CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[SnoopLoggyDog]

YUP! The best pizza in the world is made by Sal & Carmine (Roman Catholics) 102nd-103st Brdwy, NYC (Spanish Harlem). There is a rose there, but it's in a flower shop...

Have to disagree. Best pizza in the world is Marion's Pizza in Dayton, Ohio. My Father, who used to be Shiite Catholic, said so.

 

[JettaKnight]

Please re-read what I wrote. Here, I'll quote myself:

...our sins are measured against the times we were Christ-like.

OK, what does that mean? When am I "Christ-like"? and the counter, when am I not?

I once listen to a minister speaking that it's actualy possible to have times in your life where you can have a sinless walk with God. My thought was like on DDR where you get all the moves right and you have the super combo or whatever. Then you make a wrong step and you're back to normal.

I did not say "good works are required." Or are you saying we don't need to try to be Christ-like to get into Heaven?

Being Christ like is a process known as Sanctification. It's a journey that no one finishes on earth. It begins when you repent and accept Christ.

Being Christian is not a free pass into Heaven.

Yes, actually it is.

Being Christ-like is how to get into Heaven. ("I am the way, the truth..." etc.)

Nope. Accepting Christ's sacrifice is. The good works and sanctification is a natural follow on to this. When you realize the great sacrifice Christ made for you, you want to follow and serve him.

None of us are sinless, so our efforts to be Christ-like can never reach a state of sinlessness. The less sin/more Christ-like the better.

We agree we can't be sinless. But, "the better", the more treasures and rewards await in Heaven.

Faith, and God's graces, gives us the tools to be Christ-like.

Yes, I'll agree with this to a point. Don't forget about the Holy Spirit!

So... good people who aren't Christians can go to heaven if their Good is greater than their Bad? Am I understanding you correctly? But bad people can still go to heaven if they are Christians?

Maybe. Probably not. Probably.

It seems like the Catholic church has gotten just as wishy-washy on this. As in, "if you follow your religion, heaven can be obtained." The bad news for us Protestants is that doesn't apply because, "we're doing it wrong" in the eyes of the Church.

God gave us a path. He told us to use the Bible to correct and rebuke one another. Why are you so opposed to doing that, given that it is right there in the bible?

This thread is intended to be civil. Its right there in the title. I believe I have been, and will continue to be, respectful of people who have different perspectives. All I ask is that the respect be reciprocal.

Yeah, I think we're all being decently respectful here.

As to rebuking, you do have to be "signed on" for it. As in members of a church, men's accountability, etc. Our church recently enacted a discipline guide (which the Protestant church in general needs to return to doing), and it was a terribly sad day for everyone in the congregation when a situation called for dismissing a member. It's far better more rejoiceful when it serves it purpose and returns a believer to the "straight and narrow". But I digress...

 

[JettaKnight]

Are you saying Noah, Abraham, Job, or any other of the Old Testament figures are not in Heaven? I don't think they were Christians. If you are saying they were Christians, I'm curious where it explicitly says that in the Bible.

A Reformed view is they work looking forward to a Messiah, hence salvation was theirs. They lived under a different set of Covenants. We now live under the New Covenant, the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[JettaKnight]

Say what you will, but Transubstantiation is a miracle, and Communion is, as a result, the most incredible feeling in the world.

And June 4th (tomorrow, if you're reading this the day I write it) is the feast of Corpus Christi. I'll be not celebrating it at Bible Study that night.

 

[T.Lex]

OK, what does that mean? When am I "Christ-like"? and the counter, when am I not?

My friend, I think that can only be derived from an examination of conscience.

I once listen to a minister speaking that it's actualy possible to have times in your life where you can have a sinless walk with God. My thought was like on DDR where you get all the moves right and you have the super combo or whatever. Then you make a wrong step and you're back to normal.

Haha

That's kinda cool. (Is that in the Bible somewhere?)

Being Christ like is a process known as Sanctification. It's a journey that no one finishes on earth. It begins when you repent and accept Christ.

I agree. That is the beginning.

Yes, actually it is.

Please elaborate. I *think* I know what you mean, but there are a couple different ways to interpret what you are saying. The scenario I disagree with is like a Disney FastPass that lets you cut in line, without any regard to any other factor.

Nope. Accepting Christ's sacrifice is. The good works and sanctification is a natural follow on to this. When you realize the great sacrifice Christ made for you, you want to follow and serve him.

I think we're actually talking about the same thing, or very close to the same thing. The more we follow and serve Him, the more Christ-like we are.

We agree we can't be sinless. But, "the better", the more treasures and rewards await in Heaven.

