sin that leads to death

[dellsOfBittersweet]

Dells, perhaps you could clarify what you meant here, so we won't have any confusion:

However, works do play a role in salvation.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but would you say that you mean, works don't play a role in salvation, but works are a natural fruit of one who is saved.

Why would I say that? Are you accusing me of not believing James 2:14-26?

"14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."

I am sorry for leaving a confusing post. I had meant to elaborate further but ran out of time. If you go back and read my post, it will soon be expanded.

[RickD]

Dells, after you edited your post, I think it's clearer now. Thanks.

[secretfire6]

hey all I've been gone for awhile learning and growing exponentially and, well I'm trying to understand this discussion.
we are all in agreement that salvation, that is believing in the sacrifice of the messiah, is something given to us more than something we work for, right? like a gift? Unlike a physical gift, you cannot accidentally loose it or have it stolen from you. Once you have excepted it, by believing, the only way to not have it any longer is to willfully toss it away by not believing. I think this would be very unlikely for a truly enlightened and saved person, but the Scriptures do say that even those among the elect will be decieved and fall away. I would say it is not possible to LOOSE your salvation, but it is possible to deny it. Those who truly seek God and truth will find it, right? If you stop seeking...well you wont find anything. This would be the apathy that jestes spoke of. However I disagree that God would cut someone's incarnated life short to keep them from getting to that point. That would be a violation of free will and still would not bring that person to enlightenment or salvation.
this would be in line with Revelations talk of those that "still did not repent" and who "worshipped the beast and it's image"," who recieved the mark of the beast on their forehead (believing/thinking like the beast) and on their right hand (acting/behaving like the beast)" were the ones tossed into the lake of fire which is the second death.

You are very close to being in agreement with the Catholic Church. Here is a document jointly written by the Catholic and Lutheran churches demonstrating that Catholics and Protostants have much in common on this subject: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... on_en.html

Catholics do not believe that human beings can earn their own salvation. We believe that salvation is an unmerited free gift, won for us by the sacrifice on the cross. As Paul says, we are saved by grace through faith. The document discusses this in detail.

However, works do play a role in salvation. Misunderstandings between Catholics and Protostants often stem from both faiths using the same word to mean different things. In the case of the word "works" we do not mean simply being kind, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and so on and so forth. I other words, we do not use works to refer to positive good actions alone. Some Protostants, thinking that we meant the word this way, imagine Catholics running around making sure they have done enough good works to have fully earned their salvation. This is an extremely inaccurate view of Catholicism.

Catholics use the word "works" to refer to any action that is in harmony with the will of God. Cooking dinner for your family is as much of a good work as volunteering at a soup kitchen would be. So the role that work play in salvation is this: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) Doing good works, in the Catholic sense of the term, means doing the will of the Father.

What I mean by this is not that we can earn our salvation by always following the will of God. To reiterate, it is a Catholic belief that salvation is a free gift won for us on the cross. What I do mean is that out of gratitude for this free gift, we do good works.

As you stated, the only way to lose your salvation is to make a free will decision to reject it. The Catholic Church teaches that hell is only for those who choose it for themselves. This could be done by choosing an action so contrary to the commands of God that it constitutes a complete rejection of his free gift. Satan chose Hell by rejecting God and trying to place himself above him. By doing similar actions, we could also freely choose to spend eternity in Hell. Worshiping false gods, murder, rape, or other gravely immoral actions that one could perform would satisfy these critia if the person died without repenting. See my previous post on mortal sin.

Sorry im so late responding. I thought my post didn't go through because I didn't see it show up for the rest of the day I posted it. I'm not Catholic or Protestant. I see many positives and negitives of both sides so I stay away from both as far as labeling myself.
After Jesus told the disciples about false Christs and false teachers, they asked how they would know who was who. Christ said you would know them by their fruits. I believe these are the deeds and works spoken of and that will be judged by the fires in Revelation. What is burned up suffers you a loss (works done based on sin) and what is purified gains you reward (works done for God's glory). Having a holy spirit helps you bear and share good spiritual fruit, but the reason works alone can't save is because an atheist can also be a humanitarian, perhapse basing their good deeds on pride or deception. Even if you are bearing good fruit, you could deny the one who helped you do so and be lost. Also, someone who is born of holy spirit, but never acts upon it will be saved, but "as one just escaping the flames"
I do however take major issue with the churches for the extreme degree that they "elaborate" on the laws rules and sins. This is why I'm not of them. The way they will manipulate truth and scripture to shift power from God and individuals, to the institution. I can't stand it. Every organization that I've been a part of or read about has done this, especially when it comes to anything money or sex related. Sorry I know it's off topic, but the huge list of Sins you posted reminded me of it all. Most of it I agree is bad to do, others I'd say are a bit knit picky, but I know where the church (I hope) is comming from. One in particular I totally disagree with.

