Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[WCH]

It doesn’t need any explanation as it is self evident. Continuing in sin, after believing in Jesus does not get one into eternal life. As v36 says, there is a need for endurance…to follow the Father’s will.

Jesus says in Jn 10 that He gives eternal life. Furthermore, He says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “they will never perish.”

Clearly then, those being spoken of in this passage are not those described above by Jesus. Neither are they those described in the opening of the book of Ephesians, nor are those described in Rom 8:28-39, nor those described in Romans 9:23, nor those described in 1 Pet 1:5, and on, and on, and on.

If I accept your understanding of the Heb 10:26 passage, then I must assume that Father and the Son have lied in all of the passages I listed above, and in many other passages as well.

You are looking at verse 39 in isolation…

Obviously not.

….and should be looked at with the rest of the passages. It is with endurance, a process, that we partake of what is stated in v 39.

Look at also the verses before this:

v38:

“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”

What does “shinks back” back mean to you? Doesn’t it mean going back to one’s sinful state?

In context, it’s “Hebrews,” or Jews who had “said they had faith,” (cf Jas 2:14), but because of persecution were returning, or wanting to return to Judaism.

I would submit that in keeping with Christ’s teaching concerning the “wheat and the tares,” (Mt 13:25ff), that those being discussed in Hebrews 10:26 ff, were not sheep to whom Christ had given eternal life, but were tares among the wheat.

39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

So what does “having faith and preserving their souls” mean?

The “we” being referred to by the writer are, in fact, those being spoken of by Jesus in John 10, and those being described in the opening of the book of Ephesians, and those being described in Rom 8:28-39, and those in Romans 9:23, and in 1 Pet 1:5, and on, and on, and on.

In short, they are Jesus sheep of whom Jesus says, “they will never perish.”

 

[WCH]

You are a Protestant, right?

That’s what my “stat” says, in the upper right corner of the post. See it?

…sorry to inform you that Protestantism did not exist until 500 years ago. If you do not acknowledge that fact, that is disgustingly deluded.

Protestantism’s roots go back in history through the Reformation, and through the RCC down to the apostles.

Deny that all you’d like, but it’s true; it’s fact.

That is why your Church leadership refers to Protestants, as “separated brethren,” if you didn’t know that.

What he is saying is just a fact of history. The Christian movement that began in Palestine and spread to Europe was led by the apostles and later their successors. This organization is the Catholic Church. Several hundred years after the Ascension of its founder, this organization put together the Bible.

Yes. That early church did that.

With this in mind, it is really difficult to take any Protestant apologetic seriously because it undermines everything put forth - every time they quote the Bible at us, they presuppose the authority of the organization that created it.

Actually Protestants presuppose the authority of the God who wrote it through His chosen apostles. If they presuppose anything about the authority of your church it’s that it’s non-existent.

I really think that if you ask any informed Catholic on this board, they feel like they have to condescend themselves when in a Protestant argument. It is not a serious point of view for us.

I know.

 

[Windfish]

Protestantism’s roots go back in history through the Reformation, and through the RCC down to the apostles.

This is just downright fantasy. It is not true in the least.

That is why your Church leadership refers to Protestants, as “separated brethren,” if you didn’t know that.

No. You are “separated brethren” because you were baptized with the one baptism for the forgiveness of sins of the Catholic Church. When you were baptized, you were baptized into the Catholic Church because there is only one baptism, but since you are separated from the visible body, you are a separated brother. It has nothing to do with your fantastical apostolic roots. In fact, the Catholic Church denies that you are even a church!

Yes. That early church did that.

Yeah, a Church presided over by the Bishop of Rome and other bishops A Church that celebrated the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and offered it up as a sacrifice during the Mass. A Church that prayed to saints and revered the Blessed Virgin. A Church that had Apostolic Succession and Sacraments. A Church that, by the end of the first century, was known as the CATHOLIC CHURCH. In later centuries who put together the Bible? The CATHOLIC CHURCH.

Actually Protestants presuppose the authority of the God who wrote it through His chosen apostles. If they presuppose anything about the authority of your church it’s that it’s non-existent.

