Ask a Protestant Christian

[Jehoshua]

To begion with it is clear to me at least that you have an incomplete and at times erroneous understanding of what the Catholic Church actually teaches. This is not that surprising and that weak catholics un-catechised and ignorant would fall into error is likewise not surprising.

There are a couple of issues here. First of all, Catholicism is CONTRADICTORY to Scripture:

On the contrary Catholicism is the only biblical form of christianity.

http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-5.htm

Protestants claim there is one Mediator, Jesus Christ, as this verse says. Catholics teach that Mary and the Saints are also mediators. Catholicism is incorrect.

You are making an erroneous claim. Christ is indeed the only mediator to God the Father. The saints intercede with Christ praying for our support for Christ in the same manner as you would pray for a friend to Christ. Somehow I don;t think you would take that to be in ccontradiction to the verse in question.

The first two sections of Scripture you cite do provide support for Tradition. But not in the same sense that 2 Timothy 3 does for Scripture. Its not nearly as strongly worded. In 2 Timothy, it says Scripture is GOD BREATHED. Nowhere is this said about Tradition.

Now, tradition can still be important, and provide insight, without being infallible. I can buy that. But it is not infallible.

The quote in question merely states that scripture is inspired. Nowehre does it say that it is the sole source of infallible or legitimate authority. For Sola Scriptura to be true that must be explicitly said in the bible and alas for you it is not. Massive Fallacy. Likewise on consideration of Christs promise to be with us always and that hell would not prevail against it the Church cannot be in error, thus in light of the scriptural passages I mentioned and reason the three pillar approach of catholicism is biblical and correct.

I guess it would be like if I said: "Listen to every word that I command you, trust me with all of your heart and do all that I command, and obey the teachings of my family." Now, if you considered me a valid source (Say you were already my follower.) Now, would you interpret this to mean that my family saying something is as valid as me saying it? Nope, my family could contradict me or whatever. I say about myself strong words that prove that everything I say is true, but I don't say this of my family. I simply say obey them, in weak language. It can be assumed that certain commands of my family may be wrong.

I am ignoring, of course, that I am not infallible either, I am just a man obviously, and I err quite often. But for the sake of analogy, assume this is not the case.

It says to "Obey Tradition" simply because Paul's traditions were true! Paul could not have known future traditions would be true.

Paul states what WE have taught, we is the apostolic authority handed down from the apostles to paul and the other bishops, and which is continuing to be handed down in the Sacred Magisterium in light of Christ's promises.

Unfortunately your metaphor is hard to understand, considering we are talking about God the source and summit of truth, thus as there is only one God their can only be one true faith.

As for your last verse, that simply says that Jesus did other things that weren't written. And obviously this isn't the case. I'm not saying the Bible is 100% conclusive on every moral and doctrinal issue. That's where free will, Christian Liberty, the conscience, and personal belief all come into play.

the bible disagrees with you on Christ saying other things, check John 21:25

Christ promises the Church in general (Christians in general, including Catholics but not ONLY Catholics) will prevail. Obviously he means Christians, since there wasn't a Catholic Church at the time for Hell to prevail against.

And BTW, how do you know it was the Catholic Church it refers to? How do you know it wasn't the Orthodox Church?

unfortunately for you the Christ came to found A Church, "You are Peter and on this rock (peter incidentally means rock) I shall build my Church and not even the gates of hell shall prevail against it, to you I shall give the keyes to the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shalt loose on earth shalt be loosed in heaven". He did not come to found a thousand little sects with variances of the truth, he came to establish a vehicle for salvation, One Church for ONE GOD. The Catholic Church is the UNIVERSAL Church founded by Jesus Christ, protestantism emerged from the mere opinion of Luther in the 15th century.

As to the Eastern Orthodox Church they are schismatic and separated from the Catholic Church. To this day they accept the primacy of the roman Pope. Not to mention my previous post pointed our references to the early Church mentioning it by name. Funny that St Ignatius of Antioch doesn;t refer to the Orthodox Church, no?

