Question for Freeper Catholics

1/27/04 | LS

[LS]

I recently watched "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc," starring Milla Jovovich. Not being a Catholic, I had some questions:

1) At the end, the notes said Joan was "canonized" 500 years later(approx. 1930s, I guess). Does canonization automatically mean one is "sainted?" Or are they different? If so, what is the difference?

2) What are the prerequisites to be either "canonized" or "sainted," if they are different?

3) Specifically to the movie---if anyone saw it---was the Dustin Hoffman character supposed to be Lucifer, the accuser?

4) I'm weak historically on this: was the film accurate about Joan often doing things on her own ("if you love me, fight for me") as opposed to leading the armies "in the name of God?" I suppose it depends on what you think of Joan, but among believers, is the consensus that she indeed received instructions from God, or that she was a fruitloop?

[SoothingDave]

I wasn't wrong to learn about that, and I'll not stop trying to learn about the truth of Church history.

"The truth" doesn't come from one-sided, sloppy treatments of history.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Our flesh is still of the old person. The Bible says that we don't fight powers and principalities, but we fight our flesh. The flesh continues to carry the fingerprints of our past sins.

Can't you just answer my questions? Do you think that your body (the flesh) holds all of your sin? How did Lucifer sin without a body?

SD

[conservonator]

But I've experienced first hand all of your knowledge and understanding.

...and it drove you to..., how exactly do you classify our theology? Jewish, Messianic Jew, Unitarian, what??

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Why must I classify my theology? Are we heresy hunting?

[Tantumergo]

"So, there is no place in Scripture, at least from my examples, where there was an temporary punishment, for purification of sins, before entering heaven."

Sure there is:

1 Cor 3,11 "For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus.
12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble:
13 Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is.
14 If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.
15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire."

[Havoc]

HI STEVEN! God love ya brother. Haven't seen you in so long. ;)

[conservonator]

Why must I classify my theology? Are we heresy hunting?

Nope, just curious.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

HI STEVEN! God love ya brother. Haven't seen you in so long. ;)

Hey Havoc. Good to see ya. Been reading your posts today. As usual wisdom comes oozing forth. :-)

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Nope, just curious.

Come on. You had me label myself recently. You forget already?

[Tantumergo]

"but there is no way to lose our place in the Lambs book of life, except for the promise in Revelations 22 vs 18-19."

Here's a few more scripture passages for you to look up courtesy of James Akin's debate with James White:

For example, in Matt. 6:12-15, Jesus tells us to continue to pray that we will be forgiven and warns us that if we do not forgive we will not be forgiven.

But my opponent claims that we not not need to pray to be forgiven and that we do not need to forgive to be forgiven.

In Matt. 18:21-35, Jesus tells us that that if we do not forgive others God will do to each one of us what happened to the unmerciful servant, namely, that after initially being forgiven we will be unforgiven and delivered over to the jailors until we can pay all of our infinite debt.

But my opponent claims that if we end unforgiven then we must never have been forgiven in the first place.

In Luke 8:13, Jesus tells us that there are some who receive the word with joy but, because they have no root, they believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away.

But my opponent claims that they never believed in the first place and that it is impossible for anyone who believed to fall away in time of temptation.

In Luke 12:42-46, Jesus tells us that you can start out as a "faithful and wise" steward of his (and the Greek word for "faithful" is pistos), then begin to mistreat your fellow Christians and eat and drink and get drunk, and then when Jesus returns be punished and assigned a place with the unfaithful.

But my opponent claims that anyone who will be assigned a place with the unfaithful must have been unfaithful from the beginning, meaning that he was never a faithful and wise steward to begin with, as Jesus said he was.

In Luke 15:11-32, Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son, in which one of the sons of the Father leaves home, is twice described by his father as being "dead" and then returns home and is spoken of by the Father as being "alive again."

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for one of the sons of the Father to be "alive again" because no son of the Father can ever leave home and become "dead."

In John 6:66-71, Jesus says that he chose or elected the twelve, yet one of them--Judas--was a devil, proving that not all choosing or election is a choosing or election to perseverance.

Yet my opponent denies this and claims that all election is election to perseverance.

