Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Constantinopolis]

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

You know who else is too nice? You are. Being Catholic, you should be criticizing me way more than that.

Remember the words of St. Athanasius. "If the world is against the Truth..."

[Nioya]

Hey guys I have some good news. I found a way to have assurance of my salvation.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Hey guys I have some good news. I found a way to have assurance of my salvation.

[Pasong Tirad]

Hey guys I have some good news. I found a way to have assurance of my salvation.

It does sound like good news. Wanna tell us about it?

[Nioya]

Hey guys I have some good news. I found a way to have assurance of my salvation.

It does sound like good news. Wanna tell us about it?

Well from my reading of the new testament, and I have read all of it, I don't think there's any place that talks about having assurance of our salvation. But, I don't think there's any problem with feeling assured of one's salvation. I think that's an acceptable form of spiritual practice. St Francis De Sales said we ought to often pray about heaven, because it is our heart's greatest longing.

I had an issue with Matthew 7:21-23. I did not know how to interpret it and thought it went against this idea. Especially given the litmus test for salvation appears to be good works.

Concerning Self-Deception
21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ Matthew 7:21-23 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

I listened to a prominent presbyterian pastor exegete this text. He says the issue is the rejected people base their salvation on their miracle working and prophesying, and essentially demand it. That seems essentially correct.
Also I guess the first part can be explained by quoting a few other texts.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=RSV
http://biblehub.com/john/6-40.htm

[Constantinopolis]

Agreed. But not if being open to conversation means sweeping the disagreements under the rug and pretending they don't exist. Unfortunately, that is often what happens in practice.

I know you said once that's what non-denominational Christians do. Although I am a non-denominational Christian, I understand I might be wrong and that I need to expose myself to disagreements to think about my own beliefs and testing them. I just don't feel that a commitment to one, and only one, view of the faith helps me, though, and I prefer to be exposed to multiple perspectives and be open to adapt aspects of them that I think are the right ones.

You might never know this if I never tell you, but I've taken some of your approaches towards being a Christian since we've met. I know you're Orthodox, and I am simply a non-denominational, but if you are right, and I am wrong, I am willing to admit that I am wrong and rectify my beliefs. I've also learned from Luminesa many things that I am grateful for and I have also recified myself from my prior ways of thinking, and from my own Protestant/Catholic upbringing.

So our disagreements and more agreeable discussions have helped me grow as a Christian, even if I don't feel that being an Orthodox Christian is for me.

I am very very happy to hear that! I mean the fact that our disagreements have been productive and helped you to grow in the faith.

This may not show very much from my posts, but one of the things I often worry about is whether I'm actually making a positive contribution or whether I'm just alienating people by being too argumentative. I relish debate, and it is in my nature to be argumentative, so I easily get carried away, but behind it all I really want to persuade people, not push them away.

I myself have learned a lot from others in this thread, as well. Luminesa is constantly teaching me how to express love in Christ. I called her "too nice", but really I admire her for that. And then there is Tarsonis, who is teaching me how to be firm in the faith.

[Constantinopolis]

Hey guys I have some good news. I found a way to have assurance of my salvation.

It is never good to feel assured of your salvation. That way lies pride, the root of all sin.

Rather, a Christian should always consider himself the greatest of sinners, and bear in mind the possibility that he may not be saved in the end. Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner!

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It does sound like good news. Wanna tell us about it?

Well from my reading of the new testament, and I have read all of it, I don't think there's any place that talks about having assurance of our salvation. But, I don't think there's any problem with feeling assured of one's salvation. I think that's an acceptable form of spiritual practice. St Francis De Sales said we ought to often pray about heaven, because it is our heart's greatest longing.

I had an issue with Matthew 7:21-23. I did not know how to interpret it and thought it went against this idea. Especially given the litmus test for salvation appears to be good works.

Concerning Self-Deception
21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’ Matthew 7:21-23 Revised Standard Version (RSV)

I listened to a prominent presbyterian pastor exegete this text. He says the issue is the rejected people base their salvation on their miracle working and prophesying, and essentially demand it. That seems essentially correct.
Also I guess the first part can be explained by quoting a few other texts.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=RSV
http://biblehub.com/john/6-40.htm

One should never feel assured of their own salvation, as Const. said.

We're all sinners. All of us. The people who ask to have the gifts of miracle working and being a prophet are misguided in what they think the gifts are. We all have our own gifts in the faith. Some of us work as prosecutors of men, others as spiritual guides, others as miracle workers, others as people with talents, others as teachers, and so on and so forth. Throughout my life I have never asked for a gift like miracle working. I have merely asked for wisdom, to be able to make the right call when I need to, and for God to guide any talents he might have given me or any gifts towards doing good for people.

