Catholics, what do you do with 1 John 5? It contradicts RCC doctrine concerning the assurance of salvation. See for yourself.

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmmcounts
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Where did I say that I believe the bible to be anything less than infallible?
Because from your point of view no one can determine the infallibility of Scripture.

If you do not believe that councils can determine the cannon, then who? What person / body / institution determines the canon.

And if those who determine the canon of Scripture are not infallible, then how do we know that that book they have determined they have is infallible when they themselves is not infallible?

Put it this way, if you have several books claiming to be the word of God, how do you know that A,B and C and not D,E,F are indeed the word of God?
 
God eternal stooped down and became a man. A person just as any other. Divine being and human being in the oneness of a single person.

I don’t know how it can be thought any other way. If God does this the ‘physicalness’ of that Divine human experience is the primary attachement to human history necessary to be certain of God’s hand. That physical sign that lets me be certain that it is really attached to God I believe is something God came to earth forand that we need in order to distinguish the ‘works of man’ from the works of God.

That is the only reasonable way to know God’s hand in the world and I’m dumbfounded when anyone believes there is some other way.
 
No, I’m not saying that.

Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi

It’s part of Sacred Oral Tradition as is the canonicity of the New Testament writings.
You have provided a list. How do you know that these made up the canon that Jesus used. I guess am looking for something more concrete than it’s part of Sacred Oral Tradition. Do we have a manuscript available? Do we have the testimony of someone like a Josephus or Philo? Or, is this soley based on Tradition with no physical evidence to support it?
 
SemperReformada…

I know you are getting hit by a lot of challenges so I will keep it simple. You are right! No council or person is infallible, including the church to which you belong; Only the Trinity is Infallible. 👍

With that said, find the Church in the world today that EXPERIENCED THE FOLLOWING…

When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together in one place. Suddenly a sound like the blowing of a violent wind came from heaven and filled the whole house where they were sitting. They saw what seemed to be tongues of fire that separated and came to rest on each of them. All of them were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit enabled them. Acts 2

*Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me…
*

He then said He gave His authority to His Apostolic Church…

*…Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." *Matthew 28:20

“…you will receive power when the holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, throughout Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

*"If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you. * John 14

**…And you will find the One Church, comprised of fallible humans, that is guided in perpetuity, by the authoritative Infallible Holy Spirit.
**

Look forward to your response, when you get the opportunity! 👍
 
I guess that’s good to know. Apparently, salvation through Jesus is just the first salvation. The second salvation is one where we are our own saviors through good works. The third salvation is in purgatory, I guess. It’s nice to understand Catholic soteriology a little more.
It would be nice to understand Catholic soteriology more. This post demonstrates that you are terribly in need of such enlightenment. You have posted things that the Catholic Church does not believe, or teach. They appear to be your own warped and misguided perceptions.
But let’s take one more look at 1 John 5. I’ll humor you for a moment and pretend there are 3 different kinds of salvation.
It is no humor to anyone here that you have these misguided ideas, I assure you!
Which one do you suppose he’s talking about?
Since there is only one, I suppose it is that one. 👍
Catholics imagine that this is another kind of salvation,
I am curious. Where did you get these strange ideas of what Catholics believe?

You sound like an ex-Catholic who was very poorly catechized, and misunderstood the teachings of the Church.
though it’s pretty clear that good works are the result of salvation and evidence of its reality, not its cause.
While it is true that good works are the result of His grace, they are also a conduit through which His grace flows. Our works perfect our faith.
Eternal life. This is the one that Catholic doctrine says we cannot possibly be 100% sure on. This is where it makes the distinction.
I am still waiting for some proof of this assertion.
Follow the logic of this with me, please. I assert that it is possible for everyone to have eternal life.
Now that is the first really Catholic thing you have said! 👍
Code:
I hope I have proven this to your satisfaction.
No. Actually I have the distinct impression that you are writing for your own benefit, something like a mental masturbation, perhaps?
And that is exactly what RCC doctrine denies, right there in the source you gave me.
Well, we read it differently, dont’ we?
Who says RCC doctrine never denies what the Bible says? I provide Scripture, you provide RCC doctrine, and look what happens. We get to see exactly how the latter denies the former. Hope you had as much fun as I did.
I am glad you had “fun” stimulating yourself with your strange ideas and doctrines.

🤷
 
Sounds like a salvation of works to me. Like Islam.
It probably sounds this way to you because you have a deficient understanding of salvation.