Then why has the Papacy corrupted the original doctrines?

It has not, whatever the Catholic Church has taught has been taught since the beginning, dogma is unchangeable it can be developed upon in increasing understanding and depth as promised by Christ with the Holy Spirit but never abrogated or changed. The ones who have corrupted the teachings of Christ are the protestants amongst other heretics who have strayed from the One True Faith.

I do think Tradition can be a valuable sense of insight into the Early Church, but it is not infallible, and the farther forward you go, the more corruption you see. In the 1500s the Catholics were burning heretics at the stake (The Protestants were doing so as well, I'm not trying to troll Catholics here) but the Catholics are the Church of God! At least, according to you.

you are attributing the sin of human individuals onto the teachings of the Church which is logically a fallacious argument. Humanity is corrupted and sinful by nature and thus humans sin, even persons in the Church face corruption. As we say where in the Church, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a club-house for saints.

AFAIK, Catholicism teaches that at least some (I never understood exactly how "Outside the Church, there is no Salvation," means, let alone that it is the most moronic way to word a tradition that actually teaches that non-Catholics CAN be saved) non Catholics are Christians. Therefore, God's chosen Church killed some of God's Children. If this is the case, have not the gates of Hell prevailed?

Again you betray a lack of understanding of catholic theology. A non-catholic can be saved by a principle known as invincible ignorance, which is that if a person has had no earthly contact with the Church, is totally ignorant avoided all mortal sin and that if he came in contact with the Church would see its neccessity he can be saved.

However one who has willfully rejected the truth of the catholic faith in full understanding places his soul at risk of damnation for he strayed from God's commandments and rejected the teachings of Christ, not to mention in the absence of the Church and its teachings one open the gates wide for sin in that the teachings outlining the sinful are absent, and the sacraments to impart absolution are absent. Although no one can determine who is to be damned for only God knows the fate of souls at their judgement.

Well, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture, and no other source, in inspired. I don't think it necessarily think all proponents of Sola Scriptura teach inerrancy. With that said, pretty much all Protestants accept Sola Scriptura. [/QUOTE

already stated my opinion on this.

I know some Catholics, particularly some less serious ones, teach works Salvation, but I don't know what the official doctrines are.

Sola Gratia as some put it, Gods grace alone justifies the salvation of souls. I have laready described the process.

Doesn't Catholicism teach that a lack of faith, with less than perfect knowledge, does not necessarily damn a person?

invincible ignorance again, however the scenario is hypothetical as teh chances of someone out of the Church staying away from teh human compulsion to sin is low, we are naturally inclined to sin.

I agree, but I think you have the order backwards. We don't get saved because we do good works, we do good works because we are saved.

In effect you claim good works are evidence of salvation, but that salvation comes in faith in Christ. Well... so those muslim or buddhist charitees down the road arent actually doing good works?. Good works are evidence of faith and virtue, they are not an indicator of salvation.

Acts 16:31 says believe and you shall be saved, not believe and do good works and you shall be saved.

I agree, Faith without works is dead, but works are not what save you. A Faith + Works gospel is one that teaches that man can save himself, or at least assist in his Salvation, by his own efforts. But the Bible teaches none are righteous.

I have already explained the process of salvation, I am not going to repeat it, if you want a more educated and perhaps clearer understanding go to Catholic Answers or some other orthodox Catholic forum.

I think this is more based on the place of the heart than an actual sin. I think a guy in India who knows nothing about the Bible other than the tiny bit he was taught, yet gives his life to what he knows, will receive great reward in Heaven. I don't think simply avoiding Sin will grant us great reward.

you forget the gravity of sin, sin separates the soul from God, one must avoid sin in fidelity to the gospel and in a continual search for sanctification by the acceptance of God's grace to work for salvation, and even then it is up to God's infinite mercy and grace to ensure salvation, no action of man.

