SIN , no such thing? YOU THINK Why is there confession?

SIN, is a deliberate act against the laws of God.Sin affects each individual's soul and every person is born with a soul. The soul,the piece of each human that at death will never die,it is immortal. It- as the individual will, be judged before God,at the end of their life for both the good and the bad they have done and merit either,heaven a place of eternal happiness- or hell,a place of eternal punishment and misery for the SINS or Sins committed..without repentance and amendment of life. Confession,cleanses away the sin. That why the Catholic Church has Confession. Christ died to save mankind from their sins.Look at the crucifix,see how ugly the wounds of Christ! What pain SIN causes Jesus.

"Hey Harley! Up to your old tricks again?"

Up to my old tricks???? Is there something in Augustine's writings on Predestination you disagree with? I thought I would be applauded for posting a early Church father's writing. ;O)

Here is the RCC stance on election from newadvent:

"If it be asked why the name elect was given to the members of the Church Militant, we may assign a double reason: first, they were freely chosen by God's goodness (Rom., xi, 5-7, 28); secondly, they must show in their conduct that they are choice men (Ephes., iv, 17). In the sentence "many are called, but few are chosen", the latter expression renders a word in the Greek and Latin text which is elsewhere translated by elect (Matt., xx, 16; xxii, 14). It is agreed on all sides that the term refers to members of the Church Triumphant, but there is some doubt as to whether it refers to mere membership, or to a more exalted degree. This distinction is important; if the word implies mere membership in the Church Triumphant, then the chosen ones, or those who will be saved, are few, and the non-members in the Church Triumphant are many; if the word denotes a special degree of glory, then few will attain this rank, and many will fail to do so, though many are called to it. The sentence "many are called, but few chosen" does not, therefore, settle the question as to the relative number of the elect and the lost; theologians are divided on this point, and while Christ in the Gospels urges the importance of saving one's soul (Luke, xiii, 23, 24), he alternately so strengthens our hope and excites our fear as not to leave us any solid ground for either presumption or despair."

Quite different from Augustine's view. My how times have change. If the RCC cannot understand the meaning of election, then I don't see how they can understand the meaning of sin. Augustine didn't seem to have a problem.

And truly, with all due respect, I don't need to have someone tell me what Augustine believed as your author tries to do. I can read his writings myself.

"Now, if we could only get them our separated brothers to see the logic of this. If you find a way that seems to work, let me know! I've been writing the same stuff for awhile now... "

Jo kus,

Well, for starters, this site is great, because it allows us to hash through the issues and clear up a lot of misconceptions.

It would be very helpful if Protestant seminaries dropped the an-historical approach to Christianity. Protestantism is a man-made invention of the 16th century and later. If someone wants to show me "saved by faith alone" in the bible, or as a teaching of the Church prior to the time of Martin Luther, I'm open to seeing it. We have extensive writtings documenting Church teaching that date back to the first century, so if it exists, it should be easy to find.

Also, the conspiracy theory history of the Catholic Church is one that we could do well without in order to make honest progress in dialog. Anti-Catholicism, to the extent that it exists, needs to be dropped from the Curricula and the pulpit.

I have never heard a sermon preached against the Protestant Faith in a Catholic Church. It is my distinct impression, on the other hand, that anti-Catholicism is a fundamental point of faith for many protestant traditions. Given that Protestantism depends upon Catholicism for its legitimacy, this is a dysfunctional situation.

We also need to assure our brothers and sisters in Christ that we respect and care for them, and appreciate their Christian witness. I'm also open to suggestions from our Protestant brothers and sisters.

The fractured faith of Christianity is a scandal to the Body of Christ. I have on numerous occasions heard people interested in exploring Christianity ask which denomination of the 33,000+ rival communities is the correct one. It does not help when a seeker enters a Christian Church, and is presented with an attack against other sincere Christians.

Recognizing that it is a problem is a good place to start, and the more mature ecclesial communities have done that.

"If the RCC cannot understand the meaning of election, then I don't see how they can understand the meaning of sin. Augustine didn't seem to have a problem."

I don't think the issue is so simple. It really revolves around grace and free will. How much of each is present in man?

