Forensic Justification - what's your view about it?

[Reuben_J]

Remember, the Vatican encourages discussion and dialog with separated brethrens. Some, let’s please discuss with Christian charity and love.

Perhaps the discussion would be better served if you accept history. The simple apologetics for that could then be avoided.

 

[pablope]

The OT writers were Jews and not Catholics.

At Pentecost…the Apostles, who were Jews, started preaching Christianity…and started baptizing…they had become Christians and those who they baptized.

Christianity was first known as the The Way…or the Way of the Lord…and the first christians were first called followers of The Way.

Later, the term Christians is used in Antioch to refer to the followers of the Way.

Later, Ignatius of Antioch uses the term “Catholic Church” in one of his epistles…Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

From then on, the church was referred to or called The Catholic (universal) Church…which bounded the OT and NT together to produce the Bible in AD 382 or so.

So the writers of the NT were indeed catholics…the Bible was put together for the use of Catholics…for use during the Catholic worship…the Mass or Divine Liturgy.

Therefore, I have no idea how you are calling the Bible a Catholic book.

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholics cannot discuss Scripture alone of Scripture.

That is the crux that separates us from Protestants.

Sola Scriptura separates and divorces Scripture reducing itself to text form rather than God being the author working through people. Sola Scripture separates and falls into text separating itself from its history of believers. And it also separates itself from the understanding and tradition the Apostles gave us in interpreting it.

The essence of Sola Scriptura is divorce from Christ’s Church. We cannot separate Scripture from how it is lived out in Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

First of all, the Joint Declaration on justification between Catholics and Lutherans is not binding to both Catholics and Lutherans alike. As you know, there are many different Protestant circles that don’t believe like Lutherans. There are both Catholics and Lutherans who are against the Joint Declaration, unwilling to give up theological ground for their exclusive position. So, we should first decide what is the purpose and limitation of the Joint Declaration on Justification. I personally see it as being something we are attempting here… moving forward to unity as compared to seperation. We need honest discussion as compared to staunch defense of the faith from our circles to move forward. You can give me all of the Catholic apologetics response which really causes seperation as comparision to a step toward unity. Remember, the Vatican encourages discussion and dialog with separated brethrens. So, let’s please discuss with Christian charity and love.

CU,

So then if you want a discussion and this is the CAF present your view with your support and ask the CAF how this differs from the Catholic view in light of agreements with some Protestants. Does that make charitable sense to you?

 

[JonNC]

=Christian Unity;10037597]First of all, the Joint Declaration on justification between Catholics and Lutherans is not binding to both Catholics and Lutherans alike.

True. Even my LCMS is not a signatore of it, unfortunately in my opinion. But it is a statement of renewed understanding between us, as far as it goes.

As you know, there are many different Protestant circles that don’t believe like Lutherans.

Non sequitor. Of course there are - in fact, basically, all of them.

There are both Catholics and Lutherans who are against the Joint Declaration, unwilling to give up theological ground for their exclusive position. So, we should first decide what is the purpose and limitation of the Joint Declaration on Justification. I personally see it as being something we are attempting here… moving forward to unity as compared to seperation. We need honest discussion as compared to staunch defense of the faith from our circles to move forward.

It is more than something we are attempting here. Here, we are laymen, for the most part. The JDDJ was between the Vatican and LWF. Quite different. Unity will come by prayerful discussion, guided by the Holy Spirit, where our staunchest defenses of our faith become true agreement.

You can give me all of the Catholic apologetics response which really causes seperation as comparision to a step toward unity. Remember, the Vatican encourages discussion and dialog with separated brethrens. So, let’s please discuss with Christian charity and love.

I’ve been here long enough, dialogued with some of these very Catholic brethren long enough to know that they are dialoguing from Christian charity and love. Guan, Kathleen, Coptic, etc.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

No, De Maria is used to debating with Protestants who reject Sacred Tradition, so has learned how to make his case using what Protestants will accept as true. He is not “determining Truth”, since that has already been done by the Church, but demonstrating to you where that Truth can be found in the Scriptures.

Of course individual Catholics can depart from the One Faith, and be in error. However, in this case, I do not think you will need to concern yourelf abou that. De Maria is extremely well versed in his faith, and he will not depart from it. If he were to articulate something not consistent with the Church teaching, he would yield to the authority of the One Church, founded by Christ.

We are all in agreement on that point. Catholics believe saving faith is a faith that works.

Gal 5:6
6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; **the only thing that counts is faith working through love. **

Luther on Galatians 5:6 (one of my favorite Luther quotes):

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Catholics cannot discuss Scripture alone of Scripture.

