs my well be fairly close to yours. I am not offended by your message - I am offended by your presentation of that message. I have thought for a long time that you go out of your way to provoke people. I have also seen how you go out of your way to intentionally divert many threads into an argument of religion.

Most people try not to offend others too much, you, OTOH, do it with a vengeance. You count the number of people you have offended as notches on your halo. You have convinced yourself that you are proving your love for Christ by making others hate you. Okay there is a time and a place for that, no doubt. But you actually look to create the opportunities. You don't defend your religion - you make a full frontal assault and force others to defend theirs.

There are many here on this board who are not against your beliefs - they are simply against you because of your demeanor. I only feel compelled to post this not as an attack on you but hopefully as an encouragement to look within yourself and see if there might be a different way of accomplishing your goal. I would encourage you to stay here. I would also encourage you to try to be more open-minded. I'm not asking you to allow that maybe you are wrong in your beliefs. I am asking that you allow others to believe what they do and, if you feel that it is truly wrong (as you and I are in the same opinion of a poster I mentioned a while back), look for positive ways to try to convince them.

There's more than one way to skin a cat and they are a lot easier to skin if you don't scare them all away before you start cutting.

rude.

pot...kettle...pot...kettle...

Hi Pep,

There's something I want to say to you in private. Could you contact me at:
mb.athanasius@yahoo.com ?
Thanks

grindnfool posted on my other thread:

I certainly agree that no matter how "good" we are, it can never be good enough. We ALL need the Redemption which Jesus won for us on the Cross.

I'm not sure why the Crucifixion was necessary for our Redemption. The following is just a theory.

I think it was because the sin of Adam was a rebelllion of the will against God. God values our liberty so He doesn't want to stun us into obedience but persuade us to love Him. The only way for Him to redeem the rebellious human will was to become a man and so unite a human will to his Divine Will, the one perfectly obedient to the other unto the redeeming death on the Cross.

Being "good" enough on our own would be a doctrine of Salvation by Works Alone. Sometimes called Pelagianism.

Dear all,

I will be off-line for the next ten days as very dear friends are coming to visit me from another continent.

All responses to questions, justification of opinions, and Athanasian exegeses of the Holy Scripture will have to wait until then.

Hiroo – perhaps you should consider just this attitude as it pertains to what everyone has said on this thread and on the “Confession” thread. There just might be more truth in there than you think. It is also a reason why I have refrained from posting to you for a very long time. It’s not an answer, it avoidance of the fundamental issues.
But, since you put it into these terms, I will respond to your previous post even though I’ve tried to not respond to any of your posts since you requested that I not respond to you a long time ago. You want to attack the “messenger” again while claiming that we might actually believe the same things. An interesting viewpoint, but not at all unexpected.

“I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But be on your guard against men; they will hand you over to the local councils and flog you in their synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.

Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death. All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another.” (Matt.10:16-23a)

“A student is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master. It is enough for the student to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If the head of the house has been called Beelzebub, how much more the members of his household!

So do not be afraid of them. There is nothing concealed that will not be disclosed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the housetops. Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the one who can destroy both soul and body in he11.” (Matt. 10:24-28, spelling changed to avoid auto editing by the system)

“Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “ ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. Anyone who receives a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man’s reward. And anyone who gives a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose is reward.” (Matt. 10:32-42)

Hiroo – perhaps you have been among the sands of Saudi Arabia too long. Perhaps not. But you seem to have big blinders on with respect to the thread about Confession, the Christian, and/or Roman Catholic “way,” to say nothing about THIS thread that the same author put up….BOTH specifically to discuss religion as part of the discussion or as the primary topic of the discussion.

Maybe Jesus’ words from Matthew that were quoted above will speak more directly to you than I ever could.


This is utter nonsense. I talk about faith when someone wants to talk about faith and I leave threads where they don’t want “God as part of the picture.” I did NOT “divert” Athanasius’ thread on Confession, doctrines, and marriage to “religion.” HE set the discussion and HE wanted to include such discussion. That I made the “egregious” error of BELIEVING him and the parameters he set forth IS my fault. I did not understand that when he said “Christian” he MEANT ONLY Roman Catholic doctrine, and others were quick to jump on the “Catholics only” bandwagon.