[dellsOfBittersweet]

hey all I've been gone for awhile learning and growing exponentially and, well I'm trying to understand this discussion.
we are all in agreement that salvation, that is believing in the sacrifice of the messiah, is something given to us more than something we work for, right? like a gift? Unlike a physical gift, you cannot accidentally loose it or have it stolen from you. Once you have excepted it, by believing, the only way to not have it any longer is to willfully toss it away by not believing. I think this would be very unlikely for a truly enlightened and saved person, but the Scriptures do say that even those among the elect will be decieved and fall away. I would say it is not possible to LOOSE your salvation, but it is possible to deny it. Those who truly seek God and truth will find it, right? If you stop seeking...well you wont find anything. This would be the apathy that jestes spoke of. However I disagree that God would cut someone's incarnated life short to keep them from getting to that point. That would be a violation of free will and still would not bring that person to enlightenment or salvation.
this would be in line with Revelations talk of those that "still did not repent" and who "worshipped the beast and it's image"," who recieved the mark of the beast on their forehead (believing/thinking like the beast) and on their right hand (acting/behaving like the beast)" were the ones tossed into the lake of fire which is the second death.

You are very close to being in agreement with the Catholic Church. Here is a document jointly written by the Catholic and Lutheran churches demonstrating that Catholics and Protostants have much in common on this subject: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... on_en.html

Catholics do not believe that human beings can earn their own salvation. We believe that salvation is an unmerited free gift, won for us by the sacrifice on the cross. As Paul says, we are saved by grace through faith. The document discusses this in detail.

However, works do play a role in salvation. Misunderstandings between Catholics and Protostants often stem from both faiths using the same word to mean different things. In the case of the word "works" we do not mean simply being kind, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and so on and so forth. I other words, we do not use works to refer to positive good actions alone. Some Protostants, thinking that we meant the word this way, imagine Catholics running around making sure they have done enough good works to have fully earned their salvation. This is an extremely inaccurate view of Catholicism.

Catholics use the word "works" to refer to any action that is in harmony with the will of God. Cooking dinner for your family is as much of a good work as volunteering at a soup kitchen would be. So the role that work play in salvation is this: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) Doing good works, in the Catholic sense of the term, means doing the will of the Father.

What I mean by this is not that we can earn our salvation by always following the will of God. To reiterate, it is a Catholic belief that salvation is a free gift won for us on the cross. What I do mean is that out of gratitude for this free gift, we do good works.

As you stated, the only way to lose your salvation is to make a free will decision to reject it. The Catholic Church teaches that hell is only for those who choose it for themselves. This could be done by choosing an action so contrary to the commands of God that it constitutes a complete rejection of his free gift. Satan chose Hell by rejecting God and trying to place himself above him. By doing similar actions, we could also freely choose to spend eternity in Hell. Worshiping false gods, murder, rape, or other gravely immoral actions that one could perform would satisfy these critia if the person died without repenting. See my previous post on mortal sin.

Sorry im so late responding. I thought my post didn't go through because I didn't see it show up for the rest of the day I posted it. I'm not Catholic or Protestant. I see many positives and negitives of both sides so I stay away from both as far as labeling myself.
After Jesus told the disciples about false Christs and false teachers, they asked how they would know who was who. Christ said you would know them by their fruits. I believe these are the deeds and works spoken of and that will be judged by the fires in Revelation. What is burned up suffers you a loss (works done based on sin) and what is purified gains you reward (works done for God's glory). Having a holy spirit helps you bear and share good spiritual fruit, but the reason works alone can't save is because an atheist can also be a humanitarian, perhapse basing their good deeds on pride or deception. Even if you are bearing good fruit, you could deny the one who helped you do so and be lost. Also, someone who is born of holy spirit, but never acts upon it will be saved, but "as one just escaping the flames"
I do however take major issue with the churches for the extreme degree that they "elaborate" on the laws rules and sins. This is why I'm not of them. The way they will manipulate truth and scripture to shift power from God and individuals, to the institution. I can't stand it. Every organization that I've been a part of or read about has done this, especially when it comes to anything money or sex related. Sorry I know it's off topic, but the huge list of Sins you posted reminded me of it all. Most of it I agree is bad to do, others I'd say are a bit knit picky, but I know where the church (I hope) is comming from. One in particular I totally disagree with.

