Repentance

vinnylombardi99

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I also wonder is our repentance as heartfelt as it should be?

what does repentence mean to you guys?

i have sort of developed the opinion that someone is not really 'sorry' unless they bust their balls to fix what they were sorry for. granted some things are not fixable, but a genuine effort is still required in some form. then i wonder was i really sorry (in any given senario). While the words and the apology was quick, restitution may have been neglected. i donno.

PDN

Repentance involves a change of behaviour and thinking.

The Greek word used in the New Testament (metanoia) literally means "after one's mind" - in other words, a change which produces a new way of seeing things.

I like to think of repentance as doing a U-turn and travelling in a different direction to previously. That would exclude the idea that you can sin, say sorry, and then just keep on doing the same stuff as before.

Genghiz Cohen

I think you repent a sin in your mind and perform penance to right it or repay your debt.

neuro-praxis

I'm not into penance.

If I've wronged my brother or sister, I have a few things to do, in this order:

1. Repent to God.
2. Repent to the wronged party.
3. Try to put things right, or undo any damage I have caused. To use a primary school example, if I've stolen something, here's my opportunity to pay it back.

Penance on the other hand seems to suggest that we are actually rejecting God's forgiveness. Why would we need it if we could just make up for everything by ourselves?

Stephentlig

Penance on the other hand seems to suggest that we are actually rejecting God's forgiveness. Why would we need it if we could just make up for everything by ourselves?

Penance is not rejection of Gods forgiveness, to the contrary it is a sacrament in which we accept and recall Gods great power of forgiveness.

However depending on your denominational position within Christianity, to accept this Sacrament of the Catholic Church, you would indeed need to be Catholic.

In conclusion I've quoted you a link to help both yourself and others learn more about this wonderful sacrament within the Catholic Church, its possible my Protestant brethren may gain a thirst for humble debate on the subject to which I have no desire to satisfy at this moment in time.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

to answer the Question about the above, within the Catholic Church true repentance is when one has a change of heart ( metanoia ) confesses to Christ he is sorry for his sins, receives absolution and makes a promise to take his old ways and nail them to the Cross, and no longer sheds tears in vain, but for Christ.

As PDN put it, a complete U-turn.

Pax Christi
Stephen

vinnylombardi99

Stephentlig wrote: »

P

As PDN put it, a complete U-turn.

Pax Christi
Stephen

a complete u-turn sounds difficult in fairness. there have been plenty of times i've done something, made apologies, tried to fix the issure and resolved not to repeat such idiocy again (Complete u-turn)... but i have! funny how you feel extra stupid/bad when you realise you can't follow your own better judgement.

oh life.

Stephentlig

vinnylombardi99 wrote: »

a complete u-turn sounds difficult in fairness. there have been plenty of times i've done something, made apologies, tried to fix the issure and resolved not to repeat such idiocy again (Complete u-turn)... but i have! funny how you feel extra stupid/bad when you realise you can't follow your own better judgement.

oh life.

Yes but the Complete U-turn is not of the issue, but of ones habitual state and vice, for example most of us go in and confess things like gossiping etc etc, gossip in itself is a habit, and in Confession we tell Jesus we wont do it again and promise to nail our old self to the Cross, but we are weak, and there is no telling when we might fall out of the boat again and are in need of repentence and of a change of heart. If you feel your immaculate in such cases, then your the first I've come across and no doubt a case for ripleys believe it or not.

A u-turn may sound difficult, but by calling it so, you've already put up a barrier as to reasons why you shouldnt nail your old self to the Cross and be crucified with Jesus to the world.

it's difficult but should never be considered as impossible, we can attain spiritual perfection if we truly strive for it. I am a recent convert to Catholicism and can assure you that without the grace of God, I most certainly would not of made the U-turn I did, to do claim that I can do it without him is one that comes from Pride and resonates the fall of Adam and Eve, a result of original sin ( which is not something of the past but is a present and every day sickness within ourselves ) in which we think we can become like gods and do it without him.

in summary its the old self we shake off and the vices we strive to get rid of and come to Christ, but this is an every day struggle, not just a one off thing, we all must repent often no matter who we are, but of course depending on your denominational status you might not agree.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

vinnylombardi99

i find your confidence in the man upstairs a little intimidating. i'm not blessed with that. (but then i'm not decided whether its a blessing or not!)