There is no such thing as “salvation of works”. One cannot be saved by “works”. We can only be saved by grace through faith. The blood of Jesus, shed for us while we were yet sinners is what saves us. We are justified apart from “works”.
If you want a guarantee of a perfect score, though, it’s possible. Have Jesus take the test for you. That’s what propitiation is. Look up Hebrews 10:14. bible.cc/hebrews/10-14.htm
We have no need or desire to be instructed in your truncated understanding of the bible.
Code:
I don't have to hope so maybe so guess so about the outcome. I don't even have to answer any questions. Jesus gets this one for me. It's kind of a pass/fail situation, but Jesus never fails.
Then you are missing out! Hope is one of the most wonderful Gifts of God to the Church. 😃
The idea of the New Covenant is that Jesus bears responsibility for our sins.
Is that right? Where did you hear/read that? My Bible says the opposite.
Don’t you realize how screwed we would be if we had to bear responsibility for our own sins?
News flash, you are responsible. The inference also seems to be the case. 😉
Ephesians 2 says we are not saved by works. I can see how you’d get confused, because right after that it says we are saved “unto good works.” You’re saying we are saved by works. The Bible says we are saved by grace through faith, not by works…but unto good works.
It says both. The Apostles never separated grace from the works it produces.
Code:
 (More to the point, the Bible actually does say we are not saved by works. What could possibly be going through you mind when you see that?).
That all the scripture together has to make sense, so the places where it says we are saved by works need to fit in also.
They act as evidence of salvation. They are the result of love for God- if we love Him, we keep His commands. But it doesn’t work in reverse. Keeping God’s commands does not promise to lead to love for God, nor do good works promise to lead to salvation. Salvation leads to good works, and love for God leads to obedience.
It seems that you have some scriptures to reconcile with your theology:

Rom 2:13
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

James 2:23-25
24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Works are “involved” (in a loose sense), as you say, but they are not the cause of salvation. A better word would be “associated” instead of involved. You’re arguing that the nature of good works’ “involvement” is that of causing a person to become saved. But the Bible says something different. With reference to salvation, it is “not by works.” It then says we are saved “unto good works,” telling us very plainly the manner in which works are associated with salvation.
It says both.

Matt 12:36-37
36 I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; 37 for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."
As to what happens when we get to heaven, there is a judgment…
Rom 2:5-11
when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed. 6 For he will repay according to each one’s deeds: 7 to those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; 8 while for those who are self-seeking and who obey not the truth but wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. 9 There will be anguish and distress for everyone who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. 11 For God shows no partiality.
Of course, the main point of this thread is that I can know I am saved,
Ok, so why are you here? If you know what you want to know, why are you coming to CAF? this is a place to get answers about what Catholics believe. 🤷
Code:
Do you know that you are saved? If you're not sure- if you're at a point where you're just hoping your good works are good enough- 1 John 5 is written to those who believe that you may know that you have eternal life. If you'd like to be one who knows, study the preceding verses.
CAF is not a venue for you to evangelize, either. If you wish to do this, you will have to take it to some other website.
Instead, following the “fear and trembling” part, he says “for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” That is something the RCC doesn’t particularly emphasize, but that’s not the point of the thread.
Please show where the Church (which is not “Roman” by the way) does not “particularly emphasize” this?

On the contrary, I think there is SO MUCH focus on the working out what is working in that Catholics are frequently inappropriately accused of “works salvation”. Catholics are aware that it is God who is at work in us, but our accusers for some reason are not.
In this post, I’ll address this source. catholic.com/library/Assurance_of_Salvation.asp

It looks like Catholics have not one but three different kinds of salvation.
One salvation. Many aspects, many different names and descriptions applied.
 
There is no possible way to “know” you are saved. It is illogical. That very belief itself contradicts the scripture. The first time I heard about it, it sounded more like an ad or a scam.

" Come get your salvation now! , totally free!! no money down (or repentance in this case) , just say you believe and you have your free ticket to heaven!"

When I started learning about the Protestant faiths prior to my confirmation to decide if Catholicism was the " true " faith or at least true in my beliefs, once I stumbled upon the notion of assured salvation and all you have to do is believe, I knew for sure that could never be true and thus I could never believe in Protestantism. Scripture even asserts that.

Do you really think life is that easy and that is your ultimate purpose in life and God wills us to sit back on our butts and luxuriously believe we’re on our one way flight to heaven? Indulge in fornication, drugs, gambling, gluttony, and other sinful acts but oh! " don’t worry, I’m saved and nothing can change that! " and claim the belief " I’m not perfect and I’m a sinner but Christ paid for my sins so I can keep sinning because I’m saved??"

