Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: BlackElk
Catholics do not share and never have shared the notion that if you've seen one sin you've seen 'em all. That theory would put Moses in hell for tapping that rock twice, Peter in hell for lopping off the servant's ear through excess enthusiasm for Jesus Christ, Paul in hell for murdering St. Stephen for the Sanhedrin, ad so forth.

You obviously "have fallen from Grace" if you cannot delineate the difference that God made when he separated the Old Covenant from the New Covenant. King David committed an atrocity against Uriah and his son died for it - yet it says that David died sinless. When Jesus walked the Earth, we were still under the Old Covenant and He adhered to it. Once He died and arose, the New Covenant came into force. When a person admits his human weakness and inability to live outside of sin, and askes Jesus into his heart as the Savior Who Died for him, that person becomes sinless and a saint in God's eyes, even though he continues act sinfully. The message of the Old testament was that men could not become justified through their own power and volition. Men asked for a set of rules to prove they could and God gave them the Commandments to prove they couldn't. Jesus told us (under the Old Covenant, that if a man even thought about committing adultry, he may as well have committed the act. A saved Paul lamented that he continued to do that whcih he would not do, and did not do that which he would - he agonized over his inability to live without committing sinful acts and to do the good things he knew he should do. The phrase "The poor in spirit shall inherit the Kingdom of Heaven is a reference that indicates, once saved, and realizing your weakness and inability to live without sinful acts, your understanding and regret were looked upon favorably because it is what He was trying to teach us. You consider Baptism a rite that actually washes sin away and the Bible doesn't say that. Baptism is a public display of your fealty to Jesus - like wearing a wedding ring. Catholics think that Baptism protects a baby from Hell until such time as the child is old enough to express the need for Jesus in his heart through Confirmation. It is not harmful, but it is also not necessary. Else, no-one could be saved without a Catholic Priest (whom you refer to as "Father" despite Jesus' admoinishment not to do because you have but one Father and He is in Heaven. You don't need priests and rites to be saved - you need to know the Good News of the Bible and to accept that Jesus paid for your sins. ALL sin was death-penalty serious. Breaking the Commandment of not stealing was as serious as that of not murdering. I'm no Scriptual scholar either, but I do understand the difference between Old and New Covenants and what it means to live under the New. Use the Bible, in context, to refute one thing I have said and then you can lecture me on being a Christian.

God Bless and ease your angry heart.

373 posted on 05/20/2012 1:53:29 PM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 361 | View Replies ]


To: trebb; BlackElk
Use the Bible, in context, to refute one thing I have said

1 John 5:16-17 (RSV): "If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin which is not mortal."

378 posted on 05/20/2012 2:28:15 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies ]

To: trebb
Oh my, another quite non-Catholic "expert" on Roman Catholicism with no authority whatsoever. See #393. I am not finding you worthy of individual response at length. Again, unless your other name is Benedict XVI, no Catholic need be "distracted" by the likes of you. And, NO, I am not going to get involved in some useless "Scriptural" vs. "non-Scriptural" debates or how many reformers can dance on the head of a pin. Convince B-XVI and you convince me. No lesser standard and you aren't up to meeting that one.

You ARE, after all, arguing that it is somehow moral to vote for Romney, though he would murder babies, destroy the institution of marriage in our society, cheerlead rump-ranging posing as "marriage," persecute the Catholic Church and probably yours too, in his worship of socialized medicine, undoubtedly cut off medical care to the elderly because death panels say its a good idea, etc. Your heathen imbecile is no better than Obozo. We Catholics call voting for either of them material cooperation with mortal sin. In case you have not guessed, that makes voting for either NOT morally permissible.

Now, go distract yourself.

397 posted on 05/20/2012 10:30:50 PM PDT by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey! Tom Hoefling for POTUS! Viva Cristo Rey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 373 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson