Eternal Security

[Admiral Thrawn]

so if a person who is in the act of committing suicide sees error of his ways and repents and is spiritually in the rights with God, but physically is dying, then there's no hope for him? What about salvation for the hopeless sinners who aren't out there committing suicide but other sins against God? If salvation isn't valid for someone who repents, knowing his sin has hurt God and he wants to amend that, even as he lay dying, then technically, it's not really available to all. What makes your being saved or my being saved any better than that stray lamb who repents as it is being killed? Only God knows what is in the heart of a suicidal person, and the best you and I can do is conjecture his fate based upon our own limited knowledge.

 

That is not what I meant in my hypothetical example.

 

What I meant, is someone who is actually DEAD, after killing themselves, and is now in the afterlife. You cant repent of a sin in the afterlife, and seek for atonement in the afterlife phase. Only the living can do that.

 

I await your comment.

 

[quote name="Quickanne"

it would challenge its direct control over the lives of people

 

probably. However, the Church also trains her priests for years before letting them loose, so these guys have background in theology and philosphy and Scripture, and their teaching of it doesn't detract from the teachings of the Church.

 

However, what authority does the Roman Catholic church have to monopolise the interpretation of the Bible - suppose their intepretation is wrong, and they are teaching the priests wrong doctrines?

 

The problem with people who are touched by the Spirit but who don't train for their preaching have greater opportunity to misinterpret Scripture and lead the flock astray. Look at the Jim Jones of the world, the David Koreshes.

 

Touched by the Holy Spirit, not a demon spirit.

 

The beauty of a "system" like Catholicism – or even Judaism – is that it is based in thousands of years of teachings and beliefs, and it unchanging. The Pope isn't going to stand up one day and say, 'you know, we've been fools all along on the abortion and birth control issue, so we're going to change our stance on them.'

 

Logically, a consistent dogma does not in itself validate a dogma as true.

There are many things that are false, and are also consistent too.

 

you mention the Protestant churches: how many are there now in the world, and where did they begin?

 

For purposes of this discussion, lets deal with the Reformation and Martin Luther as being the genesis of the Protestant church.

 

Martin Luther, a religious, was fed up with a system that he saw was riddled with problems, but instead of choosing to change it from the inside, he revolted and started a new religion.

 

Martin Lurther could not change the system from the inside without being branded a heritic. As I know history correctly, he was being persecuted for his stance against church indulgences - and other corrupt practises.

 

The Roman Catholic institution had corrupted itself during the Midevail period to the extent it had become an Apostate rogue institution, which it is even today. Nothing that is in that church, can be supported by the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about priests wearing black robes who cant get married, popes, trans-substantiation, last rites, no definate assurance of salvation, infant baptism, confirmation, and plenty more.

 

The legacy of the Ancient Roman Empire, its paganism and Cesar, is in character, part of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of the Cesar, you have a Pope. Instead of a political Empire, you have a religious one. While, the ancient Roman Empire must have been a gloroius one at its zenith, it is ghost is likely enhrined in the Catholic church.

 

And so on and so forth ... Everyone is a watered down version of the one before. You say the church "creates false spiritual dependency" by upholding the sacraments of reconciliation and the Eucharist, among the others. Isn't Christ a reconciling God? How then would reconciliation with God through the sacrament be false?

 

Because confessing sins to a man, or priest is invalid, and Idolatrous. No man can forgive sins, only God can. People have to go directly to Jesus Christ, with no mediation other than the Holy Spirit, to receive forgiveness for sins. The church is usurping the role of the Holy Spirit by having such a blasphemous sacrament that is truely the Holy Spirit's role.

 

The role of priesthood encompasses lay-people or anyone in the church, and is not heirarchical in nature. Everyone who is saved, is indeed a priest.

The catholic church, with its heirarchical structure, panders to the 'religious' man. People want to see pomp, ceremony and show, and feel 'religious' with these institutions. However, being religious, and being right with God, are two distinct concepts.

 

(If you were Catholic, you'd understand that there is no dependency upon reconciliation, as most people tend to avoid or overlook it.)

 

Right, but the church cant give assurance of salvation to anyone, but only a better chance if you follow their sacrements. It controls people by fear.

 

Partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ through the Eucharist each time you go to Mass is a fallacy in the salvation plan? If you don't believe in the Eucharist as Christ, then yeah, it makes sense, but those of us who do believe understand that to receive Communion is an act of salvation because it is an act of faith and belief in the saving God who loves us and offers opportunity upon opportunity to be reconciled with him.

 

Jesus died on the cross and rose again 2000 years ago. Spiritually, that occurs today, right now, whenever you apply your faith to that fact.

This event occurred once. It can not be replicated by anyone.

 

Again, the Holy Spirit applies your faith to the cross, not a priest trying to fix a Euharist. That is not taught in the Bible.

[quankanne]

That is not what I meant in my hypothetical example. What I meant, is someone who is actually DEAD, after killing themselves, and is now in the afterlife. You cant repent of a sin in the afterlife, and seek for atonement in the afterlife phase. Only the living can do that. I await your comment.

 

it only takes a nanosecond to embrace the resurrection, so theoretically, that time between the initiation of the act of suicide to the time death occurs is ripe with the possibility. It is not impossible for someone to reconcile with God. Again, only he knows the hearts of the suicide victim; we just see the aftermath of the physical end of it.

 

Touched by the Holy Spirit, not a demon spirit

 

sorry, I cannot see the credibility of someone who interprets Scripture and presents his or her viewpoint as the only truth needed to embrace or claim the salvation Christ has offered. We have a guy here in one of our parishes who never read or studied the Bible before, who – after an allnighter cramming for college exams – "understood" everything the Bible was about because the Holy Spirit "told" him. Interestingly enough, what the Spirit revealed isn't in accordance to Catholic belief, but what this man's take on it is, and the scary part is that he's trying to share this with youths in the parish. Fundamentalism has its place in the church, in that it is revealed in Tradition and Scripture and we stick with it, lo these many years, not magnifying only one small aspect of things to a point where everything else is excluded!

 

Nothing that is in that church, can be supported by the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about priests wearing black robes who cant get married, popes, trans-substantiation, last rites, no definate assurance of salvation, infant baptism, confirmation, and plenty more.

 

The legacy of the Ancient Roman Empire, its paganism and Cesar, is in character, part of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of the Cesar, you have a Pope. Instead of a political Empire, you have a religious one. While, the ancient Roman Empire must have been a gloroius one at its zenith, it is ghost is likely enhrined in the Catholic church.

 

• black garb – traditional clothing, most likely to signify that these men are clergy, apart from the laity they serve; also possibly representing vows of poverty (no fancy dress), is my guess. Need to double-check, though. However, in a time when a work uniform is prevalent among the workplace, it's not so unusual to have this tradition ...

