Theological Debate

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

NightBlade:
Again, this goes back to whether or not salvation can be lost. Do you believe that some sins are worse than others? And if so, is there any sin bad enough to cut us off From God?

The Bible does give us several places where it mentions serious sins that will not allow us to enter Heaven, one of these being 1Cor. 6:9-10.

And I totally agree with you that building whole doctrines on isolated verses can be dangerous, however I wouldn't say that's what I'm doing here.

[NightBlade]

I do not believe that salvation is lost due to sin; the only possibility I see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him/His Son--I do not believe that God disinherits those who act out and then re-instate them whenever they are sufficiently obedient.

It's interesting that you bring up those verses... because honestly, that describes every single one of us, does it not? We've all sinned and that's what separates us... God wrote us into His inheritance with His son's blood. I do not believe that one sin is more sinful than any other... however back in the time of the Law, from a standpoint of temporal law, God did instruct more severe punishments against those who committed a more severe wrong against man. When it came to sins that were against God and God alone (blasphemy, violation of sacred things, etc) the consequence was usually ultimate: death.

I know, you're fair

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Nov 4, 2015 0:56:27 GMT NightBlade said:

I do not believe that salvation is lost due to sin; the only possibility I see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him/His Son--I do not believe that God disinherits those who act out and then re-instate them whenever they are sufficiently obedient.

You say that the only possibility you see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him, but isn't that in effect what someone does if they sin really badly? Aren't they saying to God that they don't care what He wants them to do, and instead they're going to do their own thing? So while they may still believe in Him (with a James 2:19 kind of faith), they don't pay any attention to His will for them 

It's interesting that you bring up those verses... because honestly, that describes every single one of us, does it not? We've all sinned and that's what separates us... God wrote us into His inheritance with His son's blood. I do not believe that one sin is more sinful than any other... 

How would you interpret 1Cor. 6:9-10 then? If Christians went out and willfully committed those sins without repenting, would they still inherit the Kingdom of God?
You also say that you don't believe one sin is more sinful than another. If that is the case, how do you interpret 1 John 5:16-17?

however back in the time of the Law, from a standpoint of temporal law, God did instruct more severe punishments against those who committed a more severe wrong against man. When it came to sins that were against God and God alone (blasphemy, violation of sacred things, etc) the consequence was usually ultimate: death.

That's a good point actually, and that's how I see God working in the new Covenant as well. Except this time, instead of it being physical death, it's spiritual death (separation from God's Covenant).

[NightBlade]

Nov 4, 2015 4:29:40 GMT Aviar Goldeneagle said:

Nov 4, 2015 0:56:27 GMT NightBlade said:

I do not believe that salvation is lost due to sin; the only possibility I see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him/His Son--I do not believe that God disinherits those who act out and then re-instate them whenever they are sufficiently obedient.

You say that the only possibility you see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him, but isn't that in effect what someone does if they sin really badly? Aren't they saying to God that they don't care what He wants them to do, and instead they're going to do their own thing? So while they may still believe in Him (with a James 2:19 kind of faith), they don't pay any attention to His will for them 

    That refers to what I said below. Every one of us sins. Every day, multiple times if we're honest with ourselves. We     make selfish decisions, sometimes even lying to or mistreating others. Isn't every one of those saying to God that we     don't care what He said? This is one of the instances where humans try to draw a line where it's safe to sin on one side     but not the other.

It's interesting that you bring up those verses... because honestly, that describes every single one of us, does it not? We've all sinned and that's what separates us... God wrote us into His inheritance with His son's blood. I do not believe that one sin is more sinful than any other... 

How would you interpret 1Cor. 6:9-10 then? If Christians went out and willfully committed those sins without repenting, would they still inherit the Kingdom of God?
You also say that you don't believe one sin is more sinful than another. If that is the case, how do you interpret 1 John 5:16-17?


        Haven't we all been greedy? Haven't we all slandered each other? Don't we often do them every day? And remember         what God said about idolatry and adultery? They can be commited in the mind, and I garuntee at least the former we        are all guilty of countless times...as for the latter, if we're being honest with ourselves, we've probably done that now         and again too. As for the 1J verses, see what I said below.

however back in the time of the Law, from a standpoint of temporal law, God did instruct more severe punishments against those who committed a more severe wrong against man. When it came to sins that were against God and God alone (blasphemy, violation of sacred things, etc) the consequence was usually ultimate: death.

