Ask a Protestant Christian

[Jehoshua]

Free will is irrelevant to the argument as the person has already made the choice. The purification is simply the burning away of sin after the choice is already made, the person has already achieved salvation.

Upon the beatific vision one is in union with God, your not an obervor of God so much as an active participant in the self-giving life of the trinity, and thus the desire to fall would one would think be entirely absent as one is free from all sin, is in direct comprehension of God and is totally aware of the wages of sin.

Theoretically it would be possible to reject salvation, but the will would be absent due to the total immersion in God, in his total love and glory, it would be extremely difficult for example to reject perfection having known the depravity of sin.

 

[GhostWriter16]

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.

I'll address your points in PM, but I may not respond quickly. I thank you for doing this, as I sometimes feel obligated when I check this thread to answer everything. In truth, answering a question is usually easy and takes less than 5 minutes, while answering a massive wall of text like that takes a long time, and its not something I can do multiple times per day.


That said, since one part of your post left me with a question, rather than response, I'll quote it:

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.

What if the person didn't know some mortal sins they committed were wrong, but they never purposely did something they knew was against their conscience? Saved or not?

And what is repentence with perfect contrition?

How about someone create a thread "Catholic vs Protestant" or something...

Kochman wins again

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?

First of all, not ALL Protestants accept free will, although I do, at least to a high (Note, not infinite) point. Remember the Calvinists.

That said, we have free will in Heaven, but we will never WANT to sin as we will be perfect.

As for it being free of evil and whatever, yeah, you can die while still being a sinner (In fact, its impossible to die perfect) and get in, if Christ forgave your sin, but once you reach Heaven, you become perfect.

As for perfected Earth or something else, I imagine perfected Earth, along with the presence of Jesus, and I think that's more likely than the traditional cloud vision, but we don't know for sure exactly, other than that the final Heaven IS on Earth.

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

First of all, nobody could force me to convert, and that applies even to other Christian denominations. I would never convert by force, I would die for what I believe.

That said, for the purposes of hypothetical... I know little of the Orthodox Church, but it seems there is more freedom in doctrine to believe what you want to believe, as opposed to the rigidity of Catholicism. So, with the info I know now, Orthodoxy.

 

[Leoreth]

Free will is irrelevant to the argument as the person has already made the choice. The purification is simply the burning away of sin after the choice is already made, the person has already achieved salvation.

Upon the beatific vision one is in union with God, your not an obervor of God so much as an active participant in the self-giving life of the trinity, and thus the desire to fall would one would think be entirely absent as one is free from all sin, is in direct comprehension of God and is totally aware of the wages of sin.

Theoretically it would be possible to reject salvation, but the will would be absent due to the total immersion in God, in his total love and glory, it would be extremely difficult for example to reject perfection having known the depravity of sin.

Thanks for the elaboration.

But what I take from this is that there is no free will after salvation because one is in union with God. Would you agree?

Is there any individuality left at all?

First of all, not ALL Protestants accept free will, although I do, at least to a high (Note, not infinite) point. Remember the Calvinists.

That said, we have free will in Heaven, but we will never WANT to sin as we will be perfect.

This is exactly my point, and now here's the contradiction I'd like to see resolved: why didn't God create us this way in the first place? Because this picture of heaven clearly renders the argument "we can't be perfect as long as there's free will" moot.

As for perfected Earth or something else, I imagine perfected Earth, along with the presence of Jesus, and I think that's more likely than the traditional cloud vision, but we don't know for sure exactly, other than that the final Heaven IS on Earth.

Okay. The idea of heaven seems to differ a lot, from something rather similar to our current physical world to more abstract imaginations.

What do we do for an eternity in heaven, though? Much of the sense and purpose in our lives seems to come from the ambitions we have and the challenges we have to overcome ...

 

[GhostWriter16]

Even in Heaven, we will continue to learn more about God, and increase our relationship with him. For a Christian, this IS the reason for existing.

Not to mention in this perfect world there is Joy all the time.

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

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

There is no way for an honest Christian to answer that. That is completly God's job, and He has not given that up to anyone. That being said, we are given assurances that if we act in a certain way, or believe in a certain way, then we will inherit eternal life. And there is also the same type of descriptions that promise eternal punishment, or seperation from God.
So we can make evaluations, but not final judgements.

Allow me to provide a Bible quote that provides food for thought on this question:

"For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a Law unto themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus."

