How are we saved?

[tukfryer]

I think what davidv meant was that he accepts the Bible but not your fallible interpretation of it.

Isn’t that what it comes down to?
To keep with the subject that I posted this under is your willingness to ask for evidence of scripture to prove itself. So when the bible lacks evidence to support your interpretation you are faced with a choice, believe what you are taught threw the RCC or stick with the original witness of the authors of the NT letters. At this point you choose to follow the one path I follow the other. This fork in the road if you will is encountered repeatedly between Catholics and Protestants. By sheer over whelming numbers you can see that the early followers of Jesus spared no expense in reproducing scripture. With 5600 letters how many thousands upon thousands do think were read to from these? Some of these letters contain warnings “but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”. Because I did not live 2000 years ago, the warnings contained in scripture, and mens opinions / traditions, what shall the logical thinking man do? listen to tradition not contained in the letters or stick with the letters? In light of pleasing both Father and Son I chose to follow the letter that was so reproduced at great expense. How can I therefor be in error by with Jesus and the early church by following their written instruction? You on the other hand have the assured comfort of the RCC.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Isn’t that what it comes down to?
To keep with the subject that I posted this under is your willingness to ask for evidence of scripture to prove itself. So when the bible lacks evidence to support your interpretation you are faced with a choice, believe what you are taught threw the RCC or stick with the original witness of the authors of the NT letters. At this point you choose to follow the one path I follow the other. This fork in the road if you will is encountered repeatedly between Catholics and Protestants. By sheer over whelming numbers you can see that the early followers of Jesus spared no expense in reproducing scripture. With 5600 letters how many thousands upon thousands do think were read to from these? Some of these letters contain warnings “but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”. Because I did not live 2000 years ago, the warnings contained in scripture, and mens opinions / traditions, what shall the logical thinking man do? listen to tradition not contained in the letters or stick with the letters? In light of pleasing both Father and Son I chose to follow the letter that was so reproduced at great expense. How can I therefor be in error by with Jesus and the early church by following their written instruction? You on the other hand have the assured comfort of the RCC.

And you took a fork in the road that appeared over 1500 years later…

 

[ron77nyc]

If a person on death row repents before dying does he go to heaven?

 

[ralphy]

Of course you must believe in the word of our Lord Jesus… Follow His Teachings and you will be saved. That would be those Teachings where the compilation of books called the Holy Bible Comes from and in its unaltered state.

Ephesians CH 4; 1 I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy of the call you have received, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, 3 striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. 8 Therefore, it says: “He ascended on high and took prisoners captive; he gave gifts to men.” 9 What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended into the lower (regions) of the earth? 10 The one who descended is also the one who ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. 11 **And he gave some as apostles, others as prophets, others as evangelists, others as pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the holy ones for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, **13 until we all attain to the unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the extent of the full stature of Christ, 14 so that we may no longer be infants, tossed by waves and swept along by every wind of teaching arising from human trickery, from their cunning in the interests of deceitful scheming. 15 Rather, **living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, **16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love.

Ephesians CH 1; 18 May the eyes of (your) hearts be enlightened, that you may know what is the hope that belongs to his call, what are the riches of glory in his inheritance among the holy ones, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of his power for us who believe, in accord with the exercise of his great might, 20 which he worked in Christ, raising him from the dead and seating him at his right hand in the heavens, 21 far above every principality, authority, power, and dominion, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things beneath his feet **and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of the one who fills all things in every way. **

No protestant faith follows the complete teachings of the Church founded by Christ and if they did they would not be protestant. If we base our answer on scripture, unless their beliefs where the same as those teachings of the True Church founded by Christ, no IMO they certainly would not be “one Body” in the complete sense of teachings and beliefs. And I agree with the article you referred to completely. “…until we all Attain to the Unity of Faith” would mean gather in the one true Faith or belief system.

notice the Word says specifically; “…5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all,”

Notice It nowhere refers to subsidiaries or altered derivatives of that one Faith but it does go on to say beware of the wolves… Yet so many do not consider or question those “mere men” who 1500 years after the inception of the Holy Bible altered the text and books contained in the Bible and no one sees the oddity of those who would say certain sacraments provided by God are unnecessary or invalid and the Bible can be self taught. Now who would Benefit from such changes?