That's a good point actually, and that's how I see God working in the new Covenant as well. Except this time, instead of it being physical death, it's spiritual death (separation from God's Covenant).

    Thank you. Well, most of those sins are non-applicable anymore, as we have no holy mountains or Arks of the     Covenant. However, when it comes to things like blaspheming God, I think those could probably be filed under     "deliberately throwing your faith back in God's face and thus disinheriting yourself.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

NightBlade:

You say that the only possibility you see to lose one's inheritance with God is to choose to sever one's belief in Him, but isn't that in effect what someone does if they sin really badly? Aren't they saying to God that they don't care what He wants them to do, and instead they're going to do their own thing? So while they may still believe in Him (with a James 2:19 kind of faith), they don't pay any attention to His will for them

That refers to what I said below. Every one of us sins. Every day, multiple times if we're honest with ourselves. We make selfish decisions, sometimes even lying to or mistreating others. Isn't every one of those saying to God that we don't care what He said? This is one of the instances where humans try to draw a line where it's safe to sin on one side but not the other.

Yes, good point. But you have to take into account that most sins we commit during the day are ones that we don't often stop to think about much. And these smaller sins are ones that often don't harm ourselves, others, or our relationship with God as much as serious sins such as murder would. But don't get me wrong, these less serious sins definitely do still damage us, which leads me into the point you made about a line being drawn where it's safe to sin one side but not the other.
I definitely don't see it as "safe". . All sin weakens our relationship with God, I would say that mortal sin kills, whereas venial sin wounds. And continuous venial sin leads to mortal sin. So it's definitely not safe. To use a physical analogy we'd still be going around in a wheelchair by committing venial sin.
What it comes down to, is that when I read the Bible I see a distinction drawn between sins, showing that some are more deadly than others, and you see the opposite. I do see how the Bible can be interpreted your way, and hopefully you can see how it can be interpreted in the way of the Catholic Church.
Just an interesting note--it wasn't up until the time of the reformation in the 16th century that Christians started believing that salvation could never be lost by committing a mortal sin. Up until that time, everyone I have seen who talks about it says that it can be lost. So I think I have history on my side.

How would you interpret 1Cor. 6:9-10 then? If Christians went out and willfully committed those sins without repenting, would they still inherit the Kingdom of God?

You also say that you don't believe one sin is more sinful than another. If that is the case, how do you interpret 1 John 5:16-17?

Haven't we all been greedy? Haven't we all slandered each other? Don't we often do them every day? And remember what God said about idolatry and adultery? They can be commited in the mind, and I garuntee at least the former we are all guilty of countless times...as for the latter, if we're being honest with ourselves, we've probably done that now and again too. As for the 1J verses, see what I said below.

*thinks about making a joke about never sinning but refrains from doing so* . I would agree with you that we commit those sins you mentioned, and often every day, however I would say that we often wouldn't be committing them in the way that St. Paul is talking about in 1Cor. 6:9-10, as he goes on in verse 11 to say that "such were some of you" which seems to me he's not talking about the venial kind of sin, but the mortal.

As for the 1 John passage, do you think St. John is talking about Old Testament sin there? (You said look below and I'm not exactly sure what you were referring to , so I think perhaps I may have misunderstood you

That's a good point actually, and that's how I see God working in the new Covenant as well. Except this time, instead of it being physical death, it's spiritual death (separation from God's Covenant).

Thank you. Well, most of those sins are non-applicable anymore, as we have no holy mountains or Arks of the Covenant. However, when it comes to things like blaspheming God, I think those could probably be filed under "deliberately throwing your faith back in God's face and thus disinheriting yourself

Arrgh, I messed up the quoting here.
Okay, I think I basically agree with what you say there. (I may disagree a bit with what you say about us having not Arks of the Covenant type things, but yeah, I basically agree I think.)

[NightBlade]

Paragraph #1
Right. And the literal definition of "safe" was kinda beside the point, the point was that we are trying to draw lines, defining some sin as more serious than others to the point that we say "we can "survive" these sins but not these sins". I go back to what I said about God setting up varying punishment on a temporal level for our sakes, since the sins actually damage us and not Him.
That is what I was referencing in #2
As for history, "on your side" isn't exactly something I would say is in your favor x) I mean, the Church also used to think that germs were spirits, that the earth was flat, that people could buy other people out of Purgatory and that God wanted them to go kill Muslims

#3 Ok looks like we're on more or less the same page there, and said page is what I based my earlier arguments on.
Though I'm curious about the Ark?