Luther said man has no free will to do good. Man is like a horse who is either "ridden by God or the devil". Calvin said that original sin annihilated free will and that the Redemption did not restore it. Of course, Trent opposed this by saying that man has moral freedom in spite of original sin, while also saying that freedom worked with grace. In actuality, there are several Catholic 'systems' of grace : Thomism and Molinism are two. In other words, there is still work among theologians on the particulars of the relationship between grace and free will.

by the way, earlier I had stated that Augustinianism was refuted by the Church. I would like to state that I was mistaken, I was thinking the extreme forms of predestination that Pelagians took up. Sorry for the confusion.

Regards

"I have never heard a sermon preached against the Protestant Faith in a Catholic Church. It is my distinct impression, on the other hand, that anti-Catholicism is a fundamental point of faith for many protestant traditions. Given that Protestantism depends upon Catholicism for its legitimacy, this is a dysfunctional situation."

There are several reasons behind this, I think. First, if you vilify the Church, you can justify leaving it, even though you are aware that it WAS (according to some) the Church of Christ.

Second, nothing like a simple message for the people. Why is Islam so popular? It is a simple message. Protestantism is based on faith, almost to the exclusion of reason. Theologically, it stands on two axioms that are found nowhere in the Scripture or Traditions of Christianity for 1500 years.

Which leads to another point. Some that I have met here have an aversion to rational thought, as if it demeans their faith in Christ. We also see this in Fundamentalism that refuses to see that science does not have to disagree with religion (like the creation of the world)

I think much of it also must be blamed on ignorance of Catholics. Part of this is "our" fault, as most Catholics don't know their own faith. How can they witness to others then?

And finally, as you mention, they often have a skewed idea of history - from 100 AD to 1500 AD was the Dark Ages of Catholicism, where people were under the thumb of a huge heirarchy of a church that loaded people with burdens of rituals, rather than the freedom of a relationship with Christ. Of course, all stereotypes and false, but this is difficult to show them, especially when the bible is the only book that has any authority for them. Other history books are meaningless.

It is paramount that we, as Catholics, heed the words of Christ, to love our neighbor and to show others that we are in Christ through our love of others. If we come across as arrogant or triumphant, it is not difficult to see why a Protestant would just turn and leave our presence. We are judged by our fruits, not by how many Masses we go to or books that we read or rosaries that we recite.

Take care

On the contrary, I think it is entirely that simple. What does it mean to be "elect or choosen" by God? Doesn't the meaning of this then relate back to how God looks at your sin?

This is part of John Calvin's statement on Eph 2:8-9 in regards to man's free will...

For by grace are ye saved. This is an inference from the former statements. Having treated of election and of effectual calling, he arrives at this general conclusion, that they had obtained salvation by faith alone. First, he asserts, that the salvation of the Ephesians was entirely the work, the gracious work of God. But then they had obtained this grace by faith. On one side, we must look at God; and, on the other, at man. God declares, that he owes us nothing; so that salvation is not a reward or recompense, but unmixed grace. The next question is, in what way do men receive that salvation which is offered to them by the hand of God? The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own. If, on the part of God, it is grace alone, and if we bring nothing but faith, which strips us of all commendation, it follows that salvation does not come from us.

Ought we not then to be silent about free-will, and good intentions, and fancied preparations, and merits, and satisfactions? There is none of these which does not claim a share of praise in the salvation of men; so that the praise of grace would not, as Paul shews, remain diminished. When, on the part of man, the act of receiving salvation is made to consist in faith alone, all other means, on which men are accustomed to rely, are discarded. Faith, then, brings a man empty to God, that he may be filled with the blessings of Christ. And so he adds, not of yourselves; that claiming nothing for themselves, they may acknowledge God alone as the author of their salvation.

If God took the trouble to save you, will He not also keep you? That is what election is all about.

I begin to treat sex as a selfish outlet for only me. I don't care anymore about my wife and the intimate sharing that married love is supposed to be.

If you do these things, you are hurting someone else unnecessarily. Heinlein's assertion holds true. He doesn't make any specific reference to whether something like viewing pornography is sinful or not - what he is saying is that anything can be sinful if it hurts others, nothing is if it doesn't hurt others (or yourself).

