A
ajcstr
Guest
So how can you be a Philadelphia fan AND deny the existence of Purgatory ???Another fan of the Phightin Phils. This transcends any other differences we may have.
Jon
- Status
Jon
EDIT: As we speak, I am going to research the Catholic Catechism for names like Roger Freed, Lance Parrish, and Norm Sneed and Bobby Hoying!
Jon
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Iām glad you acknowledge that we were the better team and won it fair and square. ESPN seems to think it was all luck throughout the year, then luck beating the Padres out of first, then luck beating Derek Lowe and the Braves, luck beating H2O, then luck beating Cliff Lee and the Rangers, just a bunch of lucky timely hits. Well itās the job of ace pitchers to make sure there are no ātimely hitsā 
. Timely hits coupled with lights-out pitching and intensity build championships. Even my Dodger fan friends are honest that we dominated and deserved it. You know we deserve it if L.A. fans are saying that! 
Ok, now back to the thread. Iām just having trouble adjusting now that MLB is over and all I have is NFL and NBA. At least my Warriors are doing ok! The 49ers, thatās another story! 
. Timely hits coupled with lights-out pitching and intensity build championships. Even my Dodger fan friends are honest that we dominated and deserved it. You know we deserve it if L.A. fans are saying that! Ok, now back to the thread. Iām just having trouble adjusting now that MLB is over and all I have is NFL and NBA. At least my Warriors are doing ok!
The 49ers, thatās another story!
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hey, man, we had a 56 year drought and look at the Cubs! If there is a Purgatory 2.0 then they live in it for sure!
A
ajcstr
Guest
But at least you had the 49ers and they had the Bulls - we went from 1984 to 2008 with NOTHING.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
The 49ers have been a disgrace since 1994 with that last superbowl. Watching them is torture. My Warriors are even more torturous! They went like 16 years without even making the playoffs at all! LOL But youāre right that Philly is a pretty lousy sports town. The Eagles havenāt been worth a dang, the Phillies had a long drought, donāt know about the Fliers, and the Sixers are torture. I guess you have a point!
The one constant that California can enjoy is the Lakers winning championships!
But youāre right that Philly is a pretty lousy sports town. The Eagles havenāt been worth a dang, the Phillies had a long drought, donāt know about the Fliers, and the Sixers are torture. I guess you have a point! The one constant that California can enjoy is the Lakers winning championships!
T
traillius
Guest
GO Indianapolis. THE COLTS RULE!!! YAY PEYTON. Now about earning salvation.
Salvation is a freely given gift. Let me speak metaphorically. A person gives you a gift, a wonderful gift. Now its wrapped in a box. So let me ask, do you open the box and use the gift, or do you just say, well, I have the gift, now I can get its benefits just by accepting the gift. The only way that Salvation, or any gift, is of any benefit or use is by opening the box, and using the gift. If I get a can opener, but I never open a single can with it, its useless and might as well be thrown away. So salvation may be a free gift, but faith is the act of opening the box, and works are the usage of the gift. Not only does not using( works) the gift render it useless, but its dishonoring and insulting to the giver, to not use it to your utmost.
Salvation is a freely given gift. Let me speak metaphorically. A person gives you a gift, a wonderful gift. Now its wrapped in a box. So let me ask, do you open the box and use the gift, or do you just say, well, I have the gift, now I can get its benefits just by accepting the gift. The only way that Salvation, or any gift, is of any benefit or use is by opening the box, and using the gift. If I get a can opener, but I never open a single can with it, its useless and might as well be thrown away. So salvation may be a free gift, but faith is the act of opening the box, and works are the usage of the gift. Not only does not using( works) the gift render it useless, but its dishonoring and insulting to the giver, to not use it to your utmost.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Well-sad. That being said, I hate the Colts! Yuck! I was thrilled to see the Saints pound 'em last year! Who dat! LOLā¦Peyton Manning is an overexposed darling of ESPN and the media. Heās not my favorite QB by a longshot.
B
Brooklyn
Guest
This thread seems to have been hijacked by sports fans, so Iām not sure anyone will be interested in anything I have to say on topic here, but I saw this listed and wanted to put my 2 cents in.
I havenāt read through this entire thread, so I apologize for repeating something that may have been said, but this is my view of salvation. We are all born in sin, completely separated from God, and, without the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are all destined for hell. To me, itās like being diagnosed with AIDS. We have been handed a death sentence, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to reverse that diagnosis. But because of Christās sacrifice on the Cross, paying the price for us, we are rescued from hell. Our part in it is first of all, accept Christās sacrifice and let it to be applied to us personally. That is what happens at baptism. That is why it is not necessary to have a babyās āpermissionā to be baptized. That baby is infected with the deadly spiritual virus of sin, and through baptism, the baby is healed of that sin.