[Ellron Silvertree]

Nov 5, 2015 6:03:39 GMT NightBlade said:

Paragraph #1
Right. And the literal definition of "safe" was kinda beside the point, the point was that we are trying to draw lines, defining some sin as more serious than others to the point that we say "we can "survive" these sins but not these sins". I go back to what I said about God setting up varying punishment on a temporal level for our sakes, since the sins actually damage us and not Him.

Right. It's not about us damaging God and Him punishing us, it's about us rejecting Him and that hurting us. Every day we sin in the form of negligence, failure to live up to what we intend, etc. The difference is when we do that, it's not always completely intentional and we are not consciously and willfully rejecting the love and teaching of God. When we realized what we've done (notice I say realize because we don't always know right away) we repent and ask forgiveness. It hurts our relationship with God, just like unintentionally wronging a friend would hurt our relationship with them, but we aren't condemning ourselves to Heck because we aren't actually willfully rejecting God's love. Therein lies the difference. The criteriae for mortal sin demand that we willfully and directly turn against Love, which is the same as saying rejecting God.

That is what I was referencing in #2
As for history, "on your side" isn't exactly something I would say is in your favor x) I mean, the Church also used to think that germs were spirits, that the earth was flat, that people could buy other people out of Purgatory and that God wanted them to go kill Muslims

#3 Ok looks like we're on more or less the same page there, and said page is what I based my earlier arguments on.
Though I'm curious about the Ark?

Actually, you're wrong on all accounts there. First and foremost, you're confusing lay person misconception with actually Church teaching. The Church never taught that germs were spirits--that would simply have been an urban legend.
And the flat earth thing:

Theological doubt informed by the flat Earth model implied in the Hebrew Bible inspired some early Christian scholars such as Lactantius, John Chrysostom and Athanasius of Alexandria, but this remained an eccentric current. Learned Christian authors such as Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose and Augustine of Hippo were clearly aware of the sphericity of the Earth. "Flat Earthism" lingered longest in Syriac Christianity, which tradition laid greater importance on a literalist interpretation of the Old Testament. Authors from that tradition, such as Cosmas Indicopleustes, presented the Earth as flat as late as in the 6th century. This last remnant of the ancient model of the cosmos disappeared during the 7th century. From the 8th century and the beginning medieval period, "no cosmographer worthy of note has called into question the sphericity of the Earth."[29]
Taken from Wikipedia

Again, no evidence of Church teaching, just ultra literal interpretations of the Old Testament. Most learned people of that day completely rejected the idea of a flat earth. Also take note that the latest century mentioned is 600 years before Columbus.
I don't have time to address purgatory and indulgences right now, but I'll get to it later.
Contrary to secular belief, killing Muslims for the sake of killing Muslims was not at all what the first Crusade was about. What was actually happening was that Muslims were taking over much of Europe by force and Christianity was at risk of being blotted out. The Crusade was an attempt to make a defense against these people and try to retake Jerusalem, or at least some of the things that had been lost to the followers of Mohammed.
I can link you to an article about it if you want.

[CNGoodhue]

So if there is such a thing as a mortal sin, then I really am better than the guy in prison for murder because all I did was tell a white lie...?

Oh, and btw, sorry if it's hard to take me serious when I have He-Man as my avatar. Lol.

[Ellron Silvertree]

Nov 5, 2015 17:43:54 GMT CNGoodhue said:

So if there is such a thing as a mortal sin, then I really am better than the guy in prison for murder because all I did was tell a white lie...?

Oh, and btw, sorry if it's hard to take me serious when I have He-Man as my avatar. Lol.

It's not about who's "better" than whom. The state of someone's soul is what determines whether they go to heaven. By unintentionally sinning throughout our day--that is, falling short in our attempts to perfectly emulate Christ--we damage our relationship with God in a manner similar to unintentionally failing or wronging a friend. When we willfully reject and do what is contrary to Love, it is akin to doing something that we know will ruin or break a relationship with our friend, but doing it anyways because there's some personal short term gratification.
But we add humans need to be cautious when talking about who's objectively "better" or "less bad" because that's putting us in the position of God in determining who's going to Heaven or Heck.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

NightBlade:

Well Ellron's already done a great job of answering most of what you said, and so I'm just going to add a little bit to what he said.

