Posted on 12/13/2005 12:48:16 PM PST by sionnsar
Thinking on this further, I believe Jesus addressed the difference when he mentioned the duty of His followers to visit the imprisoned. He clearly recognized that rightly judging actions would lead to some being imprisoned, while at the same time, rightly declining to judge persons, or souls, required Christians to minister to prisoners with the love of Christ.
Father McGivney, founder of the Knights of Columbus, was noted for his prison ministry, and for accompanying condemned prisoners to the gallows. He didn't see any conflict between the duty of the state to protect the peaceable and law-abiding from harm, and the duty of the Church to continue to offer Christ's love and forgiveness to the legally condemned, up to the last moment of life.
HE MURDERED 4 INNOCENT PEOPLE!
That doesn't count the thousands of gang crimes for which he was never charged.
I found some passages to support this:
Mt. 25:34-40 : "34 "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.' 37 "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?' 40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.' "
Heb. 10:32-34 : "32 Remember those earlier days after you had received the light, when you stood your ground in a great contest in the face of suffering. 33 Sometimes you were publicly exposed to insult and persecution; at other times you stood side by side with those who were so treated. 34 You sympathized with those in prison and joyfully accepted the confiscation of your property, because you knew that you yourselves had better and lasting possessions."
Heb. 13:1-3 : "1 Keep on loving each other as brothers. 2 Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it. 3 Remember those in prison as if you were their fellow prisoners, and those who are mistreated as if you yourselves were suffering."
As you said, there is no question we are to minister to prisoners. I love how Jesus throws out the guilty/not guilty component (since He could never rightfully be put in prison). Also, in none of these verses is the institution of imprisonment challenged.
This is a good question. It can be a little confusing because when the Bible speaks of people losing salvation due to their sins, it is usually portrayed as people rejecting Christ, rejecting Christ's laws and love, or rejecting God the Father. However, the Holy Spirit is God, just as the Son and Father are God. To reject Christ is to reject the Spirit and the Father, to reject the Spirit is to reject Christ and the Father, to reject the Father is to reject Christ and the Spirit.
There are some verses that pertain to the rejection of the Holy Spirit specifically. In Mark 3:29, Christ warns us against blaspheming the Spirit and the eternal consequences that follow it. Hebrews 10:29 also warns against insulting the Spirit. 1 Thessalonian says we can reject the Spirit (4:8) and also that we can quench the Spirit (5:19) although this is not recommended, to say the least! Ephesians 4:30 speaks of grieving the Spirit.
But doing all these things is the same as rejecting, grieving, insulting, etc Christ and the Father - for God is one. It seems to me that when you ask how the Spirit can be defeated (through the damnation of a person who once had faith in Christ) you're also asking how God can be defeated. Where does the Spirit go while such a person is in a state of unrepentant sin? The same place Christ goes, the same place the Father goes.
On one hand Christ speaks of those who do not abide in His love being cut off and cast away like a dead branch (John 15:6) We abide in Christ's love when we keep His commandments (John 15:10). Breaking His commandments (i.e., sin) cuts us off from His love. If we are in this state when we die, then this is a permanent cutting off.
At the same time God is all-powerful and all-present so it's not as if He disappears for good, and it certainly is not the case that mere humans like us can negate His power. The parable of the Good Shepherd is very relevant here. The lost sheep is "cut off" from Christ in one sense. Yet Christ is still there and He still pursues the sheep and does all He can to bring it back into the fold. So while the sheep is running away from Christ, Christ is not running away from the sheep.
Furthermore, the Bible and every day life are replete with examples of people who initially come to Christ, later reject Christ (sometimes quite flagrantly) yet eventually are reconciled to Christ again. In one sense they do not abide in Christ while they are in a state of sin and rebellion. Yet God is still present in their lives because eventually some of these folks repent and are reconciled to Christ. No one can come back to God without God's grace - so this has to have been present even while the person was in a state of sin. The person can reject grace but it's always there. God desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4) so He will never cease offering His grace to any of us, which would make salvation impossible. So God is always there and not "defeated" by our obstinacy
I was wondering about the many people who suffer tremendous tragedy, and may turn away from God for a time out of grief. They may commit mortal sin but because of their altered and temporary mental state are not contrite and do not ask forgiveness. Some of these die before recovering. What is their status and is there any scripture on this point?