In John 15:1-10, Jesus says that he is the vine and we are the branches and that if we do not bear fruit we will be cut out of him, wither up, and finally be burned in the fire.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for any branch to be cut out of Jesus and thrown into the fire, and that every branch in Jesus automatically bears fruit.

In John 17:12, Jesus says that he had lost none of those the Father had given to him except for Judas.

But my opponent claims that that nobody who the Father has given to Jesus can ever be lost.

In Romans 8:13, Paul warns his audience of Christians that if they live according to the flesh they will die.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for Christians to live according to the flesh.

In Romans 11:20-33, Paul says that Jews were broken off of the tree of God's spiritual Israel because of unbelief, and that we retain our place in it only be believing, so we should be afraid because God will not spare us if we disbelieve anymore than he spared the natural branches.

But my opponent claims that no one can ever be cut out of God's spiritual Israel and that it is impossible for us to disbelieve.

In Romans 14:15-23, Paul tells us that we must not, by what we eat, ruin others for whom Christ died.

But my opponent claims that those for whom Christ died can never be ruined no matter what we do.

In the same passage, Paul tells us that we must not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God by making our brother Christian fall.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible to destroy the work of God under any circumstances and that no brother Christian can ever fall.

In 1 Cor. 9:23-27, Paul tells us that not every runner who runs in the race will receive a prize and that he pommels his body to subdue it, lest after preaching salvation to others he himself would be disqualified.

But my opponent claims that you can't even join the race of salvation unless you're going to win a prize, and that if Paul was ever a true athelete in this race it would be impossible for him to be disqualified.

In 1 Cor. 10:12, Paul says, "Therefore let any one who thinks that he stands take heed lest he fall."

But my opponent claims it is impossible for anyone to fall. It would be impossible for true Christians to fall because they will all persevere, and it would be impossible for false Christians to fall because they were never standing in the first place. Furthermore, false Christians should be encouraged to fall from their false Christianity so they can embrace true Christianity!

In 1 Cor. 15:1-2, Paul tells us that we will be saved by the gospel if we hold it fast, unless we believe in vain.

But my opponent claims that if we believed at all we cannot help but holding fast to the gospel and that it is impossible for anyone to believe in vain because saving faith is never in vain and non-saving faith is not true belief in the first place and never would have helped us.

In 2 Cor. 11:2-4, Paul says that he betrothed his audience to Christ like a pure bride, but that they were in danger of being seduced by the serpent, just like Eve, and that they had submitted readily to a different Christ and a different gospel.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for anyone today to do what Eve did and fall from a state of grace, and having once accepted the true Christ and the true gospel turn aside to a false Christ and a false gospel.

In 2 Cor. 12:5, Paul says that you must examine yourself to see if we are holding "to your faith."

But my opponent claims that if you are not holding to your faith, you never had faith to begin with.

In Gal. 5:1-4, Paul says that anyone who is circumcized becomes severed from Christ and has fallen from grace.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible to be severed from Christ and impossible to fall from grace.

In Gal. 6:7-9, Paul tells us that we will reap a harvest of eternal life if we do not lose heart and grow weary in working good.

But my opponent claims that anyone who does lose heart and grow weary in working good was never going to reap a harvest of eternal life in the first place.

In Phil 3:12, Paul says that he has not yet obtained the resurrection from the dead but that he presses on to make it his own because Christ has made him his own.

But my opponent claims that anyone who Christ has made his own already has the resurrection from the dead and if you are trying to press on to make the resurrection yours then you do not belong to Christ.

In Col. 1:21-23, Paul tells us that we were once hostile to God but have not been reconciled and will be presented holy and blameless provided we continue in our faith and not shifting from the hope of the gospel.

But my opponent claims anyone who does not continue in his faith aways was hostile and never was reconciled. He also says it is impossible to shift from the hope of the gospel and that anyone who appears to shift never had the hope of the gospel in the first place.

In Col. 2:18-19, Paul says that a man puffed by without reason by his sensuous mind has lost connection with the head of the Body, Jesus Christ, from which the whole body grows.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible to lose connection with the head of the Body and that if you do not now have connection with the head, you never did.

In 1 Tim. 1:5-6, Paul says that some people have wandered away from a sincere faith, a pure heart, and a good conscience.

