← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · PaleoBear
Thread ID: 20714 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-10-20
2005-10-20 23:20 | User Profile
The Catholic position on salvation, if we are to believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church and most Catholic doctrinal works, is that to die in a state of mortal sin you lose salvation, i.e., eternally damned. To be in this state is to have committed on mortal sin without confession and absolution (or be in a state of perfect contrition, i.e., sorrow for sin out of love for God and not fear of damnation [i.e., most mortals need not apply]). According to the same sources of authority, missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation is mortal sin. Also the seven deadly sins are capital or mortal sin: anger, lust, gluttony, avarice, envy, pride, sloth (especially spiritual sloth, acedia, i.e., showing up to Mass late, being a bump on a log, etc.).
Now, it is also a requirement that a Catholic go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) once a year. But the Sacrament of Reconciliation is only for mortal sin, though those with only venial can go to dust off their angels wings.
I know that to commit mortal sin one must know it is a mortal sin and have freedom to commit it.
Now, here's my problem. Isn't it infinitely irresponsible to make Confession a requirement just once a year if this sacrament is after all [I]for[/I] mortal sin, which if someone in a state of, it will send him to Hell if he or she gets hit by a bus before going to Confession and receiving Absolution (unless they are rare saint with perfect contrition). It would seem to me if one can go to Hell for all of eternity for a single unconfessed and unabsolved mortal sin shouldn't the Catholic Church have appointed confessors at every street corner lest a person die before confessing and getting Absolution? And given that most Catholics are not going to Confession these days (even most of the active, practicing ones) are they not committing mortal sin? And even for those Catholics going to Confession once a month, are they not committing one or more of the seven deadly sins? Are they free from lust, etc.??!!! If they are not, isn't going even once a month extremely risky, given that they might be killed or die before a Confession and Absolution??!!!!
I am very vexed over this issue of salvation, and especially the rather difficult-- if not impossible for ordinary people, esp. males-- possibility of salvation.
Any help would be much appreciated.
2005-10-21 01:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]The Catholic position on salvation, if we are to believe the Catechism of the Catholic Church and most Catholic doctrinal works, is that to die in a state of mortal sin you lose salvation, i.e., eternally damned. To be in this state is to have committed on mortal sin without confession and absolution (or be in a state of perfect contrition, i.e., sorrow for sin out of love for God and not fear of damnation [i.e., most mortals need not apply]). According to the same sources of authority, missing Mass on Sunday or a Holy Day of Obligation is mortal sin. Also the seven deadly sins are capital or mortal sin: anger, lust, gluttony, avarice, envy, pride, sloth (especially spiritual sloth, acedia, i.e., showing up to Mass late, being a bump on a log, etc.).
Now, it is also a requirement that a Catholic go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) once a year. But the Sacrament of Reconciliation is only for mortal sin, though those with only venial can go to dust off their angels wings.
[/QUOTE]This sounds like a pretty impressive list of mortal sins, and I doubt if anyone on this goes a year without committing one. As a Protestant I don't particularly follow the distinction between mortal and venial sins, or the unique authority, or even any authority at all, of the priestly hierarchy to forgive sins, although I do see the value of confession before men as part of a penitent heart before God.
Overall though for a Christian I believe I John 1:7 "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Christ (continually) cleanses us from all sin" is what provides me assurance of salvation - realistically my only hope of salvation. If one must wait till confession - once a year or once a day - to make my heart right before God, then that is too long, and I am not living right.
I hope that helps Paleo. My prayers are with you.
2005-10-21 07:47 | User Profile
greetings, paleoBear,
Your questions are real thoughtful ones. St John speaks of some sins as "deadly" in one of his letters; that's where we get the "mortal" in mortal sin. Three things are necessary for mortal sin and any one of these items missing makes it no sin: 1) it's gotta be a serious sin 2) you have to know it is a serious sin 3) knowing this, you plan / carry it out any way. ANY one of those three missing implies no sin. English Common Law called it "Malice aforethought".
If there is anything stressed most in the New Testament, it's Divine Mercy. Say that Act of Contrition every time you sin and you've got a fighting chance.
