'The Nativity Story' Movie Problematic for Catholics, "Unsuitable" for Young Children

Conscience is not our difference. It is in the extent that the fall damaged the conscience of man that we differ.

Roman Catholics believe the fall made man sick, but still able to choose God. The Bible teaches that he was dead in his trespasses and sins. Roman Catholics still believe than man is perfectly free whether regenerate or unregenerate to choose. The Bible says that he is a slave. Those who object curse God because of man's condition, not realizing that man put himself and his descendants in that position by refusing to obey the clear instructions of God.

Ephesians 2:1
And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

Ephesians 2:5
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)

Colossians 2:13
And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Romans 5:15
But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

Romans 6:6
knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Romans 6:16
Do you not know that when you present yourselves to someone as slaves for obedience, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?

Romans 6:17
But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching to which you were committed,

# Romans 6:18
and having been freed from sin, you became slaves of righteousness.

Romans 6:19
I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

# Romans 8:15
For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons by which we cry out, " Abba! Father!"

# Romans 8:21
that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Romans 16:18
For such men are slaves, not of our Lord Christ but of their own appetites; and by their smooth and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the unsuspecting.

# 1 Corinthians 7:23
You were bought with a price; do not become slaves of men.

Galatians 4:8
However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods.

Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.

So...it was as I said before. When lost we were dead IN sin. When saved we are dead TO sin. When lost we were slaves to sin. When saved we are slaves of Christ who makes us free. In all of this, God is sovereign. I only speak in absolutes because the Bible speaks in absolutes.

Romans 3

9What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

10As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

13Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15Their feet are swift to shed blood:

16Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17And the way of peace have they not known:

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

No, I don't think you're over-analyzing. But I'm gonna over-analyze like crazy in reply..

It could just be me, but I have reason in every prayer to be penitent.

This is more an Orthodox prayer and I'm just a beginner in understanding differences, but what I know so far is East vs. West is more terminology than anything.

In RC, and other forms, a "pure heart" is something we ask very often for God to create in us (from the beatitudes). Our practice is to remove obstacles that we put in the way to this. We ask God's help and strength in this.

We can sit and prepare and clean and clean and God can still choose not to come "abide". It's not like if I do this, God will do, or have to do, that.

But we have to at least be home to accept visitors and we still clean house in case He should drop by. :)

Then He can *really* clean house.

Cleaning house, or purification, is the basic first step in spiritual practice. And repentance is the best place to start cleaning up. ( Prayer for strength can begin the day; an examination of conscience at the end..)

To truly repent means to examine sin enough to "change our mind" about it, to see through the glamour of sin - metanoia. With time and grace this increases our spiritual health - helps to keep the house cleaner in the future. And if we are unable to repent, we instantly have a special gift - the knowledge of where we need to focus in order to become more healthy. (Christ's commandments are the foundation and guide, dying to self is another way of describing.)

My apologies for the simplistic analogy, it's the best I can do. Repentence is basic and always in spiritual practice. Also, I hope this explains a bit further that I see this "abiding in us" as conscious contact with the presence of God, aligning our will, God working through us, etc. St. Francis's "instrument of Your peace.."

So, in my very limited experience, your seeing penitence in O Heavenly King is correct, as it is in a great many of our prayers: "Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner."

I'm heading back to where we were when we had to stop discussing.

So, I think this time maybe we should just stop and be grateful for being able to talk.

thanks...

Goodnight D-fendr

I see your three links and raise you a million..

:) I hear you. I know the Church has no affiliation with any of these groups. It just surprised me a little that there were so many of them.

BD is exactly right about those Rainbow Baptists. We have nothing to do with ABC churches. I checked the website and there are only about 50 member "churches" nationwide. Pretty small potatoes. They sound like the kind of Baptists maybe Billy and Jimmah might go for.

"On the one hand the truth of brute facts is independent of logic."

Those are axioms. I must say that my belief if God is non-axiomatic.

"On the other, logic does not dictate an equation between philosophical causality and physical (or temporal) causality,"

Causality for any action, is singular and unique. The logical equation is A=A. If more than one cause is claimed for any physical action, the determination of real cause depends on the evidence. It can not depend on anything else. Bayes theorm may be applied and the evidence weighed.