Now I'm really wondering what we're arguing about.

Yes, I'll agree with this to a point. Don't forget about the Holy Spirit!

Operationally speaking, as a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the delivery mechanism for the gifts.

It seems like the Catholic church has gotten just as wishy-washy on this. As in, "if you follow your religion, heaven can be obtained." The bad news for us Protestants is that doesn't apply because, "we're doing it wrong" in the eyes of the Church.

Well, that's an interesting subject. One that, dogmatically, I am not in perfect alignment with my Church. Fortunately, I am not alone. Fortunately, there has not been any ex cathedra proclamation on this.

Something that is touchy is Communion. Basically, if your are not Catholic or Orthodox, other Christians are not supposed to take Catholic Communion. That's the rule.

I do not know if a non-Catholic taking Catholic Communion is a sin. I've reflected a great deal on this (for a variety of personal reasons) and for me, it comes down to this: if a non-Catholic attends Mass, and that's the only time they see the inside of a church, I think God is generally happy that they are there.

Please don't (figuratively, or literally) crucify me for that.

As to rebuking, you do have to be "signed on" for it. As in members of a church, men's accountability, etc. Our church recently enacted a discipline guide (which the Protestant church in general needs to return to doing), and it was a terribly sad day for everyone in the congregation when a situation called for dismissing a member. It's far better more rejoiceful when it serves it purpose and returns a believer to the "straight and narrow". But I digress...

Hey, it is hard to have a conversation about Catholicism without bureaucracy being part of it. Truly, when Jesus made Peter his cornerstone, it would have taken true omniscience to know the amount of middle-management that would be required.

 

[T.Lex]

And June 4th (tomorrow, if you're reading this the day I write it) is the feast of Corpus Christi. I'll be not celebrating it at Bible Study that night.

Holy carp! Is it June 3 already?

 

[PistolBob]

A Reformed view is they work looking forward to a Messiah, hence salvation was theirs. They lived under a different set of Covenants. We now live under the New Covenant, the shed blood of Jesus Christ.

A reformed view...or in other words...another interpretation of already potentially misinterpreted scriptures. That's one reason why we don't do Sola Scriptura.

 

[rambone]

Let's evaluate this fundamental doctrine before any of us are burning in Purgatory....

Why is salvation by works the predominantly held viewpoint?

 

[JettaKnight]

I once listen to a minister speaking that it's actualy possible to have times in your life where you can have a sinless walk with God. My thought was like on DDR where you get all the moves right and you have the super combo or whatever. Then you make a wrong step and you're back to normal.

That's kinda cool. (Is that in the Bible somewhere?)

Nope. That's why everyone in the audience had one raised eyebrow.

Of course, there was a lot of weird ideas at that conference - eschatology, cosmology, demons...

Being Christian is not a free pass into Heaven.

Yes, actually it is.

Please elaborate. I *think* I know what you mean, but there are a couple different ways to interpret what you are saying. The scenario I disagree with is like a Disney FastPass that lets you cut in line, without any regard to any other factor.[/QUOTE]
I don't believe there is a line at all. I believe there is a book at judgement. Everyone's sins are listed there. Only for Christians, all the sins are erased!

I think we're actually talking about the same thing, or very close to the same thing. The more we follow and serve Him, the more Christ-like we are.


Now I'm really wondering what we're arguing about.

We're arguing if these works, wether they make us Christ-like or not are a requirement for salvation. My argument is that sanctification is completed instantly when you arive at heaven - no purgatory required. Sanctification isn't a requirement for salvation either - it's the natural progression of life in Christ. It's a bonus, if you will.

Operationally speaking, as a Catholic, I believe that the Holy Spirit is the delivery mechanism for the gifts.

I'm a cessationist, so I believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Miracles, Healing, Tongues, etc.) stopped in the book of Acts. They aren't needed to spread the word and there's no new revelation that requires their validating authority.

It seems like the Catholic church has gotten just as wishy-washy on this. As in, "if you follow your religion, heaven can be obtained." The bad news for us Protestants is that doesn't apply because, "we're doing it wrong" in the eyes of the Church.

Well, that's an interesting subject. One that, dogmatically, I am not in perfect alignment with my Church. Fortunately, I am not alone. Fortunately, there has not been any ex cathedra proclamation on this.

I think you're right. I'm trying to tread lightly as I don't know much of the particulars.

Something that is touchy is Communion. Basically, if your are not Catholic or Orthodox, other Christians are not supposed to take Catholic Communion. That's the rule.

I do not know if a non-Catholic taking Catholic Communion is a sin. I've reflected a great deal on this (for a variety of personal reasons) and for me, it comes down to this: if a non-Catholic attends Mass, and that's the only time they see the inside of a church, I think God is generally happy that they are there.