I would imagine and hope that God is merciful towards such people. Catholics believe that to go to Hell, one has to willfully and knowingly sin and willfully refuse to repent. People who are in altered mental states probably cannot make these kinds of willful decisions. If one is, for example, so overcome with grief that he goes mad and in his madness rejects God, he's not as culpable as someone who purposefully rejects God. How God deals with such people, how He applies both justice and mercy is something best left up to Him. Only God can truly know the state of that person's soul, how willful the choices the person made were, and such. These things are terribly difficult for third parties such as ourselves to discern. This is why we should refrain from despairing that such people are damned and pray for them always.
Finally, I half-jokingly said that it would seem impossible for a non-Catholic to live up to the conditions for permanent salvation that you had listed (keeping the Commandments, Catholic baptism, forgiveness of sins by a priest [plus a contrite heart at death absent a priest], taking Catholic communion, etc.). With a smile, I asked "What chance does little ole' me have for eternal life?"
Well I don't see anything impossible with the idea that a non-Catholic could make an act of perfect contrition before he or she dies and be saved. As for the other conditions, I guess the question here is: is it a sin for non-Catholics to not go to Confession and receive Communion? In other words, is it a sin to not be Catholic? We do believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded and it has the fullness of the truth (and really, why be Catholic if we thought other religions were just as good?) In some cases it would be a mortal sin for someone to reject the Catholic Church.
However as I touched on above, we also do not believe God would damn someone for sins unless that person willfully chose to do those sins and willfully chose not to seek forgiveness. I do not think there are very many people in the world who are not Catholic, know they should be Catholic, and remain in this state willfully. Many people have never heard of the Catholic Church or even Jesus for one thing. Even more people have heard of the Church but know little about it much less the need to be in it. Some people think they know what the Church teaches and reject it, but are in fact in ignorance of what the Church really teaches. Some people are raised in harsh anti-Catholic environments and may never be able to overcome a psychological barrier they have towards looking at the Church with anything but hatred (I had a great-grandmother like this). Some people are only exposed to nominal Catholics - people who call themselves Catholic but know little about their faith and act like pagans (e.g. John Kerry).
There are so many people who are probably, as we say "innocently ignorant" of the need to be Catholic. They reject Catholicism, but this is not a willful or informed choice. We do not believe God will hold such people responsible for not being Catholic. Such people, through the grace of God, can still be saved. Many surely are.
Now whether you or anyone else falls into the category of "innocently ignorant" is not a call I will even attempt to make. That's something only God can know. I pray that all people will be part of the Church someday and I try to answer questions and clear up misconceptions other people may have about the Church. But I'm not going to tell someone they are going to Hell because they aren't Catholic. If a non-Catholic is wondering if he or she should become Catholic and is concerned that his or her remaining outside the Catholic Church has become a sin, then that is something they need to take up with God.
I hope this helps answer your questions. Thank you for your kind wishes about the end of the semester!
Excellent point!
Great post!
It seems to me that when you ask how the Spirit can be defeated (through the damnation of a person who once had faith in Christ) you're also asking how God can be defeated.
That is exactly what I am asking. (And before I forget, I completely agree with you that to attack or reject any of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit is to offend them all.) From reading all the verses you cited I think I am coming to understand the difference between Catholics and Protestants on this point. In interpreting the dozens (or maybe hundreds) of verses that amount to: "Such and such a sinner will never see the Kingdom of Heaven...", Catholics believe that anyone committing such a sin before or after salvation is then in the class of those "never seeing the Kingdom of Heaven", unless that sin is later forgiven by an overt act (the seeking of forgiveness), almost always through a priest. Protestants believe that once salvation is truly received, then it is a done deal through the doctrine of "It is finished". Protestants will surely commit further sin, and confession and asking of forgiveness from God is good. However, the finality of salvation itself is unchanged.