But, the problem is, we continue to live in this world. We are surrounded by āspiritual AIDSā, and unless we do the work required of staying close to our Saviour, we will become reinfected and lose the saving grace given to us at baptism. That is where confession comes in, and the other sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. We can never ācoastā, because if we think we are above becoming reinfected with spiritual AIDS, we are doomed. āLet he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.ā That is where āworksā come in. Works do not save us. Without Christās sacrifice on the cross, we are doomed, no matter how many good works we do. But if we think Christās sacrifice alone (faith without works) is enough, we are equally doomed. A person with AIDS, who is somehow miraculously healed, cannot engage in the same lifestyle that got him infected in the first place and think he is now immune. It doesnāt work that way. Nor does it work that way spiritually.
Faith without works is dead, and works without faith is dead. We must have both. That does not mean works saves us. It is faith that saves us. Works ensures that we remain on the road to heaven.
I havenāt read through this entire thread, so I apologize for repeating something that may have been said, but this is my view of salvation. We are all born in sin, completely separated from God, and, without the redeeming sacrifice of Jesus Christ, we are all destined for hell. To me, itās like being diagnosed with AIDS. We have been handed a death sentence, and there is absolutely nothing we can do to reverse that diagnosis. But because of Christās sacrifice on the Cross, paying the price for us, we are rescued from hell. Our part in it is first of all, accept Christās sacrifice and let it to be applied to us personally. That is what happens at baptism. That is why it is not necessary to have a babyās āpermissionā to be baptized. That baby is infected with the deadly spiritual virus of sin, and through baptism, the baby is healed of that sin.
But, the problem is, we continue to live in this world. We are surrounded by āspiritual AIDSā, and unless we do the work required of staying close to our Saviour, we will become reinfected and lose the saving grace given to us at baptism. That is where confession comes in, and the other sacraments of the Church, especially the Eucharist. We can never ācoastā, because if we think we are above becoming reinfected with spiritual AIDS, we are doomed. āLet he who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.ā That is where āworksā come in. Works do not save us. Without Christās sacrifice on the cross, we are doomed, no matter how many good works we do. But if we think Christās sacrifice alone (faith without works) is enough, we are equally doomed. A person with AIDS, who is somehow miraculously healed, cannot engage in the same lifestyle that got him infected in the first place and think he is now immune. It doesnāt work that way. Nor does it work that way spiritually.
Faith without works is dead, and works without faith is dead. We must have both. That does not mean works saves us. It is faith that saves us. Works ensures that we remain on the road to heaven.
A
ajcstr
Guest
If you are throwing Roger Freed out there then you must be as old as I am !
Jon
EDIT: As we speak, I am going to research the Catholic Catechism for names like Roger Freed, Lance Parrish, and Norm Sneed and Bobby Hoying!
Jon
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hi cooterhein, I found your post here interesting and misinformed. For one the Catholic Church council of Orange (not to be confused with an ecumenical council) condemned both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, and also Augustines view of āpredestinationā.
Pelagianism resurfaced in Protestant circles (not all) which believes man āhas retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of Godās graceā, thus they deny original sin, removed themselves from the sacramental economy of the Biblical Apostolic Catholic Church teachings, inventing for themselves a āSola scripturaā theology.
Now the distinction you draw incorrectly from Catholics in regards to āsemi-peligiansimā is your misunderstanding of how sacraments work. It is not the man or priest who does the saving act from the sacraments, It is Jesus himself through the holy Spirit is the one who is doing the saving act, not the Catholic to which you have incorrectly mistaken it to be manās freewill cooperating with Godās grace to save him, this is Semi-Peligianism which the Catholic Church condemned in the council of Orange back in 529 A.D.
The sacraments reveal that it is only Jesus that saves this is Catholic teaching. Man does not cooperate with Godās grace, Grace is given by God alone. Man cannot and did not participate or cooperate with Jesus to bring us salvation, as the Catholic Council of Orange condemned such heresy.
Where you get this misinformed idea of Catholics being āsemi-peligianistsā? only reveals your misunderstanding of what a biblical Apostolic True Sacrament is, when practiced in the Catholic Church in the sacraments, when it is Jesus doing the saving, never the individual.