 

• celibate (the state of being unmarried) priests*– taken from the tradition that Christ was a single guy, coupled with the reality that when a Catholic man receives the sacrament of Holy Orders and becomes a priest, his "bride" is the Church.

 

• popes – Tradition that Peter was the first pope, given charge by Christ himself, who told him, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The 250-plus men after him are part of the apostolic succession, charged with helping preserve the faith given them by Jesus.

 

• trans-substantiation – "The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71)." If St. Paul himself tells us 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27], how can the Eucharist be fake or merely a memorial? Why would this convert to Christianity – and remember, he was dead serious in his Judaic beliefs before his conversion – lie about something like this?

 

• sacraments – In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (Catechism Section 1131). The sacraments are baptism (we don't just do babies, but those older children and adults coming into the church from another or no other faith background), reconciliation, confirmation, Eucharist, matrimony, holy orders, anointing of the sick (formerly known as "last rites").

 

• no definite assurance of salvation – I don't think you've been listening with an open set of ears when I say that Catholics are "saved," in every sense of the word, simply because our faith is centered in the Risen Lord. Our whole reason for being is Him – through our baptism and confirmation of faith, through our belief in the Eucharist as the living Body of Christ, etc. I was saved when Jesus gave us his life for me. I was saved when my parents, in the conviction of their faith, baptized me into their faith community and dedicated me to Christ, I am saved every time I go up to receive the Body of Christ in the form of the Eucharist. I am saved. Talking about salvation is like having a group of people describe an elephant – their descriptions may differ, but it's the same elephant they're talking about.

 

Expecting you to understand that there is another thought process involved in the very same salvation that you discuss has become a frustrating effort, because you chose to paint all those people who do not see from your exact same viewpoint as non-believers and unworthy of salvation other than as defined by you. And that's poopy.

[quankanne]

It controls people by fear.

 

I thought that was the specialty of funtamentalistic Christianity. That "if you don't accept it the way I tell you exactly as I tell you, you're going to hell."

 

interestingly enough, I've interviewed converts who have told me that while their fundamentalist church of origin preached salvation of God, it was bleak in that hope was not preached alongside salvation – simply "you're going to hell if you don't believe" – and they found a home in the Catholic Church because it gave them hope in their salvation, not a fear of it. I think many more Christians lose their way because they're being beaten upside the head with the idea of a desolate, hopeless search of salvation – they are sinners, therefore not worthy of salvation unless they follow X Formula – than not.

[Admiral Thrawn]

That is not what I meant in my hypothetical example. What I meant, is someone who is actually DEAD, after killing themselves, and is now in the afterlife. You cant repent of a sin in the afterlife, and seek for atonement in the afterlife phase. Only the living can do that. I await your comment.

 

it only takes a nanosecond to embrace the resurrection, so theoretically, that time between the initiation of the act of suicide to the time death occurs is ripe with the possibility. It is not impossible for someone to reconcile with God. Again, only he knows the hearts of the suicide victim; we just see the aftermath of the physical end of it.

 

We are talking about the time after death. It is impossible for someone to reconcile to God after they are dead. Also your example is going on to extreme, but in those circumstances, perhaps the suicide victim will live and the suicide will fail.

 

For puposes of arguement, which are damnable sins, for the murder to be successful, it actually has to be committed, and the victim has to die. After he is dead, then there is no hope for repentance, or forgiveness of sins, because theologically, that only occurs in this live. The next life is the judgement of this life, and re-allocation to either heaven or hell.

 

Therefore, a successful suicide, or murder of self, is unforgivable since forgiveness can only occur when someone is alive.

 

Touched by the Holy Spirit, not a demon spirit

 

sorry, I cannot see the credibility of someone who interprets Scripture and presents his or her viewpoint as the only truth needed to embrace or claim the salvation Christ has offered. We have a guy here in one of our parishes who never read or studied the Bible before, who – after an allnighter cramming for college exams – "understood" everything the Bible was about because the Holy Spirit "told" him.

 

Sure, that is a possible scenerio - the Lord opened up that guy's understanding because he was seeking for truth. He connected with God. The Lord also opened my mind to understand the scriptures too. I dont know that guy, but I wouldn't be surprised if our interpretations are the same, because it is from the same God. There are some fundamental truths in the Bible, that if you do not understand, that book is just going to be confusing and meaningless. The Holy Spirit has to reveal to people what the essential truths and meanings in that book are.

 

Interestingly enough, what the Spirit revealed isn't in accordance to Catholic belief, but what this man's take on it is, and the scary part is that he's trying to share this with youths in the parish.

 

Catholic belief is not necessarily correct, better to get revelation from God than from man. I hope the Youth are inspired by this guy and he brings their faith to life.

 

Fundamentalism has its place in the church, in that it is revealed in Tradition and Scripture and we stick with it, lo these many years, not magnifying only one small aspect of things to a point where everything else is excluded!

 

I suppose you have not read the council of Trent and are unaquainted with the Medeivil church. The Catholic church's 'official dogma' is exclusive, and proclaims the church as the only true church. It has a Jesuit General (black pope), and still believes its Medeivil doctrine. If you think the Catholic church is all encompasing, then that is incorrect.

 

Nothing that is in that church, can be supported by the Bible. There is nothing in the Bible about priests wearing black robes who cant get married, popes, trans-substantiation, last rites, no definate assurance of salvation, infant baptism, confirmation, and plenty more.

 

The legacy of the Ancient Roman Empire, its paganism and Cesar, is in character, part of the Roman Catholic Church. Instead of the Cesar, you have a Pope. Instead of a political Empire, you have a religious one. While, the ancient Roman Empire must have been a gloroius one at its zenith, it is ghost is likely enhrined in the Catholic church.

 

• black garb – traditional clothing, most likely to signify that these men are clergy, apart from the laity they serve; also possibly representing vows of poverty (no fancy dress), is my guess. Need to double-check, though. However, in a time when a work uniform is prevalent among the workplace, it's not so unusual to have this tradition ...

 

Not in the Bible. I suppose people can wear anything they want, as long as they are not nude, but that's beside the point. There is no scriptural significance to that type of clothing.

 

• celibate (the state of being unmarried) priests*– taken from the tradition that Christ was a single guy, coupled with the reality that when a Catholic man receives the sacrament of Holy Orders and becomes a priest, his "bride" is the Church.