Back to your question, why aren't there confessions going on all the time, given human nature and our troubled times? My corollary to your question is: Why do our Bishops allow women to dress like belly dancers going to Mass on a summer afternoon on Saturday when I walk out of confession? I mean, what a farce. What an attack on my newly forgiven soul. A blitzkrieg, or titskrieg, against my weak defenses.
This might answer your question. I asked a good priest this: My scenario is this - Let's say I commit a mortal sin twice a week and go to Confession every Saturday - a repeat offender. I die in a car accident on wednesday. One mortal sin is on my soul as of Wednesday. Here's what this priest said and I'm telling ya, he was old, very orthodox, anti-abortion ...perfect...he said that the laws of the Church dictate the objective status of your soul and the law is...get this...that our Lord's mercy is so great that, considering your habit of weekly confession, you'd be extended that forgiveness at death as if you would have gone the following Saturday - IF you expess an Act of Contrition after the Wednesday sin.
There is also the promise of Our Lady of Fatima, and this is recognized by the Church: "I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all who on the first Saturday of five consecutive months confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, with the purpose of making reparation to me."
I err on the side of caution myself and go regularly. What happens if you don't? Look at 1 Cor ch 11, vs 32. He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement unto himself. St Paul was talking about so many people dying because they were receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. This kills the soul. This explains why the confession lines are short. "Catholics" today use contraceptives and then go to Holy Communion without Confession, thus killing their faith - they become modernists, pro-abort, commie, homo-loving, race-traitoring modernists. Their souls are then numb to their condition and they are self-righteous in their not going to Confession. This makes yours truly's voice stick out like a sore thumb in confession, coming back again and again. If more Catholics went, I'd get lost in the crowd, which would be OK with me and my disgraces. THIS is why you don't see huge crowds at Confession and, yes, sins of the flesh are quite common. They are also the most easily forgiven.
I hope I answered your questions.
uh,
pjoseph
2005-10-21 09:51 | User Profile
PaleoBear,
First of all, I am 99.9% certain that hell is a fable and that Christianity and all other "revealed religions" are mere human fabrications with no basis in reality. I also strongly doubt the existence of any "personal God."
Nevertheless, I might be able to help you here, as I was a Catholic from the cradle up until the age of about 30, and there was a period when I took it very seriously (late teens to mid 20s). During that time, that same question about "dying between a mortal sin and confession" was something that used to drive me up the wall, too.
The way I eventually learned to deal with it was this: If I thought that I'd committed a mortal sin, I'd say an Act of Contrition (which I now think of as a "forgiveness spell"). Then I would plan to go to confession at the next reasonable opportunity. If I were killed by, say, a car crash prior to my next confession, I reassured myself that God knew of my intent to confess my sins and had already forgiven me because of that. In other words, God judges by your intent, not by your physical success at completing your intention. So while it was important to go to confession when I could, the intent to confess would bring forgiveness in the event of a death prior to confession. Such an interpretation is, I believe, backed up by the Church. If you have doubts, I suggest you talk to a priest rather than take my word for this. I might have done so myself, though I can't remember now.
It's also worth remembering what pjoseph has already pointed out: the Catholic Church doesn't consider anyone guilty of a mortal sin unless (1) he knows it's considered an objectively serious matter before he commits the act; (2) he has sufficient free will to choose not to do it (e.g., he's not in a state of severe emotional distress, truly addicted to some behavior, etc.); and (3) he chooses to do it anyway. If any of these conditions are missing, the sin is venial at worst.
It is actually not correct to say that each of the "Seven Deadly Sins" is mortal. It depends on the degree of the sin. Take "Anger," for instance. Getting mad at someone for cutting you off in traffic is a venial sin; being so angry at someone that you want to kill them is probably a mortal sin if you deliberately nurture the feeling and know that it's a serious matter.
Generally, if a person genuinely isn't sure that he has committed a mortal sin, the Church says that he probably has not. But if someone is worried about it, then confession can help to ease the guilt and fear anyway.
