Assurance of Salvation (Part II)

[brb3]

Poco …

When I first had awakening via HS as adult …I instantly felt 100 % clean, all sins forgiven, fully graced. But, within a month or so, I committed PS. Now, the HS convicted me off it, and need to confess …which I did, and again felt fully graced.
It was only later, that I fell under spell of OSAS teaching, and began to think confession of such sin was not essential. That was my downfall…and I was soon to slide away down slippery slope into secular lifestyle, where I remained for many years. Only the Catholic Church & her doctrines …brought me back from the brink of abyss.

So, we can believe our theories …or we can learn the truth from real world experience.
OSAS is errant, a deadly trap for some…as scripture teaches.

 

[brb3]

G4…

Thanks for reference above to JOINT DECLARATION ON JUSTIFICATION, by Lutheran & Catholic Churches.
Before long, if continued progress is made on other topics …Lutherans may wish to be reunited to their historical home, and break bread and share cup in communion …as a full member in the Universal Church.
For now, the words of Trent, with regards to Justification, have been rescended.

 

[pocohombre]

Salvation was through the Jews, was it not?

Catholics don’t make this mistake. WE know we have to cooperate with the grace of God to be saved. Isn’t it in fact you who believe in once saved, always saved?

Can anything good come out of 30,000 divisions? Tell me again how that is beneficial and consistent with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church attested to in the Nicene creed?
Remember, you are betting your soul that Jesus is okay with people leaving the Church he founded for their own version of Christianity. I would not be confident in that wager if I were you.
I have no idea what you are getting at here.

test

 

[pocohombre]

You are right that there are some Catholics who do not understand the life of grace. Luther was quite a tortured soul, who clearly did not “get it” though he was redirected many times away from his OCD. But you speak of a monastery as a place of suffering, to which someone goes that fears for their soul. This is far from the case.

This bolded part is a grave misunderstanding of Catholic faith. No one can put themselves, or keep themselves, in a state of grace. There is nothing that a human being can do to get into right relationship with God. All we can do is respond to his grace in faith. This is also how we remain in a state of grace.

You may be interested in reading this document, it could clear up some of your misunderstandings about Catholic faith.

The difference between what the Apostles taught and what the Reformers taught is that human beings have complete freedom to ultimately choose to reject God.

This doxology:

Jude 24-25
Now to him who is able to keep you from falling, and to make you stand without blemish in the presence of his glory with rejoicing, 25 to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, power, and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.

Was written by a Catholic, for Catholics, as was the rest of the New Testament. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Those verses that you understand as “assurance of salvation” are also part of the Catholic faith. We understand them differently because we interpret them in the light of the faith that produced them, while you interpret them through the lens of the Reformers.

just a quick note -you lump all reformers together, whle I would think today most are not 5 point calvinists, don’t know what is was 1600’s etc.It is easy to rebut an extreme of anything.

 

[pocohombre]

Salvation was through the Jews, was it not?

Yes it was, as it is today via the Word thru the Body , the church. But back then ( Jesus’s time) the mainstream failed. The heirarchy /magisteriunm/establishment failed. In fact they put John the Baptist to death and Jesus… They were considered rebels, “protesters”, boat rockers etc… Did God fail Abraham ? Did he not keep his promises ? Yes, partly thru “rebels”.

Catholics don’t make this mistake. WE know we have to cooperate with the grace of God to be saved. Isn’t it in fact you who believe in once saved, always saved?

No , you don’t make the mistake the of OSAS, but some would say you are at the other extreme end. If there were no extreme end maybe there would be no need for OSAS.

Can anything good come out of 30,000 divisions? Tell me again how that is beneficial and consistent with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church attested to in the Nicene creed?

Wouldn’t it be humbling for more fruit to come from supposed division than from supposed unity ?

Remember, you are betting your soul that Jesus is okay with people leaving the Church he founded for their own version of Christianity. I would not be confident in that wager if I were you.