Don't Catholics teach a bunch of mortal sins, like Masturbation, sex outside marriage, exc? Do you believe we are called not to pray for people who commit such sins?

unrepentant mortal sin condemns one to damnation as one willfully rejects the love of God. However we still pray for others for we know not whether one is damned, only God. Thus for one who lived a life of great sin we pray that he repented with perfect contrition at his last.

incidentally mortal sin must be commited in full understanding and willfulness of the gravity of the act, in other words mortal sin is a free choice in understanding of the immorality of the action.

I believe in mortal sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe it is possible for a Christian to do this. In fact, I think very few people actually get the opportunity to do this.

This is the unforgivable sin. By rejecting the Holy Spirit one rejects the agent of salvation and God in accepting the free choice of the individual accepts that rejection of the agent of grace and salvation. Thus by rejecting the Holy Spirit you reject the font of grace and God's mercy thus absolutely condemning one to damnation.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

invincible ignorance again, however the scenario is hypothetical as teh chances of someone out of the Church staying away from teh human compulsion to sin is low, we are naturally inclined to sin.

So you are saying that if you are not Catholic than you must be a sinner and will be eternally damned? See this is why I can't quite roll with Catholicism, if God is benevolent then why would he still damn good people just because they aren't Catholic, And why can't you be good and non Catholic?

 

[Jehoshua]

I am not saying that a non-catholic is automatically a sinner, rather that without the Church one is much more likely to accede to the inclination of sin as they are without guidance. Likewise without the ability for reconcilliation one outside of the Church and ignorant of it once in mortal sin is very unlikely to be saved as to be absolved he must either find the Church, or alternatively repent with absolutely perfect contrition, something that is extremely difficult for a human to do.

Also God does not damn anyone to hell. The sinner, encountering the burning love of God in horror and in shame for his sin, and in the burning pain of the love that the sinner rejected throws HIMSELF, into Hell. Hell is God's mercy in that for the sinner being away from God in Hell is less painful than remaining in his presence. God also does not drag people out of hell as God respects free will for in that without it a relationship of trule love between God and Man is impossible as we'd be mere automatons to his will.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

I am not saying that a non-catholic is automatically a sinner, rather that without the Church one is much more likely to accede to the inclination of sin as they are without guidance. Likewise without the ability for reconcilliation one outside of the Church and ignorant of it once in mortal sin is very unlikely to be saved as to be absolved he must either find the Church, or alternatively repent with absolutely perfect contrition, something that is extremely difficult for a human to do.

Also God does not damn anyone to hell. The sinner, encountering the burning love of God in horror and in shame for his sin, and in the burning pain of the love that the sinner rejected throws HIMSELF, into Hell. Hell is God's mercy in that for the sinner being away from God in Hell is less painful than remaining in his presence. God also does not drag people out of hell as God respects free will for in that without it a relationship of trule love between God and Man is impossible as we'd be mere automatons to his will.

Okay fine. But that still doesn't explain how he can be benevolent and still allow good non believers to go to Hell.

 

[Jehoshua]

Free Will. God wants to engage in a relationship with us and such a relationship of true mutually complimentary love is impossible if God forces the soul to do something. Thus God accepts the free will of the soul and accepts the choice of a soul to reject him or to accept his love.

To do anything else would be enslavement thus denying us genuine freedom to love Him or eachover. Thus although God laments that anyone goes to Hell he willingly accepts that choice in order that we may have the option to truly have a relationship with him.

 

[cardgame]

Also God does not damn anyone to hell. The sinner throws HIMSELF into Hell.

Is God not omniscient? Knowing that we would go to hell, he created mankind, thus damning us to hell.

 

[civ_king]

I can't take you seriously with that avatar....

Not all of them are true. Most likely, NONE of them are correct about everything. Heck, in Baptist Churches, you can believe whatever you like, provided you can defend it with Scripture. Is everyone in my Church right? Is ANYONE in my Church totally right? I doubt it.