That is the crux that separates us from Protestants.

Sola Scriptura separates and divorces Scripture reducing itself to text form rather than God being the author working through people. Sola Scripture separates and falls into text separating itself from its history of believers. And it also separates itself from the understanding and tradition the Apostles gave us in interpreting it.

The essence of Sola Scriptura is divorce from Christ’s Church. We cannot separate Scripture from how it is lived out in Church.

As a Lutheran, I would disagree with this assessment of sola scriptura. But, Kathleen, you already knew that about me.

Jon

 

[De_Maria]

First, I want to make sure to remind you that you have not responded to any of the challenges I posed that you provide Biblical support for “forensic” justification. I also provided many Scriptures for the support of the Catholic doctrine of the “process of justification by faith and works”.

The OT writers were Jews and not Catholics. Therefore, I have no idea how you are calling the Bible a Catholic book

The Bible is composed of the Old and the New Testaments. The Catholic Church sifted through all the Old Testament books and provided the 46 book Old Testament based upon the Septuagint. And added to it the 27 book New Testament which the Church also sifted from many other New Testament writings purporting to be authentic Scriptures.

The Catholic Church did that and provided the first Christian Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

.

If anything, the Bible is a Jewish and Christian book as one cannon.

The Old Testament Bible was written by Jews. But the Jews were replaced by the Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church has now inherited the Oracles of God.

In the Bible, the believers were called Christians and not Catholics.

So what? In the Bible, there is no mention of Protestants nor anything that they believe such as Forensic justification, Sola Scriptura nor Sola Fide.

Most of the Apostles were Jews and not Catholics.

When they turned to Christ, they became Catholic.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

I don’t believe you can support the belief that the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

I can support it better than you can support any doctrine of the Protestants which contradicts the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

As it is, you’ve ignored everything I’ve provided supporting my arguments. You seem content to simply add objection upon objection whether you’ve been disproved or not.

So, is the Catholic Church the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Is Christ the fulfillment of the Old Testament? Yes. Is the Church the Body of Christ? Yes:

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Colossians 1:24
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body’s sake, which is the church:

Is the Church in Scripture the Catholic Church? Yes.

As I already mentioned, Jesus Christ appointed a Pastor as head of the entire Church:
John 21:17
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

I see only a few Churches with such a Pastor. Further, Jesus Christ said that the Pastor over His Church would be infallible:

Matthew 16:17-19 (King James Version)
17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The list of Churches accept this teaching gets smaller. Certainly, all Protestant denominations can now be eliminated.

Jesus Christ not only said that the Pastor was infallible but Scripture describes the Church as infallible:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

The list remains the same, but now I can certainly eliminate all Protestant denominations.

Back to Matt 16:18, Scripture says that Jesus Christ established one Church. History shows that all the Churches sprang from the Church which is frequently described as the Mother Church. The Catholic Church.

By simple logic of elimination, that leaves only the Catholic Church described in Scripture.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

The Old Testament partially revealed in foreshadows and types of Jesus Christ and his gospel instead of the Catholic Church.

It is the Catholic Church which now reveals and provides the witness of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. It is the Catholic Church which teaches and has taught all the foreshadowings and types of Jesus and all the Saints from the time of Christ.

I believe the Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints together makeup a single people of God which we can call the body of Christ

.

As do we. We number the Old Testament Saints amongst the Christian Saints.

Our hope is found in Christ alone and not the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination.

Lets talk about that. What does it mean to hope in Christ? Does it mean to have faith that what He promised would come true? That’s what I think. If you don’t, let me know.

Here’s what Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 8:5
And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.

Now, why did the people of Macedonia give themselves to the Apostles if they did not believe in the Apostles?

In order for any man to be brought to Christ, that person must first hope that the person telling him about Christ is telling the Truth. This is why the Scripture also says:
1 Timothy 4:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

The converted believers in the Catholic Church makeup part of the universal body of Christ consisting of redeemed sinners that belong to many different Christian churches.

One becomes a member of the Body of Christ in Baptism. Only those denominations which provide a valid Baptism are truly part of the Body of Christ. Only they are make up the redeemed.

Those who do not believe that Christ washes their sins away in Baptism, do not know thether they are redeemed (barring a special revelation from God) until and if, they are judged righteous at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

We are drifting from the thread topic; I’m just responding to your postings right now.

I believe I was responding to yours. I asked that we go through Scripture to see whether Protestant or Catholic Justification was true. You responded that we would be playing the Protestant game and then challenged the Scriptural truth of Apostolic succession and Magisterium. I answered those and I have plenty of postings dealing directly with your claims about forensic justification to which you have also not responded.