 

Again, that is something that is not supported by scripture and is absurd for reasons as follows: At that logic, Christ may have been single, but He was the Son of God. He was also perfect. If He reproduced offspring, there would be a super-race of immortal humans. Logically speaking, any issue of sexuality based on Christ would be untenable, because we are only humans and God did not plan to create a parallel super-race through Jesus, but to redeem the existing lost human race. Jesus Christ was God made flesh, He temporarily reduced some of His Divine powers to be human. I believe he had fully human emotion - but I dont know if we can make a case on sexuality, or I do not believe Jesus made a message about sexuality by remaining single. I dont see how a 'fixed' plan of design of God can be extrapolated into a doctrine like that.

 

The Bible actually does treat the subject of a doctrine that forbids marriage, in a very negative light, and actually portrays it as an Apostacy.

 

I Timothy 4:1-3" Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils.

2) Speaking lies in hypocracy, having their concience seared with a hot iron.

3) Forbidding to marry, , and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth."

 

Here, the Bible clearly shows, in black and white, that a doctrine that forbids marriage is actually a devilish doctrine, not one from God.

 

• popes – Tradition that Peter was the first pope, given charge by Christ himself, who told him, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The 250-plus men after him are part of the apostolic succession, charged with helping preserve the faith given them by Jesus.

 

That is one verse of scripture that is often used, but there are other verses that have to be considered as well, first of all, Peter considered himself an Elder, and not a Pope. Nothing in the book of 1 or 11 Peter, a book, that Peter wrote indicated that he was a 'special leader' of the church.

 

What, Peter did write, in reference to 'stones' or 'rocks' is as follows:

1 Peter 2:4-10

"To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious.

5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHIEF CORNER STONE, ELECT, PRECIOUS: AND HE THAT BELIEVETH ON HIM SHALL NOT BE CONFOUNDED.

7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS DISALLOWED, THE SAME IS MADE THE HEAD OF THE CORNER.

8) AND A STONE OF STUMBLING, AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light:

10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy."

 

Read over this several times, because this is written by Peter. Here, he is saying Jesus is the Head Stone. Priesthoods are all believers who have accepted Christ. This defines what Peter understood of what Jesus said.

Scritpure interprets itself.

 

Let's try another part of the book of Peter - after all, I'm only quoting from the guy you are claiming is the founder of the Catholic church:

 

Peter said he was an 'Elder' in the church, along with many other 'Elders'

1 Peter 5:1 "The elders which are among you I exort, who am also an elder , and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.

 

If Peter, author of the book of Peter, is saying he is not a Pope, but just an elder, like other elders around, and is saying Jesus is the Chief Corner stone of the church, and that all believers are priests unto God, then where is the support from even the book of Peter for the Roman Catholic Church?

 

I would challenge you, and the whole Catholic church, to look at the book of Peter, and show any reference, where Peter is even insinuating that he is a Pope, or holds a special position within the church that no one else has.

 

• trans-substantiation – "The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71)." If St. Paul himself tells us 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27], how can the Eucharist be fake or merely a memorial? Why would this convert to Christianity – and remember, he was dead serious in his Judaic beliefs before his conversion – lie about something like this?

 

I will be reviewing your Biblical assertations later, because that is what I'm interested in seeing. As I told Nicolas, I always honour it when you use the Bible, even if it supports something I do not believe.

[HokeyReligions]

I don't buy it. I think its a contrivance of humanity to feel good about continuing to sin and just another way of twisting or interpreting Bible passages to fit one's own life, rather than trying to fit one's life to the Bible.

 

I also don't buy that being born-again gives one instant understanding of the Bible. That's seems pretty durn arrogant to me! Seems to me that working to understand the Bible and the messages within is what would bring someone to be 'born again.'

[Nicholas]

just another way of twisting or interpreting Bible passages to fit one's own life, rather than trying to fit one's life to the Bible.

 

Extremely valid point, but not one that the afflicted would recognize. The protocol is to twist scripture to match their own opinions, and then when you attack the validity of their opinions, they pretend you're attacking scripture.

 

I have a really hard time dealing with the possibility that God somehow rewards the people who are adept at quoting some of the Bible. That idea humanizes God to a point where he's really no longer worth seeking.

 

I also don't buy that being born-again gives one instant understanding of the Bible.

 

Of course it doesn't. Scriptural study is an academic discipline, just as anything else is. No amount of meditation can make up for critical thinking and scholastic skills.

 

This discussion would have to continue on my thread 'Temporarily moving from this section'.

 

You're welcome to respond to what I've said in this thread in that thread, if you have a response. I feel like I've already said everything I can about it, in numerous ways.

[Admiral Thrawn]

• trans-substantiation – "The doctrine of the Real Presence asserts that in the Holy Eucharist, Jesus is literally and wholly present—body and blood, soul and divinity—under the appearances of bread and wine. Evangelicals and Fundamentalists frequently attack this doctrine as "unbiblical," but the Bible is forthright in declaring it (cf. 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29; and, most forcefully, John 6:32–71)." If St. Paul himself tells us 'Whosoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily, is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord’ [1 Cor. 11:27], how can the Eucharist be fake or merely a memorial? Why would this convert to Christianity – and remember, he was dead serious in his Judaic beliefs before his conversion – lie about something like this?

 

The most forceful passage in John 6:32-71, is the passage that I will be looking at here.

 

I would also like to bring up some verses that may also provide context about what Jesus meant by the term 'bread'.

 

What other references to bread does Jesus use in the Gospel:

 

Luke 4:4 "And Jesus answered him saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone but by every word of God".

 

John 15:3-4 "Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. .." vs 7 "If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you."

 

John 1:1 "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

 

This pattern would seem to suggest that the word of God, or 'rhema', or the spiritual revelation of Jesus Christ, as derived from scripture, as opposed to a eucharist.

 

There is other indications of the 'rhema' concept - that is the word of God quickens our spirit to be in fellowship with Jesus Christ, as God is communicating directly to use through the Bible, and we are ingesting spiritual food.

 

For example:

Romans 10:13-14 "For WHOMSOEVER SHALL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD SHALL BE SAVED.

14) How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

 

You are free to read all of Romans 10, but the point here is that Jesus Christ is both revealed and accepted through the word of God, not a eucharist or host. Here we are seeing 'callling' and 'believing', not 'eating'.

 

Ephesians 2:1 -6

1) And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.

2) Wherein in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.

3) Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind: and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.

4) But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,

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

6) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

 

This is a very discriptive scripure concerning the concepts of salvation, and more importantly would help contextualise what Jesus meant in John 6.

The world - with all its lusts, can not satisfy the soul.

 

What does the Bible say about the world: King Solomon, had all the wealth, power, and woman a man could want, but listen to what he said:

 

Eccleasties 1:2 "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities: all is vanity".