I have to say at this point, though I have refrained from doing so previously, that I tend to think this “outrage” of yours and others wanting to turn it into a “Catholics only” thread and not what Athanasius defined in his opening post is but another example of what MEDC has been saying all along. They “blindly follow the teaching of the Church” and will not even consider that they might be in error, in part or in whole, because they are more comfortable with following the teachings of the Church than the teachings of Jesus. If “teachings” are “in conflict,” then it is the DUTY of the individual believer, imho as the Bible has instructed us, to “consider all the facts and arguments” so that they can determine what IS “of God and what is of Men.” And Athanasius himself refuses to “take responsibility” for the very parameters he laid out, letting you and others carry his water for him, much like Saul stood by at the stoning of Stephan.

Just who is being sincere in standing for Jesus and who is “failing” to follow John’s admonition to ALL who claim the name of Jesus Christ? “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1John 4:1)


Hiroo – HERE is what God has said about the issue of Confession and salvation as it applies to the “Confession thread” of Athanasius:

“Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.” (1John 3: 4-6, emphasis added) Believers who fall into sin WILL repent and stop sinning. Unbelievers will not.

THIS is why Jesus made it clear that He WILL tell many who “think” they are saved through their own works, “Away from me you evildoers, I never knew you.” We are NOT saved by any works, no matter how “good” they might seem to human thought. We are saved and justified SOLELY through what Jesus did for us so that “no one can boast.” The ones Jesus is telling to “go away” are boasting in the things that “they had done” and NONE of them (their works) merit justification before God. The RCC teaching of “Mortal Sin” causing a saved person to LOSE their salvation is false simply because Jesus said it was false. Can it “bind” someone to “another gospel?” Yes, it can through manipulation and coercion and intimidation. THE authority is NOT the RCC or any church for that matter. THE authority is the Scripture, for all Christians regardless of what human church they might find themselves attending. The RCC threat of excommunication is a prime example…you cannot be saved unless you are a Roman Catholic, and if you should LEAVE the RCC, then you are NOT saved.

[color:"red"] “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ “But he (Jesus) will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me all you evildoers!” [/color] (Luke 13:26-27)

[color:"red"] Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I (Jesus) will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!” [/color] (Matthew 7:22-23, emphasis added)




You are entitled to your opinion whether I agree with you or not.



You engage in disrespectful judgments and project your own feelings as to how you might perceive things onto me. That does not lend your opinion “truth.”



I get it Hiroo…. One “religion” is as “good as any other.” That’s not what the followers of Islam believe and it’s not what Jesus believes. What is it that YOU believe? You don’t need to answer me, you need to direct your answer to Jesus.




That may well be true, but not in this instance. The “Catholics” came out in force against my beliefs, not me personally. Any animosity directed toward me personally was only because I happened to be the “messenger” and the “available target.” That’s nothing more than the old “go after the speaker, not the message” sort of “refutation.”



IF that “different way” you allude to is to “deny Christ” as the ONLY way to gain salvation, then I don’t really think that would work. If discussing “opposing” opinions about the teachings of Christ and the Scripture is a “different way,” I have been all for that all along. If NOT participating in threads when asked to not participate is a “different way,” then I have done that also as you yourself should be able to personally attest.



Hiroo, I think I understand what you are trying to say. But consider this if you will. NO change ever begins with there first being a “conflict.” Athanasius himself stated that he came to a belief in Christ from a belief in Atheism as a result of a personal struggle and conflict that he had. If what anyone believes about anything is NOT “called into question” by an “opposing” opinion or viewpoint, there will never be a time for the “other person” to perhaps consider the arguments and come to the conclusion that what they believed may actually be incorrect and then commit to a CHANGE. Try “not confronting” or finding other “positive ways to try to convince them” without ever mentioning that what they might be doing or thinking could be wrong. Even “Plan A” and “Plan B” is directed at letting the WS know that their belief in the “rightness” of their affair is wrong. To NOT add the “element” of “confrontation,” of “you may be wrong in your thinking” results in “cakewalking” and being a “doormat,” not in actually helping the situation.