No, salvation is not dependent on a denomination or a particular church and certainly not on a parochial view of church, but on Jesus Christ who baptizes us into His Body. No betting against such universalism.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

God is moving, the church is living you said. Yes but each generation must keep it anew ,fresh , not going to cisterns dug by others. The parable of the ten virgins says we must individually buy our own oil ( illumination) .It can not be gotten from our parents, or forefathers. Can not rest on our laurels. Because the church is living it moves on even by any other name if need be.

 

[guanophore]

Only if you don’t believe in the biblical distinctions of justification and sanctification.

We are forbidden by Apostolic command to recieve “a different gospel”, which this distinction creates.

Finally Clement was careful to accurately say it was not him but the church in Rome that counciled the admonition. “The church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the church of God sojourning at Corinth,” ch1 Let.to Cor.

Yes, of which Clement was the bishop, successor of Peter. To Peter was given the feeding and care of the whole flock and this responsibility was passed to his successor.

and if the earlier date, Clement wrote for the council, not as head bishop ( for he was not at that early date), but as an ambassador for the church in Rome, as Hermas suggests a century later.

I have always wanted to know the date of Clement’s ordination as bishosp. Where did you find it?

so a denomination is not “any body of believers, calling themselves a church” that need to apply rev., as you stated in thread 379 ?

I think that is a good characterization. I would add that denominations are described by which parts, and to what extent they reject the Catholic faith.

the parable of ten virgins again is dealing with regenerated souls and unregenerated -hence the wise and the foolish. Foolish is synonomous with lost, unregenerate. Oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit, which is received , indwelt when you are regenerated. The 5 wise virgins were born again, the other were never saved in the first place, and had religion but not a relationship with the Lord of that religion. Your point would be upheld if the foolish ones had some oil and ran out (saved then losing salvation). But, they had no oil from the beginning.

It is an herculean effort to twist the Scriptures to fit them into the Calvanistic mold. However, it is false. Everyone had oil. The wise took extra oil in flasks, while the foolish fell asleep and let the oil that was in the lamps burn out. The point of the story is there - keep awake, for you know neither the day, nor the hour. Those that “know” the lord will have the Holy Spirit to refresh their lamps and keep them burning.

 Again and again, does one assume because he is in the church he is indeed reborn ?

That depends upon whether they are baptized.

Because one professes faith, goes to church, are they really genuine ? The one who buried his talents was not regenerated. He said the master was a hard man, and that doesn’t sound like he really knew the master personally, but only heard of him or heard about him incorrectly, but never really met him. For if he really met Him, he would know Him differently and acted differently.

Actually, the text affirms that, since he knew he was hard, he should have invested.

But I concede the point, not everyone in the pew, or who professes faith, has oil in their lamp.

The parable is about what you do with the gospel -the kingdom at hand and with the giftings given to it’s citizens. There is never an assumption that you have become a citizen though you are walking around in the kingdom. Are you wheat or tare, sheep or goat, in the Lord’s pasture. It was unregenerated, though circumcised by God’s command and deeply religious people that gave Jesus the most trouble.

No arguement there!

 

[guanophore]

 Scripture says in this new dispensation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, that every neighbor will teach his neighbor, that all are priests. It says we have the grace and authority to go to a brother and settle . Then several other brothers . Then finally the local congregation.

This is all very Catholic up until the last. The Reformers redefined the meaning of Church so this is the result. But when Jesus told them “take it to the Church” He was talking about the Church He established.

Most denominations have presbyters,deacons etc , like the early church.

Yes, what many lack are the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, around which the Church Jesus founded can be recognized.

The context of your scripture however is of an offense, not necessarily about doctrinal interpretation, though I suppose the offense could stem from wrong biblical foundation-like abortion,drinking gambling etc-which usually can offend someone…

I agree with you about the “offense”. However the offenses you mention here, and those that are described in scripture are always offenses related to sins and doctrinal issues. These matters require authoritative disposition. Jesus appointed authority. Jesus created a visible Church with visible authority.