 

The Bible says, there is absolutely nothing in this world that can materially satisfy anybody. Jesus is offering Bread, that will satisfy forever, Water, where you will not thurst again, and HIs Blood, that will justify and cleanse you from your sin. Jesus is the Light of the World, He is the Bread of Life - in contrast to a world of darkness, sin, and absolute vanity. Name one thing in this world that will satsisfy? Money? Why do rich people want more money - they obviously are not satisfied and unhappy.

 

Now, that being said, did Jesus mean for the communion, to mean more than a memorial. He always said to do it in Rememberance of Him at the actual Last Supper. If you really wanted to use a powerful verse to illustrate your point you should have used the Last Supper, becasue that is when the 'communion' sacrement as you called it was instituted.

 

The reason you did not use that reference is obvious, it is the strongest arguement that Jesus meant that for a memorial, and nothing more, because the Bible says:

 

Luke 22:19 "And he took the bread, and gave thanks, and break it, and gave unto them saying, This is my body which is given for you: this do in rememberance of me.."

 

Furthermore, when Jesus broke the bread, and distributed the bread and wine, He was independent from the Bread and the Wine, He didn't actually disappear and go into it. It was symbolic of what was going to happen on the Cross and His Resurrection.

 

There are lots of references in the Old Testament, that bear symbolic significance to the Ministry of Christ, such as the Lamb being killed for the sins of the Jewish people, but while the Lamb may have symbolised Christ, it was still just a lamb. The Jews also have unleavened bread for Passover, which also typifies Christ, but there is no transubstiation requisite there.

 

This doctrine, I believe, is hocus-pocus, and meant to directly control people in the church, that if they did not take the Eucharist, every Sunday, then their soul's salvation would always be at risk. However, thanks for bringing up those verses and your opinion is respectfully noted.

 

• sacraments – In the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, "the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. (Catechism Section 1131). The sacraments are baptism (we don't just do babies, but those older children and adults coming into the church from another or no other faith background), reconciliation, confirmation, Eucharist, matrimony, holy orders, anointing of the sick (formerly known as "last rites").

 

My contention is that these sacrements are not supported in the Bible.

Since you did not bring up any Bible verses, you have not brought up any challenge I can recognize, like you did with the eucharist - which was a good challenge.

 

• no definite assurance of salvation – I don't think you've been listening with an open set of ears when I say that Catholics are "saved," in every sense of the word, simply because our faith is centered in the Risen Lord. Our whole reason for being is Him – through our baptism and confirmation of faith, through our belief in the Eucharist as the living Body of Christ, etc. I was saved when Jesus gave us his life for me. I was saved when my parents, in the conviction of their faith, baptized me into their faith community and dedicated me to Christ, I am saved every time I go up to receive the Body of Christ in the form of the Eucharist. I am saved. Talking about salvation is like having a group of people describe an elephant – their descriptions may differ, but it's the same elephant they're talking about.

 

A baby does not understand sin, and therefore can not accept or reject Christ as it has no capacity of that type of choice. However, due to their lack of accountability, they are protected from judgement. Baptism, is asked as an outward show of profession from a Believer, but you have to know what you are believing in. Aborted babies can not be baptised, so the system is not entirely fair. What happens to them then?

Your parents cant choose whether you are saved or lost, that choice has to come from the individual. Infant baptism is a parental choice, and therefore is invalid.

 

What happens if you stop taking the eucharist, will you still be saved? Are you 100% sure, that you are saved, or do you think that there is just a good chance, that you are saved because you are a good practising Catholic?

 

Expecting you to understand that there is another thought process involved in the very same salvation that you discuss has become a frustrating effort, because you chose to paint all those people who do not see from your exact same viewpoint as non-believers and unworthy of salvation other than as defined by you. And that's poopy.

 

You will notice that I respond when you use the Bible. Whatever I am asserting is based on scripture. Other than the references about the euchrarist, or about Peter, you have not brought up any further scriptural references to support anything else. If anything is frustrating, is that you need scriptural support to back up what you are saying.

[quankanne]

Ah, but I'm Catholic ... we don't memorize Scripture for prizes or to talk someone out of their belief. We, should we choose to accept this belief system, live it .... You, of course, being raised Protestant, know the Bible backerds and fowerds, and good for you. However, it's easy to go from there to "supposing" you understand it all when there is no structure in place, no frame of reference to promote a belief that is not based in history or tradition, just a subjective view of someone's relationship with God. I cannot "prove" using Scripture, but that doesn't make me less of a Christian, nor does my faith perspective.

 

you've given several references to support your theory that the Eucharist is not real; but that doesn't specifically answer my question about St. Paul telling us about partaking the bread or the cup "unworthily" – if it's just a memorial, what should it matter? Why would Jesus be offended? Furthermore, if God became the Word Incarnate by being born as Jesus, why could he not be present in the Eucharist? Faith transcends what we sense with our five senses … why is that leap of faith of Christ being present in the Eucharist so hard to believe? Your faith is inspired and supplemented by the Bible, but it isn't the Bible. If I'm going to base my faith in Scripture, why shouldn't I take Paul's warnings seriously when I accept Jesus' presence in the Eucharist?

 

This doctrine, I believe, is hocus-pocus, and meant to directly control people in the church, that if they did not take the Eucharist, every Sunday, then their soul's salvation would always be at risk.

 

those people – like me – who do no receive Communion every Sunday do it out of respect, out of an understanding that if we are in a state of sin, we are setting ourselves up for that situation Paul describes in Corinthians. Is my salvation at risk? Yes, in the sense that I am living in a state of sin and am doing nothing to reconcile myself to God. By not receiving Communion, I'm denying my relationship with Jesus, who is offered to me through the bread and the wine ....

 

My contention is that these sacraments are not supported in the Bible. …If anything is frustrating, is that you need scriptural support to back up what you are saying.

 

but faith isn't one dimensional – there's more to it than just finding and reading and quoting this inspiring account found through the Bible. Faith is handed down because it's a living, vital entity to a believer. And that faith is valid, even if it doesn't jibe with what you or I personally believe, simply because it's between that person and God. There are millions of Catholics (and some Protestants) who believe in the validity of the sacraments even though there is no reference to them in the Bible. I cannot quote you Bible passages, but I can give you all the visceral reference you want when it comes to faith in God.

 

one last topic, then I've got to quit before I'm busted …

 

Catholic church's 'official dogma' is exclusive, and proclaims the church as the only true church. It has a Jesuit General (black pope), and still believes its Medeivil doctrine. If you think the Catholic church is all encompasing, then that is incorrect.

 

yes, the Catholic Church proclaims itself as the one, true Church. What she offers can be likened to the differences between a eight-course mean and a happy meal.

 

the Holy Trinity? We got it. The Eucharist? We got it. Apostolic succession (meaning that our church goes back to the apostles themselves) and the sacraments? Got it. Belief in the crucified and resurrected Christ? Check. Life everlasting? Yeppy. Communion of saints and forgiveness of sins? Got it. Universality? Yes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. So in that sense, yes, the Church is all encompassing.