Granted, there can still be huge arguments about the definition of "hurting". ;)

Proper confession is, of course, impossible without faith in Christ. A sin, once confessed and repented for, is absolved. That sinner will sin again. There is, however, only one judgement. At that time his salvation will depend, under the sovereign will of Christ, on the sum total of his unconfessed sin. Indeed, even assuming the unknowable, -- that all sin is confessed and absolved at the time of death, -- the salvation is not merited by the act of confession, but granted by the sovereign Christ.

There is no way possible to confess every sin you have ever committed. On top of that, even ONE sin will keep you from fellowship with God. The ONLY reason we have fellowship with God is because His Son Jesus died for the sins of the world. He was, and is, the only sinless person ever to walk this Earth. Grace is giving us what we don't deserve (eternal life with God) when we shouldn't get it (sinful life).

As far as absolved sin, sin never goes away. You cannot un-sin. You can confess your sins (to God) and you will be forgiven and cleansed of unrighteousness, but your sin is still there. It's simply covered by the Blood of Christ, and therefore ignored by God.

As far as Salvation goes:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

Salvation is by Grace thorough Faith.

So according to you, what is it I don't understand?

Perhaps [St. Augustine] was the first Protestant

He influenced early Protestant thinkers, yes. If Protestants made sure they read St. Augustine without their own 16-century cultural baggage, without Calvinist desacralizing attitude, and in harmony with other Church Fathers, they probably either would have remained in the Church, just like St. Augustine remains our authority, or they would have veered into heresy similar to Jansenism, and would have recoiled from it in the fullness of time.

Several people already explained how Catholicism understands St. Augistin's teaching on Grace.

If there is a thread now or later dedicated to the issue of irresistible grace, I'd be happy to participate. This thread is dedicated to confession of sins. Discussing a more fundamental protestant errors that lead the Protestant into refusal to recognize yet another sacrament of the Church would be like discussing whether America exists on a thread dedicated to American economy.

Thank you for the thoughtful post.

Indeed, it is often the case that a penitant could not confess every sin. Forms of absolution exist that recognize and absolve sins that could not be remembered due to limitations of mind. A desire to confess them is, of course, still necessary.

On the other hand, only sins committed with the consciousness of mind and with the knowledge and choice of committing a sin need to be confessed. These are "mortal" sins. Sins that are objective wrongs but are committed due to ignorance or honest error are called "venial", those are absolved generally in the course of the Mass. They don't need to be confessed.

The consequence of sin remains after the confession. For example, if a sin involves a crime, the priest will impose restitution, but if the restitution is not possible, the consequence remains even after the penance is complete. A sinner free from unconfessed sin, we believe (without pre-judging the judgement of Christ, goes to Heaven, but he stops in Purgatory on his way, where his saved soul is purified so that he is able to have the Beatific Vision of God.

Feel free to follow up. Good questions.

he said there is nothing we can do to MERIT (earn) salvation

"Merit" is a technical term in Catholic theology, meaning to have a claim on a reward. It doesn't mean "to earn," nor does it necessarily mean "to deserve in strict justice"; that's a specific type of "merit" called (incredibly enough) "to merit in strict justice".

Using "merit" in the technical sense, as a claim on a reward, we can say that the blessed most certainly merit heaven through the free gift of saving grace purchased for them at the Cross. If they didn't, they wouldn't go there.

One thing we can't merit at all, however, is the initial grace of conversion.

"On the contrary, I think it is entirely that simple. What does it mean to be "elect or choosen" by God? Doesn't the meaning of this then relate back to how God looks at your sin?"

This is a difficult subject, because we are dealing with God, who does not exist within time, but sees all time now. I suppose God is able to see our response to His love, and we would be considered elect if we showed our faith in Him. The interaction of free will and grace is such that I don't think you can separate the two. I know that grace does not overpower nature (Aquinas), so we have our free will intact.

Of course, the question then is...How do you know you are of the elect? I believe we know when we analyze the fruits of our works and our faith in Christ, although we never know the final result, we can know with good certainty what our current state is.

I don't agree with Calvin's stating that we are saved by faith alone - as even the devil has faith that God exists. I note that Calvin forgets about Eph 2:10, the next verse. I think we also have to include obedience to God. It is clear from the Gospels that we are to obey God. If your definition of faith includes obedience, then we are probably on the same page in this matter.

