Catholic vs. Protestant John 3:16?

[unworthysinner]

Pax:

You have not produced a verse from the OT that has the word “resurrection” contained therein. Your first two references are allusions to the resurrection. Your third reference is not. You must be unaware of the dispute among the Jews of the OT concerning the resurrection. The Sadducees were a priestly and aristocratic movement among the Jews. Acts 5:17 points out that the Jewish high priest was a Sadducee. The Sadducees denied the following:

1. the resurrection
2. belief in angels or spirits.
3. divine providence
4. rewards and punishments in the after life

I will stand by my posts. You haven’t refuted anything and you have been unable to prove your points concerning apostasy. In order for you to continue believing in OSAS after reading the book of Hebrews, you must attempt, however futily, to redefine the word apostasy. Any such change in defintion is a figment of your imagination and in no way reflects reality.

The resurrection was a “mystery” revealed in NT times. In the book of Job, possibly the oldest book recorded, Job is looking forward to the day the Redeemer will come. The church is not mentioned in the OT either but it is spoken of a mystery revealed in the NT.

Not all Jews were Sadducees, obviously those in Hebrews 6 being addressed are not Sadducees for they did not believe in the resurrection. Here is the passage you sight, all of us would do well to heed Christ’s words:

18Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying,

19Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

20Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed.

21And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise.

22And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also.

23In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.

24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?

25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.

26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: **ye therefore do greatly err. **

 

[Pax]

unworthysinner:

Perhaps we should also re-write John 3:16(which started this post) to read:

For God so loved the world(especially Mary), that he gave his only begotten Son(to be an unbloody sacrifice on thousands of alters everyday), that whosoever believeth in him(but first gets baptized, do good works, receive the eucharist, confess to a priest, etc at infintem) should not perish, but have conditional everlasting life that will be gained and lost hundreds of times in a lifetime.

Now before you get mad at me, all of that is Catholic doctrine. I am using absurdity to illustrate a point… Does that seem to be in harmony with the rest of the Word of God? All the passages used to break down OSAS are at best unclear or out of context passages. You can’t be any clearer than this…

Although I am not angry with you, this is nothing more than an insult. If you wish to talk about these topics we can do so at another time. No one has re-written John 3:16 or said or done anything to warrant these remarks. Try staying on task.

unworthysinner:

The believer’s life in Christ is said to be everlasting or eternal. That is, it will never end, (John 3:16; Romans 6:23). Believers will never perish, nor will anyone be able to pluck them out of the Father’s hand (John 10:28-29).

I have already rebuted this in an earlier post and you could not or did not present a counter argument.

unworthysinner:

They are said to be “kept by the power of God” (1 Peter 1:5); kept for Jesus Christ (Jude 1). Christ declared that all who believe have eternal life, and shall not come into condemnation (John 5:24). He is able to save them to the uttermost" (Hebrews 7:25).

The entire Trinity is involved in the safekeeping of Christians. The Father has given believers to the Son (John 17:9), the Son has asked that they be kept (John 17:11, 20), and the Holy Spirit dwells within every believer forever (John 14:16; 1 Corinthians 6:19). These revealed truths are according to God’s divine purpose and promise. Passages which seem, to some, to contradict eternal security are found to be related to rewards, chastisement, and the fact that an absence of good works reveals a lack of genuine faith (Philippians 2:12-13). Those who believe in conditional salvation must now consider whether they, in fact, have trusted the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord.

Could it be that some are trusting in their own performance in the Christian life to keep their salvation rather than trusting in the finished work of the Jesus on the cross? The conditional view of salvation not only denies God’s word, but it also produces a legalistic, fear-inspiring, and experience-oriented Christian walk. How can one share the riches of God’s grace to the unsaved when he believes his own salvation is not sure?

This last remark about conditional salvation is nonsense. You have ignored everything that has been said to you in prior posts concerning grace. Our faith, our justification, our sanctification, and our salvation are all by grace. It all comes from God. Our works also come from God. Our works are nothing less than the work of the Father’s hands in our hearts, minds, bodies, and souls. Now that this has been repeated to you again, please do not attempt to suggest that Catholics are believers in works righteousness or that we do not put our total faith and trust in God. You obviously do not understand or know Catholic teaching and you are merely winging it.

