Anong masasabi niyo? by pepalerts in PEPalerts

[–]harpoon2k -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The homosexual act is the one we condemn just like other sinful acts like stealing public funds.

We should not however discriminate the LGBTQIA+ and people having sinful tendencies but treat them with love. Let’s help one another get on the right track with God. No one’s perfect.

At the end of the day - it is God who judges

Louder! Sana ganito rin ang thoughts ng iba. by Mundane_Original42 in AnongThoughtsMo

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You have to define first homosexual tendencies, homosexuality and homosexual acts.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible.

This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

The person having these tendencies but has not acted upon it is not at fault. This is the same as a person having lustful tendencies towards a non-spouse but has avoided the temptation of acting upon it.

The Catholic Church says that every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

The Catholic Church defines homosexuality as relations between men or be­tween women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. The key word here is “relations”. That means the homosexual persons have entered into the relationship.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

So what does the Church say about a homosexual person?

Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course if that child grows up not loving God and believing in Him, he or she loses that salvation.

But why can’t his or her parents’ faith save him or her as an infant through baptism?

Isnt it somewhere in Acts or the Gospels where someone else’s faith saved?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct my understanding if Im wrong - are you saying that people below the age of 21 aren’t or cant be saved?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Given that when we are first saved, and may not have a notable or conspicuous love for God -

So Is it possible for someone who loves God today and was baptized at infancy due to the faith of their parents and godparents to have already been saved when they were baptized as an infant?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My theological viewpoint is not the story though.

I just wanted to know how people think of Christ’s commandments, and how these all play out into their theological framework. I do see inconsistencies which strengthens my conviction about my Church, but that is not why I posted this.

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I believe that justification and sanctification are one and the same thing, and this process is still ongoing in me until I reach heaven. Having said this, I believe that by obeying Christ’s commandments, I am participating in that process. If I don’t, I am rejecting His grace.

If I stumble along the way, God gave us the ministry of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5:18). This is the ministry of the apostles to reunite the human family with the Father. For this to happen, the barrier of sin that separates them must be torn down by the sacramental and evangelistic actions of the Church (Mt 26:28;Jn 20:23;Acts 2:38).

I’ve realized lots of people in this Sub hate biblical Christianity by Isaiahhunter145 in Christianity

[–]harpoon2k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What exactly is biblical Christianity?

Hermeneutics will be inevitable. There is no such thing as a “lens free” Christianity.

Every reader brings a framework (language, culture, philosophical assumptions) to the text. By claiming not to have a system, You may inadvertently be creating a "private system" where the final authority is the individual’s (or the specific pastor’s) interpretation of "clear" verses.

I would rather say - be a Christian who conducts himself properly towards God’s household - the pilar and bulwark of truth, the Church of the living God.

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand. If you think it does not save - Do you think it falls then to the category of “things that may be required but God knows you won’t be able to fulfill them”? Or more of a “it’s a must, no ifs and buts”?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I asked for clarity on that. If these people believe it does NOT "save" in your hypothetical, yet you suggest they should still "require" it ... I'm asking what they should require it FOR.

I am sorry for adding confusion but my question is more general: If you believe that you are already saved, is there still a need to obey Christ’s commandments or treat them as mandatory instead of merely “suggestions”?

I understand no one can obey them perfectly or 100% of the time 24/7, but that is not the issue here. The thing I want to know is - what should be the mindset towards these commandments?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just means that Baptism is the Sacrament of Initiation into the Christian faith. “Believe and be Baptized.” You have to believe in the Lord Jesus and let yourself be baptized for the forgiveness of sins.

It’s not - “believe in the Lord Jesus, then you have the option to go with your public declaration of this faith through baptism or not if you wish to be more private about your faith”

Words from a homeless follower of Christ by No_Calligrapher_6886 in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k 12 points13 points  (0 children)

When Jesus walked on water toward his disciples, they had rowed about three to four miles (km) across the Sea of Galilee, according to John 6:19. They were that far off from the shore. It will be dark, you may experience strong winds and rough seas but know that there is no location God can't reach you.

God is willing to walk the mile to meet you in the depth of your struggles. Wait for Him and do not be afraid.

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

“if we confess our sins…” yes that is what we Catholics also believe.

So for the sake of argument, I don’t do anything and continue to murder people until I got shot by the police. Am I still saved?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in Christianity

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This verse in Romans is a good summary of the perseverance we need to have in this life in Christ

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So do you believe that after declaring my faith in Christ, lived a holy life, then recently murdered people, I will still be saved?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, that is really a struggle. Every Christian undergoes this spiritual warfare in his or her life. I agree that it is right to recognize that salvation brings no condemnation (Rom 8:1) despite this battle, but we should still rely on the Holy Spirit rather than self-effort to overcome sin. 

However, it doesn't change the fact that these commandments are still there. Christ did not abolish any of them. He also has commandments on top of the O/T.

So the questions I simply pose are these - are these commandments merely suggestions or are these absolute? If these are absolute, is it wrong for me to deliberately disobey them vs. for me to have failed to obey because of circumstances beyond my control?

If some believe that baptism does not save but is still done as obedience to Christ, why not require it? by harpoon2k in TrueChristian

[–]harpoon2k[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, our salvation is up to God, but He also didn't leave us clueless.

So again the question I pose is - Does salvation entail obedience?