 

Protestant churches offer some, but not all of those.

 

a Jesuit pope who was black – yes, though our current head is a little old German guy who was his predecessor's (a Polish pope) chief defender of the faith.

 

medieval doctrine? in the sense that it's not fresh or hip or current or follows current thinking? If so, thank Jesus for that! Why be part of a faith community that blows whichever way the wind does and sin is loosely defined? It's encouraging to know that the Mother Church will not nor cannot change overnight just to please the crowds, that there will always be absolutes, like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that life – from the womb to the tomb – is sacred, that marriage is your contract before God and not easily shed. Before you start finding more things to knock about the Catholic Church, ask yourself this: How has the she managed to survive approximately 2,000 years – through crooked popes and hierarchy, through sexual abuse problems, through the response to the Second Vatican Council and being misunderstood by even her own followers?

 

Jesus said that even the gates of hell could not prevail against his church, and we've got 2,000 years of proof in the pudding in the Church herself. If this was a fly-by night operation, she would have died with the different schisms, with the scandals, with the changes, with the attacks ... but she hasn't nor will she.

[grace2005]

THe Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am saved & one of His. Read Romans chapter 8. It would not matter if 200 people ganged up on me and tried to convince me I'm not saved. They couldn't do it. You can't argue with the Holy Spirit.

 

I personally believe depression can be a terminal illness. It most assuredly is in my case. I'm just waiting for God to give me the orders to pull the trigger on myself. I have a feeling He's going to call me home soon. I may not be fit to live in this world much longer.

[grace2005]

I also don't believe in taking medication for depression. I'm not going to allow my mind to be controlled by any controlled substance. I'd rather die.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Ah, but I'm Catholic ... we don't memorize Scripture for prizes or to talk someone out of their belief. We, should we choose to accept this belief system, live it .... You, of course, being raised Protestant, know the Bible backerds and fowerds, and good for you. However, it's easy to go from there to "supposing" you understand it all when there is no structure in place, no frame of reference to promote a belief that is not based in history or tradition, just a subjective view of someone's relationship with God. I cannot "prove" using Scripture, but that doesn't make me less of a Christian, nor does my faith perspective.

 

I did not understand the Bible until 1993, something came over my mind, and I understood the essential message of the Bible, that everything points to Christ, and the Holy Spirit illuminated my mind. This is not something that was memorised, or something that I was indoctrinated with from a church.

 

I have challenged the validity of the Roman Catholic church from the standpoint that Peter was never a pope. I notice you have not addressed the books of Peter. The RC church is making a fraudelent claim of apostolic succession because Peter was never the first pope.

 

My basic belief is that scriptural text interprets itself. The Bible has many other verses that will support a particular text. If Jesus talked to Peter, let Peter interpret what Jesus said about the 'Rock', I look at the book of Peter, simple, right? And it shows that the Catholic church misinterpreted what Jesus communicated to Peter, for their gain or benefit. I went by common sence on that one.

 

While it may appear I'm talking you out of your faith, the reality is, my own faith is being strenghtned as it can virtually pass any test, because I know, whatever I believe, is supported in scripture, and that the Bible is a perfect book, no contradictions, and can survive any challenge or test as the scripture will interpret itself since it is so cohesive. No book as coherent and cohesive as this book.

 

you've given several references to support your theory that the Eucharist is not real; but that doesn't specifically answer my question about St. Paul telling us about partaking the bread or the cup "unworthily" – if it's just a memorial, what should it matter? Why would Jesus be offended? Furthermore, if God became the Word Incarnate by being born as Jesus, why could he not be present in the Eucharist? Faith transcends what we sense with our five senses … why is that leap of faith of Christ being present in the Eucharist so hard to believe? Your faith is inspired and supplemented by the Bible, but it isn't the Bible. If I'm going to base my faith in Scripture, why shouldn't I take Paul's warnings seriously when I accept Jesus' presence in the Eucharist?

 

I dealt with the passage of scripture that you said was the 'strongest proof'.

 

In answer to the question of unworthy, even though something may be symbolic, it is also sacred because of the meaning associated with it. For example, I may have a flag of a country, and burn the flag. That would be a dishonour to the country that flag represents, but the flag itself is not the country, it represents the country. So, concepts relating to 'worthy', or 'not worthy' does not mean it cant be symbolic.

 

I suppose if I had a picture of myself, and saw someone ripping it apart, then that would be an offense to me. It does not mean that I actually am inside the picture since the picture is a photograph, and therefore an accurate symbol of myself.

 

In the Old Testament, Lambs were slain for the sins of the people of Isreael, then was Jesus Christ inside those lambs? No the lambs pre-figured Christ. The communion post-figures Christ. These are all symbols.

Just because something is symbolic does not lessen its sacred value.

 

For example, in the book of Numbers 21:6,9.

6) And the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; andmuch people of Israel died.

9) And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it on a pole, and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass, he lived.

 

Now, is that brasen serpent going to be literal, or symbolic. It was meant to mean something else.

 

John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so the must the Son of man be lifted up.

15. That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

 

The point here is I'm illustrating that brasen serpent that Moses used in the past. A doctrine of substantiation would suggest that serpent was in fact Christ, but the reality is, it symbolised Christ, but God made a point through that symbol of making people lived who saw the serpent, that believing in Jesus Christ would mean life. Symbolism is used in the Bible to help understand spiritual things and symbols like communion are very sacred, but they are still symbols.

 

This doctrine, I believe, is hocus-pocus, and meant to directly control people in the church, that if they did not take the Eucharist, every Sunday, then their soul's salvation would always be at risk.

 

those people – like me – who do no receive Communion every Sunday do it out of respect, out of an understanding that if we are in a state of sin, we are setting ourselves up for that situation Paul describes in Corinthians. Is my salvation at risk? Yes, in the sense that I am living in a state of sin and am doing nothing to reconcile myself to God. By not receiving Communion, I'm denying my relationship with Jesus, who is offered to me through the bread and the wine ....

 

That is fine. I would not receive communion either if I was living in a state of unconfessed sin. However, just repent and ask God to forgive you. It's easy to come out of sin because of the abundant grace that is around in Jesus Christ. Ultimately, Jesus Christ actually delivers people from sin, so I'm not responsible for recovering from sin, apart from praying to Christ about it, then the responsibility is His - working from inside out. I've read Bible commentaries that suggest that it is impossible for anyone to recover from a sinful habit on their own, either they will form another sinful habit, or never fully recover. That requires Divine intervention because sin is a very powerful force that can not be resisted in the flesh.

 

This point may be contentious and I invite comment.