Sometimes our beliefs are just plain silly.

Not Catholic beliefs. I would agree about certain Protestant beliefs though.

You are saying that Catholics are the true Christians.

Yes.

So what are the Orthodox

I didn’t mean to leave out the Orthodox when I said that Catholics are the true Christians. They trace their faith directly back to Jesus Christ as do the Coptics and other ancient Christian Faiths.

and Protestant Christians

Protestants are Christians but they are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, denying many of the Truths which Christ taught. Therefore they are not “true” Christians. Neither can they trace their Faith to Jesus Christ except through the Church which their progenitors rejected.

who also makeup part of the body of Christ alongside with converted Catholics, false Christians?

Shrug all you want. The fact is, if you are not Catholic, you are not a “true” Christian.

Acts 11:26

…and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

Note that they were Christian before they were called Christian. And true Christians were Catholic before they were called Catholic and remain Catholic to this day.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

As a Lutheran, I would disagree with this assessment of sola scriptura. But, Kathleen, you already knew that about me.

Jon

Does your disagreement have anything to back it up besides opinion? Because Scripture obviously teaches we must obey the Church:
Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Can you show where Scripture says that we can make up our own minds what Scripture says and set aside the Church?

Or do you have a definition of Sola Scriptura you prefer to defend from Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[JonNC]

=De Maria;10039711]Does your disagreement have anything to back it up besides opinion? Because Scripture obviously teaches we must obey the Church:
Matthew 18:17
King James Version (KJV)
17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

And I do - obey the Church. I obey the Lutheran Confessions, I accept the 7 early councils, and the creeds. I suspect that your contention is that I must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome to obey the Church. If I earnestly believed that the Bishop of Rome had from the early councils the supremacy which the Catholic Church claims, I would be Catholic.

Can you show where Scripture says that we can make up our own minds what Scripture says and set aside the Church?

You are speaking about individual interpretation, not sola scriptura. On matters of doctrine, I accept the teachings as outined above, and claim for myself no position to “make up my own mind” about scripture.

Or do you have a definition of Sola Scriptura you prefer to defend from Scripture?

Well, there are verses that lend credence to the practice of holding scripture as the final norm, but the truth is sola scriptura is a post-apostolic era practice. I would also contend 2 things about it: 1) properly understood it does not exclude the teaching authority of the Church, but instead upholds it, and 2) it would not be a necessary practice had the use of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as equals held the Church together. As is the case currently, there is not agreement, for 1,000 years now, what Tradition teaches. Fix that, my friend, and sola scritura is no longer necessary.

Jon

 

[Christian_Unity]

Okay De Maria,

I would say you have no sincere desire to have an honest discussion. You can believe whatever you want, but let’s just ignore each other on this Forum site. I am looking for honest discussion with mutual respect from all sides which requires Christian maturity. I’m not looking for the standard canned Catholic apologetics 101 response which I already know.

 

[Christian_Unity]

Protestants are Christians but they are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, denying many of the Truths which Christ taught. Therefore they are not “true” Christians. Neither can they trace their Faith to Jesus Christ except through the Church which their progenitors rejected.

Shrug all you want. The fact is, if you are not Catholic, you are not a “true” Christian.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Okay De Maria,

I would say you have no sincere desire to have an honest discussion. You can believe whatever you want, but let’s just ignore each other on this Forum site. I am looking for honest discussions with mutual respect from all sides which requires Christian maturity. I’m not looking for the standard canned Catholic apologetics 101 response which I already know. To say that Protestants are not true Christians is the same thing when Protestants say that the Catholic Church is not a true church… which leaves no room for further dialog.

 

[De_Maria]

And I do - obey the Church. I obey the Lutheran Confessions, I accept the 7 early councils, and the creeds. I suspect that your contention is that I must be in communion with the Bishop of Rome to obey the Church.

Yes.

If I earnestly believed that the Bishop of Rome had from the early councils the supremacy which the Catholic Church claims, I would be Catholic.

Good answer. Keep studying Scripture and you will be Catholic. Compare your beliefs to Scripture and you will find that the Protestants are passing down error which contradicts the Word of God.

You are speaking about individual interpretation, not sola scriptura. On matters of doctrine, I accept the teachings as outined above, and claim for myself no position to “make up my own mind” about scripture.

Then where does the word, “sola” come in?

Sola means “alone”. So if you’re not using Scripture as your sole basis of deciding what is the faith of Jesus Christ, why is it called “sola” scripture?