Just because your gift might be more subtle doesn't mean God hasn't given you one, or that one gift is less relevant than the other. What these people do to ask just these two gifts is seriously misguided, and I would rather correct them rather than call them "rejects", as that is truly the mark of hubris, to think that people who are misguided are going to be rejected from the presence of God and you will have more consideration just because you don't.

[Luminesa]

I know you said once that's what non-denominational Christians do. Although I am a non-denominational Christian, I understand I might be wrong and that I need to expose myself to disagreements to think about my own beliefs and testing them. I just don't feel that a commitment to one, and only one, view of the faith helps me, though, and I prefer to be exposed to multiple perspectives and be open to adapt aspects of them that I think are the right ones.

You might never know this if I never tell you, but I've taken some of your approaches towards being a Christian since we've met. I know you're Orthodox, and I am simply a non-denominational, but if you are right, and I am wrong, I am willing to admit that I am wrong and rectify my beliefs. I've also learned from Luminesa many things that I am grateful for and I have also recified myself from my prior ways of thinking, and from my own Protestant/Catholic upbringing.

So our disagreements and more agreeable discussions have helped me grow as a Christian, even if I don't feel that being an Orthodox Christian is for me.

I am very very happy to hear that! I mean the fact that our disagreements have been productive and helped you to grow in the faith.

This may not show very much from my posts, but one of the things I often worry about is whether I'm actually making a positive contribution or whether I'm just alienating people by being too argumentative. I relish debate, and it is in my nature to be argumentative, so I easily get carried away, but behind it all I really want to persuade people, not push them away.

I myself have learned a lot from others in this thread, as well. Luminesa is constantly teaching me how to express love in Christ. I called her "too nice", but really I admire her for that. And then there is Tarsonis, who is teaching me how to be firm in the faith.

APPRECIATION YAY!!!!!

If I can make people more loving and peaceful, then I am happy! :3

[Neo Balka]

#protestantforlyfe

[Luminesa]

I mean...Const...I could say that Orthodoxy is wrong in some aspects...Perhaps Protestantism does not stem historically from the same branch that Catholicism and Orthodoxy do, but people's Protestant beliefs are still...valid.

You know who else is too nice? You are. Being Catholic, you should be criticizing me way more than that.

Remember the words of St. Athanasius. "If the world is against the Truth..."

"THEN IT IS THE WORLD AGAINST ATHANASIUS."

[DEUS VULT INTENSIFIES.]

[BUT I'M IN BED AND CAN'T BORROW MY MOM'S CAR TO GO CRUSADING.]

[SO NOW THE STRUGGLE INTENSIFIES.]

[Luminesa]

#protestantforlyfe

*Glomps.* I GOT PEPE!!! WE MUST HURRY AND BAPTIZE PEPE!!!

[Pasong Tirad]

You know who else is too nice? You are. Being Catholic, you should be criticizing me way more than that.

Remember the words of St. Athanasius. "If the world is against the Truth..."

"THEN IT IS THE WORLD AGAINST ATHANASIUS."

[DEUS VULT INTENSIFIES.]

[BUT I'M IN BED AND CAN'T BORROW MY MOM'S CAR TO GO CRUSADING.]

[SO NOW THE STRUGGLE INTENSIFIES.]

Cars are heretical. You walk, ride a horse or take a boat, like the pilgrims of old!

[Luminesa]

"THEN IT IS THE WORLD AGAINST ATHANASIUS."

[DEUS VULT INTENSIFIES.]

[BUT I'M IN BED AND CAN'T BORROW MY MOM'S CAR TO GO CRUSADING.]

[SO NOW THE STRUGGLE INTENSIFIES.]

Cars are heretical. You walk, ride a horse or take a boat, like the pilgrims of old!

...Well I ain't walking to Jerusalem from my house. Anyone got a horse I can borrow?

[Nioya]

I feel like I set you guys off by talking about assurance of salvation. It's because this group on one hand is so ideological, which is a bad thing, but also because it's hard not to disagree strongly with different claims. I consider myself a soft protestant on soteriology, and I'm even open to catholic ideas about salvation; I think they're interesting. But I still set people off, because it felt weird.