"only your refusal to accept the Church's understanding is at issue here, not any matter of sound deduction."

The matter is one regarding the determination of truth and logic applies, not authority.

"Besides, for all your denials, proposing Arius' error of seating the begetting of the Son within time, "

Arius held that the Son was created and was an inferior God. I pointed out, that I don't believe that in #7902. The proposition is false.

"time being created, to insist that the begetting of the Son is within time implies 'there was when the Son was not', the very formula for which Arius was condemned as a heretic."

No, as per #7902. God must exist in time. His time is not the same as in this universe. His clock is not our clock. If God did not exist in time, then there is no measure of eternity. Time is simply equal to zero and nothing exists. There's no clock to sequence events, ponder, make decisions, or to order cause and effect. In #7882, I pointed out that God always had the capacity to act by "begetting", or "proceeding" Those acts are not an act of creation. They are simply extending one's self. Now no action whatsoever, can proceed the decision to act, regardless of what anyone says. Since God is logical, He would never say He acted before He decided to Act.

on Predestination... a classic.

I'm so glad you are feeling better!

Thank you for the encouragements!

Nai, Kolo mou... :)

You're quite welcome, D-fendr!

I recently re-read The River of Fire that you excerpted from a long while back. Thanks for that, it's quite an exciting read for a Papist. :)

I ran the jist of it past a cradle-Catholic and had an interesting conversation as well.

And the fruits of Holy Spirit are also wise markers

So very true.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matt 7:15-20

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. - Gal 5:22-23

I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every [branch] that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit. Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. - John 15:1-5

But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear, we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one that doeth righteousness is born of him. – 1 John 2:27-29

SBC's Christian Life Commission publishes a pamphlet called Critical Issues: Homosexuality. It states that: ...

Thanks, D-fendr. That list looks pretty reasonable to me. I don't know that I could go so far as to pinpoint the "cause" of it on the relationship to parents, but otherwise it looks pretty OK to me.

What I wonder is if anyone ever lost their assurance. Or if anyone who has assurance was ever wrong. Is assurance assured

How would one ever know in this lifetime? The Protestant side seems to not believe that any one of them could be wrong. Being a Protestant is really very attractive from the human point of view. It is a real miracle more people are not Protestant. First, Protestants believe that Christ died for all their sins, past, present and future, so the bill is paid in full; they owe nothing.

Second, you are absolutely sure that the Holy Spirit indwells you and guides you. The fact that they all believe in a slightly different set of beliefs is irrelevant by all indications. By adopting Jesus as their Savior, they are justified in the yes of God, their sins have been wiped off, yesterday, today and tomorrow, and they are basically 'saved.'

Third, if they sin, Christ has already paid for them, so you really can't rack up any spiritual "debt" by sinning. Although it may not be something they desire or necessarily like, sin is a fact of life and truly very little of real concern as far as their already established state of 'salvation.'

Fourth, once you have convinced yourself that you are guided by the Holy Spirit, you are sure that He will never leave you. So, the peace of mind is right there along with imputed self-righteousness.

Thus, guided by the Holy Spirit, you create a personal faith and become your own "pope." If you don't like the First Baptist Church on Main Street, because the pastor teaches free will, or rapture, you can always go to the First Baptist Church on east Avenue and still be a Baptist...or whatever other flavor of Protestant you identify yourself with. Or, you can become a "non-denominational"

If you don't like the creed your church uses, you can always write another one. If you consider yourself Reformed, there is no hard and fast rule as to just how much concordance there must be between you and the other Reformed.

So, to pout it simply, it's cozey, it's easy and it's rather well tailored to man's nature lookign at it from outside.

Now, in all fairness, I don't know if that is how it is, but not a single one could prove to me that he or she is guided by the Holy Spirit, nor can any of them explain how is it that they all believe slightly different things if they are all taught by the same Teacher?

