Posted on 10/28/2007 5:11:19 PM PDT by pinochet
I am a Catholic who is trying to understand Protestant history and teachings, in order to better understand the history of Christianity. There is one issue that I do not understand.
According to Protestant teachings, if a person becomes saved, are his future sins forgiven? Can a person lose his salvation? If not, can assurance of salvation become a license to sin?
If Ted Haggard had gone to be with the Lord early last year, while in the process of getting a "massage" from his male "friend", would he have gone straight to heaven?
We could argue that for awhile. It was Adam's sin that brought sin and death into the world, not Eve. Also, how was Eve "ignorant", when she knew God's command to not eat from the tree of knowledge? My point was the sin of ignornace is not as "damning" as one done willfully. For example, read Numbers 15:
And if any person sins through ignorance, then he shall bring a she goat of the first year as [the] sin. And the priest shall reconcile the soul that errs ignorantly, when he sins by ignorance before the LORD, he shall be reconciled; and it shall be forgiven him. Ye shall have the same law for the one that sins through ignorance, [both for] the natural born among the sons of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them. But the person that does something consciously, [whether they are] natural born or a stranger, the same reproaches the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has made void his commandment, that person shall utterly be cut off; his iniquity [shall be] upon him. Numbers 15:27-31
The force of the difference is clear. The sins of ignorance are not as bad as those done in full knowledge, done wilfully and despite the commandments. Catholics call such sins "mortal", since they separate us from spiritual commune with the Body - just as in Moses' day. We believe that God only condemns those who REJECTS Him, as in John 3, not those who were ignorant about Him. Laws only bind those to whom it is given to.
We need to learn to judge rightly, which means judging ourselves first. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. If we refuse to judge others, they may take it as tacit approval. I do not envy your job.
Yes, it is a fine line to walk, between justice and mercy, between strict following of the law and more pastoral interpretation. I agree that a person should be notified if they are "living in sin". It is to be done gently and so as not to close the door on someone "young in the faith". As I said before, I don't think such a person was necessarily "bound by the slavery of adultery", per sec, since in many cases, it was an unknown rule that they were unaware of.
While my "job" may have its difficulties, I am sure that anyone in my position, one who preaches the Gospel to people just beginning their walk in Christ (in the fullness of faith, for those who are Protestant converts) can testify that it is also a spiritually refreshing calling, because we SEE Christ working in people, changing and reforming them over a period of time. For some people, it is quite an amazing transformation, and this strengthens my own faith and trust in the working of the Spirit.
Regards
Yes, Paul wrote that Eve was deceived and not Adam. That is an interesting passage, and I am not sure why Paul writes it, because Adam was clearly deceived, as well. He was apparently next to Eve when the serpent tempted her.
And when the woman saw that the tree [was] good for food, and that it [was] pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make [one] wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. Gen 3:6
Paul's assertion is a bit confusing to me, I am not sure why he says that, except perhaps to exhonerate the male for some reason. He knew where Eve got the fruit from and that the serpent tempted her.
If ignorance is a mitigating factor, then what difference can we discern between the discipline meted out to Adam verses Eve?
That's a good question - if we think that Eve was ignorant. However, I do not believe either were ignorant, and they willfully broke God's commandment, since they BOTH ate of the fruit of the tree that they were forbidden to eat from. Thus, they received due punishment and were cast out of union with God in the Garden. Now, why was man and woman punished differently? God has His reasons on why women would be subject to man and that men would have to sweat for their food.
I have found that interpretations that are obvious in one passage of scripture and not so clear in other passages. What about a person who is willfully ignorant of Gods word?
LOL! Willfully ignorant? Can you give me an example of what that means? I think the two terms are mutually exclusive - do you mean someone chooses to remain ignornant?
I have no prescription for someone in an adulterous marriage except for Christ who is just and the justifier of all that believe.
True. Once a person is told of their relationship, and they believe that the source of the judgment is truly from God through a human instrument, then it is their responsibility to do something about it. They are no longer ignorant; continued "marital activity" without some sort of action or plan in view to remedy the situation would be a willful ignoring of God's command.
Only God can judge the heart of men, so it is difficult to know how "ignorant" someone really is.
Regards
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;Only God can judge the heart of men, so it is difficult to know how "ignorant" someone really is.
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.