But how do you know that God wrote it? Precisely through the organization that wrote it and compiled it. Case closed.

 

[WCH]

This message is hidden because Windfish is on your ignore list.

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

This is just downright fantasy. It is not true in the least.

No. You are “separated brethren” because you were baptized with the one baptism for the forgiveness of sins of the Catholic Church. When you were baptized, you were baptized into the Catholic Church because there is only one baptism, but since you are separated from the visible body, you are a separated brother. It has nothing to do with your fantastical apostolic roots. In fact, the Catholic Church denies that you are even a church!

Yeah, a Church presided over by the Bishop of Rome and other bishops A Church that celebrated the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and offered it up as a sacrifice during the Mass. A Church that prayed to saints and revered the Blessed Virgin. A Church that had Apostolic Succession and Sacraments. A Church that, by the end of the first century, was known as the CATHOLIC CHURCH. In later centuries who put together the Bible? The CATHOLIC CHURCH.

But how do you know that God wrote it? Precisely through the organization that wrote it and compiled it. Case closed.

This message is hidden because Windfish is on your ignore list.

I reposted it for you then

Sorry, I am enjoying this too much.

Its like watching a child that has taken a toy from an older brother and is clasping it to his breast shouting “MINE!!!” over and over again.

This is a line of argument that has always made me chuckle. Catholics make appeals to the OHCAC for being the arbiter of truth (various theologians contributing to the whole with ONE authority) while protestants take a bit from this guy, a bit from this guy, give authority to this one theory from this one guy, but try to deny everything else he said, etc.

When you take something written for a group of people and meant to be used within a certain framework away from those people and/or out of that framework you cannot use it as an authority without simultaneously accepting the authority of that group/framework.

The way protestants get around that is to say “The Bible is true because it says it is” which is a logical fallacy which goes by “Begging the question”. See here

For the OP, I cannot add anything to Guanophore or the others. They have explained it quite well.

 

[pablope]

Jesus says in Jn 10 that He gives eternal life. Furthermore, He says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “they will never perish.”

Look at Matthew 7: 21:"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

So, Jesus is contradicting Himself with what He said in Matt 7: 21?

Clearly then, those being spoken of in this passage are not those described above by Jesus. Neither are they those described in the opening of the book of Ephesians, nor are those described in Rom 8:28-39, nor those described in Romans 9:23, nor those described in 1 Pet 1:5, and on, and on, and on.

 

[WCH]

Look at Matthew 7: 21:"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

So, Jesus is contradicting Himself with what He said in Matt 7: 21?

No, in fact, that supports my position, and what I said concerning “tares and wheat.”

Nevertheless, if you’d like to explain how Jesus is contradicting Himself with Mt 7:21 and Jn 10:28, please do. I’ll gladly read what you have to say.

What? So some passages only refer to some and not all christians, both protestants and catholics?

And you can pick and choose what passage to apply to?

Look at the opening of Heb10:26:For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins

Does the word “we” make a distinction or does it apply to all?

I think the more important word is “if,” in light of the other passages from Scripture I posted.

Nevertheless, if you’d like to explain the importance of “we” in that passage, please do. I’ll gladly read what you have to say.

To you it does because, as a typical protestant, you take verses in isolation.

Think about this in Romans 11:

13Now I am speaking to you Gentiles…17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others…19Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.22Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

So, to remain grafted with the branch, there is a condition, isn’t it?

And it is…“provided you continue in his kindness.” And how do you continue in his kindness? How do you prevent from being cut off?

Will you please explain how what is being said in the verses you cite above negate the statement of the Lord in John’s Gospel, viz: ”“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish…” (Jn 10:27, 28)???

Where does it say that? The verse does not make a distinction, it is for those who received God’s word, Jew or Gentile.

Then will you explain to me how you deal with the contradiction you establish between Heb 10:26ff and the verses I’ve cited; viz: John 10: 27, 28; Eph. 1:3-14; Rom 8:28-39, 9:23; 1 Pet 1:5.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

And they could be cut off too, as the Romans 10, which I cited above, says.

How do you resolve the contradiction between what you believe is being said in Romans 11, with the verses I’ve cited; viz: John 10:27, 28; Eph. 1:3-14; Rom 8:28-39, 9:23; 1 Pet 1:5.

