Other World Religons

[executioner]

Catholics and Lutherans believe in original sin. That is the sin with which we are all born because of Adam's sin. They generally believe this sin will condemn us to Hell if we are not baptised.

Sorry, Catholics and Lutherans do not believe that baptism saves.

Sorry but the ones I know and love say you are wrong. My mom grew up Catholic and was one until her late 20's and she said they strictly teach that it is required.

[zak89]

Sorry but the ones I know and love say you are wrong. My mom grew up Catholic and was one until her late 20's and she said they strictly teach that it is required.

Required, but not sufficient. There's a difference. However, when dealing with Roman Catholicism, you have to be aware that there's a big disconnect between what the average Catholic believes the Church teaches, and what the professional apologists will tell you. They're trained to use 'Protestant' language to diffuse the most contentious points of disagreement, and it can take a LOT of probing to get them to admit there's any major difference between RCC and mainstream evangelicalism at all. I listend to one debate where the RCC apologist was doing intellectual somersaults to convince the audience that the RCC is completely in line with what evangelicals teach - I was thinking to myself: "If there's really that little difference, what are you debating?" But that's the goal - if you can convince evangelicals that the difference between them and the RCC is all just superficial (the liturgy, funny robes etc), then it's much easier to get them to compromise. It's much easier than arguing the details of the RCC version of the gospel - especially since most Biblically-literate "Protestants" aren't exactly impressed by the fallback "infallibility of the Church" argument.

[executioner]

Sorry but the ones I know and love say you are wrong. My mom grew up Catholic and was one until her late 20's and she said they strictly teach that it is required.

Required, but not sufficient. There's a difference. However, when dealing with Roman Catholicism, you have to be aware that there's a big disconnect between what the average Catholic believes the Church teaches, and what the professional apologists will tell you. They're trained to use 'Protestant' language to diffuse the most contentious points of disagreement, and it can take a LOT of probing to get them to admit there's any major difference between RCC and mainstream evangelicalism at all. I listend to one debate where the RCC apologist was doing intellectual somersaults to convince the audience that the RCC is completely in line with what evangelicals teach - I was thinking to myself: "If there's really that little difference, what are you debating?" But that's the goal - if you can convince evangelicals that the difference between them and the RCC is all just superficial (the liturgy, funny robes etc), then it's much easier to get them to compromise. It's much easier than arguing the details of the RCC version of the gospel - especially since most Biblically-literate "Protestants" aren't exactly impressed by the fallback "infallibility of the Church" argument.

The jest of it is though that RCC and North American Catholics are strictly taught that it is required and without it salvation is lost. Now in this day and time do most Catholics believe this? I don't know, but if you are a hardline Catholic then they will tell you without it they have no chance of Heaven.

[CatNamedManny]

Yeah, this is probably a bit of a rabbit trail, but there is a wide and growing gulf between Catholic church doctrine and the beliefs of the laity on a host of issues, both social and religious. It's why I tend to be uncomfortable saying "Catholics believe such and such." It's just largely not true anymore. Most denominations seem to be splintering in this way, which I think overall is a good thing. Less emphasis on the name of the building, more emphasis on the people inside it.

[knotodiswrld]

The idea that a certain number of people must be saved in order for the rapture to take place comes from biblical references outside the Gospels. Of course, since God knows the exact time at which any particular number of persons will be saved, one could ask whether He is waiting for the number or for the time. Then one could realize that since God exists outside of linear time, He isn't the one waiting ... we are the ones waiting. From His perspective, it is done already.

Romans 11:25 I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:

"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.

RO 11:27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."

Paul refers to a "full number of Gentiles" that have to come in. That, for many, indicates that God had a set number of people that must be saved. That seems a plausible interpretation to me.

2 Peter 3:8 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9 The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

This does not mention anything about a "full number", but does indicate that God is waiting to give people time to repent.