Can you tell that Paul was a lawyer? The entire book of Romans reads like this

 

[GhostWriter16]

To speculate on the question: Again, a deathbed conversion is not impossible, but barring that, yeah I think so, unless he'd never really heard the gospel, but since he quoted Jesus often I'm pretty sure he had.

 

[Leoreth]

So we can make evaluations, but not final judgements.

Of course. Thanks for both your answers

This is exactly my point, and now here's the contradiction I'd like to see resolved: why didn't God create us this way in the first place? Because this picture of heaven clearly renders the argument "we can't be perfect as long as there's free will" moot.

This question still stands though

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Ziggy Stardust;10476913]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.

Thanks Ziggy, I should know by now to stay away from things I don't know hardly anything about

There's always next week

It's next week, and I'm waiting...........................
...

See. No counter-argument from me.

I could relate many very interesting stories, but most here would just claim that they either didn't happen, or that it was just a coincidence. And they lose alot in writing them out. But I know what I saw, and was a part of, and they all have solidifed my beliefs.

I once read from some one, that many people claim that seeing is believing, but for those who accept Christ, believing is seeing. I can certainly attest to that.

Lone Wolf is scizophrenicanilly joking

.

I didn't know you could do both at the same time. See, I can learn something, even from an athiest

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I once read from some one, that many people claim that seeing is believing, but for those who accept Christ, believing is seeing. I can certainly attest to that.

Seeing is highly overrated.

If you have an hour to spare, I advise to have a look at this:

Link to video.

It makes the case that seeing is indeed seeing what you believe. And very interesting to boot. (nothing to do with religion mind). So you're right in saying believing is seeing, whether you're Christian or not

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

Of course. Thanks for both your answers


This question still stands though

I did see the question, but thought that was a conversation between you and Domination. And he has been doing very well, without me, I didn't want to interfere.

I was thinking of commenting on this part, and they are realated.

But what I take from this is that there is no free will after salvation because one is in union with God. Would you agree?

Is there any individuality left at all?

Christianity is all about individuality, just read the entire new Testamant, the entire Bible actually.
If we instantly obtained union with God, after salvation, this would be an entirely different planet to live on. In one sense we do get that union, the Holy Spirit comes and dwells within our spirit, and we now have that new life within us.
That is what is meant by being born again. (I know that Domination has also laid all this out in other posts)
But that is just the beginning, only the start. It is a complete turn-around, and new Christians are called "babes in Christ" and other related terms in the NT.
(This explains why so many mistakes are made by Christians, they simply have not grown up- spiritually- yet)

We are instructed to grow in Christ, to reach spiritual maturity. It is a life-long journey, that has many ups and downs. I could go on and on and on about it, it seriously covers the entire history of man's realtionship with God, and the entire Bible.

In reading any of it you will see that it is all about the individual and God. He made people as we are, with all our differences, and He does not turn us into mindless robots.

So it is with the original creation, it is just simply not the way God wanted to do it. Could He have made us that way? Sure, if he wanted to. But looking at the nature and characteristics of God, and looking at how love works in our lives, I think we get a real good hint at the purpose of it all.

I think that love is love. What I mean is that the Bible states "God is love" and it is clear throughout the entire Bible. What that says to me is that everything God ever did, or is going to do, is done as an act of love. It is just logical.
So, when we love something, or someone, we are exhibiting a quality of God, and acting or feeling as He does. It is a part of Him that He built into us. "Let Us make man in Our image and in out Likeness"

Taking that a step farther, this gives us a real good look at the nature of God, and how He sees things. One aspect of Love that especially pertains here is that it needs to have love returned to be truly fulfilled. Love needs an object to love. And when that object that is loved returns that love, it completes it.

And while completeing it, it also is just the start. Because love grows. I was in the room when all 4 of my kids were born (not all at once thankfully), and each time I felt a new growth of love occur.
And as I get to see them grow and develop, I grow to love them more. And the best part of all, as they grow up, they get to know me more, and love me, which causes my love to grow for them, and theirs for me, and it keeps on going and going. This is the good stuff, and it can apply to anyone, in any relationship, because it is a characteristic of love.
And it is a characteristic of God. The beauty and value of love is that is it given freely, because of a choice that is made. It is the choice itself that enables the growth, and the growing. And the free will in us allows us to make that choice.