You may make whatever claims you wish about OSAS, but scripture is on our side and it has been proven to you beyond all doubt. The problem is that you are in denial. I would not make this remark except for the fact that you have been overwhelmed time after time in the course of this thread. This is particularly evident in your unwillingness to concede the issue on “apostasy.”

 

[Pax]

unworthysinner:

The resurrection was a “mystery” revealed in NT times.

Thanks for agreeing with me…you have finally made your first concession.

unworthysinner:

Not all Jews were Sadducees, obviously those in Hebrews 6 being addressed are not Sadducees for they did not believe in the resurrection.

Moreover, they were believing “Christian” Jews.

]

 

[unworthysinner]

Pax,

I’m curious of your tactic in throwing “seemingly” contradictory verses that MUST mean OSAS is not biblically taught. If you are correct, wouldn’t it be much easier to refute the verses I have incorrectly interpreted to mean that a believer saved remains saved.

1 John 5:11-13 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

John 3:35-36
The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Ephesians 2:5-10
Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together** in heavenly places in Christ Jesus**: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

So I have no power to save myself, but I have power to remove the seal of the holy spirit, loosen the grip of the Father and the Son, to tear myself out of being seated in the heavenly places, totally wipe away all faith in Christ? You opponents to OSAS must be more powerful than even God Himself. The biblical truth is very simple the order is:

repent → faith → salvation → good works → reward

if someone does not repent they have no need for a savior(nor faith) and are lost but don’t know it
if someone never believes(faith) in grace, they will never have salvation
if someone is not saved(not by works) their “good works” are only dead works for they fail at keeping the whole law
if they are saved, that reality should be shown by “good works”
if someone is truly saved by grace through faith and has no good works, they will lose their reward but not salvation(I Corinthians 3:15…also incidently used to prove the doctrine of Purgatory).

 

[unworthysinner]

Pax:

Although I am not angry with you, this is nothing more than an insult. If you wish to talk about these topics we can do so at another time. No one has re-written John 3:16 or said or done anything to warrant these remarks. Try staying on task.

I have already rebuted this in an earlier post and you could not or did not present a counter argument.

This last remark about conditional salvation is nonsense. You have ignored everything that has been said to you in prior posts concerning grace. Our faith, our justification, our sanctification, and our salvation are all by grace. It all comes from God. Our works also come from God. Our works are nothing less than the work of the Father’s hands in our hearts, minds, bodies, and souls. Now that this has been repeated to you again, please do not attempt to suggest that Catholics are believers in works righteousness or that we do not put our total faith and trust in God. You obviously do not understand or know Catholic teaching and you are merely winging it.

You may make whatever claims you wish about OSAS, but scripture is on our side and it has been proven to you beyond all doubt. The problem is that you are in denial. I would not make this remark except for the fact that you have been overwhelmed time after time in the course of this thread. This is particularly evident in your unwillingness to concede the issue on “apostasy.”

Forgive for not understanding, but you appear to be in contradiction from written Catholic teaching…

---

***Catechism says…

***Paragraph #2010

Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

This teaching plainly teaches that intial grace of forgiveness and justification(baptism i would suppose) is provided by God. But then the teaching says that graces needed for SANTIFICATION, increase of grace and charity, and ATTAINMENT OF ETERNAL LIFE are earned(merited).

This is a contradiction in terms:
grace = unmerited favor
gift = something unearned and undeserved

If you believe the way you state, you are not a Catholic and not following the Catholic churches teaching as revealed in the Catechism.

BTW, I heartily agree with you that we are called, justified, sanctified, but also GLORIFIED by God apart and totally seperate from works. I agree whether someone is convinced of OSAS or not, if their faith and profession is “in Christ Jesus” they should show it by their works. If I seem confused to you about your stance, I apologize. Do you also believe in Purgatory? If so, who goes there and why?

 

[unworthysinner]

Pax:

Thanks for agreeing with me…you have finally made your first concession.

Moreover, they were believing “Christian” Jews.

]

The OT lacking the word resurrection does nothing for your case. Paul wrote to Jews who obviously knew what he meant. And it was a practice that obviously wasn’t new(the Saducees opposed it, but they opposed it before Christ was resurrected!!!)

Your definition of believing “Christian” Jews is certainly lacking faith in Christ Jesus not just God(the divining line between Jews and Christians to this day). What kind of “Christian” has only faith in God? Not a heaven bound one.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

unworthysinner:

Perhaps we should also re-write John 3:16(which started this post) to read:

For God so loved the world(especially Mary), that he gave his only begotten Son(to be an unbloody sacrifice on thousands of alters everyday), that whosoever believeth in him(but first gets baptized, do good works, receive the eucharist, confess to a priest, etc at infintem) should not perish, but have conditional everlasting life that will be gained and lost hundreds of times in a lifetime.