.

As both verses in Heb 10 and Rom 11 say, provided you persevere, remain steadfast, do the Father’s will.

What you say above is with specific reference Jn 10:27, 28. In that passage Jesus doesn’t qualify His statement, as you are doing in your post. He simply says, ”I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.” Isn’t that what Jesus says?

 

[WCH]

The way protestants get around that is to say “The Bible is true because it says it is” which is a logical fallacy which goes by “Begging the question”. See here

And the logical fallacy you’re engaging in is the logical fallacy which goes by **“straw man.” **See here, unless of course, you’ll cite the post in which I’ve offered the argument, “The Bible is true because it says it is.”

I’'ll wait breathlessly for you to provide that post number.

For the OP, I cannot add anything to Guanophore or the others. They have explained it quite well.

Exactly.

Windfish is off-topic, and so are you, but, I want you to produce the requested post number.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Please remain on topic, which is, " Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?".

If anything else needs discussion/debate, then as per the Forum Rules, open a new thread on it.

Also…refrain from the personal wise cracks and deal with the issue or you’ll be hearing from me.

Carry on…

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by WCH

Exactly, and you said this about Calvinism earlier:
Putting your two statements together, one sees that what you’re saying about Calvinism, is also true of Roman Catholicism

Catholics DO NOT HOLD SUCH A BELEIF WHY:shrug:

It denies the reality of BOTH God and the manner God Created us.

It Ignores biblical theaching which by the way is a completion and PERFECTION of OT practice on priest and forgiveness of sin [STILL ACCOMPLISHED BY GOD] through His Priest “I CHOOSE YOU; you did not choose ME.”

READ in this sequence: 1 John 1:8-10; 1 John 5: 16-17 and John 20:19-23 and then Mt. 16:19 as a refresher. Understand that John 20:21 transwers the Actual and REAL powers of God to the Pope and CC: “As the Fahter sent Me; SO I SEND YOU!”

God Bless,

“WHo’s sins YOU athorise ME to forgive who’s you do npt ARE NOT!”

Pat

 

[WCH]

Catholics DO NOT HOLD SUCH A BELEIF WHY:shrug:

It denies the reality of BOTH God and the manner God Created us.

The point I’m making is, regardless of how justification is “delivered,” be it “infused,” or “imputed,” both Catholics and Protestants continue to sin.

Isn’t that correct?

 

[PRmerger]

Protestantism’s roots go back in history through the Reformation, and through the RCC down to the apostles.

This, WCH, is huge. HUGE! You see, many of us Catholics have had discussions *ad nauseum *with Protestants who love to proclaim that the CC did not exist from the time of the Apostles.

It is reassuring to know that this is one battle we need not fight with you.

NB: The metaphor to the CAFs being a battlezone need not be over-extended.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, the history of my faith goes back through the Catholic Church to the apostles, which, it seems, you don't know.

It is true that I dont know about the personal doctrinal distinctives you espouse. I only know that some of them are a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. They originated during the Reformation.

I am sure that you have retained some of the Truths that were committed once for all to the Church. In other areas, departure has occurred.

You’re engaging in the fallacy of anachronism, guanophore. The Bible is Christian, written for God’s people.

Yes, it was written for the only Christians that existed - Catholics. That is why nothing in it contradicts the Apostles’ teaching that is infallibly preserved in the Catholic Church.

Differences in the acceptance, or rejection of doctrine and church teaching is not exclusive to Protestantism, guanophore. Look at statistics concerning Catholic acceptance and rejection of RC teaching.

I agree. However, Catholicism, handed down from the Apostles, is ONE FAITH. Those who reject it are no longer Catholic.

In non-Catholic Christian communities, bible Christians can reject parts of the faith, then go down the street and start their own bible Church. The Apostles taught that there is unity in the Church founded by Christ. Something has happened that causes a departure from the unity created for the Church by Christ.

Hey, it's your private interpretation of historical and biblical evidence vs. theirs. Of course each will choose his own private interpretation.  Even Catholics choose in that manner.