 

My contention is that these sacraments are not supported in the Bible. …If anything is frustrating, is that you need scriptural support to back up what you are saying.

 

but faith isn't one dimensional – there's more to it than just finding and reading and quoting this inspiring account found through the Bible. Faith is handed down because it's a living, vital entity to a believer. And that faith is valid, even if it doesn't jibe with what you or I personally believe, simply because it's between that person and God. There are millions of Catholics (and some Protestants) who believe in the validity of the sacraments even though there is no reference to them in the Bible. I cannot quote you Bible passages, but I can give you all the visceral reference you want when it comes to faith in God.

 

one last topic, then I've got to quit before I'm busted …

 

But, if you honour what Jesus said, then you will notice that He encourages people, to read the Bible, if not directly commanding to. We are expected, as Christians, to know the Bible from cover to cover. Why? Because lack of knowledge of it, probably wont be respected on Judgement Day - it may not be valid to tell God "Gee, I never knew that was in the Bible", as any arguement in defense.

 

John 5: 39 "Search ye the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

 

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God".

 

You need to read and understand the Bible for yourself.

 

 

Catholic church's 'official dogma' is exclusive, and proclaims the church as the only true church. It has a Jesuit General (black pope), and still believes its Medeivil doctrine. If you think the Catholic church is all encompasing, then that is incorrect.

 

yes, the Catholic Church proclaims itself as the one, true Church. What she offers can be likened to the differences between a eight-course mean and a happy meal.

 

the Holy Trinity? We got it. The Eucharist? We got it. Apostolic succession (meaning that our church goes back to the apostles themselves) and the sacraments? Got it. Belief in the crucified and resurrected Christ? Check. Life everlasting? Yeppy. Communion of saints and forgiveness of sins? Got it. Universality? Yes. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. So in that sense, yes, the Church is all encompassing.

 

I have contested Apostelic succession by showing that it is not supported in the Bible, there is no validity concerning Apostolic succession in that church.

 

Other ideas you have brought up that are in the Bible is something that would be believed by an evangelical fundamentalist church too, such as the Holy Trinity, Crucified and Resurrected Christ, Forgiveness of sins, Universality.

 

In terms of communion of saints, that belief can not be supported in scritpure, because saints are not omnipresent and are fixed at one place. While God can simultanously hear all the prayers of the faithful, if hypothetically, a saint were able to hear a prayer, it could only hear one person.

 

However, that is hypothetical. Saints, if you really do your research, are really re-named Pagan Roman deities, or gods. In order to appease both Christian and Pagan citizens of Rome, Constantine and some thinkers back then, devised a religious sytem that would encompass all those values.

 

You said these were the tip of the ice-berg? What is the iceberg then?

 

Protestant churches offer some, but not all of those.

 

Just the ones that are supported by scripture, rather than from a Christianised Paganistic tradition.

 

a Jesuit pope who was black – yes, though our current head is a little old German guy who was his predecessor's (a Polish pope) chief defender of the faith.

 

He send people out to assassin them, or kill them when they publically denounce the catholic church. Notice most Evangelical churches these days say nothing agaisnt Roman Catholicism. They are afraid to do so for their lives. The Jesuits, according to Roberto, are like a religious mafia organization. You mess with them, you go bye-bye. Like a religious jihad, people who kill people for the Catholic church, believe they will merit a special place in heaven.

 

medieval doctrine? in the sense that it's not fresh or hip or current or follows current thinking? If so, thank Jesus for that! Why be part of a faith community that blows whichever way the wind does and sin is loosely defined?

 

It is the same doctrine behind branding people heritics and burning them to the stake. Literally speaking, from my posts, I would be executed for all my blasphemies against your mother church. (I would reject any opportunity to recant)

 

It's encouraging to know that the Mother Church will not nor cannot change overnight just to please the crowds, that there will always be absolutes, like the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, that life – from the womb to the tomb – is sacred, that marriage is your contract before God and not easily shed.

 

Again, where anything is supported by the Bible, and does not reek of Pagan interference, is something that is within my parameters of what is spiritually kosher. The Bible doesn't change either and contains universal truths that are resistent to time or any change.

 

Before you start finding more things to knock about the Catholic Church, ask yourself this: How has the she managed to survive approximately 2,000 years – through crooked popes and hierarchy, through sexual abuse problems, through the response to the Second Vatican Council and being misunderstood by even her own followers?

 

Jesus said that even the gates of hell could not prevail against his church, and we've got 2,000 years of proof in the pudding in the Church herself. If this was a fly-by night operation, she would have died with the different schisms, with the scandals, with the changes, with the attacks ... but she hasn't nor will she.

 

Well, pat yourself on the back, this is perhaps the only good point you have made concerning your church to which I have no response. However, countries, such has Greece have been along for a period of time that long too, no? Does that say something to validate Greek gods or myths as being true? I think not.

[EnigmaXOXO]

I personally believe depression can be a terminal illness. It most assuredly is in my case. I'm just waiting for God to give me the orders to pull the trigger on myself. I have a feeling He's going to call me home soon. I may not be fit to live in this world much longer.

 

Sweetie, don't confuse the urge to give up and "pull the trigger" as some divine inspiration from G-d. That my dear, is coming from a whole other place.

[Admiral Thrawn]

THe Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am saved & one of His. Read Romans chapter 8. It would not matter if 200 people ganged up on me and tried to convince me I'm not saved. They couldn't do it. You can't argue with the Holy Spirit.

 

I personally believe depression can be a terminal illness. It most assuredly is in my case. I'm just waiting for God to give me the orders to pull the trigger on myself. I have a feeling He's going to call me home soon. I may not be fit to live in this world much longer.

 

God has given you an order in the 10 commandments saying

"Thou shalt not kill". God can not contradict himself.

 

If you kill another human being, or yourself, then you are a murder. If you kill someone else, you can still be reconciled to God, because you are still alive. If you kill yourself, you can not be reconciled to God, because tehnically, only the living can do that.

 

The Lord has promised long life in Psalm 91. Furthermore, you will ruin your testimony here about Christ if you carry on with that. You will be branded a hypocrite, as I was for posting on another section about my sexual desire to have a woman in my life. However, a suicide would be much, much worst. This is unacceptable. Take back that post, and ask God to help you through the depression.

[Admiral Thrawn]

Ok, the reason this thread on 'Eternal Security' was started is to ask the question if someone will lose their salvation if they kill themselves.

 

The answer is yes. You will lose your salvation if you kill yourself, and you will go to hell. It is as simple as that. The the Lord will not condone that, because you are putting your trust in something else, not in Him, and that is the cause of your depression. On Judgement, God will ask you why you did not put your trust in Him until the end.