Fanny Cradock

vinnylombardi99 wrote: »

i find your confidence in the man upstairs a little intimidating.

I tend not to think of him as the "man upstairs". It conjures up images of an old man with a robe and white beard. Why would you be intimidated, btw?

vinnylombardi99

Stephentlig wrote: »

we can attain spiritual perfection if we truly strive for it.

well, you are a better man than i if you have that in your sights! i found that i can obey the rules alright, even the hardest heartbreaking ones (ie no sex before marriage with the most beautiful girl in the world and dumped because of it), but i only end up hating myself because of it. I'm open to persuasion but as far as my experience indicates, being 'good' makes you a miserable lonely son of a gun.

sorry for my despair.

antiskeptic

vinnylombardi99 wrote: »

what does repentence mean to you guys?

i have sort of developed the opinion that someone is not really 'sorry' unless they bust their balls to fix what they were sorry for. granted some things are not fixable, but a genuine effort is still required in some form. then i wonder was i really sorry (in any given senario). While the words and the apology was quick, restitution may have been neglected. i donno.

The issue of repentance (and penance) appears to belong to the area of law-breaking/offence giving.

Penance can be swiftly dealt with in passing. Lets use the example of a person who has served their sentence for a crime committed. The crime attracts a price to be paid (in terms of jail time, let's say) and when you've paid the price (penance) the slate is wiped clean. There is no requirement for "a change of heart" regarding that crime or future criminal intent - as the transaction is a simple accounting one: the debt (to society) caused by the crime committed has been paid for and balanced out (in accounting terms) by the penance. End of.

Penance seems to be what you are talking about above - some kind of payment aimed at balancing the debit sheet brought about by an offence.

In Christianity, we encounter a God who forgives sin/crime/offence .. under the banner of grace. That is to say, God forgives us without us having to pay in any way for our crime. There is no penance involved other words. This, of course, is the only way it's possible to forgive. I mean, imagine your friend comes round for a few beers, starts acting the goat and spills a glass of it down the back of your new 93" flat screen - busting it - only to have you say "I forgive you - now give me 4000 grand for a new TV". That wouldn't be forgiveness. No, in order to forgive your friend (in full sense) you have to be the one to pay for a new TV

Forgiveness: the person offended against pays the full price of the offence against them. The offender pays nothing at all.


As to repentance? It appears to me that repentance is something that God brings about in a person. God ever-works to convince the person of the ugliness of their sin and when he is successful in doing so the person is heart-wrenched: they see how their selfishness hurt, they see how their pride resulted in the standing on others so as to have their own way, they see how their lusts damage. There is indeed a changing of mind involved at repentance and that change of mind will tend to turn a person from their old course and onto a new one. God's one.

It must be underlined that God is the one who brings the repentance about - it's not something a person can work up in themselves. Without the revelation as to the ugliness of the sin, there is no fuel to power the change of mind. It must also be noted that a non-Christian cannot repent in this way. For God is not at work in this fashion in the unbeliever.

antiskeptic

vinnylombardi99 wrote: »

well, you are a better man than i if you have that in your sights!

He probably meant telescopic sights (as in - the target is a long distance away). I'm not quite sure what 'spiritual perfection' means but if it means not sinning anymore then it'd be an impossible one to reach this side of death. Not that the Christian isn't exhorted to climb towards that summit.

i found that i can obey the rules alright, even the hardest heartbreaking ones (ie no sex before marriage with the most beautiful girl in the world and dumped because of it), but i only end up hating myself because of it. I'm open to persuasion but as far as my experience indicates, being 'good' makes you a miserable lonely son of a gun.