I respect this, as I would respect any rules or customs of the church I set foot in. I would never attempt to take Communion in Catholic church. If I'm there for a wedding, I just sit respectfully.

For the record, my church practices open communion to all believers; whether you've been properly dunked or not. Not right or wrong, just different.

Hey, it is hard to have a conversation about Catholicism without bureaucracy being part of it. Truly, when Jesus made Peter his cornerstone, it would have taken true omniscience to know the amount of middle-management that would be required.

Peter his cornerstone?! Oh, just keep on poking that stick, buddy!

 

[JettaKnight]

A reformed view...or in other words...another interpretation of already potentially misinterpreted scriptures. That's one reason why we don't do Sola Scriptura.

Not taking that bait there, Bob.

 

[steveh_131]

Are you saying Noah, Abraham, Job, or any other of the Old Testament figures are not in Heaven? I don't think they were Christians. If you are saying they were Christians, I'm curious where it explicitly says that in the Bible.

They arrived there by faith. Not by some equation comparing their good works against the bad.

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. Genesis 15:6

I do not know if you are correct or if I am correct. I am explaining what I believe to be true.

True. Let's talk about that word. How do we find truth? The Bible. If you believe that the Bible is truth, then what you believe to be true can not be opposed to the Bible.

If another believer makes a statement that is contrary to the bible, it is the responsibility of other believers to correct that statement. The bible commands us to do so.

I see no disrespect in this.

 

[T.Lex]

Nope. That's why everyone in the audience had one raised eyebrow.

Of course, there was a lot of weird ideas at that conference - eschatology, cosmology, demons...

(singsong)

"These are a few of my favorite things...."

I keed, I keed.

I don't believe there is a line at all. I believe there is a book at judgement. Everyone's sins are listed there. Only for Christians, all the sins are erased!

Interesting. Like EVERY Christian? Even the ones that turned their back on their baptismal promise? Repented no sin?

What makes more sense to me is that Christ's death and resurrection provide the opportunity to have all sins erased. Christ did his part; we need to do ours. (Caveat, please don't construe this as simply "do good deeds." Rather, as you note, when we act in the Spirit, the good works will come naturally.)

We're arguing if these works, wether they make us Christ-like or not are a requirement for salvation. My argument is that sanctification is completed instantly when you arive at heaven - no purgatory required. Sanctification isn't a requirement for salvation either - it's the natural progression of life in Christ. It's a bonus, if you will.

This is where I think we're talking around each other a little bit, but I can't figure out the disconnect.

I'm a cessationist, so I believe that all the gifts of the Holy Spirit (Miracles, Healing, Tongues, etc.) stopped in the book of Acts. They aren't needed to spread the word and there's no new revelation that requires their validating authority.

Hmmm... this, to me is really interesting.

I believe I have witnessed miracles, so this is a hard one for me to get my head around. I have also been around the Charismatic movement at certain times, and believe the Holy Spirit has delivered gifts described in the Old Testament.

Without meaning to be confrontational, is there biblical support for such cessation? I admit that the thought never occurred to me.

I think you're right. I'm trying to tread lightly as I don't know much of the particulars.

I appreciate that, as I'm not completely comfortable with the particulars.

I respect this, as I would respect any rules or customs of the church I set foot in. I would never attempt to take Communion in Catholic church. If I'm there for a wedding, I just sit respectfully.

For the record, my church practices open communion to all believers; whether you've been properly dunked or not. Not right or wrong, just different.

On that issue, that position resonates better with me than the Catholic position, frankly.

Peter his cornerstone?! Oh, just keep on poking that stick, buddy!

LOL

We'll come back to that later.

 

[T.Lex]

They arrived there by faith. Not by some equation comparing their good works against the bad.

Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. Genesis 15:6

So, you agree that non-Christians can enter Heaven?

 

[PistolBob]

Not taking that bait there, Bob.

Well Jetta...sometimes the truth is a hard pill to swallow. The books of the Bible we have today were written between 1600 and 2000 years ago and that's just the New Testament. In some languages that do not even exist today...Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and translated to Latin...committees over time have cussed and discussed which of the ancient texts are inspired writings and which are not, then we need to discuss which Bible is the true inspired word of God, and we know we can go on about that for the next millennium. Under the umbrella of Chirstianity we have 7000 languages spoken and written in the world...there are currently 531 translations of a Holy Bible. That's a lot of scholars making translation decisions. Lot's of room for potential errors.

 

[steveh_131]

So, you agree that non-Christians can enter Heaven?