 

Bad circumstances can cause us to become depressed and want us to kill ourselves. Perhaps God is testing your faith. We walk by sight not by faith.

 

In terms of depression - you need to stop whatever you are doing, and start praising God out loud, or go to a church that knows how to praise God.

 

The Bible says, put on the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.

 

You are depressed, you have the spirit of heaviness. You need the garment of praise. Raise your hands right now, and for the next few minutes praise the Lord. When you feel the Spirit, take that gun, empty the bullets, and throw it into the garbage, and tell the devil 'get thee behind me you liar'.

 

I've been suicidal too, and was considering suicide fasts. That is, I will fast to try and get a better connection with God, and if my prayer is not answered, or there is no connection relating to what I need, then I'll fast until I'm dead, with the hopes God will answer before it gets to that. Make sure you drink water if you fast, or have a little sustenance, since you cant concentrate if you are fainting.

[EnigmaXOXO]

Furthermore, you will ruin your testimony here about Christ if you carry on with that. You will be branded a hypocrite…

 

By who? You?

 

Even given my lack of scriptural knowledge, what I know about Christ (as a spiritual teacher and mentor) is that he was very much sympathetic regarding the human condition and mankind's weaknesses. Which is why so many (who were not perfect and could not live up to scriptural standards) found so much comfort in his ministry. It gave hope to the hopeless.

 

It's those who wield scripture to flog their fellow human beings who are the hypocrites ruining the testimony of Christ.

 

At least that's my understanding of it … but I'm sure you'll feel obligated to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

This is unacceptable. Take back that post, and ask God to help you through the depression.

 

Why should she take it back? Why is expressing a very real moment of human vulnerability so offensive simply because it fails to support you're tiresome preaching and personal agendas? Who's really offended by Grace's moment of weakness, you or G-d?

 

I apologize, Grace, if I've stepped out of line with your post. In moments of weakness I too pray … for "help," "clarity," "strength," and "understanding." And if you listen with an open heart and mind (and pay attention), you'll receive the answers that you need in ways you never expected …

 

At least, that's what always worked for me.

[Admiral Thrawn]

By who? You?

 

Even given my lack of scriptural knowledge, what I know about Christ (as a spiritual teacher and mentor) is that he was very much sympathetic regarding the human condition and mankind's weaknesses. Which is why so many (who were not perfect and could not live up to scriptural standards) found so much comfort in his ministry. It gave hope to the hopeless.

 

There is no hope if you are dead.

 

I'm not going to bother replying to the rest of your post because I think you are trying to pick a fight or arguement at the expense of a suicide post, and I am not going to stoop to that level.

[EnigmaXOXO]

After going back and reading your posts, Grace, I get the impression that your recent breakup may be what's troubling you (???) Unrequited love can literally cause physical pain and even feel like an illness at times. That's why they call it a "heart ache." It's not love that causes us pain, it's rejection and the fear of losing it.

 

I remember having the same feelings when I lost my first love. It felt so raw and real at the time. But looking back, if I had followed through with what I was contemplating, I would have missed out on so, so much. And the pain I would have passed along to my family and friends (those who truly loved me back) would have been irreversible.

 

I'm standing at a different place now … with a different set of eyes and a whole new world of experiences to compare to what I knew and understood then. And BOY, am I glad I didn't act on those feelings I had in a moment of desperation and self-pity! In retrospect, what I was willing to sacrifice on behalf of someone who really didn't love me enough to care wasn't worth the price of forfeiting all the wonderful, new opportunities that awaited me right around the corner.

 

I finally learned the meaning of true love, but it took me 38 years of living, learning and surviving some valuable life lessons before I earned enough stripes to finally get there. And I'm certain there's a lot MORE lessons for me (and you) to learn before our numbers are finally called.

 

I'm not sure if you've been clinically diagnosed with depression, or if this is just a temporary state for you given the situation at hand. While I can understand you're reluctance to rely on chemicals to get you through this difficult time, please consider seeking support and/or counciling (whether medical or spiritual) before resorting to any permanent and irreversible measures.

 

Please.

[quankanne]

addressing the more pressing issue here:

 

Grace, suicide isn't an answer, just a seemingly "good" solution to a situation that can be remedied. Help is just a doctor's visit away, and while you are averse to using anti-depressants, sometimes it's those chemicals that make all the difference in helping your body to heal. This is a poor comparison, but think of your body's physical workings to that of a car's.

 

when your car needs fuel, you fill the tank with gas. You also are aware that the brake fluids, the transmission fluids, the oil and the washer fluids need to be topped off so that your car operates to the best of your ability. Anti-depressants do the same thing for your body, they "top off" or correct chemical imbalances so that you are physically and psychologically at your best. A smart woman posted a reference about body chemistry a long time ago, and I'm posting it below. Just remember, it is not bad or wrong or shameful to seek medical attention for issues that express themselves psychologically – your responsibility to yourself is to make sure that you are at your healthy best.

 

if you're a believer, you've got a built-in backup system in your faith. While Admiral and I have been discoursing about our respective and varied viewpoints about our mutual faith in God, I think it's safe to say that both he and I know how precious it is to have that faith to see us through dark periods like this. As you give your body the medical help it needs from your physician, let your faith sustain you. Both sources saw me through a period of depression that began when I realized my beloved mama was dying, and if it weren't for my doctor putting me on anti-depressant AND the Jesus who held me especially close that whole time, I don't know where I'd be now. A real mess, for sure ...

 

stress, from either too much going on, from illness, even from heartache can affect how your body performs chemically. Don't turn away help just because you don't like the idea of being on anti-depressants. Chances are, you will not need to be on them for the rest of your life if your body is responding a non-chronic stimulus.

 

hugs and prayers,

quank

[Chris777]

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin. All manner of sin & blasphemy shall be forgiven except the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. (Mathew 12:31-32) Suicide is not the unpardonable sin. Suicide along with all other sins were taken care of by Jesus' death on the cross. He paid the penalty for the sins of mankind. Nobody will go to hell for any sins except the sin of unbelief in Jesus.

 

So a believer who commits suicide is already forgiven. There are christians who commit suicide all the time. They are in heaven now because the blood of Jesus was shed for those sins.

Where did you get this Idea Certainly not from Scripture

 

Repentance does NOT mean quitting your sins or cleaning up your lifestyle. Repentance in the context of salvation always means turning from the sin of unbelief & becoming a believer in Christ Jesus. The only sin God asks us to give up is our unbelief in His Son. Therefore repentance and faith are snyonomous terms. You can't find the word "repent" in the gospel of John because it means the same thing as "believe" which is mentioned several times all throughout the gospel of John.