That said, there are varying degrees of falsehood. Most of Evangelicism (I consider wacky Fundies like the Appalachian Baptists and the WBC and such to be beyond the scope of Evangelicism) has the basic idea right. Other Christian denominations and sects are more off, but that doesn't mean they are apostate, at least not inherently.

That said, I think we are SUPPOSED to get some things wrong. While Salvation is clearly taught to be by Faith alone, some issues are open to interpretation. We will be learning the correct truths both through study in this World, and through all eternity...

Sure.

There are a couple of issues here. First of all, Catholicism is CONTRADICTORY to Scripture:

http://bible.cc/1_timothy/2-5.htm

Protestants claim there is one Mediator, Jesus Christ, as this verse says. Catholics teach that Mary and the Saints are also mediators. Catholicism is incorrect.

The first two sections of Scripture you cite do provide support for Tradition. But not in the same sense that 2 Timothy 3 does for Scripture. Its not nearly as strongly worded. In 2 Timothy, it says Scripture is GOD BREATHED. Nowhere is this said about Tradition.

Now, tradition can still be important, and provide insight, without being infallible. I can buy that. But it is not infallible.

I guess it would be like if I said: "Listen to every word that I command you, trust me with all of your heart and do all that I command, and obey the teachings of my family." Now, if you considered me a valid source (Say you were already my follower.) Now, would you interpret this to mean that my family saying something is as valid as me saying it? Nope, my family could contradict me or whatever. I say about myself strong words that prove that everything I say is true, but I don't say this of my family. I simply say obey them, in weak language. It can be assumed that certain commands of my family may be wrong.

I am ignoring, of course, that I am not infallible either, I am just a man obviously, and I err quite often. But for the sake of analogy, assume this is not the case.

It says to "Obey Tradition" simply because Paul's traditions were true! Paul could not have known future traditions would be true.

As for your last verse, that simply says that Jesus did other things that weren't written. And obviously this isn't the case. I'm not saying the Bible is 100% conclusive on every moral and doctrinal issue. That's where free will, Christian Liberty, the conscience, and personal belief all come into play.

Christ promises the Church in general (Christians in general, including Catholics but not ONLY Catholics) will prevail. Obviously he means Christians, since there wasn't a Catholic Church at the time for Hell to prevail against.

And BTW, how do you know it was the Catholic Church it refers to? How do you know it wasn't the Orthodox Church?

Then why has the Papacy corrupted the original doctrines?

I do think Tradition can be a valuable sense of insight into the Early Church, but it is not infallible, and the farther forward you go, the more corruption you see. In the 1500s the Catholics were burning heretics at the stake (The Protestants were doing so as well, I'm not trying to troll Catholics here) but the Catholics are the Church of God! At least, according to you. AFAIK, Catholicism teaches that at least some (I never understood exactly how "Outside the Church, there is no Salvation," means, let alone that it is the most moronic way to word a tradition that actually teaches that non-Catholics CAN be saved) non Catholics are Christians. Therefore, God's chosen Church killed some of God's Children. If this is the case, have not the gates of Hell prevailed?

*And now for the intermission*

Well, Sola Scriptura simply means that Scripture, and no other source, in inspired. I don't think it necessarily think all proponents of Sola Scriptura teach inerrancy. With that said, pretty much all Protestants accept Sola Scriptura.

I know some Catholics, particularly some less serious ones, teach works Salvation, but I don't know what the official doctrines are.

Doesn't Catholicism teach that a lack of faith, with less than perfect knowledge, does not necessarily damn a person?

I agree, but I think you have the order backwards. We don't get saved because we do good works, we do good works because we are saved.

That said, good works are the EVIDENCE we are saved. Its like if I claim I was hit by a car. Is it POSSIBLE my claim is accurate, even if I don't look like it? Maybe, it could have happened long ago, but there would be no evidence, so you'd have reason to be skeptical.

In the same way, genuine good works show evidence of a genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit. Not showing works does not mean you aren't saved, but that Evidence does not exist, and therefore we don't really know if the person is truly saved or not (Occasionally its painfully obvious, but be very careful when going down that road.)