The fact is the earliest church thrived quite well with an Orthodox or even Protestant view of Petrine doctrine. That is papal authority and all it’s rules is something that evolved in practice. For instance, early churches elected their own bishops, from within it’s congregation. Some say Rome had no bishops for at least a century, being ruled by a council of presbyters.

Certainly the Petrine role has developed over time.

Some say that Peter and Paul were not in Rome together too. They labored together to build up the church before they were martyrd. They appointed successors, the Bishops, to take on the Apostolic duties.

Your point that a council may split therefore a "head’ is better, is logical but still problematic. If the Holy Spirit is guiding, and I would say as Christ’s Vicar, He can just easily move a council as He could a single man over them.

Yes the HS can, but Jesus appointed a plurality of leadership, all to be subject one to another. The HS does not force men in authority to comply. Bishops can still be greedy, mistaken, or any number of things.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
Salvation was through the Jews, was it not?

Is you point is that because the Jewish sanhedrin failed, so too would the Catholic Church? This is a fallacious argument. Whereas the Catholic Church was guaranteed to be supported by Christ and the holy spirit until the end of time, the Jews were given no such promise. in fact, In Deuteronomy 30, they were given the choice: obey and prosper, disobey and perish. And I might remind you that Catholicism has an entirely different mission than the Jewish people. The Jews were a people set aside to bring forth the Messiah. The Church replaced it as the new Israel, whose job is to help people get to heaven.

Quote:
Catholics don’t make this mistake. WE know we have to cooperate with the grace of God to be saved. Isn’t it in fact you who believe in once saved, always saved?

What extreme are you talking about and why is there a “need” for OSAS?

Quote:
Can anything good come out of 30,000 divisions? Tell me again how that is beneficial and consistent with the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church attested to in the Nicene creed?

Wouldn’t it be more humbling to bend your will to the teaching of the one true Church, rather than try to bend the truth to your own desires?

Quote:
Remember, you are betting your soul that Jesus is okay with people leaving the Church he founded for their own version of Christianity. I would not be confident in that wager if I were you.

Salvation is based on following the Lord through the teachings of his one true church, not on following our own wills.

Quote:
I have no idea what you are getting at here.

God is unchanging as are the universal truths. Men might think that they have a better idea, but they would be wrong

 

[pocohombre]

All scripture needs interpretation, it is true. The question is whether you intepret it through the CAtholic tradition from which it came, or some new innovative interpretation.

That is your paradigm. But, I would rather think the question is to in line up with what is correct . I would think the interpreter ,God himself would also interpret/lead to correct discernment of which church is correct, and that not as a whole, but as to each thing each church says.

Calvin was definitely an innovator when it came to scriptural interpretation and he was not shy about saying he had a new, better way to understand scripture and that the Catholic Church had it wrong

. To say something is new and innovative is not the same as saying it is different from the mainstream historical Catholic church . Did he not say he was simply trying to get back to the beginning, of apostolic days ? That would not be new, unless one strayed from it for a long period of time and it would seem to be new.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c View Post
All scripture needs interpretation, it is true. The question is whether you intepret it through the CAtholic tradition from which it came, or some new innovative interpretation.

You can’t know what is correct without an authoritative interpretation. You can believe the Church that created those scriptures or you can believe someone else. But to believe someone other than the author of the book is foolishness don’t you think. Its like second guessing JK Rowling on the meaning of the Harry Potter series to use a current example. As fro God leading a church to correct discernment, he did that with the original One, Holy, CAtholic and Apostolic Church. the 30,000 branches off that are all in error when they deviate from the truth as taught by God to the Catholic Church. Everyone of those fractures resulted from someone putting their own ideas in place of Gods truth.

Quote:
Calvin was definitely an innovator when it came to scriptural interpretation and he was not shy about saying he had a new, better way to understand scripture and that the Catholic Church had it wrong

of course it is. New and innovative is by definition different from what came before it

Did he not say he was simply trying to get back to the beginning, of apostolic days ?

