T
thistle
Guest
Have the courtesy to read the sources she gave you. YOU are the one putting your private interpretation forward.
- Status
A
Ammi
Guest
I have read and discussed everything used as support. Now I am told St. Paul said something explicitly… well let’s see where this is.
T
thistle
Guest
Read the sources given and take off your blinkers. . . .
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Flagged…
Crusader13
New member
I still feel the confusion and disagreement is over the understanding of knowing and believing.
The documents that were cited use knowing in several places, but some are insisting that belief is implied in the interpretation.
One can know something and still refuse to believe it. It’s this refusal which seems to strike at the heart of the matter.
People are trying to analyze and compartmentalize what it means to refute/reject the gospel. But nothing in Scripture or church teaching deals with that aspect. We present the truth of the Church and we don’t deal with every single possible outcome with regards to an individual’s frame of mind when they decide to reject the truth.
The documents that were cited use knowing in several places, but some are insisting that belief is implied in the interpretation.
One can know something and still refuse to believe it. It’s this refusal which seems to strike at the heart of the matter.
People are trying to analyze and compartmentalize what it means to refute/reject the gospel. But nothing in Scripture or church teaching deals with that aspect. We present the truth of the Church and we don’t deal with every single possible outcome with regards to an individual’s frame of mind when they decide to reject the truth.
A
Ammi
Guest
Only God can judge the heart. He knows what is disbelief. If it is disbelief, Scripture is crystal clear in Mark 16: 16
It’s wrong to say any person who does not believe the Gospel can be saved. God sees who believes and who does not. He also sees who believes, yet falls into temptation and behaves and teaches what is wrong.
No Teaching of the Church raised in this thread has explicitly addressed knowing and disbelieving the Gospel. She, instead, has used Mark 16:15,16
Those in non Christian religions can find truths within their faith which can prepare them for the Gospel. Jesus even preached the Gospel, to those before His resurrection, before the dead could enter the kingdom.
It’s wrong to say any person who does not believe the Gospel can be saved. God sees who believes and who does not. He also sees who believes, yet falls into temptation and behaves and teaches what is wrong.
No Teaching of the Church raised in this thread has explicitly addressed knowing and disbelieving the Gospel. She, instead, has used Mark 16:15,16
Those in non Christian religions can find truths within their faith which can prepare them for the Gospel. Jesus even preached the Gospel, to those before His resurrection, before the dead could enter the kingdom.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No… I have provided sources each and every time you repeatedly claim that there are no such sources!
One would hope you were sufficiently familiar with Scripture in order to recognize the reference. But, for the sake of spelling it out for you…,
Does St Paul say that it’s impossible to reject the Gospel? In other words, does he assert “Once Saved, Always Saved”? No… of course he doesn’t!
Romans 8:35, 38-39
Non-Catholic Christians who believe in OSAS often use these verses as a prooftext for their point. Yet, St Paul isn’t saying that we can’t reject Jesus… but only that Jesus won’t abandon us!
So, the takeaway is that we can separate ourselves from Christ.
But, is it really possible to reject the Gospel? Can a believer really do what is evil? St Paul says “yes!”
Romans 7:22-24, 25
So… sin is possible. It’s what we don’t want to do, but we do it nevertheless.
But, maybe Paul’s only talking about sin and not about turning away from the Gospel? Let’s see what Jesus says:
John 6:66-67
Yep… there you have it – Jesus had disciples who believed, and then later rejected the Gospel.
So… yes – it is possible to reject the Gospel, even if you’re attempting to follow Jesus.
“his”.
A
Ammi
Guest
Once Saved Always Saved?
You are misunderstanding my statement.
This is my statement:
This is what I mean by the statement. It has nothing to do with Once Saved Always Saved at all. It means that when the Church teaches about those who do not know the Gospel, they may attain salvation if they are seeking God, and relying on His Grace to do what they know by faith and conscience. So when a person who is doing this, in their heart and life, and THEN they learn of the true Gospel message (that God became a man through a virgin, taught forgiveness of sins through His work of death and resurrection, and will grant heaven to those who believe in Him) they will not remain seeking God and relying on His grace, if they turn in disbelief of the Gospel. So, the Church maintains that seeking God and relying on His grace are two necessities of a person who does not know the Gospel, may attain heaven. These are qualities that will accept the Gospel, when made aware to the person, because they are the very qualities that the Church recognized as salvific while they were unaware of the Gospel news.
As for your message about believing and then losing salvation, i never said otherwise. Those are the second and third examples from the Parable of the Sower story. So far, we agree on those. You still do not understand the first example. This person did not even understand the Word, yet it was sown in the heart, and the devil snatched it out.