I did the 'no sex before marraige thing' and it wasn't really all that hard (and we're talking a 3 year courtship to boot). Central to it is a change of heart about the place of sex in relationship (a change of heart - just like in repentance). Once you see no sex before marriage as the optimal way to go, and see all the advantages involved, then it's no big deal following that path. If you don't really see it that way and see it as a deprivation made solely because depriving yourself is a "good" thing to do then misery will indeed follow.

You see, there are two ways to view the law of God. The first way involves the perspective of the so called 'Law of Sin and Death'. This perspective is the way a lost person views the law of God. The law are seen as rules that must be obeyed in order to stay on the right side of God/please God/gain salvation/etc. And if you don't obey the law then consequences will follow - ultimately eternal death.

The other way of viewing the exact same law is from the perspective of the so called Law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus. This perspective is the perspective a saved person has (or should have) on God's law. Rather than being something that will result in condemnation, the law of God is seen as a blueprint for godly living, living according to God's optimal plan for us, living that will result in most satisfaction. The saved person knows they are 'going to heaven' no matter what - so isn't attempting to follow the law in order to curry favour with God.

Same law - two perspectives. The one leading to misery and failure. The other leading to life to the full.

neuro-praxis

antiskeptic wrote: »

I did the 'no sex before marraige thing' and it wasn't really all that hard (and we're talking a 3 year courtship to boot). Central to it is a change of heart about the place of sex in relationship (a change of heart - just like in repentance). Once you see no sex before marriage as the optimal way to go, and see all the advantages involved, then it's no big deal following that path. If you don't really see it that way and see it as a deprivation made solely because depriving yourself is a "good" thing to do then misery will indeed follow.

No big deal? :pac: I am glad you had such a positive experience; however I believe you are the exception. I did the no-sex thing too...for the six years before we tied the knot...and it was extremely trying indeed, let me tell you! There are costs and sacrifices to being a Christian. Once we have counted the costs, it makes things intelligible to bear - but difficult all the same.

I'm also not sure that deprivation is essentially good. Rather it is that God's plan for the fullest life is one where sex takes places in the safest possible context.

Stephentlig

vinnylombardi99 wrote: »

well, you are a better man than i if you have that in your sights! i found that i can obey the rules alright, even the hardest heartbreaking ones (ie no sex before marriage with the most beautiful girl in the world and dumped because of it), but i only end up hating myself because of it. I'm open to persuasion but as far as my experience indicates, being 'good' makes you a miserable lonely son of a gun.

sorry for my despair.

I am not a better man than you, even if I were to be obedient to all the rules there are, I am the greatest sinner amongst you, why are you hating yourself? because a girl left you because you put God first? I find that hard to take in. But get down on your knees before a crucifix and consider this, because of Jesus love for the father he was abandoned and Crucified for it, and if they persecuted him, they'll persecute me and you too for our faith in Christ.

as a poet once put it ''Two roads diverged in the woods, and I took the one less traveled on.'' Robert Frost.

John 15:18 ''If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. 19 If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. 20 Remember my word that I said to you: The servant is not greater than his master. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you: if they have kept my word, they will keep yours also. ''

finally, keeping chastity is not done by merely refraining from the action, but from the thought also, therefore the struggle against chastity is a life long thing, but spiritual perfection can be attained on earth, for Christ said in the Gospels that we should be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect, however, when one attains it, he should realise it isnt there to stay, nor should he/she pride themselves in thinkin that they've ever reached it. this is why when you approach a mystic and asked them have they attained perfection they'll never say ''Yes I have'' they will always consider themselves imperfect and in need of striving for perfection.