Did he? I’ve never seen any proof point to show that they knew anything about TULIP in apostolic days.

That would not be new, unless one strayed from it for a long period of time and it would seem to be new.

So now you are sounding like a Mormon with a theory of the grand apostacy. Where is there any evidence that the Catholic Church strayed from any apostolic doctrine?

 

[pocohombre]

The new testament books were written by Catholic authors and if the Catholic Church had not testified to their divine inspiration, no one would believe them today.

 

[pocohombre]

]You can’t know what is correct without an authoritative interpretation.

Ouch , Jesus is the teacher .Every neighbor shall teach his neighbor was the promise. We are all priests is the promise. We are indwelt is the promise . Are the Lord’s indwelling hands tied that he can not interpret for us ?

You can believe the Church that created those scriptures

Sorry, but as I have told others here Vatican 2 says such language is improper .God gave us, the Christian community, scripture

or you can believe someone else.

It is not either or . If you like I shall say I do believe your bible. What is wrong with that.? In the OT many believed scripture, though they were at odds with the religious establishment. Ironic, isn’t it ?

But to believe someone other than the author of the book is foolishness don’t you think

.I like your zeal but to say a church heirarchy ,establishment wrote scripture is piracy… Did not the Indwelling One inspire every jot and tittle ?

As fro God leading a church to correct discernment, he did that with the original One, Holy, CAtholic and Apostolic Church. the 30,000 branches off that are all in error when they deviate from the truth as taught by God to the Catholic Church. Everyone of those fractures resulted from someone putting their own ideas in place of Gods truth.

Fact is all of Christendom owes at least something to the reformers, for it was much needed. Rome did reform, because she had to, iron sharpening iron. Part of what the CC is today is because of protestant reformers that were Catholic. Is counter reformation an OK term ?

of course it is. New and innovative is by definition different from what came before it

Yes, and some CC dogma is new and innovative.

I’ve never seen any proof point to show that they knew anything about TULIP in apostolic days.

I am not a defender of 5 point Calvinism, but I am also sure a slight move toward that end would benefit many folk, including many Catholic, if not in teaching at least in practice.

So now you are sounding like a Mormon with a theory of the grand apostacy. Where is there any evidence that the Catholic Church strayed from any apostolic doctrine?

 

[pocohombre]

]Is you point is that because the Jewish sanhedrin failed, so too would the Catholic Church? This is a fallacious argument. Whereas the Catholic Church was guaranteed to be supported by Christ and the holy spirit until the end of time, the Jews were given no such promise. in fact, In Deuteronomy 30, they were given the choice: obey and prosper, disobey and perish.

The same arguments I see here on "assurance " seem to get carried over to other areas inconsistently . To be consistent, where you say we have great promises (assurance) and many will make it while others not, because of “conditions” not being met . So now the Jews had no Promise of fulfillment, because of not meeting conditions. Right, but some things were guaranteed and did happen, though the establishment failed. Now you come to your definition of church and say it has no conditions and is guaranteed. To be consistent with OT one must see that conditions do apply to being "the " church but the universal church is guaranteed. It is not a fallacious argument…I have heard many Catholics argue from OT in that it shadows the new. from the priesthood, to the Vicar, The Queen etc…Is it picking and choosing cafe style, not to take all of OT shadowings ? I am not saying here that CC lost it, just that the guarantee, infallibiilty is only looking at half of scripture.

And I might remind you that Catholicism has an entirely different mission than the Jewish people. The Jews were a people set aside to bring forth the Messiah. The Church replaced it as the new Israel, whose job is to help people get to heaven.

That the Lord deals with the world thru us, the body, the church age whereas the OT was thru a nation, yes, agree. The mission however is the same, for even David in Proverbs says “a wise man saves souls”. God wishes that none perish in OT also . Of course they preached forward to Christ and we preach backwards to him. Consequences were the same- death in hellfire or life in paradise /heaven.

What extreme are you talking about and why is there a “need” for OSAS?