How do I handle disagreements like that? Something related happened when I was talking with my uncle. He's a baptist and he's a pretty smart guy. But I was telling him about my pre-baptismal interview to get baptized, and he asked "Why is now the right time for you to be baptized?" I joked "Well you want the augustinian answer?............ What if I die next week? I might go to hell?" I didn't mean it; but my uncle piped up and said 'You don't have to worry about that. It has nothing to do with salvation. It's just a profession of faith." How do I respond to that? How do I handle matters where I disagree with people like that?

[Neo Balka]

#protestantforlyfe

*Glomps.* I GOT PEPE!!! WE MUST HURRY AND BAPTIZE PEPE!!!

NEIN!

ACH MACHEN DAS WEHRHAFEN!

[Luminesa]

I feel like I set you guys off by talking about assurance of salvation. It's because this group on one hand is so ideological, which is a bad thing, but also because it's hard not to disagree strongly with different claims. I consider myself a soft protestant on soteriology, and I'm even open to catholic ideas about salvation; I think they're interesting. But I still set people off, because it felt weird.

How do I handle disagreements like that? Something related happened when I was talking with my uncle. He's a baptist and he's a pretty smart guy. But I was telling him about my pre-baptismal interview to get baptized, and he asked "Why is now the right time for you to be baptized?" I joked "Well you want the augustinian answer?............ What if I die next week? I might go to hell?" I didn't mean it; but my uncle piped up and said 'You don't have to worry about that. It has nothing to do with salvation. It's just a profession of faith." How do I respond to that? How do I handle matters where I disagree with people like that?

Wait...baptism having nothing to do with salvation? Or the profession of faith? What?

[Luminesa]

*Glomps.* I GOT PEPE!!! WE MUST HURRY AND BAPTIZE PEPE!!!

NEIN!

ACH MACHEN DAS WEHRHAFEN!

*Chases Pepe with the hose.*

[Nioya]

I feel like I set you guys off by talking about assurance of salvation. It's because this group on one hand is so ideological, which is a bad thing, but also because it's hard not to disagree strongly with different claims. I consider myself a soft protestant on soteriology, and I'm even open to catholic ideas about salvation; I think they're interesting. But I still set people off, because it felt weird.

How do I handle disagreements like that? Something related happened when I was talking with my uncle. He's a baptist and he's a pretty smart guy. But I was telling him about my pre-baptismal interview to get baptized, and he asked "Why is now the right time for you to be baptized?" I joked "Well you want the augustinian answer?............ What if I die next week? I might go to hell?" I didn't mean it; but my uncle piped up and said 'You don't have to worry about that. It has nothing to do with salvation. It's just a profession of faith." How do I respond to that? How do I handle matters where I disagree with people like that?

Wait...baptism having nothing to do with salvation? Or the profession of faith? What?

That's standard baptist stuff. I once made a joke "I once met a man who called himself a baptist who told me baptism didn't matter and had nothing to do with salvation." I wouldn't go as far as that.

[Nioya]

Also I want to add that I affirm the idea of habitual grace. That's actually a very catholic idea.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, according to the Catholic/Orthodox Church, Protestantism is heretical. So, why is it that in this Christian Discussion Thread that the positions of said Christian Churches can't be said? And heresy simply means "incorrect", it's not as though its some abominable curse, it's a statement of belief.

And it should be noted that the Catholics and Orthodox in this thread, within the last few pages, have called each other heretical, incorrect, etc. (and they have for a very long time) and yet neither one have decided to call it quits from the thread.

Calling Protestant belief heretical isn't being used as an argument, it's being used as a trump card to put down their belief because, really, there's no way to argue around somebody saying "You're a heretic" because there is no argument against it other than "No, you're the heretic."

You don't understand. We would love to just hang out, and rip on Joel Osteen as a group. But we can't. Why? Because a old, wise, and terrible force watches over this thread. Normally this force is silent, but if we get to chill, get too relaxed and jovial, it comes out of the woodworks and forces us to get back to debating or face dire consequences. This force has many names in many places, but here, in this thread, it goes by the name "The Archregimancy" He is forever watchful, thus we must be forever vigilant.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Well, according to the Catholic/Orthodox Church, Protestantism is heretical. So, why is it that in this Christian Discussion Thread that the positions of said Christian Churches can't be said? And heresy simply means "incorrect", it's not as though its some abominable curse, it's a statement of belief.

And it should be noted that the Catholics and Orthodox in this thread, within the last few pages, have called each other heretical, incorrect, etc. (and they have for a very long time) and yet neither one have decided to call it quits from the thread.

Calling Protestant belief heretical isn't being used as an argument, it's being used as a trump card to put down their belief because, really, there's no way to argue around somebody saying "You're a heretic" because there is no argument against it other than "No, you're the heretic."