Can you clarify your understanding of what a sacrament is, and how it works? If you can answer this truthfully with a Catholic understanding? it will reveal to you that there is no such thing as āsemi-peligianismā in Catholic teaching or belief.
Can you be more concise on your accusation against Catholics, thus far, The Catholic Church has already condemned what you are falsely accusing Catholics of being back in the sixth century?
Catholics.
A general rule to keep in mind about Church councils; They are called to condemn heresy, or accept a teaching that does not conflict with the revelation of Jesus Christ and the apostolic letters and Tradtional teachings handed down. All these matters are measured up to this canon of the Catholic Church, for example the Trinity was defined by the Catholic Church as revealed through scripture and revelations of Jesus.
Augustine does not speak for the whole Catholic Church. Its funny because I find much of humanism = peligianism and semi-peligianism in the freedoms of protestantism and freewill to believe outside of what Jesus and the apostles handed down to the Catholic Church both written and oral.
So a Catholic does not need Augustine to refute your semi peligianism. The Catholic Church has already condemned it.
Peace be with you
Pelagianism resurfaced in Protestant circles (not all) which believes man āhas retained the ability to seek God in and of himself apart from any movement of Godās graceā, thus they deny original sin, removed themselves from the sacramental economy of the Biblical Apostolic Catholic Church teachings, inventing for themselves a āSola scripturaā theology.
Now the distinction you draw incorrectly from Catholics in regards to āsemi-peligiansimā is your misunderstanding of how sacraments work. It is not the man or priest who does the saving act from the sacraments, It is Jesus himself through the holy Spirit is the one who is doing the saving act, not the Catholic to which you have incorrectly mistaken it to be manās freewill cooperating with Godās grace to save him, this is Semi-Peligianism which the Catholic Church condemned in the council of Orange back in 529 A.D.
The sacraments reveal that it is only Jesus that saves this is Catholic teaching. Man does not cooperate with Godās grace, Grace is given by God alone. Man cannot and did not participate or cooperate with Jesus to bring us salvation, as the Catholic Council of Orange condemned such heresy.
Where you get this misinformed idea of Catholics being āsemi-peligianistsā? only reveals your misunderstanding of what a biblical Apostolic True Sacrament is, when practiced in the Catholic Church in the sacraments, when it is Jesus doing the saving, never the individual.
Can you clarify your understanding of what a sacrament is, and how it works? If you can answer this truthfully with a Catholic understanding? it will reveal to you that there is no such thing as āsemi-peligianismā in Catholic teaching or belief.
Your opinion of what a āsemi-peligianistā is conflicts with the āsemi-peligianismā condemned by the Catholic Church. The Council not only refuted both peligianisms, but also Augustines teachings of predestination, which you may be confusing these two teachings as being in cooperation by compromise. I believe you have some protestant theologies mixed up here with Augustines rejected ideas of predestination.
Can you be more concise on your accusation against Catholics, thus far, The Catholic Church has already condemned what you are falsely accusing Catholics of being back in the sixth century?
Again, as a general rule, people donāt refer to themselves as semi-Pelagians. You want to know what they usually call themselves, though?
Catholics.
A general rule to keep in mind about Church councils; They are called to condemn heresy, or accept a teaching that does not conflict with the revelation of Jesus Christ and the apostolic letters and Tradtional teachings handed down. All these matters are measured up to this canon of the Catholic Church, for example the Trinity was defined by the Catholic Church as revealed through scripture and revelations of Jesus.
Augustine does not speak for the whole Catholic Church. Its funny because I find much of humanism = peligianism and semi-peligianism in the freedoms of protestantism and freewill to believe outside of what Jesus and the apostles handed down to the Catholic Church both written and oral.
So a Catholic does not need Augustine to refute your semi peligianism. The Catholic Church has already condemned it.
Peace be with you
A
ajcstr
Guest
Yes, back onto topic - actually the topic was intended to provide me with some documentation that would show that Catholics donāt believe they can āearn their salvationā rather than debate the role works play in salvation. I was thinking session 6 of the Council of Trent, someone else mentioned the Joint Declaration of Faith. Most of what has been said here, aside from the fact that Ryan Howard canāt hit a left handed pitcher, has centered on a salvation debate rather than just concentrating on what the catholic belief is. Maybe I posted this in the wrong section and that is why the debate sprang up.
Another example of where I am coming from with this would be trying to convince someone that Catholics donāt worship statues rather than debating them in general on prayers to saints. First step kind of thing. Clear up the misconception first, then move on.
