Yes, homosexual acts are still sinful because they violate the moral law.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:God did not hold Gentiles to his ceremonial and dietary laws. He does hold everyone to his moral law, though. To Jews who become Christians, eating shellfish is no longer a sin because Jesus fulfilled the entire Law in their stead and for them those foods have been declared "clean". To Jews who reject Jesus, however, since they are therefore still under the Law, yes, it is still a sin.Sam Lowry said:So it's a sin to eat shellfish if you don't believe in Jesus?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Umm, yes, that's why I said historical unanimity OR continuity.Sam Lowry said:Historical continuity does not mean historical unanimity. Those are very different things.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:You lose the historical argument both ways because of how you're using history. It has nothing to do with what I'm doing. On the one hand, you claim historical unanimity or continuity with regard to a certain belief or doctrine; therefore, any historical evidence contrary to that, and you lose. On the other, you claim infallible teaching originating from historical individuals and sources that have no claim to infallibility, and whose claims appear hundreds of years after the original apostles, being completely absent in or even contradicted by the apostle's infallible teaching (i.e. Scripture). So your historical appeal loses there as well.Sam Lowry said:My problem with the historical debate is that we Catholics aren't allowed to win it. You present your evidence, we present ours, and any time it looks like we have a valid historical argument you revert to sola scriptura and say we're relying on fallible human authority. Heads you win, tails we lose.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:That's obviously true in principle, but the parts in scripture we're talking about isn't an arcane puzzle. We can reason together what is the correct meaning. I believe in the perspicuity of scripture, for those able to read and who are willing to study and research. But if certain people claim infallibility, and then are shown to be wrong historically and with direct proof, there is no "interpretation" needed there to see that. You should not give your trust to them for the interpretation of Scripture when you don't understand it yourself. In the early days of the church, people had to trust their leaders. They had no choice. Today, we are blessed with our education and full access to the Bible (remember how the Roman Catholic Church tried to violently quash that?) and virtually all commentaries and the original language translations. We can read many different interpretations and watch and read many debates, and then come to our own understanding, and then reason with and debate each other. Jesus even said to to do this: "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?"Sam Lowry said:There's no such thing as scriptural teaching without interpretation. Your interpretation is based on your own thinking and that of other men who are just as fallible as anyone else.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Coke Bear said:It sounds like you believe the "Rapture" that wasn't' first taught until the 19th century. You seem to not understand Jesus is COMING here. 1 Thess 4:16-17BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
--> It works either way: Jesus comes back, then the millenial kingdom starts, and at the end of the millenial kingdom, the Great White Throne judgement begins. Jesus only came back once there. The sheep and goats are the people coming out of the tribulation before the millenial kingdom starts (premillenial view) where all believers were taken up (notice they went UP - Jesus didn't come down)
For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
This is similar to the language in Matthew 8:34 used when those who went out of Jerusalem to meet Jesus when he entered the city.
This was the culture during those times. People when out of the city to greet the dignitary and welcome him into the city. We still do this today when a dignitary visits a country or area. People go out to meet them and welcome them to the country. ---> Jesus didn't return to the earth here. "In the clouds", "in the air".The 9th chapter of Hebrews mentions NOTHING of rewards. You again are reading your theology into the texts. ---> I'm reading the whole of Scripture and harmonizing them. Scripture clearly teaches (even through the direct words of Jesus himself) that believers won't face the judgement to determine their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> But not all judged to determine eternal life. Believers will be judged for rewards.Again, the Greek here for "judgement" is "krisin" which may be better translated "condemnation". The passage is stating that the believers will not be condemned to hell. It is not saying that they won't be judged. ---> you're losing focus again. I've said that believers will indeed face judgement, but for rewards, not for their eternal life.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> if this is saying judgement to determine salvation, then how do you square this with Jesus' own words, "they (believers) will not come into judgement, but have passed from death to life"? You are continually trying to make Scripture contradict itself to make your views work.You still don't (won't want to) get it. This is not saying that we are saved by works. If one commits an unrepented mortal sin, then they will get the judgment they deserve. ---> which means they lose their salvation, ultimately meaning that their salvation was contingent upon their performance and merit, i.e. works.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
The biggest example of your view contradicting scripture is that if the sheep and goats parable is about salvation for EVERYONE, then it's saying that salvation is purely by works. But this contradicts the entire gospel message of the Bible.Even St Paul wasn't assured when he said in 1 Cor 4:4 ---> So Paul is contradicting John?BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> are you going against Scripture and saying that believers CAN'T be assured?