Pax Christi
Stephen

antiskeptic

neuro-praxis wrote: »

No big deal? :pac: I am glad you had such a positive experience; however I believe you are the exception. I did the no-sex thing too...for the six years before we tied the knot...and it was extremely trying indeed, let me tell you! There are costs and sacrifices to being a Christian. Once we have counted the costs, it makes things intelligible to bear - but difficult all the same.

Giving up smoking is near-universally recognised as a difficult thing to do. Nevertheless, I (and many others) have found it falling-off-a-log-easy to quit smoking using a method developed by a guy called Allen Carr. Allen's method was strikingly simple: he had cottoned on to the truth about smoking: why people start, why the continue, why they find it hard. etc//

And all he did was tell the truth (in a way that drilled that truth home). And the person so exposed was set free from addiction to cigarettes. The truth sets you free - in very practical fashion.

That was the way I experienced not having sex before marriage. It's not like it was no effort at all, at all (I'd had experience of sex before so knew what I was 'missing') but it wasn't that big of a deal. And the ease came from realising the truth about God's plan for sex and his place for it.

6 years might have been a different matter though.

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

..therefore the struggle against chastity is a life long thing, but spiritual perfection can be attained on earth, for Christ said in the Gospels that we should be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect,

1) The struggle would be for chastity .. not against it. It's no struggle to be unchaste. At least I wouldn't have to struggle much

2) The exhoration to be/do something doesn't mean it is attainable in perfect fashion.

however, when one attains it, he should realise it isnt there to stay, nor should he/she pride themselves in thinkin that they've ever reached it. this is why when you approach a mystic and asked them have they attained perfection they'll never say ''Yes I have'' they will always consider themselves imperfect and in need of striving for perfection.

If something is attainable and has been attained then, when asked whether one has attained it or not, it is not prideful to say one has attained it. To say one has would be simply telling the truth. If you can't say "I've reached spiritual perfection (even if for a short moment in time)" then you haven't attained spiritual perfection.

It's simply English.

Stephentlig

Thanks for correcting me on the unchaste thing lol my bad english is ever evident, but your last paragraph clearly exposes your protestant view of things, and I say that with the highest respect.

to say you've reached spiritual perfection is to drop from spiritual perfection, for part of what is spiritual perfection is contained in pure humility, which is why when you ask a mystic have they attained perfection they'll never admit it, for in doing so they've just commited the deathly sin of Pride, the greatest of all deathly sins and will have fallen from their Spiritual perfection.

Pax Christi
Stephen

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me on the unchaste thing lol my bad english is ever evident, but your last paragraph clearly exposes your protestant view of things, and I say that with the highest respect.

It was more an English thing. Let's consider the essence of what you say;

to say you've reached spiritual perfection is to drop from spiritual perfection..

Why? Because this..

.. for part of what is spiritual perfection is contained in pure humility...

...doesn't follow. It is true that spiritual perfection would involve pure humility. That said, it is not prideful to state a fact if asked for it. One might qualify the fact by stating such a condition to be likely temporary, the work of God solely/mainly ... or some such.

But a fact it would be and only false humility would deny/evade/duck the issue.

Stephentlig

antiskeptic wrote: »

It was more an English thing. Let's consider the essence of what you say;




Why? Because this..



...doesn't follow. It is true that spiritual perfection would involve pure humility. That said, it is not prideful to state a fact if asked for it. One might qualify the fact by stating such a condition to be likely temporary, the work of God solely/mainly ... or some such.


But a fact it would be and only false humility would deny/evade/duck the issue.

again it is being truthful to state a fact, but by claiming to be a perfect Christian, we state not a fact, but commit the sin of Pride by which we fall from perfection, if at all we were ever in such a state which I now am beginning to believe is not possible at all, it is not evading the issue, because in fact, as humans we are all sinners and are imperfect, its being honest, stating that you have not attained perfection, for who on earth can ever make claim that they are perfect like their heavenly Father is perfect? only a liar could, and we all know who the liar is dont we?