The extreme of not having assurance of salvation, but plenty of conditions and plenty of ways of meeting them thru the church and sacraments and rites or ritual .The middle ages had plenty of works that were done towards salvation, at least in practice

Wouldn’t it be more humbling to bend your will to the teaching of the one true Church, rather than try to bend the truth to your own desires?

Wouldn’t you say there are heaven bound, martyrs on both side of the aisle making me wonder what is the main thing. If you bend to the Lord thru your church and I bend to Him thru mine then what ?

God is unchanging as are the universal truths.

Amen . To be universal -catholic it must be held by all true Christains . So what is it that binds us ? What truths do we all hold ? There you will find the catholic church.

 

[pocohombre]

This is all very Catholic up until the last. The Reformers redefined the meaning of Church so this is the result. But when Jesus told them “take it to the Church” He was talking about the Church He established.

I don’t think so. It was the local congregation.The Jews had synagogues all over the world during Jesus’s time and that was the context,similar to Paul rebuking a certain church for brethren taking things to court instead keeping it “local”. I believe the context was not doctrine but offenses.

Yes, what many lack are the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, around which the Church Jesus founded can be recognized.

Presbyters/bishops were words used interchangeably at first,and by Paul.

I agree with you about the “offense”. However the offenses you mention here, and those that are described in scripture are always offenses related to sins and doctrinal issues. These matters require authoritative disposition. Jesus appointed authority. Jesus created a visible Church with visible authority.

Again, a local congregation is quite visible, and has authority, at least to it’s own congregants.

Yes the HS can, but Jesus appointed a plurality of leadership, all to be subject one to another.

Yes,and Revelations says the 12 apostles are our foundation.

 

[pocohombre]

]We are forbidden by Apostolic command to recieve “a different gospel”, which this distinction creates.

Yes we are forbidden to receive different gospels -big tpoic. But are not sanctification and justification biblical terms, that is they are the Lord’s words ? Are you saying they are like presbyter /bishop, interchangeable but the same thing ?

Yes, of which Clement was the bishop, successor of Peter. To Peter was given the feeding and care of the whole flock and this responsibility was passed to his successor.

Yes, this is CC Petrine doctrine.

I have always wanted to know the date of Clement’s ordination as bishosp. Where did you find it?

Has the date been dogamtized, or is it still up for discussion.

I think that is a good characterization. I would add that denominations are described by which parts, and to what extent they reject the Catholic faith.

That’s interesting, cause I do look at some denominations by how much they still accept of Catholicism, like the Mass or vestments etc.

It is an herculean effort to twist the Scriptures to fit them into the Calvanistic mold. However, it is false. Everyone had oil. The wise took extra oil in flasks, while the foolish fell asleep and let the oil that was in the lamps burn out. The point of the story is there - keep awake, for you know neither the day, nor the hour. Those that “know” the lord will have the Holy Spirit to refresh their lamps and keep them burning.

Thread 403 answers that better for me. Yes, some digging required, but it is there for the taking. No twisting.

That depends upon whether they are baptized.

Rght, forshadowed by circumcision of the OT.

But I concede the point, not everyone in the pew, or who professes faith, has oil in their lamp.

Even if they are baptized ?..confirmed…?

 

[guanophore]

That is your paradigm. But, I would rather think the question is to in line up with what is correct . I would think the interpreter ,God himself would also interpret/lead to correct discernment of which church is correct, and that not as a whole, but as to each thing each church says.

There are several problems with this. One is that yes, though the HS is ready, willing, and able to guide us into all truth, the act of interpretation is a human one. We understand what we hear and read according to our experiences and education (or lack of it). This is why Jesus did not leave the matter up to individuals who could easily make mistakes, but to His One Body, the Church. He gave the gift of infallibility to prevent the Church from falling into error.

It is not a matter of “which Church is correct”. Jesus only founded One Church. He appointed authority in that Church, and He taught them how to interpret the Scriptures. The promise of the HS He gave to lead that One Church into “all Truth” does not apply to those who break their communion with His Church.