I personally have nothing on my conscience, but that does not mean that I am innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. ---> faith in Jesus for one's salvation keeps you out of the judgement for your eternal life. Jesus is telling you this over and over in the Bible, yet you don't want to accept it, you'd rather wear the burden around your own neck. This means you're not trusting in him, which means you're not saved.Jesus said it 6 times. I know what more he had to do other than perform Eucharistic miracles, (which he has in every age) for you to take Him literally. It's said that you won't believe him. ---> I believe every word he said, and I believe that he said it six times to reinforce the importance of it - that he was going to be sacrificed, and through his sacrifice, we will have eternal life. That's the whole point of his "bread of life" analogy. He wasn't saying he was a literal piece of bread.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> I believe everything in John 6... so how did the thief on the cross eat a piece of Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? When did the sinful woman of Luke 7 eat Jesus flesh and drink his blood? When did the house of Cornelius eat Jesus' flesh and drink his blood? Obviously, eating his flesh and drinking his blood means believing in him. If you don't think so, then YOU don't believe John 6
The Eucharist is one of the greatest gifts that the LORD has given to us. We get to take the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus. You can't even imagine what you are missing. ---> We don't get to take his divinity. That's paganism.
I feel sorry for you. ---> that's because you don't understand the true gospel message, and are stuck in a man-made system
The thief had no chance to partake in the Eucharist. God doesn't ask us to do the impossible.---> Jesus literally said you must "eat his flesh" and "drink his blood". It would make him a liar, then.
The bible never mentions sinful woman nor the house of Cornelius again. When don't know whether they ate the Eucharist or not. ---> but Jesus already saved them, before they ever did. This shows that "eating Jesus' flesh" and "drinking his blood" to be saved is not literal.Believing is not just a mental ascent. It is also doing what he said to do. ---> it was, for the thief on the cross and the house of Cornelius.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
"For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and BELIEVES in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
".... Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever BELIEVES has eternal life."You, again, are reading your biases into the text here. ---> "didn't we do this, didn't we do that" as touting their own merits isn't reading into it, it's reading IT.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
---> they're literally touting their own merits.You support your claims with YOUR biblical views. They have NO authority other than your own. Once again, I'll stand with Jesus and his Magisterium. ---> that's what it all comes down to with Roman Catholics - authority. I can show you logically, historically, even biblically that something is true, but instead of following Jesus when he said "why don't you judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57), you give all your thinking to a group of fallible men. I've proven over and over how fallible they are. I really wish you'd wake up.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
I've done nothing BUT support my claims from biblical and church history. You are really boring me now.
So if you think my understanding of Scripture isn't correct, then explain. I've shown how Scripture, using reason and logic, does not support that the eating of Jesus' flesh is literal and that we can lose our salvation, to give just two examples. To sum them up - Jesus obviously did not mean to eat his flesh literally, because many people in the Bible were saved without having to do that, or before they were even able to. That's simple logic, it's not "interpretation". And if our names can be blot out of the book of life, then it would mean that Jesus would lose something he was given by the Father, which Jesus clearly says will never happen. Again, simple logic regarding a clear statement by Jesus, not an arcane puzzle from him. What do you disagree with here?
The problem with your logical arguments is that they're based on your own theological assumptions, many of which Catholics don't share. For example, you think the story of the thief on the cross refutes Catholic teaching on the sacraments because any rule that God gives to us must bind him as well. But that's simply your opinion. It's not the product of any demonstrable reasoning. Many of the things you say Catholics "must" believe are not things that Catholics do or logically should believe.
If a rule that God gives us doesn't bind him to that rule as well, then that's true for all of God's rules: his rule for us that "Jesus is the way, truth, and the light and not one us can come to God except through him" would not be binding either, and thus it was completely superfluous for Jesus to come, suffer, and die for our sins. It would also mean that God does not have to fulfilll any covenant promises He makes to his people. But this is utterly false - God's eternal character is such that he can NOT go against anything he declares. If he does, he isn't God. Simply put, if God goes against something he declares, then he didn't declare it - man did.
You say that Catholics don't share these assumptions, but they're not assumptions, they're necessary implications. It logically must be believed, otherwise your whole belief system collapses. Necessary must mean necessary, or nothing is necessary. If you "must" eat Jesus' literal flesh, then you MUST, or there isn't anything you must do. God does not double-speak, but apparently Roman Catholicism tries to make Him do so. This diminishes the very nature and character of God.
If God couldn't change anything he declared, we would still be bound by everything in the Old Testament law.
God's Law has not been changed or revoked. Jesus eternally stands as the fulfillment of that Law, and those who believe in him are credited with the same standing. For those who don't believe, the Law is still very much in effect.
Are homosexual acts still a sin if you are a believer?
But God didn't say in the New Testament that some foods are unclean, it's sinful to eat them, yet we need not worry because Jesus paid the price for our sins. He told Peter, "It is not for you to call anything profane, which God has made clean."
By your reasoning, this is God going against his own nature. If he says we're not to eat shellfish, or that we must be baptized, it logically and necessarily follows that there can be no exceptions.