|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 16:38:21 GMT -5
 Give it up Cepha, you lost. Everyone else has moved on. You know it doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. The unbelieving spouse is no more automatically saved than your cheeseburger you ate for lunch is. Why don't you ask your priest, and see what he says? Or come up with one other person in the universe who believes that, so you can have another "witness".
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2009 19:14:34 GMT -5
Well, you know what? They have good reasons for what they believe. I'm shocked that you have the nerve to call it "satanic" and "devilish". At least they believe in God's complete sovereignty, unlike some groups who seem to believe that they can get God to do whatever they want Him to do. Does your Bible have Romans 9? The Calvinistic doctrine is satanic. and my Bible does has Romans 9. Romans 9 in no way justifies the Calvinistic portrayal of God. I too believe in the Sovereignty of God, however He has given man free will. If we are to take God's sovereignty over everything to the extent that Calvinist do, then that would mean that God wanted little children to be raped or babies to be aborted, or Adam to sin, and for people to burn in Hell ect.... Do you believe that this is the God of the Bible? Do you believe this type of portrayal of God can come from anyone but Satan? |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 20:04:10 GMT -5
Hum...
I'm not going to pretend like I fully understand God.
There is a difference between God doing something, and God allowing something to happen.
Romans 9 says that it does not depend on man's desire or effort.
That certainly sounds Calvinist.
22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
Calvinism is no less "authoritative" than any other brand of Christianity that uses "Sola Scriptura".
Actually, it just magnifies the dangers of Sola Scriptura.
That's why I'm not really Calvinist or anti-Calvinist, I'm Catholic.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 22, 2009 20:12:37 GMT -5
What? That the innocent suffer? What do you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2009 21:51:28 GMT -5
Hum... I'm not going to pretend like I fully understand God. There is a difference between God doing something, and God allowing something to happen. God does allow certain things to happen but He has not cause it. James tells they we are not tempted by God that all good gifts come from Him. There is no evil in God. The god of the Calvinist is pure evil Anyone can twist scripture to make it say what they want it to, even a catholic (cepha has shown us this), but that does not make sola scriptura bad. You may see a sliver of Calvinism in Romans 9, but there is no scripture in all the Bible to justify their teachings. Also any good sola scriptura believer will tell you , you cannot isolate on verse as an Island of its own, you must interpret scripture as a whole. Any true Christian that understands what Calvinist teach, and how it portrays our God, is anti calvinism, regardless if you are Catholic or not. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 22, 2009 21:57:52 GMT -5
What? That the innocent suffer? What do you mean? No, we know people suffer, and must allow it for it to happen, but Calvinist teach that God is the cause of the suffering, that He has ordained it. That if God is the perpetrator of the suffering then it could not happen. Do you believe God perpetrates suffering upon the innocent? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 22:18:03 GMT -5
True emily.....but the believing spouse should continued pray, fast, and let his or her faith and works shine upon his or her family. It doesn't always happened and some take a long time to happened. I know this women who spent 18 years praying and fasting before her husband got converted to Christ...... Well Ramon, for Roman Catholics, we believe that unbelievers can be saved (even without being married to a Christian) and no where in The Bible does it state that those married to a Christian would have any less of the same treatment. For us, non-believers (whether married or not to a Christian) can be saved period. Whoever can't accept this, isn't a Roman Catholic Christian or they are in complete defiance of The Church's Teachings and need to bow down to the scripture posted above. ;D No one is denying that a non-Christian can be saved. The Orthodox Church say that any non-Christian or non-Orthodox Christian can be saved, all through the Grace and mercy of God. Yet we say that they are either heretics, heterodox, or unbeliever and that they should come home to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church in the East, The Holy [Eastern] Orthodox Catholic Church, to enter in full communion with Christ and His Saints. But concerning 1 Cor 7:14, I follow what Saint John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret say about the verse. And both never interpreted the text to mean that the unbeliever is saved simply due to the faith that the other spouse is saved. While there is no official Orthodox interpretation of the text, the Orthodox sources that I research doesn't interpret the text the way you do, not even my Catholic commentary. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 22:23:23 GMT -5
But! Was it made a doctrinal belief? Or his own "personal" belief? What? Saint John Chrysostom interpretation of it? Is your interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14 a official Catholic interpretation of the text? Yes or no? See, what I posted is a Roman Catholic Doctrinal belief. Big difference and even you have to agree that even for Roman Catholics, where a Church Father's personal position disagrees with The Doctrine of The Faith, we have to put his personal belief and choose the teaching of The Church. I would imagine it's the same with the E.O. Church, right? Yes, but since the Orthodox Church has not made a official interpretation of the text, and has not said that a unbeliever is heaven-bound due to his or her spouse being saved, I am free to choose to follow what Saint John Chrysostom or any other Father have to say about the verse. So are you saying that your interpretation of the text is a official Roman Catholic teaching? Any valid Catholic source? I am not talking about a unbeliever being saved due to God's Grace and Mercy, but rather than a unbelieving spouse is saved based on the fact that he or she is married to a saved Christian. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 22:27:42 GMT -5