Well I agree on most of your points. I would add that there are two traditions in the Catholic Church, Eastern and Western. The Western school of thought is descended from the scholastics, and likes to make everything very specific. The Western tradition is not trying to create new teachings or twist God's words; it merely seeks to understand to the greatest extent possible the mysteries revealed by God. To our limited human minds, this requires being very specific and using a lot of words.

The Eastern tradition views things very differently. They see God's revelation as being greater than our human understanding, and do not want to limit this revelation with human language, which can only go so far. On many theological questions, Catholics of an eastern mindset will simply respond, "it's a mystery."

The Catholic Church takes no side on these two ways of interpreting theology. Both have merit. If you feel more comfortable viewing things from one way, that is completely your preference. As someone who really likes logic, I find the Western model more satisfying, but in many cases the Eastern view provides a refreshing break from needing to understand everything exactly. SecretFire6, it sounds like you find the Eastern tradition more pleasing. You could still fit right in the Catholic Church.

On the topic of the long article I quoted, that is the opinion of a theologian writing from a western perspective. It is not church teaching. I was merely trying to show a Catholic perspective as to what mortal sin is. The legalistic tone taken by the writer is intended to be a guide as to how not to fall into sin. It is not supposed to be taken as a bare minimum where anything not on the list is free reign. An Eastern theologian would have given a much more general answer, probably encouraging you to avoid doing anything contrary to the will of God.

Out of curiosity, where do you disagree with the writer? Since he is just a theologian, and not an official representative of the Church, he well could be wrong. If you point out an error in his logic, there is a good chance I will agree with you.

Peace,
DellsOfBittersweet

[bippy123]

Dells, as someone who is baptized in the Melkite (eastern right Catholic) and receiving communion in the roman Catholic Church I see what you mean, but I love to study the early Church Fathers like clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp who were the direct students of the apostles and elaborated on many of the early Church's teaching such as the Eucharist being the literal flesh and blood of Christ, and other teachings such as against private interpretation of the bible etc etc. I havent been to a Melkite mass in years and my Greek is very poor, but I am learning Latin

As a Catholic I have always understood works as coming from the graces bestowed upon me through the holy spirit, but it doesn't involve me saying yes to the lord one time, but saying yes continually, every morning I wake up.

[PaulSacramento]

In regards to "private interpretation" of the bible.
It's funny to be against that since pretty much EVERY interpretation of the bible starts off like that.
It only becomes a "consensus" when enough agree to it BUT they all start from a private understanding.

[bippy123]

In regards to "private interpretation" of the bible.
It's funny to be against that since pretty much EVERY interpretation of the bible starts off like that.
It only becomes a "consensus" when enough agree to it BUT they all start from a private understanding.

Paul actually Christian history starts with the church and then comes the bible, not vice versa. And as far as interpretation it starts with what Jesus taught his apostles and then the apostles passed down to their first students, hence this is why I used the examples of Ignatius of antioch, clement of rome and polycarp who were all students of the apostles, they were the first to be taught by the apostles who were teaching infallibly through the holy spirit. To understand the early Christians without knowing what the students of the apostles were first taught is missing a huge part of Christian history. During my Christian search of different churches their teachings were tantimount to my understanding of it. Hence, this is why the early Christians and the early church never practiced private interpretation. Jesus gave that authority to the early apostles and then it was passed to their disciples through the process of ordination.

[PaulSacramento]

In regards to "private interpretation" of the bible.
It's funny to be against that since pretty much EVERY interpretation of the bible starts off like that.
It only becomes a "consensus" when enough agree to it BUT they all start from a private understanding.