Acts 16:31 says believe and you shall be saved, not believe and do good works and you shall be saved.

I agree, Faith without works is dead, but works are not what save you. A Faith + Works gospel is one that teaches that man can save himself, or at least assist in his Salvation, by his own efforts. But the Bible teaches none are righteous.

I think this is more based on the place of the heart than an actual sin. I think a guy in India who knows nothing about the Bible other than the tiny bit he was taught, yet gives his life to what he knows, will receive great reward in Heaven. I don't think simply avoiding Sin will grant us great reward.

Don't Catholics teach a bunch of mortal sins, like Masturbation, sex outside marriage, exc? Do you believe we are called not to pray for people who commit such sins?

I believe in mortal sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, but I do not believe it is possible for a Christian to do this. In fact, I think very few people actually get the opportunity to do this.

While Timothy 2:5 is referring to mediation he is not referring to subordinate mediation, on the contrary in verses 1-2 subordinate mediation is actually encouraged, praying to saints is subordinate mediation. So in this we see that the Catholic Church is fully accepting it ergo it is correct in this.

Now, your argument for 2 Timothy 3 seems even sillier because much of the New Testament hadn't even been written in Timothy's childhood.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

I'd also like to reference 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

There weren't even Christians then, they were still Jews so the fact that the Catholic Church wasn't around yet isn't an argument against it.

The reason we know it talks about the Catholic Church and not the Orthodox is quite lengthy.

Sometimes the medicine hurts too, would you rather chemotherapy or death?

I've probably explained to you the relationship between works and salvation a half dozen times.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Mike, you might think I'm rejecting things because I'm close minded, but there is quite a history of Creationism Threads here.

No Ziggy I don't think you are anymore closed minded than I am. What I mean is that I think that you, I and most of the others here have already made up their minds about what they believe. And for the more thoughtful ones, it has developed over time, trial, and error. My life experiences have completly convinced me of the truth of Christianity, and no argument will ever change that. And I think that you and many others here can say nearly the same thing about your own beliefs. Still, there is nothing wrong with good discussions and exchanges of ideas.

And Lone Wolf has been revealed to be Kent Hovind's account, so please don't turn your back towards him

.

I have to admit I had no idea of what you were referring to, so I went and looked him up. No wonder you warned me. From what I could see, he is still in prison, isn't he?
Anyway, the last thing the Church needs is people like this giving it a bad name, no wonder so many are so skeptical of Jesus.
Just look at what you have for examples of Christians.

And whoever Lone Wolf is, he sure does not know his scriptures very well.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

How do you guys interpret the whole "resist not evil" spiel we see in Matthew 5? How does one apply that in modern thought or policy?

Matthew ch 5 is one of my favorites. It is a capsule blueprint for Christian growth.
To directly answer your question, the best example I can give you, in modern times, is Ghandi. Look at his life. I do not know if he was a Christian or not. According to the excellent movie about him, he was raised in a church surroundings. But I know of no other mortal man who took this teaching to about as far as it could go, and he freed a nation with it. I think he got exactly what Jesus was talking about.

So, yes it can work, if you have the raw, complete courage to see it through. I do not think I could have done what he did.

 

[shadowplay]

When is the Sabbath?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ziggy, this applies mostly to your reply to me, but it fits for all the others:

Basically I screwed it up. Not in just I had no way of knowing that the evolution/creation discussion had been done, over, and over and over.....
But, to be honest I had not really looked at the site I linked, just for a little bit. I was running around here, playing taxi driver to 3 boys for different jobs, and getting over to see my mom. So I admit I got a bit lazy on checking what I was writing.

My apologies, and now back to our regularly scheduled broadcast.

Glad to hear that. Lots of things to discuss in reasonable mannerisms. I was surprised to find someone who had argued that he subscribes to his believes out of personal experiences/convictions, something I can never argue against and accept as a valid reason for having faith in whatever someone believes in, going to the scientific route to justify his believes. Which is something I most definitely can argue against. But now it seems not your intention, and for that I'm glad.