Most of the verses you cited, it seems to me, could be interpreted either way. IOW, there was not anything clearly indicating that a post-salvation sin could erase salvation. I think the strongest one you mentioned was from John 15:6 about "remaining" (or abiding) in Him (implying on a continuous basis). The whole verse is:
John 15:6 : "6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned."
Another interpretation would be that the branch being thrown into the fire does not refer to salvation, but rather to the earthly works of the sinner. The idea is that Heavenly rewards can be won or lost by our actions on earth, but that salvation, once gained, cannot be lost. Here is one supporting passage:
1 Cor. 3:10-15 : "10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames."
Here is another passage supporting the idea of permanency:
Eph. 1:13-14 : "13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory."
Some people are only exposed to nominal Catholics - people who call themselves Catholic but know little about their faith and act like pagans (e.g. John Kerry).
Kudos to you for saying that. Bill Clinton claims to be a Southern Baptist, like me. (YIKES!)
Now whether you or anyone else falls into the category of "innocently ignorant" is not a call I will even attempt to make.
Uh-oh, since you have explained your faith so well (truly) I fear I might be toast. :) Seriously though, I know I don't know enough about Catholicism to have a mature understanding, but I do claim to have learned much about it from you and other Freepers recently, and for that I am grateful. I love exchanging ideas about faith, especially with other Christians. I suppose the way I look at the Christian faith is that there are a few crucial core ideas that must be believed (divinity of Christ, death for our sins, resurrection, etc.) in order to be counted as a Christian. There are many smaller issues, such as eschatology, upon which good Christians may disagree. That's how I see these conversations I am having about Catholicism.
That's an excellent point, good post.
The Church's reason for opposing or not opposing the death penalty (and the Catholic Church at least does not outright oppose the death penalty, same as it does not oppose all war outright) does not hinge on whether the convict has time to repent.
Now this raises an eyebrow. Is it true that the Catholic Church would support the death penalty in certain cases? I can understand how the Church would support defending against an overt attacker in war, and why the Vatican opposes the Iraq war, but I did not know that a state sponsored execution could possibly meet with Church approval.
Tookie Williams should have been praising God that he was given enough time to save his soul, rather than trying to use God to save his life. The people that Tookie killed didn't have that luxury.
Bells, whistles, and sirens galore! As a Southern Baptist I agree with absolutely everything you said above, and I believe it is confirmed in Ephesians 2:8-9. However, I have also been having a very pleasant conversation with sassbox on this thread, and continued here. On the other thread, please see posts 44, 51, and 59 in which sassbox lays out a clear (partial) works-based salvation model for Catholics. Now I am confused again. :)
H E R E S Y
God appoints for each of us a time to die (Ec 3:2). Tookie's time was Dec 13, 2005.
Catholics believe God infuses man with His grace and man “co-operates” with God to come to a knowledge of Him. They are “officially” part of God’s Church during baptism. God’s grace which they have accepted diminishes over time and must be replenished through the sacraments (e.g. penances, the Eucharist, charitable works, etc.).
Catholics are confused with Protestants claims that we are “saved by faith”. They view man has having to do something. In this case exercise “his” faith towards salvation. Original Protestant theology believed that God gives man grace and faith and man doesn’t do anything to merit his salvation. Over the years this doctrine was altered that man comes to God by his “free will” which is what a bulk of Protestants today believe. In a way the Catholics are correct in saying man exercising his will of faith is salvation by works. Most Protestants will argue this isn’t salvation by works just as the Catholics will argue following the sacraments aren’t works.
As a fellow Southern Baptist I would recommend reading the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Pay special attention to Section 9 Man’s Free Will. Man’s will is in bondage until God sets us free. Of course most do not like what is implied here.
That is precisely what I am trying to discover and I pray that you are right. I think that some of the differences I have been learning about, even concerning the core issue of salvation, don't really matter in the big picture.
For example, I think I have gleaned that Catholics believe that baptism is required for salvation, whereas I do not. So then, I presume that all good Catholics get baptized. My only response as an evangelical should be "Well, then good for all Catholics!". Everyone should be baptized. Jesus did so and said that we should. My beliefs are not offended in the the slightest. I hope you are right and that the vast majority of the differences boil down to non-issues. I still enjoy learning about them, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.