Paul actually Christian history starts with the church and then comes the bible, not vice versa. And as far as interpretation it starts with what Jesus taught his apostles and then the apostles passed down to their first students, hence this is why I used the examples of Ignatius of antioch, clement of rome and polycarp who were all students of the apostles, they were the first to be taught by the apostles who were teaching infallibly through the holy spirit. To understand the early Christians without knowing what the students of the apostles were first taught is missing a huge part of Christian history. During my Christian search of different churches their teachings were tantimount to my understanding of it. Hence, this is why the early Christians and the early church never practiced private interpretation. Jesus gave that authority to the early apostles and then it was passed to their disciples through the process of ordination.

There is no church without the individual.
The personal interpretation of the OT via the apostles ( with the help of the HS) was just that, personal.
I have read the apostolic fathers and the early church writings.
Personal interpretation of the OT and the teachings of Christ was what those writings were.
That they shared the same views doesn't make their interpretation "collective", they were not "the borg", know what I mean?

[bippy123]

Paul the apostles were given the holy spirit to guide them and teach them what to preach, there was nothing personal about this. It was an authoritative interpretation, and without this authoritative interpretation they would not have been able to hold the early heresies that tried to take over the church.

There were many such heretical views . Ignatius even talked about this structure when he wrote about the Eucharist and how it could only be administered under the bishops and priests, and this was all the way back in 110.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html

Paul the apostles were given the holy spirit to guide them and teach them what to preach, there was nothing personal about this. It was an authoritative interpretation, and without this authoritative interpretation they would not have been able to hold the early heresies that tried to take over the church.

There were many such heretical views . Ignatius even talked about this structure when he wrote about the Eucharist and how it could only be administered under the bishops and priests, and this was all the way back in 110.

Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:
Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1, 110 A.D.:
Let that Eucharist be held valid which is offered by the bishop or by the one to whom the bishop has committed this charge. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadephians, 4:1, 110 A.D.:
Be ye careful therefore to observe one eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one cup unto union in His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop, together with the presbytery and the deacons my fellow-servants), that whatsoever ye do, ye may do it after God.

Notice Paul that ignatius was talking about the heretics that didn't believe that the Eucharist was the flesh of our lord and savior, then he writes authoritatively that a valid Eucharist can only be given by a bishop or someone under the bishop. It's first an authoritative interpretation of the last super which all of the disciples of the apostles were taught by the apostles was the flesh and blood of Christ .

We as individuals are part of the body of the church correct, but we definaty weren't given the authority to interpret the bible personally, that job was given to the apostles and their successors. If this wasnt the case then Christianity would have splintered into a million pieces from the beginning, with each personal interpretation being passed off as Christianity without us knowing or caring what the apostles passed on as each individual can say that the holy spirit guided them to their own personal interpretation.

The question posed to us now is do we follow not only the teachings of the apostles but the authority to guide and feed his sheep which was given to th by Jesus and the holy spirit, and who was in a better position to know what interpretation was passed down by the apostles, a modern day preacher or the students of the apostles.
The reason I brought the Eucharist up is that without the students of the apostles who were taught personally by the apostles we would be in confusion as to how to interpret the more vague scriptures. This is why the institution of the Eucharist is extremely important to us as Christians .
The holy spirit guided to teach the apostles to pass down this sacred tradition down to their successors (disciples).
If we disregard these teachings do we not disregard a part of what the apostles passed down to their disciples, by saying that "well I don't believe it's important anymore so I won't follow this teaching "

If it was important to them it's extremely important to me . The apostles could have taught them to believe "well u can interpret it in any way u want as it's not important" but they preached not only that the christian belief of the Eucharistic interpretation was this way but that it must be administered by someone under the bishop .

The apostles taught this to them and they passed it down to future generations like Justin martyr etc.
Even Justin Martyr in 180 ad said this is the Eucharist and if you want to receive this Eucharist you must believe as we believe. These are all the early Christians .

These days we have a zillion different interpretations of scripture and the bible . You have to ask yourself if Jesus Christ wanted us to be splintered or to be one church.
I have never heard these early church fathers tell their flock to interpret scripture in any way u want personally . If this were the case then we would all have different new testament books because until the late 4th to early 5th century there disputes as to which scriptures belonged in the new testament.