Now before you get mad at me, all of that is Catholic doctrine. I am using absurdity to illustrate a point… Does that seem to be in harmony with the rest of the Word of God? All the passages used to break down OSAS are at best unclear or out of context passages. You can’t be any clearer than this…

Edited…

Could it be that some are trusting in their own performance in the Christian life to keep their salvation rather than trusting in the finished work of the Jesus on the cross? The conditional view of salvation not only denies God’s word, but it also produces a legalistic, fear-inspiring, and experience-oriented Christian walk. How can one share the riches of God’s grace to the unsaved when he believes his own salvation is not sure?

You display a blatant propensity for insulting and mocking rhetoric. Is this how you display your deep love for Catholics?

You say that these are all Catholic doctrines yet you are in grave error because your understanding is warped by your prejudices. All you have stated in your heavily misinterpreted misperceptions of our beliefs. It becomes more and more obvious to me that you are really not familiar with real Catholic teachings but only someone elses interpretations thereof, and that that someone is very highly anti-Catholic.

This paragraph show just how very little of Catholic doctrine you really understand, since they do not accurately reflect what we believe. I can’t understand how you would dare to come in here and attack our beliefs and yet you do not know them? What you know are the attacks that will destroy the straw men that your preachers and teachers have set up for you. To Catholics who have worked so hard to debate with you it is sad and frustrating because you will not accept the word of Catholics that what you think is what we believe is really not so.

I leave you with the words of the very wise and very charitable bishop Fulton J. Sheen:

“Few people in America hate the Catholic religion, but there are many who hate what they mistakenly believe is the Catholic religion—and if what they hate really were the Catholic religion, Catholics would hate it too.”

 

[unworthysinner]

2Rollin’Stoned,

Since the Catholics I love personally know little about what their Church actually teaches, I depend heavily on those who do know what the Church teaches. For example this former Catholic about doctrines of the Catholic church…

Salvation: The RCC teaches that one is saved by baptismal regeneration and remains saved unless they commit a sinful act that removes them from the state of sanctifying grace (theft of a large amount, failure to attend church and receive the Eucharist for an extended period of time, etc.). The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). And that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

Eternal Security: The RCC teaches that one CANNOT know for certain that he is saved and on his way to heaven. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written just so that one would know for certain that he is saved.

Good Works: The RCC states that we are saved by works (baptismal regeneration) and that we maintain our salvation by good works (receiving communion, church attendance, saying confession, etc.). The Bible states that we are saved apart from works, by grace through faith, and totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced after one places their faith in Christ and is not a means of salvation; it is faith in the gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). But the RCC teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. Note: The RCC sometimes notes that the whole household of Cornelius was baptized in Acts 16:33. But you will note how Paul answered the question of how a person is saved in Acts 16:31 and then note that Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32 and the whole household was believing (verse 34). Thus, this passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Prayer: The RCC teaches its members to not only pray to God but also to Mary and to the saints. The RCC goes so far as to state that all prayers must ultimately go through Mary before they get to God! Contrary to this, we are only taught in Scripture to pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7; etc.).

Priesthood: The RCC teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people.” Whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Sacraments: The RCC teaches that we receive grace when we receive the sacraments of the church. But such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Confession: The RCC teaches that unless we are hindered from doing so by some means beyond our control, the only way to have our sins forgiven is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, scripture teaches that we can confess our sins to God for forgiveness (1 John 1:9) and to also confess our sins one to another so that we can be strengthened in our battle against sin (James 5:16). The RCC uses certain statements of Christ to His disciples to support their practice.

Mary: The RCC teaches, among other things that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. Whereas in Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the RCC are given to her in scripture and the idea of her being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man are not only extra-biblical (found only outside of scripture) but are also unbiblical (contrary to scripture) (Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5).

Eucharist: The question here is whether or not to take Christ’s words “this is my body” literally. As a former Catholic, I too once held to the belief that the bread and wine were actually changed into Christ’s body and blood but upon the examination of the context of those statements believe that it is not changed but is a memorial service alone.

 

[reen12]

Dear unworthysinner,

Would you please give me your thought on the
following two points, from your perspective?