To say something is new and innovative is not the same as saying it is different from the mainstream historical Catholic church.

Yes, it is the same thing. The doctrines and interpretations that began to flourish during the Reformation represent a departure from the Apostolic faith.

The Holy Spirit does not reveal an opposing Truth to one person or group than He has revealed previously. Any interpretations that are correct will be consistent with the once for all divine deposit of faith that was closed at the death of the last Apostle.

 Did he not say he was simply trying to get back to the beginning, of apostolic days ? That would not be new, unless one strayed from it for a long period of time and it would seem to be new.

Yes, all the Reformers were seeking a more pure faith that was grounded in the Apostolic Church. They did not realize that, by changing the doctrines, they were separating from those roots, rather than reconnecting to them.

Yes, that is CC dogma.

No, it is not.

The apostles were Roman Catholic, St Paul was Roman Catholic etc. . The Way, Christian, catholic small c and other names were what ?

No, they were not.

The Apostles were all Palestinian Jews. Their faith was Catholic.

The Roman Rite did not develop separately for as much as a century. The main currency of language was Greek, though the Apostles spoke Aramaic. The earliest liturgies were in Aramaic. Peter established a line of bishops in Antioch that continues today which is older than the line in Rome. They use an ancient Syriac liturgy.

There are 23 Catholic Rites, and only one is “Roman” (Latin). Most are Greek and Slavic that was translated from the Greek.

Also understand other views of communion and that they use the same scrpitures. Once right always right. Half of Christendom thinks differently . Yes OSAS has difficulties for some theologians.

Yes, there are different views of communion that use the same scriptures. These views were addressed by the early Church, and clearly condemned as heresies.

The fact that half of Christendom “thinks differently” is not a testimony to accuracy. The Truth is still the Truth, even if the majority of people reject it.

The duty of the Church founded by Christ is to preserve the purity of doctrine, and to prevent people from falling away from the One Faith entrusted to her. Toward that end, the Apostles ordained bishops and instructed them:

1 Tim 1:3
instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine

Titus 2:15
15 Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one look down on you.

Of course people will reject the Apostolic authority,and take it upon themselves to teach different doctrines. Everyone is free to disobey the Apostolic commands.

 

[mackbrislawn]

pocohombre:

---

Pocohombre

Originally Posted by paul c;10443091You can’t know what is correct without an authoritative interpretation.

Ouch , Jesus is the teacher

. Yes, He is. And He teaches through His Church, His body of which He is the head

Every neighbor shall teach his neighbor was the promise.

Elaborate on this one–I’m not sure what is meant.

We are all priests is the promise. We are indwelt is the promise .

What do you mean by “we,” pale face? Who are “we”? Do you include Catholics? Muslims?

Are the Lord’s indwelling hands tied that he can not interpret for us ?

His hands do seem to be tied, since so many people who claim indwelling interpret differently. A comment to the aside, if Jesus tells us what the interpretation is, that is an implicit admission that scripture is not perspicuous, not self-interpreting. Another question comes to mind, if Jesus tells us what scripture means, why bother with scripture at all. After all, you did say Jesus was the teacher. This leads to the conclusion scripture is unnessesary, just let Jesus and the HS tell us directly.

Sorry, but as I have told others here Vatican 2 says such language is improper .God gave us, the Christian community, scripture

Yes, it is a teaching of the Catholic Church that God gave the Christian community scripture, and you seem to include yourself within that community. However, God did not give you nor your particular congregation scripture. God gave the Christian community (whatever that was, Catholic or not) scripture 2000 years ago. Okay, how did He give the Christian community scriptures? The Catholic teaching is that He inspired members of the Christian community to write. Many others of the community wrote also, even some not of the community. These writings needed sorted out. Again, the Catholic Church teaches that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to decide which writings were inspired and which weren’t. This occurred two to three centuries after they were written.