No. Catholics receive the faith from those to whom it was committed. We don’t extract the faith from the pages of scripture, in separation from the faith that produced it. That is not how Jesus intended His Church to function.

There are no verses in Scripture stating Christians aren’t clean, guanophore.

Not sure what you mean by that…

Are you saying you believe the sin nature is “clean”?

You haven’t cited any scripture which states Christians have an attachment to sin at death because there aren’t scriptures which state that.

It is probably too complicated for you, WCH. If you are unable to reason without every word being spelled out for you explicity in Scripture, it will not be possible for you to grasp the concept. You seem like an intelligent person to me, from reading your posts, but if you do not wish to apply that intelligence to understanding Catholicism, then you won’t.

It relates to the Aposotlic Teaching of original sin. The Apostles taught that the nature of man was wounded by the fall, and that humans are born into the world with the tendency toward (attraction) to sin. Jesus described it as becoming a “slave to sin”. This condition, called in Latin “concupiscence”, is described by St. Paul in Rom. 7. It is a mystery how you can read that account of the Apostle and NOT see that he struggles with his attachment to sin.

I've ***never*** asked you to defend Calvin, but only to defend your straw man assertions concerning what you say is Calvin's description of imputed righteousness.     **You're still dodging that.**

Maybe you are embarrassed about him. I would be too. You will have to find someone else to defend his ideas, though. I am not fond enough of them to represent him. I have encouraged you to seek a Reformed source. It is all there.

Guanophore, Jesus says that it is He who gives eternal life. And Jesus of those to whom He gives eternal life, they will never perish (Jn 10:28). So concerning your understanding of sin, and a believer “falling into” it, you must be wrong about Christ not forgiving it and covering it, always.

I am sure it seems that way to you.

However, the Apostolic teaching holds both things to be true.

I think you will agree that the sins of everyone in the world are not covered. You have mentioned the “elect” in your posts. If I understand you correctly, His blood covers the sins of the elect only, and the rest are permitted to suffer the consequences of their sins, is that not right?

Those who have eternal life are those that remain in Him. You would say that those who dont’ persevere until the end were never saved in the first place. The Apostles would say that they fell away from the faith. A person can enter salvation when justified, yet fail to be united with his heavenly inheritance.

 Proof?

I think your theological position is adequate proof that you do not accept the teachings of the apostles as they are represented in the NT and the early fathers. You have espoused a theological construction that was invented 1500 years after those documents were penned, in separation from the faith that produced them.

What the apostles believed and taught is Scripture, guanophore, and scripture is the light for that.

Yes, indeed. One does need to interpret scripture as a whole. However, that is not the only “light” for understanding scripture. Jesus taught His Apostles how to understand the Scriptures, and they taught their successors, the bishops. The Reformers separated themselves from this method, and constructed another one that suited their needs better.

Guanophore, there’s only one message in the Scripture, and it’s not Calvin’s message, but God’s.

I agree, but through the lenses of Calvin, the message appears much differently than it does through the lens of Apostolic faith.

 

[guanophore]

I too can post verses without explanation.

Here’s the wrap-up of the chapter from which you’ve posted the above:

Hebrews 10:39

***…WE ARE NOT OF THOSE who shrink back to destruction,
BUT ***[WE ARE] OF THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH to the preserving of the soul.]/quote]

I think you are affirming what I said. The NT scriptures were written by, for, and about Catholics. If we remain in this faith, we will not shrink back to destruction. If we abandon it, whe will be cut off, thrown into the fire.
WCH;7934460:

Christ’s sheep will never perish (Jn 10).

Sheep wander off. It it the nature of sheep. While no one can snatch us out of His hand, we can sure bite the hand that feeds us, and jump out. If we deny HIm, He will also deny us.

Jesus says in Jn 10 that He gives eternal life. Furthermore, He says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “they will never perish.”

And indeed He does!

We enter into that LIfe at baptism, when we are justified before Him. Throughout this life, the possiblity exists for us to walk away from that Life. If we cling to the vine, then we will enter eternity in that Life,and indeed, will never perish.