Also, feel free to jump in. The reason Protestants are being dismissed as heretical, is simply because it's orthodox and Catholic's talking and we have common understanding of protestants as heretical. Like I said, if you want to be part of the conversation, You need to inject yourself into it. Carve into the Apostolics, put on the tinfoil, and let us know you're there.

..that reference may be over everybody's head.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Given the Mods closed down a "Catholic Thread" they'd never allow. There's no safe spaces on the NS Forums, if the Protestants Want to be part of this thread they need to carve out their space

I doubt that's going to happen without bloodshed. This might as well be the Catholic/Orthodox thread. Provided they make a valid case for it, they can probably get a Protestant thread.

It can be done without flaming, but that's exactly the point. The CDT is not a safe space. Every summer we get fresh new atheists on the site who want to test their online mettle and stick it to the Christians. We've had, buddhists, muslims, satanists, hell even gnostic nazis come into this place and challenge the beliefs of everybody here. And yet, we remain because we keep scrapping and debating.

For all intents and purposes, this is Thunderdome.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Don't twist words Bede. I'm addressing a specific point, not asserting that God doesn't ever act as a sustainer.

I mean isn't God as a full-time sustainer, Catholic doctrine?

We're kind of delving into theology about Metaphysics. God is a sustainer of course. He sustains many things, he sustains our spirits, he sustains our faith. But the giving of Sustenance is like the when the Hebrews received mana in the desert. He is the great provider, a kind and benovolent God. He gives us what we need. Setting this doctrine asside for the moment:


What we seem to be discussing is the metaphysical realities of "being." We of course agree that God created the universe, from that point of Creation, is the universe its own entity, that continues to exist because it was created, or is its existence predicated on constant sustainance from God? Is the act of creation, finite or infinite. It's honestly a topic that makes my head hurt, but I'm of the opinion that the Universe does not need sustaining in order to continue existing. God created the Universe, and there for it exists. If all of creation were to be destroyed, it would not be a negative action in which God stops doing something, it will be a positive action in which God will do something.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Because Protestant theology is wrong. That is what I believe, and I am going to keep saying it because I also believe that this wrongness can result in some people who believe in Protestant theology going to hell - not really because of the beliefs themselves, but because of some of their consequences (for example: if you do not believe you need to go to a priest for sacramental Confession every once in a while, you may end up never examining your sins and never trying to figure out which are the most common sins that you commit and that you should struggle against).

Protestants are free to debate me on this, and I love debating them and I have done so many times, with absolutely no hard feelings of any kind. But to say "we shouldn't be debating this, because it's divisive and makes people uncomfortable" doesn't make any sense to me. As I said to Norv, the fact of the matter is that when we don't debate "divisive" things, we just stop posting altogether. And not just me, but you and Norv and Nordengrund and the other Protestants too.

It's not like we just argue in this thread all the time. Sometimes nothing new is posted for a couple of days. If our Protestant brothers and sisters are repelled by our debates, why don't they take advantage of those periods of calm to start non-divisive discussions? Well, they have tried, and the result is typically that nobody posts much in response (including the other Protestants) and the friendly discussion quickly fizzles out.

Face it: Agreement does not make for active internet threads.

I personally just don't see the point on having only one person telling you what your flaws are and what you should struggle against.

While I agree with you that a priest should also tell you which sins you're failing at and you should struggle against, the path of a Christian is a personal one. The priest is not carrying your cross, and when the time of judgement comes he won't be judged for your sins, you're going to. So you should do some introspection and look at what you are failing in an honest way, as well as going to confession. One can't function without the other.

As a protestant, I don't go because I am not a member of a congregation where I can go and confess my sins, but I won't say that other people are not important to the process of pointing out flaws of character and sins you're not struggling hard enough against.

I mean, what you're saying is that people are wrong for believing in this, but in reality nobody has argued that you shouldn't try to point out flaws in character even among protestants. That's your spin, and while I'm not necessarily a Catholic or an Orthodox, I don't think you'll find anyone who says you don't need people pointing out your flaws who are more learned in the faith than you.

Emphasis added.

I must point out that this is a fairly recent belief in the history of Christianity, that really tends to come out of 14th century humanism and the reformation. Christianity has always been a communal religion. We use the word Church because we're speaking English and the word comes from early scottish. But the word Church comes from the Greek Ecclesia which translates to "Assembly" the Christian path is not a lonesome one, it is a communal one. We're meant to be the Assembly of God, to come together as one. Not have a private walk, in which the Church is a tool for you to utilize.