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

..again it is being truthful to state a fact, but by claiming to be a perfect Christian, we state not a fact, but commit the sin of Pride by which we fall from perfection

The issue isn't 'perfect Christian', the issue is 'spiritual perfection' - attaining it and stating having attained it. IF having attained it (something you say the 'mystics' have done) THEN stating it would be truthful - which wouldn't detract from that perfection.

In other words, you're leaping from telling the truth to telling the truth being prideful - without showing a mechanism whereby you make the leap. It is not normal to consider truth telling prideful and so you DO need to flesh this out.

.. if at all we were ever in such a state which I now am beginning to believe is not possible at all, it is not evading the issue, because in fact, as humans we are all sinners and are imperfect, its being honest, stating that you have not attained perfection, for who on earth can ever make claim that they are perfect like their heavenly Father is perfect? only a liar could, and we all know who the liar is dont we?

It was you who was supposing some to have attained spiritual perfection. If stating now that no one has achieved this then I'd be in agreement with you.

Stephentlig

The issue isn't 'perfect Christian', the issue is 'spiritual perfection' - attaining it and stating having attained it. IF having attained it (something you say the 'mystics' have done) THEN stating it would be truthful - which wouldn't detract from that perfection.

my assumption is that the mystics have attained it, but this thread has certainly given me food for thought, albeit tangible disscussion from the thread.

In other words, you're leaping from telling the truth to telling the truth being prideful - without showing a mechanism whereby you make the leap. It is not normal to consider truth telling prideful and so you DO need to flesh this out.

Yes the more the disscussion progressed, the more and more I reconsidered the state of spiritual perfection, whereas being mucky little sinners that we are we are always uncertain of attaining this spiritual perfection like God and which of us can claim to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect? there is no one, and anyone who does is lying and telling not the truth, hmmm.

It was you who was supposing some to have attained spiritual perfection. If stating now that no one has achieved this then I'd be in agreement with you.

Yes and maybe they have, we must not rule out the possibility for ''nothing is impossible to God''.

I've enjoyed the disscussion, its made me think a little more about the life of spiritual perfection.

Pax Christi
Stephen

antiskeptic

Stephentlig wrote: »

my assumption is that the mystics have attained it, but this thread has certainly given me food for thought, albeit tangible disscussion from the thread.

Where have you been given reason to question your assumption? I've been pointing out that if spiritual perfection was attained then there'd be nothing about stating so that would diminish that perfection.

I don't, of course, consider spiritual perfection attainable in this life (spiritual perfection being another way of stating one has reached the point of sinning no more).

Yes the more the disscussion progressed, the more and more I reconsidered the state of spiritual perfection, whereas being mucky little sinners that we are we are always uncertain of attaining this spiritual perfection like God and which of us can claim to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect? there is no one, and anyone who does is lying and telling not the truth, hmmm.

I certain of attaining this perfection. But I'm reckoning on having to draw my final breath first

wolfsbane

Stephentlig wrote: »

Yes but the Complete U-turn is not of the issue, but of ones habitual state and vice, for example most of us go in and confess things like gossiping etc etc, gossip in itself is a habit, and in Confession we tell Jesus we wont do it again and promise to nail our old self to the Cross, but we are weak, and there is no telling when we might fall out of the boat again and are in need of repentence and of a change of heart. If you feel your immaculate in such cases, then your the first I've come across and no doubt a case for ripleys believe it or not.

A u-turn may sound difficult, but by calling it so, you've already put up a barrier as to reasons why you shouldnt nail your old self to the Cross and be crucified with Jesus to the world.

it's difficult but should never be considered as impossible, we can attain spiritual perfection if we truly strive for it. I am a recent convert to Catholicism and can assure you that without the grace of God, I most certainly would not of made the U-turn I did, to do claim that I can do it without him is one that comes from Pride and resonates the fall of Adam and Eve, a result of original sin ( which is not something of the past but is a present and every day sickness within ourselves ) in which we think we can become like gods and do it without him.

in summary its the old self we shake off and the vices we strive to get rid of and come to Christ, but this is an every day struggle, not just a one off thing, we all must repent often no matter who we are, but of course depending on your denominational status you might not agree.