To an outsider, it seems terirbly presuptious, arrogant and conaceited. But, the various Protestants will tell me that I am dead wrong on this. And I would like to believe them, because most of them seem to be very decent and God-fearing people, but they have yet to explain all this in a way I can understand. Being absolutely sure they are saved and guided by the Holy Spirit does not contain even a slight possibility of error on thier part.

The River of Fire was written (late 1970's) when our Churches were much more at odds, with Vatican II reforms gone wild, making things even worse. But it certainly captures the Protestant, rather than Catholic, theology in its core.

It portrays the Orthodox approach very well, and the idea that we experience God's goodness depending on our spiritual state as either blessings or pain. the idea is that God is Good and He is always and forever Good, unchaning.

You will be judged immediately upon your death, and based on what you have done with your talents, and what was in your heart. God gives us blessings; some people use them to bless others; other people use them to do evil with them. The meek, the pure in heart, the merciful, the suffering, etc., i.e. those who have attained the likeness of Christ, will find their rewards in heaven.

Thanks, Kosta. I wasn't sure how you all saw this.

Yes, that's pretty much what I took away from it. It used a very sharp knife to separate the differences. I learn more about the differences in theology at the same time I'm learning the similarities in the spirituality. It's an odd feeling.

The article was very interesting to me because the theological points of 'original sin' I hadn't considered much until recently, and I agree with the author's position on the experience of God. Most definitely he's correct on why many in the West have rejected religion and in turn the "God" often taught. This was very similar to my much of my experience growing up.

I came to Catholicism very late in life, so my experience is quite different from people my age who went through Catholic school with the Baltimore Catechism.

From those I talk to, their experiences were widely varied. Theology for a child is often learned by whom they are taught by as much as what they are taught. Not much is really hidden from children. Words don't count for as much, anyway.

The same was true for me growing up Protestant. The closest I came to knowing God from a clergyman as a child was from the pastor at a tiny country Baptist Church when I was eleven. And it wasn't in the theology he tried to teach me - I couldn't tell you a single thing I learned about it.

The Roman Catholic Church is huge - huge in history and depth and breadth. Much of it is in common with the Orthodox, a thousand years of it at least and a thousand years hence. There's lots and lots of room in the Church.

There are those I know with bad experiences of the justice God. Then there are those who spent their time with "He and I" or Merton and "Seeds of Contemplation", The Little Flower, Teresa of Avila… a view of God more in common with the view expressed in the article.

So I have a love-hate relationship with theology. I've been told that one can only know what Orthodoxy is by living it, and I wonder if that's not true of all religion. The differences I see may often be colored by the underlying theology, but it's how it's lived that it can really be known.

I'm just a wee baby in the Church, and everything I say here is just my view through beginner's eyes.

Sorry the length, and thanks again for the article and all the other information you present on these threads.

Yes, the pinpointing of the cause stood out to me too. Other than that, they're pretty similar.

How would one ever know in this lifetime?

On that question I was referring to if anyone "lost their assurance." You know, if someone was assured and then later - in this lifetime - wasn't assured anymore - doubted their assurance or lost it completely.

Or if externally.. One says he is "assured" and others of the same church say, "ain't no way in hell that guy is saved.." Something like that. Whether there was a logical requirement of Once Assured Always Assured.

I would imagine there has to be some cases of people losing their assurance.

As to the attraction of personal theology of Reformed, I think it also appeals to the individualism of the West - the frontierism and the conjunction of revolt and self-rule, democracy. I often see the argument made that the nation's founders were Calvinist, or the something similar.

And there is also a variation of sins "wiped off" where sins are "covered over." Add to this, the range of predeterminism and the theological permutations become multiplied again.

Nondenominationalism is the rage in many places and then there's the prosperity Christianity, believe to receive, that I think most Protestants here recognize as secular peversion of the beatitudes.

It may sound contrary, but sometimes I see Protestant Churches as talking one aspect of Catholocism, eliminating the rest and expanding on their chosen piece. The only piece never picked is monasticism.

thanks for your reply, perhaps a Protestant will speak to the question of Assurance of assurance...

I know it's a stretch and way beyond my knowledge, but Light, no time passing, but time passing for other observers.. struck me as ponderable - for a dilettante anyway.