Doesnt sound like that person was seeking God or His grace. If the devil has such a stronghold.
You are misunderstanding my statement.
This is my statement:
This is what I mean by the statement. It has nothing to do with Once Saved Always Saved at all. It means that when the Church teaches about those who do not know the Gospel, they may attain salvation if they are seeking God, and relying on His Grace to do what they know by faith and conscience. So when a person who is doing this, in their heart and life, and THEN they learn of the true Gospel message (that God became a man through a virgin, taught forgiveness of sins through His work of death and resurrection, and will grant heaven to those who believe in Him) they will not remain seeking God and relying on His grace, if they turn in disbelief of the Gospel. So, the Church maintains that seeking God and relying on His grace are two necessities of a person who does not know the Gospel, may attain heaven. These are qualities that will accept the Gospel, when made aware to the person, because they are the very qualities that the Church recognized as salvific while they were unaware of the Gospel news.
As for your message about believing and then losing salvation, i never said otherwise. Those are the second and third examples from the Parable of the Sower story. So far, we agree on those. You still do not understand the first example. This person did not even understand the Word, yet it was sown in the heart, and the devil snatched it out.
Doesnt sound like that person was seeking God or His grace. If the devil has such a stronghold.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
No… I’m reading what your statement really implies, even if you aren’t glomming onto that implication. And, it really is “once saved, always saved.”
Look what you yourself assert – you are seeking God, right? And you are open to His grace? Can you, now, reject the Gospel?
Of course you can. St Paul, time and again, warns against “backsliding” and “losing one’s salvation”. In the Church teachings we’ve discussed here, we see that the Church warns against failing to remain in the Church. Rejection of the Gospel is a very real possibility.
You’re half a step from falling in the “OSAS” ditch, and on the other side of the road, a half step from falling in the Calvinist’s doctrine of assurance of salvation. The Church believes neither – we may lose our salvation, and “assurance” only comes with “final perseverance.”
A
Ammi
Guest
You can if you are going to turn from seeking God and relying on His grace. Until you believe the Gospel is from God, you are not saved.
You cannot accomplish both: to seek God and rely on His grace, and reject the Gospel and not believe. You can do one, and then convert to do the other, but you cannot do both at the same time.
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Not what the Church teaches. Those who have not heard the Gospel can be saved.
And this, then, is the Calvinist error, which it seems you endorse. One “proves” that a person never believed, by noting that, at the end of their life, they did not attain to salvation (and therefore, were always ‘reprobate’). You’re not in good company, Ammi, by asserting what you do.
T
thistle
Guest
Sorry. Earlier in the day I had been talking to a friend called Georgina. Must have stuck in my mind while posting.“his”.
A
Ammi
Guest
I am not what you are fabricating in your mind. You are extracting things in isolation. I dont have time to deal with all your misconceptions and never ending misdiagnosis of what you think I’m saying.
I have been clear and with very sound reason. I will leave you with this message I replied to you before:
I have been clear and with very sound reason. I will leave you with this message I replied to you before:
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
I think the idea is the Gospel is processed via action words only if necessary.
Jesus did say ," love one another as I have loved you. "
" This is how they will know you are my deciples."
In terms of the Apostles Creed it has long been observed that it progresses to Jesus birth
Then
The next words are crucified, died and was buried.
It skips what is between. Love, mercy, the Sermon, etc.
Jesus did say ," love one another as I have loved you. "
" This is how they will know you are my deciples."
In terms of the Apostles Creed it has long been observed that it progresses to Jesus birth
Then
The next words are crucified, died and was buried.
It skips what is between. Love, mercy, the Sermon, etc.
G
Gorgias
Guest
It’s always good to think that you, alone, know the truth and all others are unsound and irrational, eh?
M
Maximus1
Guest
First, I cited Jesus own Commandment obviously. Jesus Commandment expressly directs how to evangelize. I don’t think you second guess Jesus own description how PEOPLE WILL KNOW YOU ARE MY DISCIPLES.
SECOND, the statement attributed to Saint Francis own methodology is not a statement NOT TO use words. It is ," use words if necessary."
This I interpret as a statement of methodology and emphasis. So it does not imply a prohibition but rather is consistent with the great commandments teaching. Once people have developed their desire to become Christian, you would fortify them with a history, the parables, the Sermon, the teachings on mercy, forgiveness, etc.
You have to remember, when Jesus spoke, not only were you decades from Gospels being written, Jesus never actually commissions or speaks of written Gospels. Think about Holy week from the perspective of Apostles and DISCIPLES, they ride into Jeruselem to cheers and celebration on Palm Sunday. And in 4 days Jesus is arrested, tried and dead the next day. Only Judas has awareness besides Jesus and only Jesus knew his Cross was at hand.