So, it was the Roman Church that taught western Europe and the Reformers to believe in God and to believe in the Scriptures. The Reformers inherited Scriptures from the Roman Church, their belief in them, and the physical manuscripts themselves.

Under God, scriptures were written by, to, and for the Christian community. Now, a quiz. To whom were scriptures written? To the Christian community! Not to non-Christians, or those who aren’t Christians yet! (Gideons, take heed.)

It is not either or . If you like I shall say I do believe your bible. What is wrong with that.? In the OT many believed scripture, though they were at odds with the religious establishment. Ironic, isn’t it ?

It is, isn’t it? That is the nature of Protestantism, to be at odds with whatever religious establishment there is. That is why cults like Mormonism formed, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, because their Protestant founders were at odds with the Protestant establishment.

.

I like your zeal but to say a church heirarchy ,establishment wrote scripture is piracy… Did not the Indwelling One inspire every jot and tittle ?

Weren’t the apostles the church hierarchy? They established the church. Without an establishment there would have been no scripture to begin with. Just a bunch of loose and forgotten writings lost among the other mystery cults of the Roman Empire. That the indwelling One inspired every jot and tittle is a belief generated by the established church.

Fact is all of Christendom owes at least something to the reformers, for it was much needed. Rome did reform, because she had to, iron sharpening iron. Part of what the CC is today is because of protestant reformers that were Catholic. Is counter reformation an OK term ?

Yes, it is an OK term. And it’s true all right. Reform was much needed. As always of course.

Yes, and some CC dogma is new and innovative.

]Quote:
I’ve never seen any proof point to show that they knew anything about TULIP in apostolic days.

I am not a defender of 5 point Calvinism, but I am also sure a slight move toward that end would benefit many folk, including many Catholic, if not in teaching at least in practice.

I myself do not believe the apostolic period knew anything about TULIP. As far as Calvinism, Calvin said he did not come up with predestination himself, but took it from St Augustine. A Catholic saint. So there is predestination to some extent permitted within Catholicism. Augustine is a saint so it is not allowed to call him a heretic, but in my opinion he is as far to the left as it is possible to go and not be a heretic. Calvin did step over the heretic line with double predestination, however.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That’s interesting, cause I do look at some denominations by how much they still accept of Catholicism, like the Mass or vestments etc.

It is interesting. It seems the initial Reformers stayed closer to Catholicism. Lots of the trappings of Catholicism remain even today in Lutheran and Anglican churches. Vestments, church calendar, etc. It was the Reformed churches that did away with a lot of the externals, in fact the Puritans wanted to purify the Church of England of these trappings. Then the Anabaptists went further, because even the Presbyterians and Reformed churches still baptized babies! Oh horrors! Then the Unitarians and Jehovah’s Witnesses came along and said, you Baptists still believe in the Trinity! And you think Jesus died on a cross! You still call yourselves churches and use stained glass! Don’t you know that all is a remnant of Catholicism?

And then, ultimately, the modern liberal Protestant theologians of the 19th and 20th centuries came along and said, you JW’s and all still believe in scripture! The Bible! Don’t you know belief in the inerrancy of scripture is merely a remnant of Catholic tradition?

That is where we are today (fundamentalists notwithstanding as their’s is a rear guard action).

 

[brb3]

Poco …

Do you think Paul & the 12 would of commended a Luther or a Calvin to do what they did ? U know they would of been reprimanded & re-catechized…and if neither would repent of their errs, they would of been removed from the faithful ecclesial churches & the doctrines taught them by Christ.

 

[pablope]

paul c;10430310:

newest posts

Quote:
The new testament books were written by Catholic authors and if the Catholic Church had not testified to their divine inspiration, no one would believe them today.

Yes, that is CC dogma. The apostles were Roman Catholic, St Paul was Roman Catholic etc. . The Way, Christian, catholic small c and other names were what ?

.

It is not dogma, Poco…it is historical fact. All the authors were part of the Catholic church…before the Protestant split.

These books were in the Catholic Bible, before any Protestant Bible came to the scene in 1521 or so.