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for anyone to wander away from a good conscience, a pure heart, and especially a sincere faith.

In 1 Tim. 1:19-20, Paul tells Timothy he must hold fast his faith not not make a shipwreck of his faith like Hymenaeus and Alexander.

But my opponent would say Hymenaeus and Alexander never had faith to shipwreck, and that if Timothy ever did have faith, he could not shipwreck it.

In 1 Tim. 4:1, Paul tells us that the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith.

But my opponent claims that the Spirit will never let anyone depart from the faith.

In 1 Tim. 5:8, Paul says that if any one does not provide for his relatives, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

But my opponent claims it is impossible to disown the faith and be worse than an unbeliever.

In 1 Tim. 6:10, Paul says that for the love of riches some have wandered from the faith.

But my opponent claims it is impossible to wander away fom the faith, for if you aren't in the faith now, you never had it.

In 1 Tim. 6:18-19, Paul says we "are to work good, to be rich in good works, liberal and generous, thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed."

But my opponent claims anyone who has believe has already laid hold of that life and that if we try to lay hold of it by working good and being rich in good works that we have embraced a false gospel and never had the true faith.

In Heb. 2:1 the divinely inspired author tellsus "Therefore we must pay the closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it."

But my opponent claims it is impossible to drift away, because if we accepted what we heard we cannot drift away and if we didn't accept what we heard then we again can't drift away because we never had it.

In Heb. 3:12, the divinely inspired author tells us, "Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God."

But my opponent claims it is impossible to fall away from the living God.

In Heb. 6:4-6, the divinely inspired author tells us that "those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit" can fall away.

But my opponent claims that no one who has been enlightened and become a partaker of the Holy Spirit can ever fall away.

In Heb. 10:23-29, the divinely inspired author tells us, "Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering", "For if we [go on sinning] deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?"

But my opponent claims that if you were sanctified by Christ's blood at all then it is imposible for you to not fold fast to your confession, and impossible for you to go one sinning wilfully, and impossible for you to enter the fury of fire which will consume Christ's adversaried.

In Heb. 10:35, the divinely inspired author tells us "Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward."

But my opponent claims it is impossible for us to throw away our confidence.

In Jas. 5:19-20, James tellsus that "if any one among you wanders from the truth and some one brings him back, let him know that whoever brings back a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death."

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for anyone to wander from the truth.

In 2 Pet. 1:5-11, Peter tells us to "make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge . . . for if you do this you will never fall; so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."

But my opponent claims that if we make an effort to do anything at all, we have embraced a false gospel and will be denied an entrance into the eternal kingdom of Christ.

In 2 Pet. 2:1, Peter tells us that "there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for anyone Jesus bought to ever deny him and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

In 2 Pet. 2:20-22, Peter tells us that the false teachers promise freedom, "if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, The dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire."

But my opponent claims it is impossible to escape the defilements of the world through a knowledge of Jesus Christ and then turn back. He says it is impossible to know the way of righteousness and then turn back. He says it is impossible to be washed from your sins and yet return to wallowing in the mire. Yet Peter says "It has happened to them according to the true proverb."

In 2 Pet. 3:16-17, Peter says that "the ignorant and unstable twist [the Scriptures] to their own destruction . . . You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability."

But my opponent claims that it is impossible to lose your stability and be carried away to destruction.

In 1 John 1:7, John says that if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

But my opponent claims that if we walk in the light we have already been cleasend from all sin and do not need to be continually cleansed.

In 1 John 1:9, John says that If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

But my opponent claims that we have already been forgiven our sins and do not need to be continually cleansed from all unrighteousness.

In 1 John 2:28, John tells us, "And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming."

But my opponent claims that it is impossible for us not to abide in him, making John's command meaningless. It can't be a warning to false Christians because it would tell false Christians to remain in the illusion that they are in Christ.

In Rev. 3:4, Jesus says that in Sardis there were a few people who have not soiled their garments; and they shall walk with him in white, for they are worthy.

Yet my opponent claims that it if you ever receive a white garment it is impossible to ever soil it.

In Rev. 3:5, Jesus says that He who conquers shall be clad thus in white garments, and I will not blot his name out of the book of life. And in Exodus 32:33, God said he would blot out of his book whoever sinned.