-if a person has not faith in Christ, what was the fate
of those peoples who lived for centuries before
the gospel was preached in their area of the world?
-how do you reconcile the concept of eternal
fire in hell with a loving God?

Thanks,
reen12

 

[Salmon]

unworthysinner:

Eucharist: The question here is whether or not to take Christ’s words “this is my body” literally. As a former Catholic, I too once held to the belief that the bread and wine were actually changed into Christ’s body and blood but upon the examination of the context of those statements believe that it is not changed but is a memorial service alone.

1 Cor. 11:

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

Hmmmmmmmmmm… Damnation for receiving a symbolic memorial meal unworthily.

You are truly whistling past the graveyard.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[unworthysinner]

reen12:

Dear unworthysinner,

Would you please give me your thought on the
following two points, from your perspective?

-if a person has not faith in Christ, what was the fate
of those peoples who lived for centuries before
the gospel was preached in their area of the world?
-how do you reconcile the concept of eternal
fire in hell with a loving God?

Thanks,
reen12

Gladly,

Since the fall of man, the basis of salvation has always been the death of Christ. No one, either prior to the cross or since the cross, would ever be saved without that one pivotal event in the history of the world. Christ’s death paid the penalty for past sins of Old Testament saints and future sins of New Testament saints.

The requirement for salvation has always been faith. The object of one’s faith for salvation has always been God. The psalmist wrote, “Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him” (Psalm 2:12). Genesis 15:6 tells us that Abraham believed God and that was enough for God to account it to him for righteousness (see also Romans 4:3-8). The Old Testament sacrificial system did not take away sin, as Hebrews 9:1-10:4 clearly teaches. It did, however, point to the day when the Son of God would shed His blood for the sinful human race.

What has changed through the ages is the content of a believer’s faith. God’s requirement of what must be believed is based on the amount of revelation He has given mankind up to that time. This is called progressive revelation. Adam believed the promise God gave in Genesis 3:15 that the Seed of the woman would conquer Satan. Adam believed Him, demonstrated by the name he gave Eve (v.20) and the Lord indicated His acceptance immediately by covering them with coats of skin (v.21). At that point that is all Adam knew, but he believed it.

Abraham believed God according to the promises and new revelation God gave him in Genesis 12 and 15. Prior to Moses, no Scripture was written, but mankind was responsible for what God had revealed. Throughout the Old Testament, believers came to salvation because they believed that God would someday take care of their sin problem. Today, we look back, believing that He has already taken care of our sins on Calvary (John 3:16; Hebrews 9:28).(now)).

Another way your type of 2nd question has been asked to me is like this, “Why does God create people when He knows they are going to go to hell?”

Please understand that God does not ALLOW anybody to go to hell. Rather, man chooses to go there on his own. You can see the thought pattern of those who reject Christ in the first 3 chapters of the book of Romans. The wrath of God is revealed against the unrighteous because man rejects the creator and worships the creation (Romans 1:18-20). Men profess to be wise in their own eyes (V. 22), and exchange the glory of God for created things. These people then continue into a downward spiral of sin that is listed in verse 28-31, sins in which all of us can relate. Not only do they participate in these sins, but also they approve of those who do them (v. 32). Not only do men have the creation of the world to see God’s power, but they also have their consciences convicting them of their sin (v. 14,15). In the end, man is left without excuse that we deserve to die, and we stand condemned in front of God.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh so that “you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name” (John 20:30,31). This is another witness to God’s existence and also stands to condemn those men who choose to reject Christ as the Son of God. Because Christ came to pay the price of sin, and that He came to “explain the father” (John 1:18), man has no excuse for rejecting him. Men choose to go to hell because they reject Christ, not because God allows men to go to hell. God has paid the price, revealed Himself to all, and now men are “without excuse” (Rom. 1:20). God allows people to be born to give them the opportunity to believe, but it is man’s responsibility to make that choice. What kind of God would He be if He did not give man the opportunity to place his faith in the Lord?

 

[unworthysinner]

Salmon:

unworthysinner:

1 Cor. 11:

Hmmmmmmmmmm… Damnation for receiving a symbolic memorial meal unworthily.

You are truly whistling past the graveyard.

Peace in Christ…Salmon

26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.

27Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.

28But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

29For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body.