In fact the African churches of that time believed that Hebrews didn't belong on the new testament .
Who told them no, who told them that they did belong in the new testament and who gave them the authority to make this decision and who put together the new testament and told us what belonged in it and what didn't belong in it? The bible didn't just fall out of the sky in 34 ad, it was pit together between 380ad and 420ad. Who were the 4 councils that dared to make the decision to decided the canon of the new testament that all Christians even today accept their decision about the new testament ? There was only oneuniversal church at that time and it wasn't splintered .

All of these questions can't be found I'm the bible, they are found by reading about early Christian history.

These are all tough questions to deal with I know, and they were questions I dealt with when I was looking at the many different churches out there.

[secretfire6]

hey all I've been gone for awhile learning and growing exponentially and, well I'm trying to understand this discussion.
we are all in agreement that salvation, that is believing in the sacrifice of the messiah, is something given to us more than something we work for, right? like a gift? Unlike a physical gift, you cannot accidentally loose it or have it stolen from you. Once you have excepted it, by believing, the only way to not have it any longer is to willfully toss it away by not believing. I think this would be very unlikely for a truly enlightened and saved person, but the Scriptures do say that even those among the elect will be decieved and fall away. I would say it is not possible to LOOSE your salvation, but it is possible to deny it. Those who truly seek God and truth will find it, right? If you stop seeking...well you wont find anything. This would be the apathy that jestes spoke of. However I disagree that God would cut someone's incarnated life short to keep them from getting to that point. That would be a violation of free will and still would not bring that person to enlightenment or salvation.
this would be in line with Revelations talk of those that "still did not repent" and who "worshipped the beast and it's image"," who recieved the mark of the beast on their forehead (believing/thinking like the beast) and on their right hand (acting/behaving like the beast)" were the ones tossed into the lake of fire which is the second death.

You are very close to being in agreement with the Catholic Church. Here is a document jointly written by the Catholic and Lutheran churches demonstrating that Catholics and Protostants have much in common on this subject: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/ponti ... on_en.html

Catholics do not believe that human beings can earn their own salvation. We believe that salvation is an unmerited free gift, won for us by the sacrifice on the cross. As Paul says, we are saved by grace through faith. The document discusses this in detail.

However, works do play a role in salvation. Misunderstandings between Catholics and Protostants often stem from both faiths using the same word to mean different things. In the case of the word "works" we do not mean simply being kind, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick, and so on and so forth. I other words, we do not use works to refer to positive good actions alone. Some Protostants, thinking that we meant the word this way, imagine Catholics running around making sure they have done enough good works to have fully earned their salvation. This is an extremely inaccurate view of Catholicism.

Catholics use the word "works" to refer to any action that is in harmony with the will of God. Cooking dinner for your family is as much of a good work as volunteering at a soup kitchen would be. So the role that work play in salvation is this: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21) Doing good works, in the Catholic sense of the term, means doing the will of the Father.

What I mean by this is not that we can earn our salvation by always following the will of God. To reiterate, it is a Catholic belief that salvation is a free gift won for us on the cross. What I do mean is that out of gratitude for this free gift, we do good works.

As you stated, the only way to lose your salvation is to make a free will decision to reject it. The Catholic Church teaches that hell is only for those who choose it for themselves. This could be done by choosing an action so contrary to the commands of God that it constitutes a complete rejection of his free gift. Satan chose Hell by rejecting God and trying to place himself above him. By doing similar actions, we could also freely choose to spend eternity in Hell. Worshiping false gods, murder, rape, or other gravely immoral actions that one could perform would satisfy these critia if the person died without repenting. See my previous post on mortal sin.

Sorry im so late responding. I thought my post didn't go through because I didn't see it show up for the rest of the day I posted it. I'm not Catholic or Protestant. I see many positives and negitives of both sides so I stay away from both as far as labeling myself.
After Jesus told the disciples about false Christs and false teachers, they asked how they would know who was who. Christ said you would know them by their fruits. I believe these are the deeds and works spoken of and that will be judged by the fires in Revelation. What is burned up suffers you a loss (works done based on sin) and what is purified gains you reward (works done for God's glory). Having a holy spirit helps you bear and share good spiritual fruit, but the reason works alone can't save is because an atheist can also be a humanitarian, perhapse basing their good deeds on pride or deception. Even if you are bearing good fruit, you could deny the one who helped you do so and be lost. Also, someone who is born of holy spirit, but never acts upon it will be saved, but "as one just escaping the flames"
I do however take major issue with the churches for the extreme degree that they "elaborate" on the laws rules and sins. This is why I'm not of them. The way they will manipulate truth and scripture to shift power from God and individuals, to the institution. I can't stand it. Every organization that I've been a part of or read about has done this, especially when it comes to anything money or sex related. Sorry I know it's off topic, but the huge list of Sins you posted reminded me of it all. Most of it I agree is bad to do, others I'd say are a bit knit picky, but I know where the church (I hope) is comming from. One in particular I totally disagree with.