Well, there are verses that lend credence to the practice of holding scripture as the final norm,

Is “final” equivalent to “sola”?

but the truth is sola scriptura is a post-apostolic era practice.

Can you provide any examples from Scripture?

I would also contend 2 things about it: 1) properly understood it does not exclude the teaching authority of the Church, but instead upholds it,

First, you would need to provide me a definition I can compare to your understanding, so that I can see if I agree with you.

Second, and so I can compare to Scripture, to see if I agree that Scripture teaches such a thing.

and 2) it would not be a necessary practice had the use of Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as equals held the Church together.

The Church is still here and still infallible. I’m not sure what you mean there.

As is the case currently, there is not agreement, for 1,000 years now, what Tradition teaches. Fix that, my friend, and sola scritura is no longer necessary.

Is the truth dependent upon the agreement of certain people? Or does the truth stand on its own?

In my opinion, that statement is a non-sequitur. The fact that many have split from the true Church of Christ is no fault of the Church nor of Christ. It is the fault of those who rejected the Truth.

Jon

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Okay De Maria,

I would say you have no sincere desire to have an honest discussion.

You asked a question, I answered it.

You can believe whatever you want, but let’s just ignore each other on this Forum site.

Ok.

I am looking for honest discussions with mutual respect from all sides which requires Christian maturity

Christian maturity acknowledges the facts.

. I’m not looking for the standard canned Catholic apologetics 101 response which I already know.

That’s the first time my responses have been called the standard canned Catholic apologetics 101 responses. I’m the only Catholic I know who uses Scripture “alone” to disprove Protestant teaching.

To say that Protestants are not true Christians is the same thing when Protestants say that the Catholic Church is not a true church…

No, it isn’t.

Protestants are followers of Luther. They follow the teachings of men. They believe they follow Christ and want to follow Christ, but it is the Catholic Church which today teaches what Christ commanded. Anyone who rejects the Catholic Church, rejects Christ in so doing.

which leaves no room for further dialog.

That’s ok. You’ve gotten the full message and it is perfectly clear that you have no scriptural argument to support your position.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

The OT writers were Jews and not Catholics.  Therefore, I have no idea how you are calling the Bible a Catholic book.

This is a good point. Catholics believe that salvation is of the Jews. The Christian faith is firmly rooted in the Jewish foundation built by God amongst His chosen people for millenia before His coming. The Church received the Septuagint from Jesus and the Apostles. In 382, the Catholic Church bound it together with the 27 books of the NT to form our modern Bible. This was done by Catholic Bishops in a Catholic council and approved by the successor of Peter in Rome. That is why we call it a Catholic book.

If anything, the Bible is a Jewish and Christian book as one cannon. In the Bible, the believers were called Christians and not Catholics. Most of the Apostles were Jews and not Catholics. I don’t believe you can support the belief that the Catholic Church is the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

The Church founded by Jesus, of which the Christians of the NT were a part, was called the Catholic Church. As far as supporting “the believe that the CC is the fulfiillent of the OT”, I am not sure what you mean by that. Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s revelation of HImself to man, and He has founded One Church, that being Catholic.

The Old Testament partially revealed in foreshadows and types of Jesus Christ and his gospel instead of the Catholic Church.

It is not “instead” it is “through”. God has fulfilled all the foreshadows and types in the OT through JEsus, and the One Church He founded.

I believe the Old Testament Saints and New Testament Saints together makeup a single people of God which we can call the body of Christ.

Yes, this is very Catholic of you!

Our hope is found in Christ alone and not the Catholic Church or any other Christian denomination.

Statements such as this emanate from a deficient understanding of the nature of the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Jesus is the head of the Church, ad the Holy Spirit is the soul of the Church. All those who are saved are made members of His One Body, the Church. It is not possible to be “In Christ” without being in His Church.

Also, the CC is not a “denomination”. A denomination is something which is taken out of the original.

The converted believers in the Catholic Church makeup part of the universal body of Christ consisting of redeemed sinners that belong to many different Christian churches.

Yes, this is a Catholic view also.

We are drifting from the thread topic; I’m just responding to your postings right now. Sometimes our beliefs are just plain silly. You are saying that Catholics are the true Christians. So what are the Orthodox and Protestant Christians who also makeup part of the body of Christ alongside with converted Catholics, false Christians?

The Orthodox have retained the Apostolic faith and very little separates us. Protestants have rejected parts of the Apostolic faith, some more than others. All Protestants suffer deficiencies, such as the deficient concept you have shown here about the nature of the Church.