One last bit of advice: Questions such as this one you've asked are dangerous to your faith. You're thinking too much; over time, that can lead to the abandonment of your religion. If you don't want to end up an ex-Christian like me, just trust in the Church and in (what the Bible says about) God rather than thinking for yourself! ;)
2005-10-21 13:57 | User Profile
Ephesians 2:4-9
4But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, 5Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) 6And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. 8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
PaleoBear,
Hope the above passage helps.
With all due respect to the devout Catholics here, the extreme theological formalism you cite is, to my observation, the impetus behind a lot of ex-Catholics.
Remember though, that faith without works is dead.
James 2:17-20
17Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
There is an obvious tension between these two passages. The following commentary on James's epistle may be helpful in resolving the conflict.
[URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=13&source=1&seq=i.66.2.5"]http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=13&source=1&seq=i.66.2.5[/URL]
There is simply no way for fallen man to keep all of God's commandments and, as James himself notes, to disobey one part of the law is to disobey all of the law. James obviously did not write for the purpose of setting an impossible standard, so the conclusion to be reached is that salvation is through grace granted through faith in God's mercy, and that faith is shown through good works.
More commentary from BibleGateway.com.
[URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=13&source=1&seq=i.66.2.5"]http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/index.php?action=getCommentaryText&cid=13&source=1&seq=i.66.2.5[/URL]
2005-10-21 15:02 | User Profile
Paleobear, You might also find the Orthodox Christian position interesting. The Orthodox do not make the distinction between venial and mortal sin, and each person can (and should) continually repent of his sins and ask the Lord for His mercy. In Orthodoxy, the sacrament of Confession is not viewed like a trip to the principal's office, but rather like a trip to the doctor, meaning that the point is not for the priest to punish you for breaking the rules, but rather for him to look at your weaknesses and prescribe those spiritual tools he believes will best help you in your path toward God. This viewpoint does away with much of the legalism about which you seem to be concerned.
Angler, Thinking 'too much' is one of the things that has deepened my faith. It needs to be coupled, however, with an acknowledgement of the limits of our limited human faculties. Because I cannot understand something with my five physical senses and my merely human intellect does not mean that it is untrue.
2005-10-21 16:11 | User Profile
[quote=PaleoBear]
Now, here's my problem. Isn't it infinitely irresponsible to make Confession a requirement just once a year if this sacrament is after all [I]for[/I] mortal sin, which if someone in a state of, it will send him to Hell if he or she gets hit by a bus before going to Confession and receiving Absolution (unless they are rare saint with perfect contrition).
It's one of the precepts of the Church that one go to Confession [I]at least[/I] once a year (during Lent) -- but that, [I]in addition[/I], one goes [I]whenever[/I] one has committed a mortal sin.
The distinction between mortal and venial sin comes from I John 5:16-17: [INDENT][I]"[/I]He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death." [/INDENT]and from the obvious fact that most people "miss the mark" relatively often, but not all pay for it eternally. There are obviously some sins that are worse than others.
You have to find a traditionalist priest who takes Catholic teaching seriously, though, to get anything straight (no pun intended) from the hierarchs. Try the SSPX.
2005-10-21 18:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]First of all, I am 99.9% certain that hell is a fable and that Christianity and all other "revealed religions" are mere human fabrications with no basis in reality. I also strongly doubt the existence of any "personal God."[/QUOTE] How could you possibly put a number on the probability like that? I'm 74.351978% sure that you're wrong!
2005-10-24 22:44 | User Profile
[quote=Okiereddust]This sounds like a pretty impressive list of mortal sins, and I doubt if anyone on this goes a year without committing one. As a Protestant I don't particularly follow the distinction between mortal and venial sins, or the unique authority, or even any authority at all, of the priestly hierarchy to forgive sins, although I do see the value of confession before men as part of a penitent heart before God.
Overall though for a Christian I believe I John 1:7 "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Christ (continually) cleanses us from all sin" is what provides me assurance of salvation - realistically my only hope of salvation. If one must wait till confession - once a year or once a day - to make my heart right before God, then that is too long, and I am not living right.