It is an interesting exhortation and one all believers should take to heart. Those who gather for the Lord’s Supper should think of others before themselves(something the Corinthians did not do, see I Cor 11:20-22). Also this time should be spent in worship of the Lord Jesus and remembering His death and resurrection. It also contains a reminder that He is coming again.

Now if what Catholic priests claim is true(the Lord really present in the Eucharist) then “remember the Lord’s death until he comes” would make no sense. We can’t remember someone who is currently present only when they are gone. The Lord is coming back to call His sheep to Himself. Are you one of His own? That is what matters.

 

[reen12]

Hello, unworthysinner,

Thank you for your reply to my post above. The
second question you answered to my satisfaction,
in the sense that I understand what you are saying.

The answer to the first question still left me
wondering about the *eternal destination *of those born
after Christ, who never had the good news preached
to them? May I ask you to address that part more
fully?
Many thanks,
reen12*

 

[Salmon]

unworthysinner:

Now if what Catholic priests claim is true(the Lord really present in the Eucharist) then “remember the Lord’s death until he comes” would make no sense. We can’t remember someone who is currently present only when they are gone. The Lord is coming back to call His sheep to Himself.

We are called to “remember the Lord’s death until he comes” in glory.

I’m certain that you are familiar with the biblical passages that refer to Christ’s second coming.

Matthew 16:27
For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.

Matthew 24:30
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

Matthew 25:31
When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

That’s just a few from the first gospel alone.

Why does this cause you puzzlement to “remember the Lord’s death until he comes”? When I receive the Eucharist, I am given the blessing to remember His passion, death and Resurrection while thanking Him personally for what He did.

BTW, you never explained how someone can bring about their own “damnation” from unworthily eating a symbolic memorial meal. Would these be “believers” or “unbelievers”?

Why would “unbelievers” participate in such an intimate service?

Were those who walked away from Jesus in John 6:66 believers or unbelievers? Did they think it possible to eat “truly, truly” His flesh and drink His blood?

Do you agree with their position?

Peace in Christ…Salmon

 

[Jimmy_B]

unworthysinner:

Quote:
Now if what Catholic priests claim is true(the Lord really present in the Eucharist) then “remember the Lord’s death until he comes” would make no sense. We can’t remember someone who is currently present only when they are gone. The Lord is coming back to call His sheep to Himself.

Q. “Now if what Catholic priests claim is true(the Lord really present in the Eucharist”

A. A “Catholic Priest” didn’t make the claim regarding the Eucharist, Jesus said it himself
.

**
John 6:39-58

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever."

unworthysinner:
**Please don’t bother going over your "Gospel of John theory” again, I’ve already read it. If you reject the Gospel of John as truth and infer it is not divinely written, because you disagree with portions of it, then you must also reject the rest of the New Testament. **

**By rejecting a Gospel, saying a portion may lack credibility, you are making the entire bible "questionable and invalid”, thereby making your faith questionable and invalid. They were deemed “The Gospels” for a reason. You can’t reject a portion of the Gospels without rejecting all of the Gospels. **

Now having said that, what do the above bible verses mean to you?
**

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

unworthysinner says:

Since the Catholics I love personally know little about what their Church actually teaches, I depend heavily on those who do know what the Church teaches. For example this former Catholic about doctrines of the Catholic church…

Boy…I can’t tell from the oversimplified stuff you lay out. Those kinds of catholics aren’t here…
BTW…why are you here again? To evangelize Catholics ? http://pages.prodigy.net/rogerlori1/emoticons/yawn1.gif

Salvation: The RCC teaches that one is saved by baptismal regeneration and remains saved unless they commit a sinful act that removes them from the state of sanctifying grace (theft of a large amount, failure to attend church and receive the Eucharist for an extended period of time, etc.). The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). And that good works are the result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).

And so what is the problem with this Catholic teaching?

Eternal Security: The RCC teaches that one CANNOT know for certain that he is saved and on his way to heaven. 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written just so that one would know for certain that he is saved.

According to your interpretation. Not all n-Cs believe as you do. So who’s right?

Good Works: The RCC states that we are saved by works (baptismal regeneration) and that we maintain our salvation by good works (receiving communion, church attendance, saying confession, etc.). The Bible states that we are saved apart from works, by grace through faith, and totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24).

The above is totally misrepresented.