You're arguing semantics, to some extent. I used the term 'Christians' because that's what they're called today. While Abraham wouldn't have called himself a 'Christian', he entered heaven the same way we do: Faith. Not by the way his works measured up at the end.

Insinuating that there is some way to enter heaven by your own good works canceling out the bad most certainly qualifies as heresy.

 

[T.Lex]

You're arguing semantics, to some extent. I used the term 'Christians' because that's what they're called today. While Abraham wouldn't have called himself a 'Christian', he entered heaven the same way we do: Faith. Not by the way his works measured up at the end.

So, faith in God is what is necessary. I'm down with that.

Do you believe post-Christ Jews can reach Heaven?

 

[JettaKnight]

Well Jetta...sometimes the truth is a hard pill to swallow. The books of the Bible we have today were written between 1600 and 2000 years ago and that's just the New Testament. In some languages that do not even exist today...Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and translated to Latin...committees over time have cussed and discussed which of the ancient texts are inspired writings and which are not, then we need to discuss which Bible is the true inspired word of God, and we know we can go on about that for the next millennium. Under the umbrella of Chirstianity we have 7000 languages spoken and written in the world...there are currently 531 translations of a Holy Bible. That's a lot of scholars making translation decisions. Lot's of room for potential errors.

This is a joke, right?

You do realize that no modern translation is done based on Latin, don't you?
You do realize that most seminary students are required to learn Greek and Hebrew, right?

In fact, it's not that hard to learn Greek on your own, then there's none of these "scholars making translation decisions".

 

[steveh_131]

So, faith in God is what is necessary. I'm down with that.

Then why did you bring up the idea of good works canceling out the bad? This is the point of contention.

Do you believe post-Christ Jews can reach Heaven?

Anyone can reach heaven, but there is only one way to get there:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -Jesus

 

[T.Lex]

Then why did you bring up the idea of good works canceling out the bad? This is the point of contention.

Re-read my post(s). I said no such thing. That's your strawman - you own it.

Anyone can reach heaven, but there is only one way to get there:

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." -Jesus

So, the millions of souls post-Christ who had no opportunity to know Him have no chance of getting to Heaven?

 

[IndyDave1776]

(Caveat, please don't construe this as simply "do good deeds." Rather, as you note, when we act in the Spirit, the good works will come naturally.)

This captures the essence of one of the principle points of the Book of James--that salvation is not caused by good works, but good works will necessarily happen as a natural consequence of salvation.

This is where I think we're talking around each other a little bit, but I can't figure out the disconnect.

While I am not a believer in purgatory, I do not consider the belief that one must sit detention on the way in to separate the saved from the unsaved. I would further argue that salvation is by faith through grace, not through being the master theologian with the most perfect doctrine. If the latter were the case, then grace would be unnecessary.


Hmmm... this, to me is really interesting.

I believe I have witnessed miracles, so this is a hard one for me to get my head around. I have also been around the Charismatic movement at certain times, and believe the Holy Spirit has delivered gifts described in the Old Testament.

Without meaning to be confrontational, is there biblical support for such cessation? I admit that the thought never occurred to me.

I started as a cessationist. My views have changed in light of evidence to the contrary, with a favorite example being that of my mother (who did not speak Portuguese) evangelizing a group of Brazilians in Portuguese. I am not going to go over a list of examples and feel that the latter sufficiently demonstrates my point. At the end of the day, one's conclusion, whatever it may be, necessarily rests on one's understanding of this passage:

I Corinthians 13:8-10:

8 Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away.

The cessationist will ague that "that which is perfect" is the completed Bible. Others argue that "that which is perfect" is Christ, as in the Second Coming, leaving the choices of gifts stopping with the acceptance of canonical scripture (66/72 notwithstanding) or that these gifts are still available and will be until the return of Christ. My observations lead me to the latter conclusion. Your mileage may vary, and I will not disparage you for it.

So, faith in God is what is necessary. I'm down with that.

Do you believe post-Christ Jews can reach Heaven?

I would say that this question is addressed in the example of Abraham. At the point God called him, the only thing Abraham had to believe by faith was the vague promise from the Garden that God would make a way of reconciliation between Himself and mankind through the seed of the woman whose heel would be bruised by the serpent and who, in turn would crush the serpent's head. That is really not a lot to go by even though it makes perfect sense through the lens of hindsight. As for post-Christ Jews, that question is not really answered. My own thought is that as with the example of Abraham, it may well hinge on faith in God to the best of the individual's understanding. As for a Jew who makes an informed decision to deny Christ, I am not going to render judgment, but would not be inclined to trade places with him.