Clearly then, those being spoken of in this passage are not those described above by Jesus. Neither are they those described in the opening of the book of Ephesians, nor are those described in Rom 8:28-39, nor those described in Romans 9:23, nor those described in 1 Pet 1:5, and on, and on, and on.

So you have been taught to believe. Calvin taught the perseverance of the saints. In this doctrine, he departed from the Apostolic faith. Saints can persevere, but not all who are justified will.

If I accept your understanding of the Heb 10:26 passage, then I must assume that Father and the Son have lied in all of the passages I listed above, and in many other passages as well.

Alternatively, you could realize that you have misinterpreted them.

I am sure we are in agreement that Scripture does not contradict itself.

I would submit that in keeping with Christ’s teaching concerning the “wheat and the tares,” (Mt 13:25ff), that those being discussed in Hebrews 10:26 ff, were not sheep to whom Christ had given eternal life, but were tares among the wheat.

Yes, that would certainly be a convenient way out of this passage. However, the context shows this is not the case.
Heb 6:3-8
4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

One cannot fall from “repentance” until they have been there. They can’t go there without being graced unto repentance. The reference to “tasted the heavenly gift” is to the Eucharist, to which the uninitiated were not admitted. One cannot “commit apostasy” unless one is first clinging to the Truth. You don’t fall from something you haven’t climbed upon.

That's what my "stat" says, in the upper right corner of the post. See it?

I think you are referring to the affiliation field, below the “stat”.

Protestantism’s roots go back in history through the Reformation, and through the RCC down to the apostles.

Certainly Protestants have retained elements of the Apostolic faith - some more than others.
The roots of Protestantism, though, are founded in the Reformation. There were no “protestants” prior to that.

Deny that all you’d like, but it’s true; it’s fact.

You need for this to be true for yourself, because if it is not, then you truly are separated from the One Church founded by Christ.

That is why your Church leadership refers to Protestants, as “separated brethren,”

if you didn’t know that.

No, WCH, this is not true. You are referred to as “separated” because you have embraced heresies. You are considered brethren because you are validly baptized.

Yes. That early church did that.

They were Catholics, WCH. They used Catholic Sacred Tradition to formulate the canon and the creeds.

Actually Protestants presuppose the authority of the God who wrote it through His chosen apostles. If they presuppose anything about the authority of your church it’s that it’s non-existent.

I agree. I think the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church is a fundamental element of the Reformation. Rejection of the authority appointed by Christ, though, does not nullify it.

 

[guanophore]

Will you please explain how what is being said in the verses you cite above negate the statement of the Lord in John’s Gospel, viz: ”“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish…” (Jn 10:27, 28)???

They don’t “negate” it, any more than your rejection of the authority given by Christ to the Catholic Church "negates " it. Both things are true.

We enter into eternal life when we are placed in right relationship to God. We are consecrated by the circumcumcision made without hands. While we are on this earth, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. If we don’t do that, then we will not cling to the vine.

John 15:6-7
6** If** a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

This “if” is what is called a conditional premise. They are all over scripture. The outcome is predicated upon the premise or condition.

How do you resolve the contradiction?

For those who have received the Apostolic faith, no contradiction exists. You will find that Catholic faith is often a “both/and” rather than the Calvanistic “either/or”.

What you say above is with specific reference Jn 10:27, 28. In that passage Jesus doesn’t qualify His statement, as you are doing in your post. He simply says, ”I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.” Isn’t that what Jesus says?

Yes but as you correclty noted above, it is necessary to look at such passages in the light of ALL the scripture. Clearly He also teaches that those who don’t abide in him will be cut off, and thrown into the fire.

The point I’m making is, regardless of how justification is “delivered,” be it “infused,” or “imputed,” both Catholics and Protestants continue to sin.

Isn’t that correct?

Actually, the Apostles taught that we can live a life free of sins - that the deliverance of Christ is for this life, as well as the next.

 

[PJM]

=WCH;7932352]Proof?

OK but this is from memory. I’m away from home and my reference materials.

Baptism: John 3:5

MUST keep all of the Commandments [also John 3:36?]

Must do good-works James 2

Matt. 16:19, Mt. 18:18, John 20:19-22 “As THE FATHER sent ME; SO TOO I SEND YOU”

In and with the Power and authority of God.