I hope that helps Paleo. My prayers are with you.
Up until fairly recently I took the standard Evangelical approach. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your family will be saved." (Acts 16:31) But I recently fell into a most frightening bout with fatalism and I found the Sacrament of Reconciliation of the Roman Catholic Church the only thing effective in absolving my sins (isn't this a Chesterton line?). I hope and plan, by the grace of God, to never ever again commit those sins categorized as mortal sin.
2005-10-24 22:47 | User Profile
[quote=pjoseph]greetings, paleoBear, Your questions are real thoughtful ones. St John speaks of some sins as "deadly" in one of his letters; that's where we get the "mortal" in mortal sin. Three things are necessary for mortal sin and any one of these items missing makes it no sin: 1) it's gotta be a serious sin 2) you have to know it is a serious sin 3) knowing this, you plan / carry it out any way. ANY one of those three missing implies no sin. English Common Law called it "Malice aforethought". If there is anything stressed most in the New Testament, it's Divine Mercy. Say that Act of Contrition every time you sin and you've got a fighting chance. Back to your question, why aren't there confessions going on all the time, given human nature and our troubled times? My corollary to your question is: Why do our Bishops allow women to dress like belly dancers going to Mass on a summer afternoon on Saturday when I walk out of confession? I mean, what a farce. What an attack on my newly forgiven soul. A blitzkrieg, or titskrieg, against my weak defenses. This might answer your question. I asked a good priest this: My scenario is this - Let's say I commit a mortal sin twice a week and go to Confession every Saturday - a repeat offender. I die in a car accident on wednesday. One mortal sin is on my soul as of Wednesday. Here's what this priest said and I'm telling ya, he was old, very orthodox, anti-abortion ...perfect...he said that the laws of the Church dictate the objective status of your soul and the law is...get this...that our Lord's mercy is so great that, considering your habit of weekly confession, you'd be extended that forgiveness at death as if you would have gone the following Saturday - IF you expess an Act of Contrition after the Wednesday sin. There is also the promise of Our Lady of Fatima, and this is recognized by the Church: "I promise to assist at the hour of death, with the graces necessary for salvation, all who on the first Saturday of five consecutive months confess, receive Holy Communion, recite five decades of the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, with the purpose of making reparation to me." I err on the side of caution myself and go regularly. What happens if you don't? Look at 1 Cor ch 11, vs 32. He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgement unto himself. St Paul was talking about so many people dying because they were receiving Holy Communion while in a state of mortal sin. This kills the soul. This explains why the confession lines are short. "Catholics" today use contraceptives and then go to Holy Communion without Confession, thus killing their faith - they become modernists, pro-abort, commie, homo-loving, race-traitoring modernists. Their souls are then numb to their condition and they are self-righteous in their not going to Confession. This makes yours truly's voice stick out like a sore thumb in confession, coming back again and again. If more Catholics went, I'd get lost in the crowd, which would be OK with me and my disgraces. THIS is why you don't see huge crowds at Confession and, yes, sins of the flesh are quite common. They are also the most easily forgiven. I hope I answered your questions. uh, pjoseph
This is a most welcome suggestion and I plan to do it. Can I find this promise of Our Lady of Fatima somewhere so I can share it with other people I have been talking with lately?
2005-10-24 22:55 | User Profile
[quote=Angler]PaleoBear,
First of all, I am 99.9% certain that hell is a fable and that Christianity and all other "revealed religions" are mere human fabrications with no basis in reality. I also strongly doubt the existence of any "personal God."
Nevertheless, I might be able to help you here, as I was a Catholic from the cradle up until the age of about 30, and there was a period when I took it very seriously (late teens to mid 20s). During that time, that same question about "dying between a mortal sin and confession" was something that used to drive me up the wall, too.