Well I agree on most of your points. I would add that there are two traditions in the Catholic Church, Eastern and Western. The Western school of thought is descended from the scholastics, and likes to make everything very specific. The Western tradition is not trying to create new teachings or twist God's words; it merely seeks to understand to the greatest extent possible the mysteries revealed by God. To our limited human minds, this requires being very specific and using a lot of words.

The Eastern tradition views things very differently. They see God's revelation as being greater than our human understanding, and do not want to limit this revelation with human language, which can only go so far. On many theological questions, Catholics of an eastern mindset will simply respond, "it's a mystery."

The Catholic Church takes no side on these two ways of interpreting theology. Both have merit. If you feel more comfortable viewing things from one way, that is completely your preference. As someone who really likes logic, I find the Western model more satisfying, but in many cases the Eastern view provides a refreshing break from needing to understand everything exactly. SecretFire6, it sounds like you find the Eastern tradition more pleasing. You could still fit right in the Catholic Church.

On the topic of the long article I quoted, that is the opinion of a theologian writing from a western perspective. It is not church teaching. I was merely trying to show a Catholic perspective as to what mortal sin is. The legalistic tone taken by the writer is intended to be a guide as to how not to fall into sin. It is not supposed to be taken as a bare minimum where anything not on the list is free reign. An Eastern theologian would have given a much more general answer, probably encouraging you to avoid doing anything contrary to the will of God.

Out of curiosity, where do you disagree with the writer? Since he is just a theologian, and not an official representative of the Church, he well could be wrong. If you point out an error in his logic, there is a good chance I will agree with you.

Peace,
DellsOfBittersweet

Sorry I was away so long..work takes alot of my time. I think I would take more of the Eastern theologian approach in the beginning, but at the same time I know the correct answers for some of the specifics that the Western view pushes. The biggest thing I disagree with in this writers list is "Sunday Obligation" which I'm understanding as Sabbath. There are 2 reasons for my objection. 1. No specific day is ever mandated by God as a day of worship. We are just told to rest, be with the lord and to keep holy, your seventh day. My seventh day may not be the same as your seventh day. your's may be on Friday and mine on Tuesday. It is not ok for a church to mandate what day I should be with the lord. 2. The sabbath is supposed to take place "in your dwelling place" A.K.A. your home. You, your children, your servants and your animals are to do no work on this day and you are not supposed to travel. All churches that I know of expect you to do what on the sabbath?? Go to their church right? That would mean travel and if this was still the olden days you would saddle up your animals and leave your servants in charge of the home....everything the opposite of what God said to do.
My other things are not so specific and mainly boil down to people not using a dictionary. If they insist on using old English bibles then they really need to know what they are reading. like people who don't know what lust means, so they fear complimenting or admiring an actractive person, people who think "covet" has to do with cheating on your wife. Little things like this that are not limited to the Catholic church, but drive me insane because they could so easily fix them. mistakes in definition and interpretation become law and those trying to correct them and help them out suddenly become the bad people.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul the apostles were given the holy spirit to guide them and teach them what to preach, there was nothing personal about this. It was an authoritative interpretation, and without this authoritative interpretation they would not have been able to hold the early heresies that tried to take over the church.

There were many such heretical views . Ignatius even talked about this structure when he wrote about the Eucharist and how it could only be administered under the bishops and priests, and this was all the way back in 110.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/eucharist-q.html



All of these questions can't be found I'm the bible, they are found by reading about early Christian history.

These are all tough questions to deal with I know, and they were questions I dealt with when I was looking at the many different churches out there.

Bippy,
None of that changes that what the apostles did was PERSONALLY ( via the HS of course) interpret scriptures as did those that cam after them.
There was no "collective" interpretation per say, not in the "borg" sense.
Even at times there was debates and discussions about doctrines and they didn't always agree of course.