This is the best way I can answer this, and I intentionlly went in a circle, becasue that is how it operates and was designed to operate. I am only touching the surface of where I can go with this. It effects every single aspect of our lives, and with God's desired relationship with us.

 

[GhostWriter16]

But what I take from this is that there is no free will after salvation because one is in union with God. Would you agree?

Is there any individuality left at all?

@Jehoshua- This is Ask a Protestant, OK?

In a sense, we lose Free Will, at least, the free will to give ourselves back to the slavery of Sin, but we can still do things that serve it. Think of it this way, after slavery ended, a freed slave can't make himself a slave again, but he can still do something to serve a white man, but he's still free, he can leave when he pleases.

A Christian can sin, and serve Satan, but he is no longer enslaved by him. When we Sin, we are punished, in this life.

Once we reach Heaven, we have free will, just not to Sin, since we won't desire Sin...

 

[El_Machinae]

Of course beings can sin in Heaven! Some of the angels rebelled!

Christianity is all about individuality, just read the entire new Testamant, the entire Bible actually.

New question time!

I see this teaching quite commonly. Variations of a 'personal relationship with Jesus'.
Is it viable to believe this individual message so strongly?

The OT god is very big into group punishments. I could probably give a lot of examples, but I hope you agree that there are examples.

Additionally, while the gospels trend towards individual salvation, I don't know if the Pauline scriptures agree completely.

For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

Unless you really water down the words 'sanctify' and 'holy', this teaching is pretty strong.

If there are only two spiritual states (saved and unsaved), then the idea of being 'holy but unsaved' is nonsensical. An unsaved person cannot be sanctified or unholy. That's my thinking, anyway, that it's not completely clear that it's completely individual. This goes against OT group punishments and the scripture above.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If there are only two spiritual states (saved and unsaved), then the idea of being 'holy but unsaved' is nonsensical. An unsaved person cannot be sanctified or unholy. That's my thinking, anyway, that it's not completely clear that it's completely individual. This goes against OT group punishments and the scripture above.

It is the Children who are Holy, not the unbelieving husband/wife. The point is that they will receive Godly influence, and so a gateway for them to find out about God will exist.

 

[El_Machinae]

The children are holy, and the spouse is sanctified? It's too bad that the pronouns aren't as clear as they could be. That's still watering down 'sanctified', too!

This question is still a good one, I think, too.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=10477156&postcount=613

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

El_Machinae;10477156]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

I think it is fair, and the reason Matthew was inspired to write it just like this was to use it for instruction as to what Christians should be. I just wrote to Leoreth about Christaian growth, no need to repeat myself.

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.

I can see exactly this point, and it is one of my problems with evolution (no I am not going there again) because it tends to deny God's love in us and for us. Suffice it to say that I believe we care more for our offspring, because that is part of the very nature of love, and how God designed all of Creation. For God is Love.

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')

Exactly right, and one of those parts that is not meant to be taken literally. But I have heard things......

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?

Great question. Allow me to save some time by referring you back again to what I just wrote to Leoreth, about individuality. In fact that is why I answered him first, so I could then get to yours.

My premise here is that God deals with each of us as individuals, so each circumstance might be different for different people.
(Everyone,I know this statement can bring on lots and lots of comments, so read on...)

But in any dealings with God, we must look to compare it with ALL of scripture, it has to fit in with everything. It cannot be taken out of context.

This does refer to other postings I have made about Bibical imterpetation, and inspiration. The system is meant as a way of checks and balances. Don't worry I won't rewrite it all here

The Bible also says "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar, and unto God the things that are God's" Also in 1st Cor. Paul wrote " Let each man remain in the condition in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it....Brethern, let each man remain with God in that condition in which he was called"

Since no exception was made, and Jesus never told a solider to lay down his arms and quit the military, we may assume that this "condition" statement includes soldiers also. Taking everything into balance, I think that given the nature of man, there will be wars and conficts in the earth. Jesus was not stupid, He knew this as well as anyone. So defending one's country might be understandable and allowable here.

I know I am embellishing the question, sorry if it is too much. But I think there is a time and place for everything (turn turn turn )
And in a certain situation, under the threat of life and death, especially over someone that you deeply love and care for, that love could easily become a violent action to protect. I seriously think that if anyone were to come close to harming my childern, or other family, I would be backsliding for a few minutes, and then asking forgiveness.