I really worry for those with this flawed view of Christianity. It is not a “catholic” belief to be opposed to this, it is a Christian belief to be opposed to this. That contradicts scripture in many ways. Off of the top of my head I can think of one " Not everyone who says “Lord Lord!” will enter the kingdom of heaven " or how about:

" For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was naked and you gave me clothes, I was thirsty and you gave me water, surely I say to you if you do this for the least of your brothers you do for me " Sound familiar?

Jesus himself makes it clear that those who claim to be followers ( the “Lord Lord” part) but yet have no intention or heart to do good works, to repent for their sins, and avoid sin the best they can till death will not enter the kingdom of heaven.

It’s even logical to claim that there is no 100% assurance of salvation. Nothing is 100% in life except God’s love in us. For all we know we could die and that could be it, no Jesus, no heave, no nothing. God could exist but maybe he felt like leaving us in the ground. That is anti-scripture but then again our whole Christian religion relies on faith alone. Faith is believing in what is not 100% certain through what we can see through our eyes but with our hearts. That’s why faith is hard to acquire for a lot of skeptics and athiests because it can’t be “proved”

Back to the point, life is not a play pen meant to entertain yourself while you await your turn to go to heaven.

Life is not a lottery ticket to heaven paid for by Jesus that is burned into our flesh so that we can’t throw away or reject the ticket if we wanted to once you receive it. NO.

It’s sad that people are twisting Jesus’s sacrifice on the cross as a free ticket to heaven with no accountability at all. The original Christian fathers did not believe that at all.Otherwise why would there be scripture? Why not just save thousands of pages and say " Rejoice Rejoice for just believe that Jesus paid your ticket to heaven and your saved !" The bible no where explicitly said that, therefore that is what the Catholic faith doesn’t believe.

What we believe is more along the lines of this. Jesus did die for our us on the cross so that we may be saved at all if we choose to accept Jesus’s gift and God’s grace. By accepting his sacrifice, we are obliged to live a life as close to Jesus as possible. That means doing acts of charity from the heart, spreading the word, attending the mass as best as we can so that we even have the chance to be saved.

No acts of works alone will get you into heaven and that is a false assumption and false understanding of the catholic faith my friend. Neither will sitting on your butt and saying " oh I’m saved, why bother "

Jesus died so that we may have a chance to get to heaven since originally by our nature before Jesus, nothing we could do or say or faith wise could get us to heaven since we were born into sin and thus sin. Jesus stood on our behalf so that we may have a chance to get to heaven if we so choose to lead our lives according to him. We can certainly reject him and not be saved. Just like we can reject a free ticket to a sports game or take it and not go into the game. By living a life of sin with no repentance and atonement until the hour of your death, you reject Jesus and God the Father. And are thus too impure to enter heaven or be saved since you did not love God but instead rejected him by rejecting the teachings of his son. PERIOD.

Doesn’t matter if you go to church or say " Jesus is my personal savior " ( " Not everyone who says " Lord! Lord! " will enter the kingdom of heaven" )

Only God knows what is in the hearts of man and that is what he judges when deciding who to let into heaven and what not. As Catholics we hope to be saved or will be saved and we are even allowed to be confident in our lives that we may be saved by living a life of love, kindness, and avoiding sin like Jesus instructed but we in no way can be 100% certain that we are saved regardless of our sins until death.
 
You didn’t read my post carefully. I think the CANON is a fallible list, but I don’t think it contains any errors.
That just does not make sense. If the canon is fallible, then how can it not contain errors? If it is fallible, there is a possibility that it contains errors.

If the collection of books is fallible, then there is a very big chance that maybe one or two or more of the books in the Bible contain error. And how do you know which one. Who has the final say?
 
where did mmmcounts go? did something happen to him? there are a lot of posters who have asked him questions he does not answer…where is he? inquiring minds want to know 🙂
 
I’ll start by saying I’m somewhat familiar with the “Warnings Against Private Interpretations.” Let’s deal with that upfront, shall we? Here’s that passage.

First, it tells you to pay attention to the word of the prophets. So pay attention to it! Second, I am not a prophet. I have never made any prophecies of Scripture. And I never will. So when you refer to a verse that says “No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation,” it can’t be talking about me. I’m not a prophet. It can’t be talking about anything that came from me. I make no prophecy of Scripture or any other kind. However, what follows does include some prophecy that John contributed to Scripture as he was carried along by the Holy Spirit, and you will do well to pay attention to it.

The RCC says we can’t know that we have eternal life at any point before we die, nor will we actually have eternal life until some time after we die. Yet John writes these things about God’s testimony that we have eternal life, and he tells us he writes these things so that you may know that you have eternal life.