"The answer is, by faith; and hence he concludes that nothing connected with it is our own" from Calvin

True. But when we are in Christ, we are NOT alone nor doing anything on our own. If Christ is abiding in us, our works are also His works. Paul is clear about this. See esp. Phil 2:12,13.

Regards

"If you do these things, you are hurting someone else unnecessarily. Heinlein's assertion holds true. He doesn't make any specific reference to whether something like viewing pornography is sinful or not - what he is saying is that anything can be sinful if it hurts others, nothing is if it doesn't hurt others (or yourself)."

Humans are a social animal. We don't live in a vacuum. I cannot think of an example of a person doing something that will not, however slightly, will effect others. If we interact with other people, we will carry our attitudes to them, effecting them as well. I do not see Heinlein's assertion holding true in the real world.

Regards

"As far as absolved sin, sin never goes away. You cannot un-sin. You can confess your sins (to God) and you will be forgiven and cleansed of unrighteousness, but your sin is still there. It's simply covered by the Blood of Christ, and therefore ignored by God."

That is not what Scripture says. Paul says we are transformed, we become a new creation. We are not merely "covered" over. When God says we are a new creation and have been internally changed, it has happened. There is no forensic, imputed justification. God's Word is effective and doesn't need to "ignore" sin. "as far as the east is from the west, so far have our sins been removed from us" - Psalm 103:12

You then quoted ..."For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

What about ..."For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them" - Ephesians 2:10

Why didn't you include the next verse? Were you aware of this verse?

Then you quoted ..."that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9

And what about "For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" - 1 Cor 4:20

or "Children, let us love not in word or speech, but in deed and truth" - 1 John 3:18

or "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord', but do not do what I command"? - Luke 6:46

Brother, Romans 10:9,10 is a Baptismal proclamation, comparable to 1 Tim 6:12. We must profess by our words AND actions.

"What good is it, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works"? James 2:14

"According to me", what you don't understand is that we must display works of love, as faith without love is useless (1 Cor 13:1). When Paul is discussing faith vs. works, he is talking about the attitude that one can "work" their way to salvation. Work demands a wage (Rom 4:4). Salvation is gratis. HOWEVER, the "work" itself is still necessary for salvation. Countless times, the Scriptures tell us that we will be judged based on what we DO. Practically every book of the NT has a verse regarding this.

It is the internal attitude that is important, brother.

If I do x and y (even if it is the greatest charitable contribution), it is meaningless if it is considered a work where God is held responsible to pay me back. Even the OT Jews knew this. No one can "buy" salvation.

But, if I love, I do x and y because I love Christ. Our motives when we are in love are different. We do things for our wives and children, for example, because we love them (hopefully), not because we are expecting something in return. We are able to do this because we are "in Christ". When I abide in Christ, we, Christ and I, are doing the action out of love. THIS has worth to God. This is what Paul and James mean. Faith and "works of Love" cannot be separated.

So if you definition of faith includes obedience to God from our love of Christ, then we can agree with "salvation by faith alone". Without this more broad definition, however, we are not following the entire Scripture and teachings of Christ.

Regards

As far as Salvation goes:
"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9
"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." - Romans 10:9
Salvation is by Grace thorough Faith.

JT,

"Salvation is by Grace through faith." Amen brother. If you understand this to mean that salvation comes from God, and that faith is required, we are in agreement.

If, on the other hand, what you really mean to assert is that we are saved by faith alone, or by belief alone, then I'd say you're putting your trust in a human invention of the 16th century. The theory about being saved by faith alone was invented by Martin Luther about a millennia and a half after Christ founded His Church (with in which the bible was produced.) Not surprpisingly, "Saved by Faith alone" is not in the bible, and is in fact, it's anti-scriptural.

Unfortunately, there are many who seem to believe that this human hypothesis trumps scripture, and that all scripture must be made subservient to this novel invention. This belief appears to lead some so far as to claim that they are guaranteed to go to heaven when they die because at some point in the past they believed, for one moment, that they were guaranteed to go to heaven. This belief is of course, non-scriptural as well. Having had a momentary belief at some time in the past that one is "saved" regardless of future action does not guarantee that we will go to heaven when we die. I'd certainly love to believe that myself, but it's not supported by scripture.

And JT I'm sure you can agree with me that "saved by faith alone " is not in the bible, right?

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.