That is what I was referencing in #2

As for history, "on your side" isn't exactly something I would say is in your favor x) I mean, the Church also used to think that germs were spirits, that the earth was flat, that people could buy other people out of Purgatory and that God wanted them to go kill Muslims

Okay, what makes you think he's talking about Old Testament sins in 1 John?
As for history... okay I couldn't resist expanding on what Ellron said, and I believe you do have a misunderstanding on those points which I can't help but address. . First the germs thing. Do you have any sources that you got this from? Do you know where the Church taught this? I can imagine some laypeople and priests thinking this could be the case in the middle-ages, considering they probably didn't know what germs actually were, but that's different from the Church teaching such a thing.

As for the earth being flat, to add on to what Ellron said, perhaps you're thinking of the case with Galileo? If you're interested, I can tell you what really happened there, and it's a bit different from what's commonly thought.

As for Purgatory and indulgences, I could get into that too. Basically, there were some people in the middle-ages who were abusing indulgences by saying all that you had to do was to pay some money and someone could get out of Purgatory, which is not what the Church teaches. Again, we could discuss this as well.

As for the Muslims, to add to what Ellron said, the Muslims had attacked and taken over Jerusalem, which had been a Christian city at the time, and then at the time of the Crusades, they were also attacking any Christians who tried to make pilgrimages to Jerusalem to stop them from getting there. Not everything done in the Crusades by the Christians was right, but it also could be said that it was a just war.

Basically, my point in bringing up the history was to show what the people who were taught by the apostles believed. I hardly think Paul was going around teaching whether or not the earth was flat, or whether germs were actually spirits, although I do think he was teaching about whether or not salvation could be lost. And I think John was teaching that too. And if we go to the people outside of the Bible who John taught in person (e.g Ignatius of Antioch), we can see that he too taught that salvation could be lost, which to me seems a great hint that John the apostle taught that too. Otherwise, Christianity would have to have gone off the rails in the generation that were taught by the apostles.

#3 Ok looks like we're on more or less the same page there, and said page is what I based my earlier arguments on.

Though I'm curious about the Ark?

Okay, that's great. Ellron said it best in his reply to CNG:

By unintentionally sinning throughout our day--that is, falling short in our attempts to perfectly emulate Christ--we damage our relationship with God in a manner similar to unintentionally failing or wronging a friend. When we willfully reject and do what is contrary to Love, it is akin to doing something that we know will ruin or break a relationship with our friend, but doing it anyways because there's some personal short term gratification.

As for the Ark thing, I'm referring to the Eucharist and, yeah, we can debate about whether or not it is Christ's literal body or not too.

[CNGoodhue]

Nov 5, 2015 20:46:16 GMT Ellron Silvertree said:

Nov 5, 2015 17:43:54 GMT CNGoodhue said:

So if there is such a thing as a mortal sin, then I really am better than the guy in prison for murder because all I did was tell a white lie...?

Oh, and btw, sorry if it's hard to take me serious when I have He-Man as my avatar. Lol.

It's not about who's "better" than whom. The state of someone's soul is what determines whether they go to heaven. By unintentionally sinning throughout our day--that is, falling short in our attempts to perfectly emulate Christ--we damage our relationship with God in a manner similar to unintentionally failing or wronging a friend. When we willfully reject and do what is contrary to Love, it is akin to doing something that we know will ruin or break a relationship with our friend, but doing it anyways because there's some personal short term gratification.
But we add humans need to be cautious when talking about who's objectively "better" or "less bad" because that's putting us in the position of God in determining who's going to Heaven or Heck.

Yeah, I know that's not the point, that's just what my mind was on haha.

What I'm trying to say is that if the concept of a mortal sin is real, then I could technically tell people that I'm better than that dude that killed someone because my sin is smaller, right? Idk what exactly I'm trying to get at here, but that's just what I was thinking about at the moment. Lol.

[NightBlade]

You replied to me twice before I even got one reply in xP if I miss a response to anything just mention it later.

I guess Augustine did say the earth was round by that point--I think the dispute was on whether or not the rest of the world was just water and completely uninhabited.

So you're saying, what is commonly taught about Galileo's conflict with the Church is wrong, according to....?
And that begs the discussion of the Church's Inquisitions...