But my opponent claims it is impossible to be blotted out of the book if you were ever in it.

In Rev. 3:11, Jesus tells his readers, "I am coming soon; hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown."

But my opponent claims that we can never lose what we have and that no one can ever steal our crown.

In Rev. 22:19, John discusses the scroll of the book of Revelation and says, "if any one takes away from the words of the scroll of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this scroll."

But my opponent claims it is impossible to have your share of the tree of life taken away and your share in the holy city taken away.

Besides these verses which I have quickly surveyed, there are dozens of others which teach the same truth, all of which my opponent has to deny and find some way to squirm his way out of.

I'm just telling you what Scripture says. You don't have to be an Einstein to see that this is the plain teaching of Scripture.

But the writers of the New Testament knew that some would come who would try to deny exactly this teaching. That is why they continually uttered the warning, "Do not be deceived."

Even though Paul tells his audience that they have been washed and sanctified and justified, he still finds it necessary to warn them, in 1 Cor. 6:9-10, saying, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God."

Why would he warn them about this if they were in not in danger of, as Peter said actually happened, returning to wallowing in themire after having been washed? Why would he warn them not to be deceived if there were not certain individuals who would come to them and try to deceive them by telling them the lie, the lie O so pleasing to our itching ears in these latter days, that we can never lose our salvation?

I'm telling you what Paul is telling you: Do not be deceived. Do not embrace that lie that has sent so many millions of souls straight to hell by telling them they can never fall, that same doctrine which my opponent is trying to force upon you even tonight.

I'm telling you: You had better get in a Church that will be honest with you about the reality of mortal sin. And you had better get in a Church that will tell you how to discern which sins are mortal and which are not. And most especially, you had better get in a Church that will tell you what to do once you have fallen and committed a mortal sin. The safety of your soul requires it.

[conservonator]

Come on. You had me label myself recently. You forget already?

Yep, That's the great thing about having a bad memory, I get to learn the same old something new nearly every day!

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Yep, That's the great thing about having a bad memory, I get to learn the same old something new nearly every day!

Ok. Since you probably have some curious now. I suppose I am a "NonOrthodox Nontrinitarian Monotheist Messianic". Same as most 1st Century believers.

[Havoc]

Yes, how silly of me to try to reason with you.

How silly of you to try to worm around scripture and expect me to accept it. No amount of how you can try to make things seem right will get you past the brick wall immoveable nature of scripture. Scripture calls your philosophy a lie and vice versa.

I'll just note that just because you have neither the desire nor (apparently) the capacity to understand something,

No I understand quite well. Understanding something and accepting it are two different things. Scripture says one thing and you say another. The two are in conflict. No contest - you lose. It's personal. Your lie can wreck my soul. Take it personally. By all means. You're trying to ruin my soul by tempting me to reject God's word and accept a lie in it's place. Shall I respond to you as Christ responded to Peter? Or shall we consider it done and let you handwring some more? I love you; but, I'm not going to join your error. I've got better things to do with my eternity than to spend it on a spitt.

I and millions of other Catholics have no trouble understanding these apparently complex things that you simply will not think about.

It could be you and billions, trillions, etc.. It matters not a whit. You still don't get it. It isn't about what you decide to believe is true. It's about what you decide to believe concerning God and His word. You can get together with the Budhists and agree with them that enlightenment only comes through snorting Beetle flutulence. God didn't say it. My soul depends on what God said, not you. Not your clergy. Not my clergy. If my clergy is uttering other than God's message to me, then they are just as wrong as you and just as in need of correction. Christian enlightenment isn't sniffing bug farts nor is it a matter of speculating on the size of our IQs and who can come up with the best theory on what happened to Mary. Christianity is a sealed covenant that was completed before Catholicism ever came into being. Someone on another thread was telling me just in the last 24 hours that Constantine appears not to have been Christian on first look because Catholics hadn't gotten around to creating a doctrine to allow for it yet in his time. How pompouse is that?! How telling.

Something to ponder. Even Paul, when he was done being a child, put away his childish notions.