Peter denies three times, they scatter and hide, only one attends the Crucifiction. They remain hiding and Mary M must come to their place of hiding to advise Christ is risen. They were in mortal fear and likely confused completely until they see Jesus and Pentecost happens along with the pouring out. Not a word about writing Gospels. So what Jesus said, and what today we understand as preach the Gospel now, are not the same.
The Gospel of Peter would have been oral and Paul’s own letters reflect teaching that focused more on the risen Christ than the synoptic stories that were penned after Paul’s letters.
Paul uses the term EN CHRISTU like 150+ times. Often Christ Jesus. It is hard to tell the " historic" words used, where and when from the written record until we examine writings of the Gospels, which vary, and Apostolic fathers, Didache, and subsequent writings.
SECOND, the statement attributed to Saint Francis own methodology is not a statement NOT TO use words. It is ," use words if necessary."
This I interpret as a statement of methodology and emphasis. So it does not imply a prohibition but rather is consistent with the great commandments teaching. Once people have developed their desire to become Christian, you would fortify them with a history, the parables, the Sermon, the teachings on mercy, forgiveness, etc.
You have to remember, when Jesus spoke, not only were you decades from Gospels being written, Jesus never actually commissions or speaks of written Gospels. Think about Holy week from the perspective of Apostles and DISCIPLES, they ride into Jeruselem to cheers and celebration on Palm Sunday. And in 4 days Jesus is arrested, tried and dead the next day. Only Judas has awareness besides Jesus and only Jesus knew his Cross was at hand.
Peter denies three times, they scatter and hide, only one attends the Crucifiction. They remain hiding and Mary M must come to their place of hiding to advise Christ is risen. They were in mortal fear and likely confused completely until they see Jesus and Pentecost happens along with the pouring out. Not a word about writing Gospels. So what Jesus said, and what today we understand as preach the Gospel now, are not the same.
The Gospel of Peter would have been oral and Paul’s own letters reflect teaching that focused more on the risen Christ than the synoptic stories that were penned after Paul’s letters.
Paul uses the term EN CHRISTU like 150+ times. Often Christ Jesus. It is hard to tell the " historic" words used, where and when from the written record until we examine writings of the Gospels, which vary, and Apostolic fathers, Didache, and subsequent writings.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Christ commanded, love one another as I have loved you,
He then says, this is how they will know you are my deciples.
What attracted the earliest followers I believe was this practice. OTHERWIZE stories of Ressurection and eating Jesus actual body and blood would not have been much more than one of what historically was hundreds of splinter groups at that time all vying with preaching of pagan, Gnostic, and many competing ideas. The Apostles performed miracles, but like Jesus promoted a faith of love, mercy, the beatitudes, etc. The earliest Church of Peter in Acts created a " communal" society that shared everything.( Each according to their needs) Of course they did posess the greatest story ever told but I believe they stood out in accordance with the directive and promise of Jesus Commandment.
He then says, this is how they will know you are my deciples.
What attracted the earliest followers I believe was this practice. OTHERWIZE stories of Ressurection and eating Jesus actual body and blood would not have been much more than one of what historically was hundreds of splinter groups at that time all vying with preaching of pagan, Gnostic, and many competing ideas. The Apostles performed miracles, but like Jesus promoted a faith of love, mercy, the beatitudes, etc. The earliest Church of Peter in Acts created a " communal" society that shared everything.( Each according to their needs) Of course they did posess the greatest story ever told but I believe they stood out in accordance with the directive and promise of Jesus Commandment.
Last edited:
A
Ammi
Guest
Scripture wont help someone who believes the Church teaches something different than it does.
Scripture is not meaningless scribble to laity. We are not unable to see, by faith, the harmony with Scripture and formal Church Teaching. Scripture being the written Revelation.
I have still not found one Church Teaching which interprets Mark 16:16 as some can disbelieve the Gospel message because they might not have accepted it as truth. That’s just redundant for disbelieving.
Scripture is not meaningless scribble to laity. We are not unable to see, by faith, the harmony with Scripture and formal Church Teaching. Scripture being the written Revelation.
I have still not found one Church Teaching which interprets Mark 16:16 as some can disbelieve the Gospel message because they might not have accepted it as truth. That’s just redundant for disbelieving.
P
poche
Guest
Obviously one who deliberately rejects the Godpel is destined for Hell.
T
thistle
Guest
Nobody is destined for Hell. We all have until our dying breath to repent and be saved.
- Status