As for the germs thing, it was basically taught and believed just about everywhere by everyone. Was the Church different?
On the same general subject, there

The way I heard it taught in history, the Church made quite a killing (interesting figure of speech for the situation, don't you think?) by selling indulgences. Did they not, at least at one point in time, also punish anyone who tried to get their hands on a Bible and try to interpret it themselves? For example, am I incorrect that the Catechisms state specifically that works can merit the grace needed for salvation?

As for the Crusades, I have a more negative view it. But due to what I've been taught, I don't think I can be blamed:
Rape and cannibalism of Muslims, murder of women and children, and the occasional murder of a Jew for no apparent reason were all things I was taught about the crusades back in High School.



All of this is just to say, that invoking traditions of history does not exactly shine in the favor of the Church.
And it seems to me that all of what you're saying circles back around to your interpretation of the Scriptures as opposed to mine.
(quote: "And I think John was teaching that too. And if we go to the people outside of the Bible who John taught in person (e.g Ignatius of Antioch), we can see that he too taught that salvation could be lost, which to me seems a great hint that John the apostle taught that too.")

[NightBlade]

Sorry if I come across as really vehement.
I guess I have to admit I'm a little bit resentful of all the things the Church has done in the past that history has applied to all "Christians" including me. I've had people tell me that "My God dictated the rape and murder of Muslim women and torture of heretics."
So I'm not attacking you...it's just that I don't like being associated with the Catholic Church

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Nov 5, 2015 22:31:05 GMT NightBlade said:

Sorry if I come across as really vehement.
I guess I have to admit I'm a little bit resentful of all the things the Church has done in the past that history has applied to all "Christians" including me. I've had people tell me that "My God dictated the rape and murder of Muslim women and torture of heretics."
So I'm not attacking you...it's just that I don't like being associated with the Catholic Church

Nah, it's all good man, you've been fine, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to be associated with the Catholic Church, although hopefully I can persuade you here that it's not nearly as bad as it's often put. And I'm fully with you that the people who say God dictated the things you mentioned don't know what they're talking about.

So you're saying, what is commonly taught about Galileo's conflict with the Church is wrong, according to....?

And that begs the discussion of the Church's Inquisitions...

Well it's commonly misunderstood slightly I believe. Like Galileo was never tortured or anything. Here's something you can read about it, after Galileo's friend had just become the Pope:

This was Galileo's dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo's works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo wrote a book dedicated to the Pope in 1623, and had a number of audiences with him around that time.

Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.



Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism.

The Pope also asked Galileo a favour: to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.



Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him,

and in 1630 he published a book far different from what he had promised. It was called Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems.



Galileo’s Extremely Bad Idea

As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the "dialogue" was one-sided:

Galileo portrayed the heliocentrism guy as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors,

and something of an idiot.

This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.



But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so

by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was incredibly stupid as the Pope's views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a big insult.

This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and

Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself. That Pope also had the problem that with a lot of other stuff going on in Europe, politically he needed there to be no doubt about his orthodoxy, and the way Galileo wrote this book didn't help.



This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses. Things were complicated by the fact that some anonymous person had slipped a document into Galileo's file saying that back in 1616 when he was first investigated he had been completely forbidden from teaching or discussing heliocentrism. Galileo claimed he'd never seen it. Today no-one knows whether it was true or a forgery. Cardinal Bellarmine, who had run the initial investigation, was dead by now and couldn't be consulted. According to the evidence, Galileo had broken his word and gone against the verdict of his first inquisition.

He was condemned as "vehemently suspected of heresy".



By now he was an old man, and was afraid of what punishments he might face, so he agreed to something of a plea bargain:

In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.



He was never imprisoned or tortured or chained to big blocks of stone like in the Goya sketch.

But even so, the Catholic Church today acknowledges that the condemnation of Galileo was wrong.

The Church never actually taught that heliocentrism was heresy so it was wrong to punish Galileo as a suspected heretic.

In the 1990s, after an in-depth investigation of the case by the Pontifical Council for the Sciences, Pope John Paul II formally apologised for the way Galileo was handled, and the Vatican has even issued two postage stamps honouring Galileo in penance for his mistreatment.

As for the inquisiton... heh... we could get into that too. *Technically*, the Catholic Church didn't actually kill anyone...

As for the germs thing, it was basically taught and believed just about everywhere by everyone. Was the Church different?

On the same general subject, there

I'm pretty sure the Church has never taught that "germs are spirits". Some individual Church members would have believed it, but the practice of the Church's members is different from what the Church actually teaches.