Indeed. I learned as a child that what I want and what Is and will be are seperate things - long before most adults. I learned not to believe in "if" at an early age. I grew up quickly. My heart may be childlike; but, my understanding and approach are all spirit. Your religion may be a contest of the popularity of ideas like 5th grade fads. Mine was defined by my Lord 2000 years ago and is unchanging and immoveable just as my God is. And mine doesn't change the rules on me every 300 years. Nor does he talk his ministers into manufacturing fraud, murdering people for their beliefs, etc. Low blows - no, truth. Cause you've brought it there.

Go ahead and enter heaven while imperfect, and let's see what happens.

Lay it out there and you'll bite - right out of context and with no understanding. Knew I could count on you. You just don't understand anything of the spirit. So sad.

[Havoc]

Good points. You got it right under control CL. Stick to your guns and don't back off scripture or facts.

[Havoc]

Catholics have murdered people, Dave. It isn't that big a stretch what she's saying. If you wish to get offended, then by all means; please, do your self martyrdome dance and get over it then put away the pretense and face facts.
The incredulity act is old.

[conservonator]

I suppose I am a "NonOrthodox Nontrinitarian Monotheist Messianic". Same as most 1st Century believers.

Thanks, but, c'mon Steven, at least think of something that has an acronym I can remember! NONMM?

[The Truth will set you Free]

They took out the Old Testament books in opposition to the Church. Before the 1500's all Christians were Catholic.

History on the Protestant Bible.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02544a.htm

The books are, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Wisdom, Baruch, 1st and 2nd Maccabees. I highly recommend people to read the book of Tobit. Not to change to Catholic beliefs, but to at least read an ancient work of faith. It's about one's unwavering trust in God despite one's troubles in life. It is a very moving book.

A great book to read about the start of Protestantism is, (The Facts About Luther)by MSGR. O' Hare in 1916. It has just about every writing of Luther and is a great reference book also.

[Havoc]

We can all go back and read.

Yes we can, and have. Mind pointing it out to those of us that don't see the Dave mindset so readily? I know she's got you so flustered you're mispelling things now. But, give us a break. Really.

(PS: Like the rest, you somehow confuse "temporal punishment" with "temporary punishment." Words mean things. I can't believe that your side is the one arguing how easy it is for each person to read and understand everything.)

I understand her just fine. You aren't questioning her understanding, you're scoffing at her spelling. And puffing yourself up at a pretense of being more intelligent. And yes, her side does understand. Scripture is cake as a Christian. Cake.

[Havoc]

"The truth" doesn't come from one-sided, sloppy treatments of history.

Right. Exactly. Especially when it's the offender trying to tell the offendee the story about it. As I've said before, Your clergy long ago murdered people for their beliefs because they were a threat to your religion and their power. They used the state to murder people because of religious intolerance. And when they lost the power to wipe people out and came to a position where the tables could be turned, they decided it was time to rewrite history and try pulling the wool. It isn't working. The Nazi leaders didn't write the history of WWII precisely because it would have been a mockery and a pack of the lies they told right up till they were hung or took their own lives. Your problem isn't that things are one sided. It is that they aren't. To you nothing but what your clergy says is true even if their own documents show them liars. And we can see it in discussion after discussion. You're upset because she isn't accepting your version of History and dares to speak of someone else's. That is one sidedness. I've looked at your histories for 15 years, I've looked at the other side. And I've concluded that the other side does make some errors; but on the whole is more accurate than your side - they aren't pulling a cya. Do they have an axe to grind sometimes - you bet. Because by saying what they find, it get's them threatened, labeled slandered, etc unendingly. I've never spared anyone noting that catholics are by and large good people. No problem saying that at all. My favorite people at work to have fun with are Catholics. Who cares. It isn't about that. It's about whether or not we follow Christ's directives or somebody else's philosophy. The only thing history really tells us is your outward witness as a group over time. That is why you want to cya. Cause the more you can control the image, the more you think people will accept your philosophy and make you feel better about rejecting Christ as a leader. That is ultimately what it is about. You've chosen to follow philosophy instead of Christ. We've chosen to follow Christ instead of Philosophy. And part of that is about being truthful. To that extent, the history issue must include established fact - even when that paints your clergy as liars and murderers in the olden days.

[Havoc]

LOL. Dave's been slimed - is that what you're saying?