Ziggy: I gotta laugh at this one, if you only knew the week I've just had, outside of this forum.................. It fits right in. Not my best week ever.

There's always next week

My life experiences have completely convinced me of the truth of Christianity, and no argument will ever change that.

...

See. No counter-argument from me.

And whoever Lone Wolf is, he sure does not know his scriptures very well.

Lone Wolf is scizophrenicanilly joking.

 

[Jehoshua]

Is God not omniscient? Knowing that we would go to hell, he created mankind, thus damning us to hell.

Fortunately for us pre-destination is a heresy. Each person has the free choice as to whether accept God's grace or to reject it. The same question could be said as to why God creating Man knowing that they would fall in your predestination paradigm.

God is omniscient, but that does not neccesarily negate choice. Hypothetically for example God in regards to the future, since the future is changeable depending on action could know every possible outcome that could occur, however this particular area is not my expertise so if you were wanting a more authoritative answer ask someone else, say on catholic answers or some other site with reputable theologians on staff and on the forums.

 

[El_Machinae]

Matthew ch 5 is one of my favorites. It is a capsule blueprint for Christian growth.
To directly answer your question, the best example I can give you, in modern times, is Ghandi. Look at his life. I do not know if he was a Christian or not. According to the excellent movie about him, he was raised in a church surroundings. But I know of no other mortal man who took this teaching to about as far as it could go, and he freed a nation with it. I think he got exactly what Jesus was talking about.

So, yes it can work, if you have the raw, complete courage to see it through. I do not think I could have done what he did.

Oh, Matthew's variant of Jesus is easily my favorite. I find that when I'm quoting Jesus, in order to supplement an argument, I'm using Matthew's summary! When I define what a 'true Christian' is, I find I'm using Matthew. It's not really fair on my part, but I like Matthew's version best, because I like its morality best

So, consider this. Evolutionary theory suggests that we value the lives of our offspring more than the lives of other people's offspring, because people who do so have a reproductive advantage. The selfishness in maintained in the lineages, because people who care equally about everyone cannot pass down their genes as easily.

Matthew suggests that we 'resist not evil'. Luke suggests that Christ's call will cause us to 'hate' our family (though obviously 'hate' is not the right word. It's more 'fail to consider as important' or 'willing to abandon')

So, given that, should Christians be willing to kill in self-defense? Or is killing a natural instinct that Jesus asks us to forgo? Being willing to kill in self-defense is certainly an instinct that's selected for. Should we be willing to kill in self-defense of family? Or is that a natural instinct we should forgo? Are we valuing (instinctively) the lives of our offspring over the lives of others' offspring?

A mother would have a hard time killing her own child, even in self-defense. The love is too strong. (But, also notice the instincts involved). In your interpretations of Matthew 5 (and Luke), is 'resist not evil' this powerful of a commandment?

 

[Leoreth]

Question. Gandhi was no Christian (although he had a rather eclectic view on religion iirc). Is he in hell now?

 

[_random_]

So if you were forced to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, which one would you pick?

 

[Jehoshua]

Now, your argument for 2 Timothy 3 seems even sillier because much of the New Testament hadn't even been written in Timothy's childhood.
"But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:14–15).

I'd also like to reference 2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

There weren't even Christians then, they were still Jews so the fact that the Catholic Church wasn't around yet isn't an argument against it.
.

Just to elaborate on this firstly in response to timothy I think that one is forgetting the correct interpretation of the word faith. As James say's faith without works is dead, ergo it is not true faith in that it is not consummated with the sacrifice love demands or action on that original incomplete faith. This is because faith requires fidelity to ALL Christ commandments which included many positive commandments, that is commandments that require action.

Therefore in this context one must understand faith as being true faith in this manner. As faith without works is indeed dead and not true faith at all.