The way I heard it taught in history, the Church made quite a killing (interesting figure of speech for the situation, don't you think?) by selling indulgences.

Indulgences were never meant for making money. In the middle-ages some people misused indulgences to make money, but that is not at all what indulgences are or what they are for.

Did they not, at least at one point in time, also punish anyone who tried to get their hands on a Bible and try to interpret it themselves? For example, am I incorrect that the Catechisms state specifically that works can merit the grace needed for salvation?

For the Bible thing, no, the Catholic Church has always encouraged its members to read the Bible. (Actually, at Vatican II, a Catholic council, indulgences could be granted for Bible reading in order to encourage people to do so more. xDxD) The Catholic Church didn't want people reading Bibles that had been mistranslated and/or had heaps of notes written in the margins that went against Catholic teaching. Catholics are allowed to interpret the Bible for themselves. We just can't go outside of the boundaries of orthodoxy that have been set.

As for the Catechism, yes, it does state that. (And that's what we were debating about a couple of months back. ) However, you can't just take one statement from the Catechism out of it's context, or out of the context of Catholic theology. The Catholic Church also teaches that:

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.



For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.

That's the Council of Trent.
Again, when we were debating this, I think we were getting pretty close to actually agreeing with each other on a lot of it. It's just that we state our positions in different ways.

As for the Crusades, I have a more negative view it. But due to what I've been taught, I don't think I can be blamed:

Rape and cannibalism of Muslims, murder of women and children, and the occasional murder of a Jew for no apparent reason were all things I was taught about the crusades back in High School.

Again, I think you're confusing the practice of the Church's member from what it actually teaches. I fully agree with you that there have been Catholics who have been sinners and done terrible things--I mean, we've even had some really bad popes. But there is the difference there between teaching and practice. I could name non-Catholic Christians who have done pretty bad things too. But the thing is, the way a Church's members have acted in the past, doesn't change the validity of its teaching, especially when the way a member acts goes against the teaching of their own Church. A good example would be Peter in Galatians when Paul had to oppose him to his face for the way he was acting. But even though Peter acted in such a way, it didn't make what he taught (in 1 and 2 Peter for example) invalid. 

I believe that Jesus founded a Church that he promised to protect and that could not teach error. I believe that Church was the Catholic Church. So even if it's members don't always act in the way they should, I believe Jesus is still protecting the Church so it won't teach error.

And again, the point I was making about history is that if there is no evidence that Christians in history ever believed that salvation couldn't be lost, even while the apostles were still alive, then don't you think that that is evidence that the apostles didn't teach that either?

[Ellron Silvertree]

We actually went over the different types of grace in theology today, I'll talk about it when I have time and my notes.

I often find that people tend to make the mistake of confusing that bad things that some Catholics did with actual Catholic teaching.(interestingly, most of the time they point to one or two instances in all of two thousand years while ignoring the rest of the time, but hey)
It would be like saying that because we have corrupt politicians that the Constitution is to blame. The foundation of America isn't too blame for all the terrible people in America.

[Alvar]

(Nightblade is outnumbered, hehe. Time to jump in)

(...Once I find something to say)

[WookieeElf]

((Gonna leave you guys to your debate, since I've got nothing to say atm XP))

Anyway.
During my perusal of the interwebnets, I've come across many posts/pictures/etc. of people 'shutting down' Christians by pulling out the Leviticus argument—basically saying that if they want to be good Christians, they have to follow the rules in Leviticus, too. It got me thinking, and I was looking for an answer to that sort of thing...until yesterday. And my answer came not in the form of a theologian, or a bible study. It came in the form of puppets.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=rQbo7vuQfCE
The show goes on afterwards to explain that the 'ritual' rules don't necessarily apply to us today. Only to the Israelites of that time period (like not eating bugs or moving fabrics). But, the ethical rules still apply to us now (love your neighbor, don't lie, etc.). I'm just tickled that they introduced this in a kid's show.

[Merenwen Inglorion]

Just popped in to say that I'm loving this thread. No hateful or purposely passive-aggressive rebuffs, and everyone's willing and able to share their beliefs without taking offense at everything.
Also loved the puppets. XD
And about some of the weird rules (like not eating pig); there's a good book called "Modern Science in the Bible" by Ben Hobrink that explains them.

[Kirenyth Fireblade]

WookieeElf: I remember watching that series all the time when I was little. And yes, that is a good answer to that question.