Remember that RCC doctrine is man’s testimony and 1 John is God’s testimony.

St John was a man - had you been alive when he was, there would have been no more reason to accept what he said, than to accept what the Church says 1900 years later. Your position is possible only because you have the Church’s Bible to appeal to.​

BTW, you are asking us to throw out our own faith, & to adopt a Protestant position - why should we ? We are not Protestants, so we can’t really be expected to think as Protestants. And, the division you’re making is too hard-&-fast, for the testimony of Apostle, Church, & Bible is in all three cases both human and divine: not one or other, but both together, to the prejudice of neither.
Now refer to verse 9 (the one in magenta). “We accept man’s testimony, but God’s testimony is greater because it is the testimony of God, which he has given about his Son.” I would strongly advise against denying God’s testimony so that you can continue affirming man’s testimony. That doesn’t seem very sound. Instead, follow the example of the Bereans. When Paul was with them, they examined the Scriptures every day to see if what he said was true. They were praised for this. If the Bereans were praised for doing this when an apostle was physically present and talking right to them, you should definitely submit “apostolic tradition” to the authority of Scripture in the same way. Examine the Scriptures to see if what it says is true.

It should go without saying that I do not welcome protests about “private interpretation.” The contents of 1 John are not the result of private interpretation. Its origin is in a man named John who spoke from God, and you will do well to pay attention to it.

I don’t get the impression you quite understand the Catholic position. The problem is, that you seem to be opposing two things that the CC sees as complimentary & non-contradictory. It maybe wrong or it may be right - but that is how it sees these things: as non-contradictory.​

FWIW, “interpretation” of an inspired text can very well be “private” - this is quite different another thing from the text being interpreted. The CC accepts the (name removed by moderator)ired text - that is not at all the same thing as accepting every interpretation of it.
Deal with what is found there. That’s twice now that I’ve addressed the issue, so if you truly think I want to make it three, whatever is wrong with you is no small thing.

If you plan on posting on this thread, plan on answering that question. If you can’t figure out what to do with the passage, don’t post. Go away. If you do post, try to stay on topic.

What exactly is your understanding of the Catholic position as described by what this quotation says:​

  • RCC doctrine says we can’t have assurance of salvation but the Bible says something quite different in 1 John. What do you do with this?
 
First off. The Devil believes in the Son of God. So answer this question.

Does this mean by this verse that the devil is assured of salvation?

How do you know that you have the Son? What criteria did John give to enable you to know that you **have **the Son?

Please answer that question.

Here’s a hint. John 6:51-58

The devil, however, is not a child of God. Nor is he predestined to salvation, & kept by the grace of Christ.​

Sometimes, this place is horribly like a dialogue of the deaf 😦
 

The devil, however, is not a child of God. Nor is he predestined to salvation, & kept by the grace of Christ.​

Sometimes, this place is horribly like a dialogue of the deaf 😦
I re-checked the quote by mmmcounts and nowhere does it state that this is limited to the children of God. Okay, perhaps I missed that bit and maybe you can enlighten me.

What I am questioning here is that belief alone ensures salvation.

This is also to get him to explain exactly what is meant by belief.

In case it is not clear, the point of the post is that you cannot isolate verses and expect it to prove your point when other verses can contradict you.

So please clarify what it is exactly I am deaf to.
 
I don’t believe any council or person is infallible. In order to stay consistent with that belief, I don’t believe the canon is infallible either. I don’t believe that there are mistakes in the canon but I don’t believe it to be infallible either.

I don’t see how a non-Catholic could have any other belief.

BTW, thanks for the links but I feel lazy all the time. I’ll try to get to them but probably won’t today.
2nd reply.

What you believe or not believe does not matter. That is all subjective. You’re believing something does not make it either true or false.

Truth is objective.

The question is whether we can establish the truth of my claim objectively.

And that is what I was trying to show with my post. I think this is possible by going through a logical thought process.

And another thing. Is consistency of belief more important than truth?
 
There is no possible way to “know” you are saved.
If by “saved” you mean,
  • To be “predestined”, that is to be “among those God has chosen for himself,” or
  • To have “that great gift of perseverance unto the end,”
    Then there is one possible way to “know,” and to know with “absolute and infallible certainty,” at that— By “special revelation” (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Ch. 12; c. 16).
    While one could argue that such information is rarely revealed, it remains a possibility nonetheless.
 
Ask the Jews. How did they recognize that Isaiah was scripture w/out an infallible authority?
I’d be careful with that approach. They got Isaiah right, but then they got the Deuterocanonicals wrong. At least, some of them got them wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top