Baptism: In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practiced after one places their faith in Christ and is not a means of salvation; it is faith in the gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). But the RCC teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never found in Scripture. Note: The RCC sometimes notes that the whole household of Cornelius was baptized in Acts 16:33. But you will note how Paul answered the question of how a person is saved in Acts 16:31 and then note that Paul spoke to all of the household in verse 32 and the whole household was believing (verse 34). Thus, this passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not of infants.

Again this is your interpretation and sounds pretty twisted to me. If baptism is compared to circumcision, and Jewish boys are circumcised on the 8th day with their parents making promises to raise them in the faith and that is their entrance into their faith and god accepted that in the OT then just why is it that God does not accept that same sort of practice in the NT…and you take on the “households” is lamed by the fact that St. Paul says that “baptism now saves you”. You can’t deny that st. Paul makes a close tie between circumcision and baptism. (though I’m sure you’ll try)

cont’d

 

[Jimmy_B]

unworthysinner:

Forgive for not understanding, but you appear to be in contradiction from written Catholic teaching…

Catechism says…

Paragraph #2010

unworthysinner,
How about we look at 2010 in full context and see if you can use the this section “in full context” to try and make your point?

**

**CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
**

III. MERIT

You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts.59

[2006](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2006.htm’) The term “merit” refers in general to the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment. Merit is relative to the virtue of justice, in conformity with the principle of equality which governs it.

[2007](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2007.htm’) With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

[2008](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2008.htm’) The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

[2009](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2009.htm’) Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God’s gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us “co-heirs” with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."60 The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.61 "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due. . . . Our merits are God’s gifts."62

[2010](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2010.htm’) Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God’s wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions.

[2011](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2011.htm’) The charity of Christ is the source in us of all our merits before God. Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men. The saints have always had a lively awareness that their merits were pure grace.

After earth’s exile, I hope to go and enjoy you in the fatherland, but I do not want to lay up merits for heaven. I want to work for your love alone. . . . In the evening of this life, I shall appear before you with empty hands, for I do not ask you, Lord, to count my works. All our justice is blemished in your eyes. I wish, then, to be clothed in your own *justice *and to receive from your love the eternal possession of yourself.63

**

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

Prayer: The RCC teaches its members to not only pray to God but also to Mary and to the saints. The RCC goes so far as to state that all prayers must ultimately go through Mary before they get to God! Contrary to this, we are only taught in Scripture to pray to God (Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7; etc.).

Better fire your sources…this is wrong-BIGTIME!
You have no understanding of the intercession of saints at all. Do you intercede for others? Do you ask for intercessional prayer by others? Your limited and biased interpretation of the scriptures has again messed you up. Also…if the early church recorded that they asked the departed saints to remember them before the Lord, then why shouldn’t we? There plenty of historical evidence that this is the case.

Priesthood: The RCC teaches that there is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people.” Whereas the New Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9).

Hmmm cute…but what about bishops…who shepherd the flocks of God? Besides…this is not the defacto practice among Protestants and other n-Cs, since I know from my own personal experience.

Sacraments: The RCC teaches that we receive grace when we receive the sacraments of the church. But such teaching is nowhere found in Scripture.

Only if someone like you can convince all the world that the Eucharist is invalid. If so I wouldn’t waste my time being any sort of “Christian” Thank God you cannot. all you can do is blow off all the eucharistic passages and say they are all not what they clearly say.

Confession: The RCC teaches that unless we are hindered from doing so by some means beyond our control, the only way to have our sins forgiven is by confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, scripture teaches that we can confess our sins to God for forgiveness (1 John 1:9) and to also confess our sins one to another so that we can be strengthened in our battle against sin (James 5:16). The RCC uses certain statements of Christ to His disciples to support their practice.

Fire your source again since they misled you about this one as well. The sacrament of reconcilliation is for Mortal sins. veniel sins are confessed during the pentential; rites of the mass and by a sincere Act of Contrition, which is comparable to your own confessions. But you seeks anything upon which to disagree and attack the Catholic faith.

Mary: The RCC teaches, among other things that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. Whereas in Scripture, she is portrayed as an obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the other attributes mentioned by the RCC are given to her in scripture and the idea of her being the co-redemptress and another mediator between God and man are not only extra-biblical (found only outside of scripture) but are also unbiblical (contrary to scripture) (Acts 4:12; 1 Timothy 2:5).

You will mess up a two-car funeral…ya know that? Mary was assumed into heaven by Our Lord and there is more than ample precedent for that since God did it to several other Holy people. There is indeed extrabiblical writings that tell of this and the silence of the NT is no hindrance to historic evidence. (Except in your mind…) I happen to know that the Marian doctrines of the acatholic Church are indeed based upon scripture, so I won’t listen to that propaganda.