[Alvar]

Aviar Goldeneagle: How would you interpret Leviticus 5:17?

Lev. 5:17 “Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment."

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Dec 8, 2015 12:42:27 GMT Alvar said:

Aviar Goldeneagle : How would you interpret Leviticus 5:17?

Lev. 5:17 “Now if a person sins and does any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done, though he was unaware, still he is guilty and shall bear his punishment."

How would I interpret that verse? Well, if you look at the verses which come earlier in the chapter, we see the same sort of thing being said. (v3: "Or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort the uncleanness may be with which one becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it he shall be guilty." [RSVCE, emphasis added])

So I would interpret the verse as saying that when an Israelite does something that the Lord has commanded not to be done he is guilty, even if he is unaware that he has disobeyed the Lord. Then, when he comes to know that he's done wrong then he's going to have to bear his iniquity and get the priest to make atonement for him as verse 18 says.

The Hebrew term used here that your Bible translates as "his punishment" is (transliterated as) "‘ă·wō·nōw" which according to the research I did is almost always translated as "his iniquity" or "his guilt", rather than as "punishment". (Bible-Hub link) So I would see it not so much as the person's going to have to receive a punishment for something he didn't know was wrong, but instead, once he realises he's done something wrong he's going to have to get the priest to make atonement for him. This would seem to follow, since verse 18 doesn't say he's going to receive a punishment, but instead, he needs to get right with God by asking the priest to offer a sacrifice of atonement for him.

So in conclusion, I don't think this verse is saying that someone who unwittingly disobeys God is going to be punished, rather, when they realise that they've sinned, they're going to have to bear that guilt and get the priest to make atonement for them.

Hopefully that all makes sense.

Also, just curious, what was it that I said that made you want to ask me about that verse?

[Alvar]

Aviar Goldeneagle: I was thinking of how you were talking about sinning without knowing. It makes sense the way you described it.

For everyone involved in the salvation forever/can be lost debate, has anyone mentioned the verse Romans 11:29?

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

For those who don't know, irrevocable means "not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final."

If needed, I could go into an analysis of the verse.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Dec 13, 2015 18:23:28 GMT Alvar said:

Aviar Goldeneagle: I was thinking of how you were talking about sinning without knowing. It makes sense the way you described it.

For everyone involved in the salvation forever/can be lost debate, has anyone mentioned the verse Romans 11:29?

"For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable."

For those who don't know, irrevocable means "not able to be changed, reversed, or recovered; final."

If needed, I could go into an analysis of the verse.

I'd be interested in hearing your analysis.

[Alvar]

Aviar Goldeneagle: I'll do my best.

Here's the original Greek verse:
"ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τὰ χαρίσματα καὶ ἡ κλῆσις τοῦ Θεοῦ," or "Irrevocable indeed [are] the gifts and the calling of God."

The three words I think stand out here are "irrevocable," "gifts," and "calling."

Irrevocable (ἀμεταμέλητα) is translated here as "not to be repented of; unregretted," or "irrevocable."

Next, we have gifts (χαρίσματα) is translated as "an undeserved favor; a gift of grace." It could be taken to mean multiple gifts that God gives, including salvation, as it's origin word (χαρίζομαι) indicates. ("I show favor to, I forgive." (Even further down, the origin word for that one is "χάρις," which translates as "grace, as a gift or blessing brought to man through Jesus Christ."))

Calling (κλῆσις) is used referring to God's invitation to receive salvation and all the blessings that go along with it.

All of this comes together to mean, to me at least, that God's salvation can not be revoked.

Any thoughts?

[NightBlade]

Wow. These are cool. I learned how to exegete in college but now I'm too lazy to do it xP

[Ellron Silvertree]

That's a good analysis, Alvar. However, the way I understand the verse, including your analysis, I see it as saying that God cannot change or revoke his gifts. Since they come from Him, we can't take them away anyways. And since God is outside of time and unchanging, it would be against His nature to do exactly the opposite of what He had promised. I see this verse as more affirming that than saying anything about we as humans rejecting His gifts.

[Aviar Goldeneagle]

Alvar:

Hey, that’s a good exegesis there Alvar, I like it, but I’ll give you my thoughts on why I disagree slightly with it.