Now, as to the salvation or lack thereof of children too young to comprehend:

The concept of "Original Sin" is often misunderstood. Many teach that "Original Sin" makes one guilty of sin from birth. This, however, would contradict scripture.

Prophecy makes it clear that with the coming of the Messiah, children will no longer suffer for their parents' sins.

Jeremiah 31:27 "The days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. 28 Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares the LORD.

29 "In those days people will no longer say,
`The fathers have eaten sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge.'

JER 31:30 Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge.

(emphasis mine)

Ezekiel 18:1 EZE 18:1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:

" `The fathers eat sour grapes,
and the children's teeth are set on edge'?

EZE 18:3 "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. 4 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.

EZE 18:5 "Suppose there is a righteous man
who does what is just and right.

EZE 18:6 He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife
or lie with a woman during her period.

EZE 18:7 He does not oppress anyone,
but returns what he took in pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

EZE 18:8 He does not lend at usury
or take excessive interest.
He withholds his hand from doing wrong
and judges fairly between man and man.

EZE 18:9 He follows my decrees
and faithfully keeps my laws.
That man is righteous;
he will surely live,
declares the Sovereign LORD.

EZE 18:10 "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things 11 (though the father has done none of them):

"He eats at the mountain shrines.
He defiles his neighbor's wife.

EZE 18:12 He oppresses the poor and needy.
He commits robbery.
He does not return what he took in pledge.
He looks to the idols.
He does detestable things.

EZE 18:13 He lends at usury and takes excessive interest.

Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.

EZE 18:14 "But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:

EZE 18:15 "He does not eat at the mountain shrines
or look to the idols of the house of Israel.
He does not defile his neighbor's wife.

EZE 18:16 He does not oppress anyone
or require a pledge for a loan.
He does not commit robbery
but gives his food to the hungry
and provides clothing for the naked.

EZE 18:17 He withholds his hand from sin
and takes no usury or excessive interest.
He keeps my laws and follows my decrees.

He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. 18 But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.

EZE 18:19 "Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.

(emphasis mine)


So, the idea that we are punished for Adam's sin would contradict these scriptures. The idea of "Original Sin" isn't that it infuses us with guilt, but that it gives us a "sin nature", or a nature that will inevitably sin on it's own. It is for the sins that we ourselves inevitably commit that we are punished, not for the sins of a distant ancestor.

A child not yet born, however, is not capable of sin. Nor is a newly born baby. These individuals have not yet sinned nor could they conceive the idea of "sin". They are and will for some time be "sinless". They need not be "saved" because they have nothing from which to be saved.

By the time a child is capable of sin, and of knowing right from wrong, he is capable of understanding that Jesus came to get punished in his place and to help him do good and not bad. It will be a different age for different children. Some severely mentally handicapped individuals may never reach that point.

So, we need not worry about those who have died before birth or as infants. They died without sin and will be welcomed by their Father in Heaven.

They're trained to use 'Protestant' language to diffuse the most contentious points of disagreement, and it can take a LOT of probing to get them to admit there's any major difference between RCC and mainstream evangelicalism at all. I listend to one debate where the RCC apologist was doing intellectual somersaults to convince the audience that the RCC is completely in line with what evangelicals teach - I was thinking to myself: "If there's really that little difference, what are you debating?" But that's the goal - if you can convince evangelicals that the difference between them and the RCC is all just superficial (the liturgy, funny robes etc), then it's much easier to get them to compromise.

Partly, this is a technique that comes from a field known as NLP, or Neuro-Linquistic Programming, sometimes called "covert hypnosis". The field studies ways to use phrasing and body language to penetrate a person's conscious mind and implant ideas and suggestions directly into the subconscious.

The technique you described is a form of "mirroring", but is verbal rather than visual. In visual mirroring, the idea is to subtly mimic your victim ... I mean "subject's" body language and mannerism for several minutes. This builds a subconscious rapport with them. Even mimic their motions. A business meeting is the perfect place to try this out.