Question: How come no one has actually addressed the scripture I posted which is the topic here?  I did. I explain the verse, gave what the word "sanctified" mean in this text, gave what a Catholic commentary said on the verse, and then posted what Saint John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret said about the verse.  In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 22, 2009 22:47:48 GMT -5
There is a contradiction there that cannot be reconciled with scripture. Would God deny a holy person their place in Heaven? Can a person be holy and still be excluded from Heaven? If Paul called the unbelieving spouse "holy", then one has to accept that they are "holy". The Bible doesn't say..."sanctified conditionally", but just sanctified (at least in 1 Cor). The conditions for salvation are set for everybody the same (not just for the unbelievind spouse). The problem is that 1 Cor 7:14 doesn't mean what you saying. I find interesting that even Saint John Chrysostom didn't interpret the text the way you do. Saint Paul didn't believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved due to the fact that his or her spouse is saved. If he did, he wouldn't wrote verse 16. I tell you want. Talk to two Catholic Priests (yours and another one) and ask them if they interpret 1 Cor 7:14 the way you do. Tell us what they say. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:17:10 GMT -5
Give it up Cepha, you lost. Everyone else has moved on. I'm sure you'd just love to not answer the question I posted! LOL! I'm sure you'd like to sweep this under the rug without it being addressed. But no! What happened? Is it Joan of Arc's day off? LOL! " I am not afraid…I was born to do this." Joan of Arc Or are you... www.123ppt.com/sound-effects/music/300.htm ? Paul says it means "holy". Why do you disagree with Paul? I don't know why you're bringing that up...I never said that any spouse was "automatically saved". A) Because I already know the scripture to be true (that the unsaved spouse is made holy by the saved spouse) B) CC already said she was going ask her priest (still waiting for that response CC ) What? Scripture "as is" isn't sufficient for you? Why don't you answer the question? Will God "not" allow a "holy" person in Heaven? Yes? Or no? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:20:29 GMT -5
Well Ramon, for Roman Catholics, we believe that unbelievers can be saved (even without being married to a Christian) and no where in The Bible does it state that those married to a Christian would have any less of the same treatment. For us, non-believers (whether married or not to a Christian) can be saved period. Whoever can't accept this, isn't a Roman Catholic Christian or they are in complete defiance of The Church's Teachings and need to bow down to the scripture posted above. ;D No one is denying that a non-Christian can be saved. Maybe not you Ramon, but everybody else here seems to deny that non-Christians can be saved (despite it being stated in scripture and in the CCC). Before I respond, how do you think I interpret it? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:28:53 GMT -5
But! Was it made a doctrinal belief? Or his own "personal" belief? What? Saint John Chrysostom interpretation of it? Is your interpretation of 1 Cor 7:14 a official Catholic interpretation of the text? Yes or no? My interpretation of 1 Cor 7 is based upon Catholic Doctrine (not upon "just" reading the scripture) that states that salvation is available to the non-Christian and that God is just. God would not prevent someone who is holy in His eyes from entering Heaven. Ok. (But, in case you're confused, The Catholic Church does not teach that by marrying a saved person, one is "automatically" saved and even I never wrote that.) You'll find the post here where I posted extensive CCC references (Cathechism of The Catholic Church) on salvation for those outside of The Church. And, again, I never said that an "unbelieving spouse is saved based on the fact that he or she is married to a saved Christian". I think you misunderstood my position from the beginning. What I wrote (and what The Bible teaches) is that an "unbelieving spouse is sanctified by the believing spouse". Sanctfication (as written in that scripture) means "made holy". While there are other definitions for it, according to Paul, it means made "holy" as he compares the sanctification of the parents to the children also being made "holy". That is a direct undisputable fact. There is no room for personal interpretation of what Paul is saying there. So, what does this mean? That the person who is unbelieving is given an avenue (a grace) because of their saved spouse to themselves being saved even if they never come to believe in Christ as the saved spouse does. This in no way undoes any of the other requirements that every human being must meet (saved or not) in order to get into Heaven (live a righteous life). Anybody who disagrees with this disagrees with the CCC Doctrines that I have posted. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:29:30 GMT -5
Question: How come no one has actually addressed the scripture I posted which is the topic here? I did. I explain the verse, gave what the word "sanctified" mean in this text, gave what a Catholic commentary said on the verse, and then posted what Saint John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret said about the verse. In IC.XC, Ramon I missed it. I'll go back and look.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 9:30:40 GMT -5
There is a contradiction there that cannot be reconciled with scripture. Would God deny a holy person their place in Heaven? Can a person be holy and still be excluded from Heaven? If Paul called the unbelieving spouse "holy", then one has to accept that they are "holy". The Bible doesn't say..."sanctified conditionally", but just sanctified (at least in 1 Cor). The conditions for salvation are set for everybody the same (not just for the unbelievind spouse). The problem is that 1 Cor 7:14 doesn't mean what you saying. I find interesting that even Saint John Chrysostom didn't interpret the text the way you do. Saint Paul didn't believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved due to the fact that his or her spouse is saved. If he did, he wouldn't wrote verse 16. I tell you want. Talk to two Catholic Priests (yours and another one) and ask them if they interpret 1 Cor 7:14 the way you do. Tell us what they say. In IC.XC, Ramon Again, you must not understand me correctly. And...I've met Priest who couldn't answer my questions before, so I tend to go directly to the same source they'd go to...The CCC. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 23, 2009 11:01:10 GMT -5
Are you still Catholic? Why are you suddenly arguing from a "Sola Scriptura" mindset?