In one of Patrick Madridās talks he says he told a joke where the church he was speaking in had a statue of the Fatima scene with the three children kneeling in front of Mary. He said āIsnāt this a great religion? Not only can we worship statues but our statues can worship statues!ā
A
ajcstr
Guest
NOW THAT was before my time. 70ās are (were) my era.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Itās never earning, āits working out your salvation with fear and tremblingā. I see a confused tone being presented here. In the economy of sacraments it is Jesus who infuses us with his divinity as we become the body Christ, It is God alone who parts grace to the believer through the sacraments. Do not be misled here about semi-pelagianism, the Catholic church has condemned this heresy.
The mistake I see being presented here in regards to condemned semi-pelagianism, is not semi-pelagianism, but a posters own definition of semi-pelagianism taken out of its original meaning to define something other causing a confusion to the ministryās Jesus himself placed on earth from his sacramental economy, so that God alone can save man, not man save himself by cooperating with God for his salvation.
What is Man who thinks he CAN cooperate with God in order to bring him salvation? Jesus has already done this. Man cannot cooperate with God in order to give us grace, God gives us grace of his own free divine will because he loves us. Man has nothing to do with this salvation work accomplished once and for all by Jesus Christ.
Semi-pelagianism believes man has the freewill to participate in Godās grace in the salvation process, this belief is condemned by the Catholic church. Only Jesus can save, man has nothing to do with this work of salvation brought about by Jesus Christ.
The āworking out your salvation with fear and tremblingā has to do with a Catholic fear of losing God. Any other fear apart from losing God, comes from the devil.
A baptised Catholic is a new creation in Jesus Christ. Once here in the Kingdom of God, by virtue of a valid baptism; you have already left any traces or attachments from the heresy of semi-pelagianism which teaches man participates with God in order to bring about his salvation. Which is condemned by the Catholic Church. Because now you have been saved by Jesus Christ himself who has baptised you through āHISā sacrament.
The mistake I see being presented here in regards to condemned semi-pelagianism, is not semi-pelagianism, but a posters own definition of semi-pelagianism taken out of its original meaning to define something other causing a confusion to the ministryās Jesus himself placed on earth from his sacramental economy, so that God alone can save man, not man save himself by cooperating with God for his salvation.
What is Man who thinks he CAN cooperate with God in order to bring him salvation? Jesus has already done this. Man cannot cooperate with God in order to give us grace, God gives us grace of his own free divine will because he loves us. Man has nothing to do with this salvation work accomplished once and for all by Jesus Christ.
Semi-pelagianism believes man has the freewill to participate in Godās grace in the salvation process, this belief is condemned by the Catholic church. Only Jesus can save, man has nothing to do with this work of salvation brought about by Jesus Christ.
The āworking out your salvation with fear and tremblingā has to do with a Catholic fear of losing God. Any other fear apart from losing God, comes from the devil.
A baptised Catholic is a new creation in Jesus Christ. Once here in the Kingdom of God, by virtue of a valid baptism; you have already left any traces or attachments from the heresy of semi-pelagianism which teaches man participates with God in order to bring about his salvation. Which is condemned by the Catholic Church. Because now you have been saved by Jesus Christ himself who has baptised you through āHISā sacrament.
Frank Lucchesi, then.
No, this is a good place.
From this Lutheran POV, the issue of iconoclasm was solved in the early councils. I have no reason to believe Catholics worship statues, the Blessed Virgin, or the saints.
It comes down to listening and believing what a follow Christian tells you what they believe.
There is a poster here who accuses those of us who believe sola fide as rejecting the importance of charity. Despite my efforts, he makes the continual charge. In both directions, it is a lack of charity.
lol
Jon
G
guanophore
Guest
I think this expression is a very critical one. There is a BIG difference between āworking ON our salvationā and working OUT our salvation.
The first easily implies to our separated brethren that salvation is something we must earn by our own righteous acts.
The working OUT of salvation makes it more clear that it is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. Small difference of words, volumes of difference in perception.
G
guanophore
Guest
Among other verses, our separated brethren will pull out Eph. 2:8-9. At this point, I remind them that the NT is a Catholic book, written by, for, and about Catholics. If being saved by grace, through faith, was not a Catholic concept, it would not have been included in the NT.
Then I tell them that Catholics donāt stop reading at v. 9, but continue to v. 10, and that we consider the grace that saves us is the same grace that produces in and through us the works that He has created, that we should walk in them.
And if necessary, I refer them to the Joint Declaration.
- Status