No doubt. And it depends primarily upon each given situation. In THIS situation, the RULES were set to INCLUDE Christian and/or Catholic doctrine, and as soon as I tried to “play by the rules” the swords came out. So you tell me, Hiroo, isn’t that much like the Islamist position regarding speaking anything other than the Koran and Islamist belief?

Athansius, if you truly don't know why Christ's death was "necessary," then you really don't understand Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Antinomianisn, etc. either. You also may not understand why you, me, and all people NEED to be saved by what Jesus Christ for us, why He did it, and why we need to accpet Him as our Lord and Savior.

I would then encourage you to truly study them.

In the meantime, allow me to attempt an answer to your confusion about why Christ had to die.

He had to die because it was the will of God as the ONLY way to reestablish a relationship with His creation that satisfied God's justice that is demanded by sin of any kind. "The wages of sin IS death." Period. No appeal. Nothing that anyone but God could do anything about. It would take the "perfect man, sinless and holy," to pay the price on our behalf. ONLY God "fits that bill."

God said "don't eat from that tree" and God said "I myself will work salvation for you." God said, in effect, "you, my Son, are not 'worthy' of death, but you will die to accomplish our purpose of saving those who are already eternally lost in their own sin." "I must 'forsake you' for the ones we both love, or they will be lost forever, while your pain will be but temporary."

Can you imagine the PAIN and the LOVE? "THIS is love, that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

And we cheapen it with requiring works to maintain or "regain" our salvation or "attain" our salavation as if Christ's sacrifice "once for all" was not enough. God save us from heresy.

Christ sweat drops of blood for us in His pain, and shed His blood for us in obedience and love. We do "works" out of love and gratitude for what Christ has already done for us, not because it "merits" us anything other than the obedience of a servant to his master and the service due Him who first served us.




Yes. And so is Semi-Pelagianism, the stance of the RCC.

Athanasius - your "reminder" is not necessary. I already gave you my word on posting on your other thread.

Sadly, however, you seem to have missed the entire purpose of your other thread with your "conclusion."

"Confession" by an unbeliever is ineffectual.

Conviction of sin in the life of a believer is what the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers DOES, because that is the promise of God to all believers. It is, in essence, the "you can run but you can't hide" from God promise. That conviction of sin is what leads to Confession of that sin and repentance. That is because God has promised to seek out those who have strayed and bring them safely back to the "fold" by HIS power and leading, not by our "efforts." It requires only conviction, repentance, and humble submission to God in obedience to God to be restored to full fellowship, but not to "Regain" a "sonship" with God.

As believers we are Adopted by God into His family and we remain, as adoptees, His children forever based upon God's promise to JESUS, not to us. God does not "unadopt us" anymore than someone can "unadopt" a child they have chosen and actually adopted.

Confession of sin for a believer is VERY effective and not very effective, if at all, for an unbeliever. The effects of the "Fog" that you confuse with "confession" are the normal effects of sin. But true confession does not precede conviction.

Again, and particulary with respect your next "planned thread topic," I have to wonder with Pepperband just what your purpose is in these discussions.

Dear ForeverHers,

Pelagius was formally condemned as a heretic at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 430.

You are not a very credible source for Roman Catholic theology.

I'm not sure but I believe that the RCC permits a certain theological tension between Semi-Pelagianism and Moderate, Middle-Period Augustinianism.

You Calvinists insist that Extreme Late-Period Augustinianism is the Biblical Revelation. If this is true, the history of Christianity, unfortunately, reveals that God was so careless with his Revelation to reveal the Truth to the Apostles, allow it to be forgotten until Augustine reached his Extreme, Late-Period position, then allowed it to vanish again until the monk Gottschalk revived it in the 9th century, then allowed it to vanish a third time until Luther (a bit) and Calvin (mostly) brought the True Light back to Earth.

Thus my counter-accusation that you are preaching "another Gospel".

But how did Augustine and Pelagius sneak into this thread? I thought we were following Sola Scriptura? Who cares what those fifth-century Roman Catholics thought?

In reality Protestants do not really follow their explicit first principle of Sola Scriptura. They interpret the Holy Scripture according to their unacknowledged Tradition which goes from Calvin to Luther to Late-Augustine. They use whatever of general Catholic Tradition was not challenged in the 16th century and only invoke Sola Scriptura while attacking Catholic theological positions with which they disagree.