The way I eventually learned to deal with it was this: If I thought that I'd committed a mortal sin, I'd say an Act of Contrition (which I now think of as a "forgiveness spell"). Then I would plan to go to confession at the next reasonable opportunity. If I were killed by, say, a car crash prior to my next confession, I reassured myself that God knew of my [I]intent[/I] to confess my sins and had already forgiven me because of that. In other words, God judges by your intent, not by your physical success at completing your intention. So while it was important to go to confession when I could, the [I]intent[/I] to confess would bring forgiveness in the event of a death prior to confession. Such an interpretation is, I believe, backed up by the Church. If you have doubts, I suggest you talk to a priest rather than take my word for this. I might have done so myself, though I can't remember now.
It's also worth remembering what pjoseph has already pointed out: the Catholic Church doesn't consider anyone guilty of a [I]mortal[/I] sin unless (1) he knows it's considered an objectively serious matter [I]before[/I] he commits the act; (2) he has sufficient free will to choose [I]not[/I] to do it (e.g., he's not in a state of severe emotional distress, truly addicted to some behavior, etc.); and (3) he chooses to do it anyway. If any of these conditions are missing, the sin is venial at worst.
It is actually not correct to say that each of the "Seven Deadly Sins" is mortal. It depends on the degree of the sin. Take "Anger," for instance. Getting mad at someone for cutting you off in traffic is a venial sin; being so angry at someone that you want to kill them is probably a mortal sin if you deliberately nurture the feeling and know that it's a serious matter.
Generally, if a person genuinely isn't sure that he has committed a mortal sin, the Church says that he probably has not. But if someone is worried about it, then confession can help to ease the guilt and fear anyway.
One last bit of advice: Questions such as this one you've asked are dangerous to your faith. You're thinking too much; over time, that can lead to the abandonment of your religion. If you don't want to end up an ex-Christian like me, just trust in the Church and in (what the Bible says about) God rather than thinking for yourself! ;)
Your comments have been most helpful Angler. I thought about what you've said here when I was reading a Catholic philosopher saying that it is just as deleterious to faith to get caught up in what we do as it is to completely ignore it.
2005-10-24 22:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Up until fairly recently I took the standard Evangelical approach. "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you and your family will be saved." (Acts 16:31) But I recently fell into a most frightening bout with fatalism and I found the Sacrament of Reconciliation of the Roman Catholic Church the only thing effective in absolving my sins (isn't this a Chesterton line?).[/QUOTE]
At bottom, both the evangelical approach and the Roman Catholic approach are one and the same. They are both semi-pelagianism.
2005-10-24 23:00 | User Profile
[quote=SteamshipTime]Ephesians 2:4-9
PaleoBear,
Hope the above passage helps.
With all due respect to the devout Catholics here, the extreme theological formalism you cite is, to my observation, the impetus behind a lot of ex-Catholics.
Remember though, that faith without works is dead.
James 2:17-20
There is an obvious tension between these two passages. The following commentary on James's epistle may be helpful in resolving the conflict.
There is simply no way for fallen man to keep all of God's commandments and, as James himself notes, to disobey one part of the law is to disobey all of the law. James obviously did not write for the purpose of setting an impossible standard, so the conclusion to be reached is that salvation is through grace granted through faith in God's mercy, and that faith is shown through good works.
Thanks SteamshipTime. I am sympathetic to your position-- my first real Christian formation was at a conservative Christian school (3 hours of Bible-- KJV only-- study each day!). We are saved by grace though faith in Jesus Christ.
2005-10-24 23:04 | User Profile
[quote=Quantrill]Paleobear, You might also find the Orthodox Christian position interesting. The Orthodox do not make the distinction between venial and mortal sin, and each person can (and should) continually repent of his sins and ask the Lord for His mercy. In Orthodoxy, the sacrament of Confession is not viewed like a trip to the principal's office, but rather like a trip to the doctor, meaning that the point is not for the priest to punish you for breaking the rules, but rather for him to look at your weaknesses and prescribe those spiritual tools he believes will best help you in your path toward God. This viewpoint does away with much of the legalism about which you seem to be concerned.
Oh how I wish this were the Roman Catholic position!!! But since I won't be committing mortal sin or anything close to mortal sin anymore, by the grace of God, I won't dwell on it.