Eucharist: The question here is whether or not to take Christ’s words “this is my body” literally. As a former Catholic, I too once held to the belief that the bread and wine were actually changed into Christ’s body and blood but upon the examination of the context of those statements believe that it is not changed but is a memorial service alone.

Boy… you must really have an ego to argue with the plain text of the NT about this one. Or else you’re just a really gullible person who is easily led astray. This is the most powerpacked doctrine of all and the fact that you deny it makes me just think it best if we all just throw up our hands and walk away from all discussion with you. This is one of those ones that we just look at each other and go “How’d he miss that?”

 

[Pax]

It is 10:30pm and I have finally found a moment to check out the forums. I do not have time tonight to spend in responding to the many comments and observations made in several of the posts that have been made.

I will take a moment, however, to make the following response to a couple of statements made by unworthysinner. You have accused me of only using quotes from scripture that “seem” to refute OSAS as opposed to addressing verses that you chose that you believe support and identify the doctrine.

I must say that you either haven’t read my many posts or you are dishonest. I addressed some of the very verses that you used. I will give you but one example. You used John 10:28 and I carefully showed why you could not use the verse to establish your doctrine. Try reading all of my posts over again and you will see that you are once again grasping at straws. It really doesn’t matter if I use your verses anyway. What really matters is the truth, and it has been provided to you many times over.

Furthermore, none of your quotations establish OSAS. If this doctrine were true it would be so fundamental to the faith that it would be explicitly stated and there would be no contradicting verses anywhere in scripture. I have personally researched over 65 passages of scripture that contradict OSAS and I have heard people say that there are more than eighty.

You have been so utterly frustrated in your efforts to argue in favor of OSAS especially because of your inability to overcome the teaching in Hebrews about apostasy, that you have now taken to attacking numerous different Catholic teachings simultaneously. This shot gun approach won’t work with me. I am willing to take one thing at a time with you, but I refuse to let you pull a bait and switch.

I will say this, however, about your remarks on merit and sanctification. You need to read a lot more of the Catechism before you go off on this topic. Moreover, don’t confuse this issue by attempting to avoid fully understanding and appreciating the connections of justification and sanctification. And please wake up to the fact that everything that is meritorious is still by the prompting of the Holy Spirit and God’s grace. We are not inert beings and we respond to grace and this is pleasing to God. Try studying Catholic teaching and study scripture completely before you make ignorant and uninformed remarks as if you are an authority on the matter.

 

[Stone]

Stone, your quote -

Thank you for your response. Great point, I had to think about this one.

Q. Would you conclude by this statement, that the
buyer(s) of the house have the possibility of (not) being homeless?

A. Yes, I would agree with you that the buyer(s) would no longer be homeless, once they purchased the home and moved in. However If those same buyer(s) failed to make payments (obey Gods laws) they could face foreclosure, be evicted and become homeless again.

Stone, I guess OAHOAAHO (Once A Home Owner Always A Home Owner) is a lot like OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved). As long as we have free will. We have free will to fail to make house payments (consequence-loss of home) and we have free will not to obey God’s laws (consequence – loss of heaven). In both situations, there are consequences for our actions. I believe that everything that occurs is by God’s will. This would include our salvation. You cannot assume the Lord’s job and decide for yourself whether or not; you are worthy enough to enter heaven. “Vengeance is mine saith the Lord”. Wouldn’t you agree, it might be wise to approach this issue (Salvation) fully surrendering to our Lord and Savior with complete humility and trust (faith) and leave the decision up to God?

Stone, I’ll be looking forward to your response, thanks again. God Bless!

Where your analogy fails (as well as Catholicism) is that in repect to salvation the price was paid FOR US, in full, by Another: Jesus Christ.

“Knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ” (1 Pet. 1:18-19).

My post was a rebuttal to your idea that in Jn. 3:16 where it says, “might not perish” it means that it is possible for the believer to perish. But when read in its proper way, your interpretation is not possible. Just as the one who buys a house that he might not be homeless, will not be homeless because he has bought a house. Your whole idea of “missing payments” is from a Catholic mentality, not Biblical one. Certainly not from John 3:16. The believer in Jn. 3:16 has eternal life because he has believed.

It’s all so very simple.