I certainly believe that the Crucifixion WAS necessary. That's the Biblical-founded dogma. I'm just not sure why. That explanation is theology.

I offered one possible explanation of the necessity. You offered another. Mine is a psychological explanation based on God's Love. Yours is a juridical explanation based on God's Justice. I have a preference for explanations that highlight God's Love.

I'm not concerned about this particular theological difference because I agree with Augustine and Aquinas that all absolute predicates attributed to God describe his Essence ... and so are identical with his Essence and each other.

His Justice and His Love are the same. I don't understand how that works, in many cases. I like to try to understand the Justice in terms of Love. In fact that's the intellectual purpose of my other threads.

No problem with this approach, Athanasius. But I would simply suggest that we all need to be careful to understand all of God's attributes and how they interact with each other. Essentially, God places the same "level" of importance on all of His attributes because He is God. We tend to sometimes emphasis one attribute "over" another sometimes, such as when we say that "God is love" and attempt to portray God just from that one attribute. But that can get us into trouble because God will not allow one attribute to "deny" another attribute, such as in the case of Justice and Love. The justice demanded by God for sin is death. The love of God fulfills that requirement in the death of Jesus, affording us the Love of God through the forgiveness of our sins because of what Jesus did on our behalf that were, and are, incapable of doing.


As for the other issues you mentioned, if you truly want to explore those "original" thoughts we can do that. The "objective" of such a discussion would be to see what was the "original position of the church catholic," not the later Roman Catholic version or the Martin Luther version, depending on how one wants to "label" them.

So if you want to toss those ideas around some, let me give you a starting point....

"The classic issue between Augustinian theology and all forms of semi-Pelagianism focuses on one aspect of the order of salvation (ordo salutis): What is the relationship between regeneration and faith? Is regeneration a monergistic or synergistic work? Must a person first exercise faith in order to be born again? Or must rebirth occur before a person is able to exercise faith? Another way to state the question is this: Is the grace of regeneration operative or cooperative?

Monergistic regeneration means that regeneration is accomplished by a single actor, God. It means literally a "one-working." Synergism, on the other hand, refers to a work that involves the action of two or more parties. It is a co-working. All forms of semi-Pelagianism assert some sort of synergism in the work of regeneration. Usually God's assisting grace is seen as a necessary ingredient, but it is dependent on human cooperation for its efficacy.

The Reformers taught not only that regeneration does precede faith but also that it must precede faith. Because of the mortal bondage of the unregenerate sinner, he cannot have faith until he is changed internally by the operative, monergistic work of the Holy Spirit. Faith is regeneration's fruit, not it's cause." (Willing to Believe, p.23, by R.C. Sproul)

If you don't want to delve into these areas, that's fine too.

FH, I sent you a private email about this thread. Did you get it?

rlt

FH,
I need to ask you a simple and very direct Question.
Do you believe that God has provided us with phrophets, throughout the ages to help us furthur distinguise the true interpretation of His bible?
I will start this as a very simple Q to you, and If you will, continue from there.

All Blessings,
Jerry

rlt - No, I have not received an email from you. If you need to recheck the address it is mbforeverhers@yahoo.com

Jerry, I'm not sure I understand what it you are asking, but I'll take a stab at answering and you can clarify the question as you may think it is needed to get at what you wanted to know.

Certainly the prophets have provided information to us through what is written about them, but the primary purpose of the prophets was to communicate messages directly from God to the people.

I'm not sure if that is what you were asking, so feel free to ask follow up questions.

God bless.

I have to respectfully disagree w/ you about your belief that becoming angry is wrong. The Bible doesn't distinquish between "righteous anger" and "non-righteous anger".

God's focus has always been on our ACTIONS...not our feelings.

Be angry and sin not.

Just b/c people feel anger while discussing their religious belief's, does not mean sins were committed.

~ Marsh

See..

This is why I'm not religious..

Not only can religions not agree between themselves what the "Truth" is, individual religions can't even agree AMONGST THEMSELVES as to what the "Truth" is.

I'm happy out here questioning, thanks.