Are you pretending all of this just to prove the point that "Sola Scriptura" is irrational? If so, why are you directing it towards me, because I already know that.
No, scripture "as is" (according to your interpretation) is not good enough. And I know that the Church does NOT teach what you are saying--that spouses of believers are automatically "holy" in the sense of going to heaven.
Catholics aren't allowed to make up their own doctrines Cepha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 11:57:42 GMT -5
Are you still Catholic? Why are you suddenly arguing from a "Sola Scriptura" mindset? Are you pretending all of this just to prove the point that "Sola Scriptura" is irrational? If so, why are you directing it towards me, because I already know that. No, scripture "as is" (according to your interpretation) is not good enough. And I know that the Church does NOT teach what you are saying--that spouses of believers are automatically "holy" in the sense of going to heaven. Catholics aren't allowed to make up their own doctrines Cepha. Uh, I actually used the CCC to prove that non-believers can be saved. You only use the Bible. Who's being Sola Scripturist here? ;D The Catholic Church teaches that non-believers can be saved. If you dont' want to accept that, then that's your failure to accept Church teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 23, 2009 12:22:22 GMT -5
Before I respond, how do you think I interpret it? Well, I thought you interpreted to mean that the unbelieving spouse is made "Holy" (thus saved) due to his or her believing spouse. So is this true? Please let me know. According to people here, you believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved. The greek word used here is for sanctification is "hgiastai". This word is a form of the word "agiazw", meaning to "separate from things profane and dedicate to God", "to consecrate". This same used by the Septuagint to refer to external (or levitical) cleansing. The word "sanctify" means more than just being cleanse from sin. Saint Paul did not say that the unbelieving spouse is made "Holy" in the sense that they are saved. I follow how Saint John Chrysostom and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus interpreted this verse. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 23, 2009 12:42:10 GMT -5
Before I respond, how do you think I interpret it? Well, I thought you interpreted to mean that the unbelieving spouse is made "Holy" (thus saved) due to his or her believing spouse. So is this true? Please let me know. According to people here, you believe that the unbelieving spouse is saved. What you just said is exactly what the scripture says... 1 Cor 7:14 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy." Now, does this mean that they are saved eternally? No. It means that even though they are not bapitzed and don't believe in Christ, they are remitted of original sin because of the believing spouse meaning that they have the ability to receive eternal salvation (provided that they live a righteous life in God's eyes as non-believers). I never said that they are saved eternally. I never said that they are automatically saved eternally. You will not find that in any of my responses at all. But, the other question that everybody here has trouble with is "will God deprive a holy person of Heaven and condemn them to hell"? Why? Because they cannot bend their minds to the scripture that calls the unbelieving spouse holy (aka, sanctified as defined by Paul with reference to the children of the couple there). So, since they cannot understand the scripture, they attack not only my adherence to it as it is written, but to The Catholic Church's Doctrine of non-believers being able to be saved (even Catholics have decried this). I understand it as it is written. I accept it as it is written. While not all scripture is literal, not all is symbollic. Just because one cannot grasp the scripture as written, it does not mean that it is not literal. It just means that the person who can understand it, can't understand it. Ok, let's then take your definition understanding of it and completely ignore the fact that Paul literally said "for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy" (not "they are set apart"). In your understanding of the word's usage, exactly "what" are they set apart from? I follow The Holy Spirit's guidance on this one. Saint John could be wrong, but The Holy Spirit is never wrong and when my understanding coincides with Catholic Doctrine (that unbelievers can be saved), then it's that much easier for me. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on May 23, 2009 13:42:49 GMT -5
No, you didn't use the CCC, you abused the CCC!
It says that non-believers may be saved if through no fault of their own never had the chance to hear the gospel.
Then you claimed it said that only those who accept Christ then reject him will be condemned.
If you are so confident that the Church teaches that spouses of believers are "saved" then why don't you ask a priest?
You do realize that the Catechism can be falsely interpreted too don't you? You provided the perfect example of how that can happen.
|
|