First we have to look at the context surrounding the verse. If we go a little earlier in the passage we see St. Paul talking about how salvation has also come now to the Gentiles (v11). He then goes on to use the metaphor of the olive tree and its branches (very similar to what Jesus uses in John 15 about Him being the True Vine). He speaks about the branches of the Israelites being broken off because of their unbelief, and of Gentiles taking their place and being grafted in (v17). He tells them that they stand fast in the olive tree only through faith, and warns them not to become too proud (v20).


Then, starting in verse 21, he tells them what will happen if they (the Gentiles) do not continue to have this faith that he talked about a verse earlier:

21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even the others, if they do not persist in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

So here, Paul tells the Gentiles that they can fall away. If they don’t continue in God’s kindness by having faith in Him (v20) then they will be cut off from the olive tree just like the Israelites who did not believe were. Now you can’t be cut off from something that you were not already part of. Verse 17 tells us that the Gentiles are branches that have been grafted into the olive tree. Verse 20 says that they stand fast in the olive tree by faith. Verse 22 says that if they don’t remain in God’s kindness, they will be cut off just as the Israelites were. Verse 23 says that it is possible to be grafted back into the olive tree if you “do not persist in unbelief”.


These verses, to me anyway, seem to paint a very clear picture that salvation can be lost—we can be cut off from the olive tree which we were in by faith, and, once we’ve been cut off, we can be grafted in once again if we don’t persist in unbelief but repent and believe in Jesus once again.



Now, these verses come just a little bit before verse 29.

I think that the primary thing that St. Paul is trying to say throughout this chapter, is that the Israelites who do not believe, can become saved. They are the “natural branches” that can be grafted back into their own olive tree (v24). Paul seems to be saying that the full inclusion of Israel will mean much more riches for the world when they are in the olive tree along with the Gentiles, rather than just the Gentiles on their own (v12, 24). Paul then comes up towards the verse you mentioned.


In verse 28 he says that Israel, in regards to the gospel, “are enemies of God, for your sake; but as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers”.


Now the Greek word used here for “forefathers” is “πατέρας” (pateras), which the NIV translates as “the patriarchs”, most probably referring to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


Now, Israel is loved “for the sake of the patriarchs”. I believe this is probably referring to the promises given by God to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For example Genesis 12. I believe that these promises and covenants God made with patriarchs concerning Israel are the primary thing that the “gifts and the calling which are irrevocable”, of verse 29, are referring to. I see the primary meaning of that verse being that even though Israel has disobeyed God, the gifts and calling—the promises and covenants—that God gave the patriarchs concerning the blessing of Israel, will not be revoked. God is still going to have mercy on Israel (v31) even though they disobey Him, because of His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.


So I see verse 29 not referring so much to each person’s individual gift of salvation, but to God’s irrevocable promises and gifts of covenants to Israel through the patriarchs.


Now that’s not to say that verse 29 doesn’t also have a place in referring to our own salvation. In that case, I would agree with what Ellron said above. However, I see the primary meaning as referring to Israel, since that’s what St. Paul has been talking about throughout the whole chapter, and it would also seem, to me at least, that if v29 is referring to our individual salvation not being able to be lost, that it would contradict what he’d just said earlier in verses 13-24, where to me he seemed to say that salvation can be lost if we reject Jesus and no longer have faith.


Anyway, I hope that all makes sense.

[Alvar]

Aviar Goldeneagle @ellron
That all makes sense. It seems to me that you've won this debate, unless someone has any more evidence against losing salvation?

[NightBlade]

Aviar Goldeneagle Alvar
Well, in light of the other discussions I've had with Aviar, I personally place the "cut off" concept in the meaning of being in a relationship with God and receiving His blessing and help. Israel was indeed "cut off" from His blessing many times, such as their imprisonment to Egypt or Babylon. But God always pursued them, delivered them and returned them to his blessing by His own initiation. He made a promise to them...was salvation not the New Covenenant that God swore in?
I believe that once we are sworn into the Covenenant with God, we are forever in it with Him. We can wander like the Israelites, cut ourselves off from His vine of blessing, but He will always extend His arms to us again because we still being to Him again. Like the sheep that the shepherd pursued.

EDIT
Unfortunately I don't have time to exegete, but is this instance of "calling" the same that Paul uses to refer to our being "called" by Christ for good works, the same "called" that is often shown to evidence predestination?

[Alvar]

NightBlade: That's more or less how I see it. Off the top of my head, I think calling as it's used there is referring exclusively to the invitation of salvation.