Now as to the last comment the Catholic Church did exist then being founded at pentecost. However at this time the definitive split between Judaism and Christianity had not occured and thus for the first few years the Church existed within Judaism. To use a bad real world example it could be said that it was like the baptists, or lutherans within the greater whole of protestantism, or even christianity in general. However as history tells in short time the Church definitively split with Judaism.

 

[Leoreth]

Could you please cut down the Catholicism vs. Protestantism war a little? You guys seem to know a lot about each other anyway, so maybe this is not the right thread for this kind of debate, because genuine questions rather get lost in the process of wielding multiquote walls of text.


Okay, here's another question that I'm really interested in, because I'd like to know how Christians reconcile this apparent contradiction.

The main Christian explanation for evil in the world seems to be free will, i.e. God chose to give us free will, so that we can make the free decision of loving him. While I have some minor issues with that, it makes a decent amount of sense so I'll accept it for the sake of argument.

But what of heaven? Heaven seems to me, by its very definition, a place free of evil. Does that mean there is no free will? Or is it simply free of evil because God let only the "right" people in? But from what I've understood it, people don't have to be completely free of evil to enter heaven. And what if those people change afterwards (I mean, now that you've earned yourself your afterlife ...)?

How am I supposed to imagine heaven anyway? Is it like the world we live in, but without all the bad aspects? Or is it something inconceivable to the mind of mortal mean?

 

[Jehoshua]

I shall refrain from perpetuating the dialogue initiated with my original questions and I suppose you are right about multiquote walls of text, they are rather obscene. If Domination3000 is so inclined we can continue the discussion via PM.

-

As to your question

Just as the sinful soul freely chooses hell to escape the fire of God's love the soul who accepts the grace of God and is purified achieves the beatific vision, union with God and the saints in heaven. By definition there is no sin in heaven as only the perfect can exist in the presence of the Lord. (for those who die posessed of sin, yet not to the point of damnation the Church explains the process of purification, however that is Catholic and so I shall not explain it here). You must understand in regards to heaven that it is not so much God "letting people in" but rather that achieving the beatific vision or not is the result of the respective choices of those who sin who freely choose hell comparitavely to those who have through their own choice undertaken the path of sanctification.

I believe some protestants hold to a similar theology.

 

[kochman]

By the way, atheism was persecuted during the inquisition, and we're still around. So we're right.

Uh, yeah...
Atheists have always and will always exist. They have never thrived.

I didn't read your link because I don't consider an argument valid you can't paraphrase yourself. However, shouldn't it be possible to hold the opinion that while the Bible contains errors, they don't detract from its main and central message? My church is oddly able to do so.

YES!

Oh, good that this angle is brought up again, because it reminds me of something I wanted to ask.

I often hear that salvation is only achieved by "choosing Jesus" or "having faith in Jesus". Two questions:

1. Does this "only" mean that faith in Jesus is a necessary condition, i.e. I can't get salvation without it, or is it already a sufficient condition, i.e. faith in Jesus is sufficient for salvation regardless of other factors (the way I've lived my life, for example)?
2. What does "choosing Jesus" actually entail? Is genuinely believing that he is my saviour enough?

Salvation is achieved through Jesus, because He is the judge... He will judge your heart.

So if you were forced to convert to Catholicism or Orthodoxy, which one would you pick?

Technically, I already did... I converted to Orthodoxy to marry back in '06... But even without such a reason, easily Orthodoxy.

Could you please cut down the Catholicism vs. Protestantism war a little?

Seriously! I come back from the weekend, and see 5 pages dedicated to this.
How about someone create a thread "Catholic vs Protestant" or something...

 

[Leoreth]

This sounds a lot to me like when I'm "purified", the way how my free will works is changed from the outside. Am I still able to freely choose to love God afterwards, or has the question become meaningless?

If I still have a free will after this alleged purification and I'm free from sin then, why didn't God create the world itself the same way? Do you get my angle? This kind of reasoning seems to defy the argumentation of evil having to exist because of free will, because the concept of heaven shows it is possible to have free will and no evil.