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

All the rest made sense, but this:
it's difficult but should never be considered as impossible, we can attain spiritual perfection if we truly strive for it.


I know Wesleyans and some others hold to Sinless Perfection, but it seems to be either a delusional state or a funny definition of 'sinless'. As far as I can see from the Bible, we don't become sinless until we go to be with Him.

Stephentlig

wolfsbane wrote: »

All the rest made sense, but this:
it's difficult but should never be considered as impossible, we can attain spiritual perfection if we truly strive for it.


I know Wesleyans and some others hold to Sinless Perfection, but it seems to be either a delusional state or a funny definition of 'sinless'. As far as I can see from the Bible, we don't become sinless until we go to be with Him.

thanks for the input Wolfsbane, just something I'd like to adjust to your response. let me just say that we are sinners, and we dont cease becoming a sinner until we are with him, but committing a sin and being a sinner are two different things wouldnt you agree? we can cease committing sins and become perfect in the practice of the virtues yet still be a sinner, which means although we are perfect in the virtues and have ceased commiting sins, we are still a sinner and fall victim to falling from such a state.

how do you feel about that?

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

wolfsbane

Stephentlig wrote: »

thanks for the input Wolfsbane, just something I'd like to adjust to your response. let me just say that we are sinners, and we dont cease becoming a sinner until we are with him, but committing a sin and being a sinner are two different things wouldnt you agree? we can cease committing sins and become perfect in the practice of the virtues yet still be a sinner, which means although we are perfect in the virtues and have ceased commiting sins, we are still a sinner and fall victim to falling from such a state.

how do you feel about that?

Pax Christi
Stephen<3

Stephen

It still sounds as if one passes days, weeks and years without sinning. I certainly agree we can by the power of God have victory over sin in the sense of not being captive to it, nor practising it as a rule. But any day we will be less than we ought to be toward God and our neighbour - that is sin.

Only if we define sins as not committing adultery, theft, etc. can we hope to remain sinless. My sinful thought and its immediate repentance, my impatience and its immediate repentance, my neglect to pray for someone I should have remembered - all this would disqualify me from the sinless state you seem to be describing. But I question if anyone could live in such perfection in this life.

Stephentlig

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stephen

It still sounds as if one passes days, weeks and years without sinning. I certainly agree we can by the power of God have victory over sin in the sense of not being captive to it, nor practising it as a rule. But any day we will be less than we ought to be toward God and our neighbour - that is sin.

Only if we define sins as not committing adultery, theft, etc. can we hope to remain sinless. My sinful thought and its immediate repentance, my impatience and its immediate repentance, my neglect to pray for someone I should have remembered - all this would disqualify me from the sinless state you seem to be describing. But I question if anyone could live in such perfection in this life.

I hear what your saying Wolfsbane, I doubt I could ever live a life of spiritual perfection but I find that Jesus request in Scripture for us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect is one that implies that such a state is possible, for why would Jesus request something of us like that if he knew we couldnt acheive it? for then he would be insincere, something which Jesus ( who is 'the way the truth and life' ) cannot be.

Pax Christi
Stephen

wolfsbane

Stephentlig wrote: »

I hear what your saying Wolfsbane, I doubt I could ever live a life of spiritual perfection but I find that Jesus request in Scripture for us to be perfect as our heavenly father is perfect is one that implies that such a state is possible, for why would Jesus request something of us like that if he knew we couldnt acheive it? for then he would be insincere, something which Jesus ( who is 'the way the truth and life' ) cannot be.

Pax Christi
Stephen

Sorry to be so long in coming back, Stephen.

Seems to me His command is what we aim for, but only achieve fully in the next life. Being as perfect as God is not something I have ever witnessed in myself or others.