 

There is not a single person who has repented of all their sins. I haven't, you haven't, mother teressa hasn't not even the pope. We will continue to sin until the day we die physically. Born again christians are just sinners saved by grace. Grace is unmerited favor. You can't earn it or work for it. It is absolutely free. All a person has to do is take the gift. It really is that simple. Jesus paid the price. Eternal life is His gift to us.

Is that why Jesus told the prostitute to sin no more after he prevented her stoning?

 

By the way Jesus Christ came for the sick. Suicide is a mental illness along with depression. So if a person does not go to heaven it won't be because he committed suicide. God has compassion on the mentally ill. I personally believe depression is a terminal illness. Society judges the mentally ill as losers especially those who commit suicide but thank God He is not like us. Society considers suicide a terrible crime and has no respect for those who kill themselves but God has mercy on the suicidal people. He understands their pain. Sure the people suicide victims leave behind may never forgive them but God already has.

From your words, you sound as if you are confused, have you actually looked at what you are saying in the light of scripture?

I am sure I will start a whole other tangent by even mentioning it, but

Jesus never cured any so called mental illness, he drove out Demons.

Just because the so called wisdom of the world places a name on something doesnt change the fact that human wisdom is foolishness to God. Note the ambiguity in ALL psychiatric literature, "may", "could", "possibly","it is believed" none of those statements are anywhere near being truth. it is a pseudo science at best. In that their are still so many competing trains of thought on the whole issue.

Are you sure you want to risk your personal salvation on that?

 

THe Holy Spirit bears witness with my spirit that I am saved & one of His. Read Romans chapter 8. It would not matter if 200 people ganged up on me and tried to convince me I'm not saved. They couldn't do it. You can't argue with the Holy Spirit.

 

I personally believe depression can be a terminal illness. It most assuredly is in my case. I'm just waiting for God to give me the orders to pull the trigger on myself. I have a feeling He's going to call me home soon. I may not be fit to live in this world much longer.

 

I also don't believe in taking medication for depression. I'm not going to allow my mind to be controlled by any controlled substance. I'd rather die.

Why dont you carefully reread what you yourself have posted.

 

1 It doesnt matter what any man tells you, ultimately you will confess to god your sins, it is not something to consider lightly, or feel justified in, are you doing him honor?

 

2 you calle depression terminal, and claim to bewaiting to "pull the trigger", and in the very next post say you arent going to take meds for depression.

Is their any difference between the drugs or the gun, either would be at your hands rather than Gods.

 

I suffer every day, I don't want to be in this place, but I am not here because of my own will, I am here because of his. Christ went to the cross for us, We are His possessions to do with as he wills.

I suggest you re read the scriptures that you have used to justify yourself, and ask yourself, in the light of the word of God, would you really be doing his will or your own?

 

As bad as anything we can experience in this world is is it anything in the light of eternity?

I have been in pain for over 5 years, I lost my job last year because it became so great, I was given a taste of hell, It is not something I would recomend, even tasting. I don't know whats going to happen, I dont know what I will end up doing, but I know the Lord will provide, and ultimately all desicions belong to him. No matter how bad I might personally want out from under what I feel is a burden.

 

Things here are temporary and they will pass away, his kingdom is Eternal, Be sure you will be a part of it.

[Nicholas]

Ok, the reason this thread on 'Eternal Security' was started is to ask the question if someone will lose their salvation if they kill themselves.

 

The answer is

Not your place to answer.

The the Lord will not condone that, because you are putting your trust in something else, not in Him, and that is the cause of your depression.

Brain chemistry is the cause of depression.

 

In terms of depression - you need to stop whatever you are doing, and start praising God out loud, or go to a church that knows how to praise God.

Don't give medical advice when you're not qualified to. Depressed people should see a medical professional, not a preacher.

 

This should be the ultimate evidence (of course it's not, since those people don't value evidence) that "born-again christians" care only about their own holy image. A person's life is on the line, but it doesn't faze you at all, because you only care about yourself.

[ReluctantRomeo]

Brain chemistry is the cause of depression.

 

Hmmm. The current thinking tends in the direction that thinking habits are more often the cause of depression than chemistry. And even a chemical imbalance is likely to respond to getting out a bit more, seeing people and doing interesting things. Moods and chemistry are a 2 way street.

 

Various cognitive measures - including the praise therapy suggested by the admiral - would therefore stand a good chance of helping in the majority of cases.

 

 

Don't give medical advice when you're not qualified to. Depressed people should see a medical professional, not a preacher.

 

Definitely with you on the medical advice...

 

Are you reading this, Grace? See a doctor!

 

I would say that a depressed person should see a medical professional *and* a pastor. One for the medication and therapy, the other for pastoral care and encouragement.

 

 

"born-again christians" care only about their own holy image. A person's life is on the line, but it doesn't faze you at all, because you only care about yourself.

 

To be fair, I suspect the admiral's advice is genuinely well-motivated and represents the best solution in his worldview. I'd agree that "have faith and snap out of it" is quite a self-serving worldview - it saves its adherents from having to exercise compassion on the fallen - but I suspect it's genuinely held.

[helena abadi]

To be fair, I suspect the admiral's advice is genuinely well-motivated and represents the best solution in his worldview. I'd agree that "have faith and snap out of it" is quite a self-serving worldview - it saves its adherents from having to exercise compassion on the fallen - but I suspect it's genuinely held.

 

i'd agree with that too.

 

placing the healing aspects of religion above medical science, in this case for healing depression, is questionable, to say the least. religion and science have been at odds for hundreds of years. let's be sensible here, depression and especially suicidal ideation, have a range of effective treatments in medicine and psychology.

 

grace - antidepressants don't control the mind. they alleviate the symptoms of depression.

 

the bible may contain universal truths, but too much of it relates to a state of society that is long gone.

[Nicholas]

To be fair, I suspect the admiral's advice is genuinely well-motivated

 

The road to hell!

 

I don't think modern fundamentalism is rooted in anything but narcissism. How many people hear aggressive accounts of "accept Jesus or accept Hell" and say, "Gee, that's the religion for me!"--They do it for themselves, not for others.

[Admiral Thrawn]

What is going on with Grace2005?

[Chris777]

To be fair, I suspect the admiral's advice is genuinely well-motivated

 

The road to hell!

 

I don't think modern fundamentalism is rooted in anything but narcissism. How many people hear aggressive accounts of "accept Jesus or accept Hell" and say, "Gee, that's the religion for me!"--They do it for themselves, not for others.

 

Is their any particular reason you are so bitter towards fundamentalist?

You rarely, if at all, rail off on any other people, sects, groups, or even other religions? It is almost as if you approve of all things save fundamentalist? And then its of your notion of them, not nessesarily of their words, or actions (and I do know it isn't always the case, But

their are divisions, and differences of opinions, in all groups)