I do think that it is much easier, to not act in self-defense. And Matthew's account does certainly seem to indicate that. The context of the entire chapter points to the individual hearer, and meant personally.

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?

Yes it is instinct, most definity. But I believe that it is a God given instinct, and not just a thoughtless chemical reaction over which we have no control. And not every mother loves her child that much (unfortunately) which is accountable for in free will and choice. Love is a choice, it is meant to be.

You are right, the power of this can be awesome. And not just this one verse, but all of it.
If I get you right, essentially you are asking if God can and does transform lives. The answer is a resounding and unequivocal yes, yes yes yes yes. It is all there in the Bible, and the promises in it are His promises, and they are true, and He does fulfill them.
God's power goes beyond miracles, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. I have seen way to much to doubt any of that.

Sorry I lasped into preaching I guess, but the Love of God is indeed the most powerful force in the entire universe.

Anyway I hope I answered what you were asking.

 

[El_Machinae]

Suffice it to say that I believe we care more for our offspring, because that is part of the very nature of love, and how God designed all of Creation.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a sign of spiritual corruption, and a giving-into of our animal instincts. A weakness of the flesh. For goodness sake, a baboon prefers its offspring over another's! The instinct to protect 'ones own' is as basal as the desire to hump.

Love, true love, is unreserved. To say that you love one being more than another is to, imo, love incompletely.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Any ape can prefer their own offspring. IMO, inflicting harm on (or failing to provide for) someone should be as hard as doing so to your closest family member, who you deeply adore.

IMO. Anything less cheapens the concept of love.

 

[MobBoss]

Of course beings can sin in Heaven! Some of the angels rebelled!

A slight correction to your comment. All that means is that angels might be able to (since the exact details of the fall arent really known to us). Assuming angels and different than humans, it remains to be seen if human souls can or even if they have the capacity to.

 

[kochman]

A slight correction to your comment. All that means is that angels might be able to (since the exact details of the fall arent really known to us). Assuming angels and different than humans, it remains to be seen if human souls can or even if they have the capacity to.

Would we lose free will in heaven?

Heaven has always perplexed me... my final answer is, it's beyond our comprehension. Otherwise, it is too easy to pick it apart, and that's depressing.

 

[GhostWriter16]

When is the Sabbath?

In Israel, it was Saturday.

In Christianity, there isn't really one, we aren't bound by that law anymore: "For one man esteems one day more highly than another, another treats each day alike, may they each be convinced in their own mind."

We go to Church on Sunday, as that's the cultural day of doing it, but there's nothing magical about it

 

[MikeL49NYVI]

I wholeheartedly disagree. I think it's a sign of spiritual corruption, and a giving-into of our animal instincts. A weakness of the flesh. For goodness sake, a baboon prefers its offspring over another's! The instinct to protect 'ones own' is as basal as the desire to hump.

Love, true love, is unreserved. To say that you love one being more than another is to, imo, love incompletely.



Any ape can prefer their own offspring. IMO, inflicting harm on (or failing to provide for) someone should be as hard as doing so to your closest family member, who you deeply adore.

IMO. Anything less cheapens the concept of love.

Well it should come as no surprsie that I wholeheartedly disagree with your reasoning. We approach it from different bases of belief.

Yes, animals act on instinct, but you cannot use them as a comparison to humans who have both resoning powers, and a free will choice for everything they do. It is a combination of these two things that make us different, and a higher creation than the animinal kingdom.

And since I hold that Love is a choice, animals do not love, they react to instinct. They do resond to love in a normally very positive manner, as best they can, as they were created.
Now I believe that animals have either a soul or a spirit. I am not real sure which, but I suspect it is a spirit. Humans have both.

Yes, you are basically right about love being unreserved, but Love has more than one characteristic, and more than one aspect to it. To say I love my wife, is not the same as to say I love my mother, nor is it the same as saying I love my country. I also love playing softball, and that is not the same as any of the others.
I can love each of these unreservedly, as they deserve, and still not contradict or lessen any of the different aspects of love that I have.
Each has a part in our lives, and they do not all occupy that same ammount of that life. If I said I love softball as much as my wife, then I am the one who has gotten something out of correct proportion. It is my failing, not God's or love's. Yes I know you mentioned beings, I am overemphasing the point for dramatic effect.

In fact I see it as not being corrupted at all, but a completeness of everything God intended it to be.

Nothing is cheaptened ,or corrupted it is all complete, just different aspects.