Acts 11:26

…and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

And those Catholics, within a few decades, came to be called Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

Protestants are Christians but they are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, denying many of the Truths which Christ taught. Therefore they are not “true” Christians. Neither can they trace their Faith to Jesus Christ except through the Church which their progenitors rejected.

Shrug all you want. The fact is, if you are not Catholic, you are not a “true” Christian.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Okay De Maria,

I would say you have no sincere desire to have an honest discussion. You can believe whatever you want, but let’s just ignore each other on this Forum site. I am looking for honest discussions with mutual respect from all sides which requires Christian maturity. I’m not looking for the standard canned Catholic apologetics 101 response which I already know. To say that Protestants are not true Christians is the same thing when Protestants say that the Catholic Church is not a true church… which leaves no room for further dialog.

The position that De Maria seems to take here also appears to be incompatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the** Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church**."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

 

[guanophore]

Protestants are followers of Luther.

I don’t think this is an accurate statement. Even the Lutherans dont’ actually follow Luther as much as the confessions that were developed by others. And certainly Christian Unity does not as she has made it clear that she comes from a different theological position that is as antithetical to Luther as it is to Catholics in some ways.

They believe they follow Christ and want to follow Christ, but it is the Catholic Church which today teaches what Christ commanded.  Anyone who rejects the Catholic Church, rejects Christ in so doing.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Those who have been raised in Protestant communities and sincerely want to follow Christ cannot be charged with the sin of separation. Many non-denominational Christians will even say that they “are not Protestant” - that they are not “protesting” anything. They have no idea where their faith traditions originated. They honestly believe that Christianity is founded on the Bible.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is the Catholic Church which now reveals and provides the witness of Jesus Christ and His Gospel. It is the Catholic Church which teaches and has taught all the foreshadowings and types of Jesus and all the Saints from the time of Christ.

.

As do we. We number the Old Testament Saints amongst the Christian Saints.

Lets talk about that. What does it mean to hope in Christ? Does it mean to have faith that what He promised would come true? That’s what I think. If you don’t, let me know.

Here’s what Scripture says:

2 Corinthians 8:5
And this they did, not as we hoped, but first gave their own selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God.

Now, why did the people of Macedonia give themselves to the Apostles if they did not believe in the Apostles?

In order for any man to be brought to Christ, that person must first hope that the person telling him about Christ is telling the Truth. This is why the Scripture also says:
1 Timothy 4:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

One becomes a member of the Body of Christ in Baptism. Only those denominations which provide a valid Baptism are truly part of the Body of Christ. Only they are make up the redeemed.

Those who do not believe that Christ washes their sins away in Baptism, do not know thether they are redeemed (barring a special revelation from God) until and if, they are judged righteous at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

I believe I was responding to yours. I asked that we go through Scripture to see whether Protestant or Catholic Justification was true. You responded that we would be playing the Protestant game and then challenged the Scriptural truth of Apostolic succession and Magisterium. I answered those and I have plenty of postings dealing directly with your claims about forensic justification to which you have also not responded.

Not Catholic beliefs. I would agree about certain Protestant beliefs though.

Yes.

I didn’t mean to leave out the Orthodox when I said that Catholics are the true Christians. They trace their faith directly back to Jesus Christ as do the Coptics and other ancient Christian Faiths.

Protestants are Christians but they are not in full communion with the Body of Christ, denying many of the Truths which Christ taught. **Therefore they are not “true” Christians. ** Neither can they trace their Faith to Jesus Christ except through the Church which their progenitors rejected.

** Shrug all you want. The fact is, if you are not Catholic, you are not a “true” Christian.**

Note that they were Christian before they were called Christian. And true Christians were Catholic before they were called Catholic and remain Catholic to this day.

Sincerely,

De Maria

DeMaria,

I am listening to the Audio Catechism and it disagrees with you. All Baptized in the trinitarian formula are true Christians. Now those without a Hierarchal organization are not true Churches but rather are ecclesial communities and these communities often provide elements of truth that are found within the Sacrament of the Church.

 

[Christian_Unity]

DeMaria,

I am listening to the Audio Catechism and it disagrees with you. All Baptized in the trinitarian formula are true Christians. Now those without a Hierarchal organization are not true Churches but rather are ecclesial communities and these communities often provide elements of truth that are found within the Sacrament of the Church.

Thank you for your post. I was baptized as an infant in the Trinitarian formula in a traditional Protestant denominational church. I was also baptized as a professing adult in the Trinitarian formula too at Calvary Chapel. We may disagree of which church is the purest, or who belongs to a true church, yet we are still siblings in Christ since there is one body of Christ.