When they take a sip of their coffee, you take a sip of yours. When they cross their legs, you cross yours. After 15 minutes or so, try initiating a similarly innocent gesture, such as crossing your arms. If your subject immediately follows, you have them hooked. You know they will now be far more susceptible to whatever suggestion you might make. As Scott Adams ("Dilbert" creator and certified professional hypnotist) says in one of his books (I can't remember which one), "You probably won't be able to order them to kill someone, but they will be much more willing to listen to you and accept your ideas." (Watch the next car salesman you talk to. Many salesmen are trained to use this technique.)

Now, when your subjects are a TV or radio audience, clearly you can't "mirror" even one of them visually, but if you can kind of mirror the language, terminology, and perceived beliefs of your target audience, you will soften up their conscious defenses.

But besides having some NLP elements, this approach relies on the time-tested, old reliable technique of the "bait-and-switch". "Come on over," they say. "It's just like what you're used to, except our decorations are prettier." Some people will fall for it and be convinced that it is "God's Will" that they switch. Once they believe that, they will be hesitant to leave even when they discover unbiblical doctrines being taught.

[CatNamedManny]

I guess it depends how you look at the phrase "the full number." To me, that could simply mean "when all who are going to come in before the judgment." In other words, God knows the number because he is God, but the number isn't a requirement. I guess it falls into the same predestination/foreknowledge gray zone. Since God knows the number already through his omniscience, does that mean he set the number as a requirement for action to occur? Does it matter?

Of course, someone like Dale Thompson would use those two verses as an argument for universalism: "full number" plus "everyone com[ing] to repentance" equals salvation for all.

I stopped worrying so much about catholicism when I realized there is nothing in their teaching that precludes them from being saved. They have a whole lot of extra stuff I think is totally unbiblical, and I find the reliance on the pope as God's exclusive spokesman to be repulsive. I also object strongly to the strongly top-down approach it has toward its congregants. But being horrendously wrong on a lot doesn't mean you can't be gloriously right about the one thing that matters. Unfortunately, that one thing gets so covered up by the brain-numbing ritual, the Mary worship, the creation of layers between the believer and God, the abuses of authority, the unbiblical works-based salvation doctrine and the frankly superstitious nature of so much of the church's practices that many people will never find it.

But it's still there. And for those who are really devout catholics, they presumably have done the same thing we have done, and that's repented of their sins and made Christ the Lord of their lives. Helps me keep from going too far off into the finger-wagging side of things, which is something I try to avoid, to varying degrees of success.

[zak89]

But it's still there. And for those who are really devout catholics, they presumably have done the same thing we have done, and that's repented of their sins and made Christ the Lord of their lives. Helps me keep from going too far off into the finger-wagging side of things, which is something I try to avoid, to varying degrees of success.

I technically agree - and I'd never want to come down hard on individual Catholics, and I agree that there are probably those among them that have managed to come across the Gospel amidst the muddle. But I have the utmost lack of respect for the RCC structure - which you expressed quite well, so I'll leave it there.

[knotodiswrld]

But it's still there. And for those who are really devout catholics, they presumably have done the same thing we have done, and that's repented of their sins and made Christ the Lord of their lives. Helps me keep from going too far off into the finger-wagging side of things, which is something I try to avoid, to varying degrees of success.

I technically agree - and I'd never want to come down hard on individual Catholics, and I agree that there are probably those among them that have managed to come across the Gospel amidst the muddle. But I have the utmost lack of respect for the RCC structure - which you expressed quite well, so I'll leave it there.

This is a very important point. What makes one a "Christian" is whether they have been reborn by the power of The Holy Spirit through Faith In Christ. I do not believe the RCC structure to be Christian, and it certainly cannot be (nor can any church organizational structure be) the embodiment of Christ on Earth. But I am certain that some members of that organization have been truly born again.