2005-10-24 23:08 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]At bottom, both the evangelical approach and the Roman Catholic approach are one and the same. They are both semi-pelagianism.[/QUOTE]
Polish scholar Leszek Kolakowski argued in his book[I] God Owes Us Nothing; Brief Remark on Pascal's Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism[/I] that the Roman Catholic hierarchy used the Jansenist conflict in the late 17th century as an excuse to finally ditch the tradition of Augustine (that Reformers had largely taken over) and adopt a semi-Pelagian position (propounded by Jesuits) on salvation:
[SIZE="3"][FONT="Times New Roman"][COLOR="Blue"]"Renowned as a philosopher with deep religious sensitivities, Kolakowski confronts this controversy. He argues that the teachings of Jansenius and Augustine both reflect the very principles and spirit upon which the Church was founded, and that to reject one is to reject the other. [B]His central thesis -- that by condemning Jansenius, the Church also found a way to abandon its thousand-year adherence to the doctrines of Saint Augustine and embrace a modified form of Pelagianism[/B] -- is nothing short of a revolutionary interpretation."[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[url]http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Book_Review%234.html[/url]
Petr
2005-10-24 23:09 | User Profile
[quote=Malachias111]It's one of the precepts of the Church that one go to Confession [I]at least[/I] once a year (during Lent) -- but that, [I]in addition[/I], one goes [I]whenever[/I] one has committed a mortal sin.
The distinction between mortal and venial sin comes from I John 5:16-17:[INDENT][I]"[/I]He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask. All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death."
[/INDENT]and from the obvious fact that most people "miss the mark" relatively often, but not all pay for it eternally. There are obviously some sins that are worse than others.
You have to find a traditionalist priest who takes Catholic teaching seriously, though, to get anything straight (no pun intended) from the hierarchs. Try the SSPX.
I have gone to three (conservative) priests so far and I can't seem to get clear answers. It is like they and Church doctrine are keeping things fuzzy so most people would simply take the strict position. Smart but scary for someone new to the art of trying to avoid hell.
2005-10-24 23:14 | User Profile
[quote=Texas Dissident]At bottom, both the evangelical approach and the Roman Catholic approach are one and the same. They are both semi-pelagianism.
Yes, but so are the determinists who act in way befitting one of the elect so they can be assured that they are co-fated with salvation.
I hope Blessed Catherine Emmerich is correct in her statement that hell is largely empty (i.e., save for Satan and the fallen angels).
2005-10-24 23:33 | User Profile
Btw, most Protestants accept this mortal v. venial sin distinction, but only implicitly. I am beginning to realize that the mortal sins defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church are the very same ones cautioned against at the conservative (Presbyterian) Christian school I attended.
Also, it is not enough to merely avoid sin, my dog does that perfectly each day. We must move toward Heaven by way of the virtues.
2005-10-24 23:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]I hope Blessed Catherine Emmerich is correct in her statement that hell is largely empty (i.e., save for Satan and the fallen angels).[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure she was wrong (and it gives me no pleasure to point this out), for she would have then directly contradicted our Lord and Savior:
[B][COLOR="Red"]"Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it"
(Matthew 7:13-14).[/COLOR][/B]
Petr
2005-10-25 00:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Yes, but so are the determinists who act in way befitting one of the elect so they can be assured that they are co-fated with salvation.
I'm not exactly certain what you mean by that statement, PB. Perhaps you are referring to those who confess the doctrine of predestination?
Nevertheless, things get altogether confusing when we fail to properly distinguish between Law and Gospel or justification and sanctification. What justifies us before God is the most critical issue of all and that is where Rome and decision-theology evangelicalism muddy up the waters, so to speak, and rob the believer of the pure Gospel message and the freedom it grants a Christian. You see, two thousand years ago Christ won the victory over sin, once and for all. When you are baptized and believe, then Christ's righteousness is imputed to you and therefore you are justified before God. We are all sinners from the moment we were conceived and as long as we draw breath here on this temporal plane we will continue to be sinners. It is only because of Christ's work on the cross that we can be saved and not any work of our own making. So as you can see, there is no need to be mired in anguish or obsess over subjective worries, possible unconfessed sin at death, or even if we have received the gift of talking in tongues. As believers, we go forward victoriously in faith in Christ who has already won the ultimate battle for us. Praise God!
