Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
kunoichi9280

Need help with an apologetics question re: Old Covenant

Recommended Posts

I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
21 minutes ago, kunoichi9280 said:

I was talking with a somewhat liberal Catholic who has also attended the Eastern Orthodox for a period of time.  He said that he didn't believe in the Catholic notion that if you commit one mortal sin you go to hell, but that there was certainly greater and lesser sins.  I said that I believed all sins were mortal in a sense, in that we all deserve hell for our sins. He said that if that were the case, then Christians would be worse off then under the Old Covenant where you could sacrifice animals to atone for sin and Gentile God-fearers could be saved.  I asked what was the point of Jesus coming and dying if some of us could be a sinner that was "not really that bad", but beyond that I blanked out on how to answer his point.   Any input would be greatly appreciated if only so I can answer myself in my own mind. 🙂

Pelagianism (semi) is what the Catholic church teaches. Pelagianism was condemned by the early catholic church. Pelagianism teaches that the natural man is basically good and only in need of a good moral teacher. The catholic church originally condemned Pelagianism while holding to the principles of sola Scriptura. It wasn't until sola scriptura was abandoned that the Catholic church contradicted early councils and synods and regressed (semi) towards Pelagainism:

 

Pelagianism was condemned. Six years after the council of Carthage a general council of African Churches reaffirmed the anathemas of 412 AD. Zosimus sided with Pelagius in 412, he wrote a letter condemning the anathema of Carthage. Of course having the support of Scripture, the leaders of the Carthagian Council disregarded the Bishop and his letter. Philip Schaff noted church historian observes, "This temporary favor of the bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for pelagianizing tendencies". It was these later "pelagianizing tendencies" that lead to the works-righteousness advocated by the bishop of Rome that later led to the Roman Catholic belief system. This was a pivotal moment in church history. Cornelius Otto Jansen like Martin Luther believed the early Church of Rome departed from its position that all of life was by the grace of God. And like Augustine Jansen taught that man's spirit was dead in sin, and therefore needed to be regenerated. Jansen understood that this was something that happened to man by God's grace and not something man made happen by his faith. In 1713 Pope Clement the XI issued a Papal Bull denouncing over 100 statements, many of which were actual quotes of Augustine. A Church that once sided with Augustine now sided with Pelagius.

 

And, with what you are stating, I believe you're absolutely right. James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it. To suggest that man is basically good is to convey the unnecessary atonement and propitiation of Jesus. If man is righteous he has little need for Christ.

 

The OT sacrifices to touch upon a last point were nothing but "temporary" types and shadows which had to be repeated until Jesus' offered Himself up in our stead. They were never meant to be permanent, obviously, as even in the OT they were offered up occasionally.

 

As far as blanking out, don't worry about that. When approached by the absurd it is a common reaction. It's called being stunned by theological ignorance.

 

If you wish to read more about Pelagianism:

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, William said:

 And like Augustine Jansen taught that man's spirit was dead in sin, and therefore needed to be regenerated. Jansen understood that this was something that happened to man by God's grace and not something man made happen by his faith. 

2

I think this is the crux of the problem the person I was talking to has.  He doesn't really believe in original sin, so it makes sense that he doesn't believe in the need for regeneration, and therefore a person has at least some good in them and can be "good enough".  Whereas what I was trying to say and didn't do a good job of is that all men need regenerating.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • All of the Old Covenant commands are obsolete (Hebrews 8:13)

      The only commands from the Old Covenant that are binding on the Christian are those that have been repeated in the New Covenant.     Hebrews 8:13 When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear. (NASB)   The Greek word for "obsolete" is palaioō.   1. BDAG (3rd Edition): treat the first covenant as obsolete Hb 8:13a (palaioō, page 751). 2. J. P. Louw and Eugene Nida: to cause to become old and o

      in Apologetics and Theology

    • Poll Question: The Rich man and Lazarus Parable or Not?

      Is the story of the Rich man and Lazarus a parable and does it really make a difference?  Wouldn't the story still teach the same truths even if is a parable?   John Calvin held the view that it is not a parable but he also states "But that is of little consequence, provided that the reader comprehends the doctrine which it contains."

      in Bible Study

    • Wilbur Ross Faces House Subpoena over 2020 Census Alien Question; Supreme Court Case Looms

      By Evie Fordham - Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross faces a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee after it voted 23-14 Tuesday to obtain records about the Trump administration’s decision to bring the citizenship question back for the 2020 census. All committee Republicans except Michigan Rep. Justin Amash voted against the subpoena, reported The Associated Press. He voted with the Democratic members. The committee chair, Democratic Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, has accused the Trump a

      in Political Conservative News

    • Poll Question: Will the temple be rebuilt?

      Will the temple be rebuilt?  Will there be a third temple?  When I say temple I mean an actual physical structure (i.e. a building) in Jerusalem.

      in Christian Eschatology

    • Question regarding Predestination and Election

      I am having some difficulties understanding predestination and election. Ever since coming to Christ, I have never touched on the subject but now that I know of it, it is making feel less loved by God but also, unfortunately, makes me doubt the love of God. I wrote this down in a note so bear with me if it is jumping all over the place.   It is understood that all humans are under sin and that we all are deserving of God's righteous and just judgment. Without God's grace, we will not b

      in General Faith

×
×
  • Create New...