There’s more but if you don’t accept these bible teaching; then others too shall be denied by you.

God Bless my friend,
Pat

 

[Windfish]

youtube.com/watch?v=Cz8cFZXxm9M&feature=feedu

Boom. Case closed.

 

[lampalm]

He thought water baptism was important, and retained it, but did not believe that the HS was joined to the water, as the Apostles taught.

I don’t quite get what that means?
Do Catholic believe the Holy Spirit is in the water, like how Catholics believe Jesus is in the bread?

 

[lampalm]

Do Catholics believe that a person who is not baptized with water is not a Christian?

 

[WCH]

Sheep wander off. It it the nature of sheep.

That’s what you’re saying, but that’s not what Jesus is saying.

While no one can snatch us out of His hand, we can sure bite the hand that feeds us, and jump out. If we deny HIm, He will also deny us.

”No one,” means NO ONE, and NO ONE would include the sheep.

We enter into that LIfe at baptism, when we are justified before Him. Throughout this life, the possiblity exists for us to walk away from that Life. If we cling to the vine, then we will enter eternity in that Life,and indeed, will never perish.

I think you believe that God justifies believers through baptism. God says of those He justifies that HE ALSO glorifies them (Rom 8:30), which squares with Jesus’ saying “THEY WILL NEVER PERISH.”

So you have been taught to believe. Calvin taught the perseverance of the saints. In this doctrine, he departed from the Apostolic faith. Saints can persevere, but not all who are justified will.

Those He justified HE ALSO GLORIFIED…” (Rom 8:30).

Alternatively, you could realize that you have misinterpreted them.

So could you have misinterpreted it.

Yes, that would certainly be a convenient way out of this passage. However, the context shows this is not the case.

Heb 6:3-8

4 For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5 and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, 6 if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. 7 For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. 8 But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned.

One cannot fall from “repentance” until they have been there. They can’t go there without being graced unto repentance. The reference to “tasted the heavenly gift” is to the Eucharist, to which the uninitiated were not admitted. One cannot “commit apostasy” unless one is first clinging to the Truth. You don’t fall from something you haven’t climbed upon.

You can’t prove any of that. As far as being “enlightened,” Jesus gives light to every man (Jn 1:9; cf Rom 1:19), and believers are no where in scripture described as being “partakers” of the Spirit, but are indwelt by Him, and you can’t prove that the “heavenly gift” is the Eucharist, and most importantly, how do you square that with Jesus’ statement that those to whom He gives eternal life will never perish? Huh? How do you square that?

You need for this to be true for yourself, because if it is not, then you truly are separated from the One Church founded by Christ.

Dude, (face/palm).

I think the rejection of the authority of the Catholic Church is a fundamental element of the Reformation.

Amen.

They don’t “negate” it, any more than your rejection of the authority given by Christ to the Catholic Church "negates " it. Both things are true.

We enter into eternal life when we are placed in right relationship to God. We are consecrated by the circumcumcision made without hands. While we are on this earth, we work out our salvation with fear and trembling. If we don’t do that, then we will not cling to the vine.

John 15:6-7
6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.

This “if” is what is called a conditional premise. They are all over scripture. The outcome is predicated upon the premise or condition.

You’re using John 15 to negate John 10 again. You simply can’t believe what Jesus says in John 10:28,29. Look, if one doesn’t abide in Christ, it’s because he’s not one of Christ’s sheep.

For those who have received the Apostolic faith, no contradiction exists. You will find that Catholic faith is often a “both/and” rather than the Calvanistic “either/or”.

You set up a contradiction you can’t resolve. Don’t deny it.

Yes but as you correclty noted above, it is necessary to look at such passages in the light of ALL the scripture. Clearly He also teaches that those who don’t abide in him will be cut off, and thrown into the fire.

Then He didn’t give them eternal life because He says of those to whom He gives eternal life, “THEY WILL NEVER PERISH.”

Actually, the Apostles taught that we can live a life free of sins - that the deliverance of Christ is for this life, as well as the next.

Are you free from sin, guanophore, and never to go to confession?