2005-10-25 00:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE=PaleoBear]Also, it is not enough to merely avoid sin, my dog does that perfectly each day. We must move toward Heaven by way of the virtues.[/QUOTE]
That's just it, PB. We can't.
It is God who has moved toward us by way of Christ on the cross.
2005-10-25 01:01 | User Profile
God is supremely motivated to save all men, -ANY man. He asked His Son to pay the ransom for your soul personally. So the price has been paid. He made the condition of salvation one of belief, so that it might be a gift, free for the asking and so that neither the wise nor the strong could monopolize it.
No one else but Jesus will be standing there when you are judged, there is no church or organization that can guarantee you Heaven. To receive what Jesus offers you must believe what He did for you (died as penalty for your sin and rose from the dead with your new life) and submit yourself to His rule over your life. In other words, if you believe in Jesus' sacrifice and are willing to humble yourself before Him, salvation is for the asking.
Seems too easy, huh? But He said, "Except you turn and become as little children, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven," so it can't be that difficult. Men and their machinations have made it difficult. Therefore just skip the middlemen, make the simple step, and trust Him for the rest.
Enjoy the journey.
2005-10-26 00:03 | User Profile
[quote=Gregor]God is supremely motivated to save all men, -ANY man. He asked His Son to pay the ransom for your soul personally. So the price has been paid. He made the condition of salvation one of belief, so that it might be a gift, free for the asking and so that neither the wise nor the strong could monopolize it.
Takes more than "belief"; even the devils believe. [INDENT]James 2:14-26 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: [B]the devils also believe[/B], and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. [/INDENT]See [URL="http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/solafide.html"]http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/solafide.html[/URL]
2005-10-26 06:14 | User Profile
[quote=Petr]Polish scholar Leszek Kolakowski argued in his book[I] God Owes Us Nothing; Brief Remark on Pascal's Religion and on the Spirit of Jansenism[/I] that the Roman Catholic hierarchy used the Jansenist conflict in the late 17th century as an excuse to finally ditch the tradition of Augustine (that Reformers had largely taken over) and adopt a semi-Pelagian position (propounded by Jesuits) on salvation:
[SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman][COLOR=Blue]"Renowned as a philosopher with deep religious sensitivities, Kolakowski confronts this controversy. He argues that the teachings of Jansenius and Augustine both reflect the very principles and spirit upon which the Church was founded, and that to reject one is to reject the other. [B]His central thesis -- that by condemning Jansenius, the Church also found a way to abandon its thousand-year adherence to the doctrines of Saint Augustine and embrace a modified form of Pelagianism[/B] -- is nothing short of a revolutionary interpretation."[/COLOR][/FONT][/SIZE]
[URL="http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Book_Review%234.html"]http://www.tboyle.net/Catholicism/Cath_Book_Review%234.html[/URL]
Petr
greetings, The teachings of St Augustine are official teachings of the Church because St Augustine was declared a Doctor of the Church. Jansenism is a heresy declared as such by the Church. This heresy declares that we all have earned hell (true) because of Adam's sin (true) and by our own sins (true) but unfortunately goes on to ignore the restorative graces and mercy won by our Lord on the cross. Pelagianism is also a heresy declared as such by the Church in the 4th century. It claims that there was no Original Sin, that there was no Divine Redeemer and that we all must use the Church as a forum for advancing a better man. That neo-pelagianism in the guise of modernism re-emerged in 1860 and around the time of a resurgence in Jansensim (Victorianism in Britain; folks were responding to sexually transmitted diseases) is only a coincidence. The real driver of neo-pelagianism was modernism, a heresy condemned by Pope Pius X as "the synthesis of all heresies" and this humanistic heresy is rife in our clergy today. -pjoseph
"With every fair maid, there goes a swarthy, fatherless child."