Why do you blanketly criticize those responsible for the origin of the Holy Bible and what Faith do you practice?

Can any of you Roman catholics out there explain to me why you pray to the dead and for the dead. Ralph

 

[SteveGC]

Isn’t that what it comes down to?
To keep with the subject that I posted this under is your willingness to ask for evidence of scripture to prove itself. So when the bible lacks evidence to support your interpretation you are faced with a choice, believe what you are taught threw the RCC or stick with the original witness of the authors of the NT letters. At this point you choose to follow the one path I follow the other.

tuk, you act like your fork is not a private interpretation. That’s absurd. Look, bottom line…we choose the infallible interpretation, you choose the fallible one. They’re BOTH interpretations, make NO mistake about it. To sit there and think that saying “I just stick to the NT letters” means that you don’t privately interpret is highly ignorant of what it means to read Sacred Scripture. It’s incredibly arrogant in it’s essence, and the only reason I refrain from calling you arrogant, is because your ignorance trumps it. I’m not calling you stupid. You seem like a highly intelligent person actually. But you are plagued by ignorance of the universal faith.

tuk, did you pick up your Bible one day and figure out everything you offer us here on your own? No, you did not. No one does that. Knowledge of the Christian faith comes from HUMAN teaching, which is interpretive in nature. You follow a mosaic of human teachers you’ve encountered throughout your life, and have come to have faith in certain combinations of them that either suited your mentality, or made the most sense to you at the time. Problem is, you haven’t yet realized that none of these men came to you with any authority to teach you full truths about Christ, about salvation, about Christian morals.

Now you can say you just follow the NT letters if you want, but know that we are not fooled by that one bit. The translation of that is “I follow what I’ve been taught by others”. And we do too. The remaining question then is, which of the “others” is authentic, has authority, has the protection of the Spirit of God? Yours…or ours?

 

[SteveGC]

Can any of you Roman catholics out there explain to me why you pray to the dead and for the dead. Ralph

Ralph. Please just respond to the post you quote, ask a question relevant to the thread, or start a new thread with this type of question. You clamber around with one attack after another, especially when you find an articulate, difficult to answer post by any Catholic here. Your duck, cover, and diversionary tactics are quite mesmerizing, but yet transparent.

 

[SteveGC]

If a person on death row repents before dying does he go to heaven?

If he was perfectly contrite in his repentance, or atleast imperfectly contrite and able to reconcile through The Church, then the assumption is that if he died right after that, then yes, it is presumable his destination is eternal life with God. If he was not baptized, it is left to the Mercy of God.

Either way, only God knows for sure. We can only speculate based on sound doctrine of salvation.

 

[ralphy]

If a person on death row repents before dying does he go to heaven?

If a person repents and asks Christ into his heart to save him, he is assured of heaven regardless of how much time he has left, or where he is located. Ralph

 

[ron77nyc]

If he was perfectly contrite in his repentance, or atleast imperfectly contrite and able to reconcile through The Church, then the assumption is that if he died right after that, then yes, it is presumable his destination is eternal life with God. If he was not baptized, it is left to the Mercy of God.

Either way, only God knows for sure. We can only speculate based on sound doctrine of salvation.

If a person repents and asks Christ into his heart to save him, he is assured of heaven regardless of how much time he has left, or where he is located. Ralph

What if he came from a non-religious family? Would it matter what religion he was? Would it matter if a priest was there to baptize him or if a minister was there to have him accept Jesus? Would he be forgiven if no one was there but the Holy Spirit?

 

[paul_c]

Under the set of “baptism promises”, there are numerous questions to answer. Can you please tell me, (seeing that you believe in infant baptism), how a two week old child answers these questions, Ralph

the child’s parents and God parents answer for them. It becomes their responsibility to bring the child up in the faith. when the child is old enough to speak for themselfves they will repeat these baptismal promises for themselves during the sacrament of confirmation.

 

[SteveGC]

What if he came from a non-religious family? Would it matter what religion he was? Would it matter if a priest was there to baptize him or if a minister was there to have him accept Jesus? Would he be forgiven if no one was there but the Holy Spirit?

His familial, or spiritual background is irrelevant. God knows his heart. His contrition, without the instrument of sacramental confession, would have more demands on it to be pure and perfect (truly for the Love of God, rather than the pains of Hell), but it is possible without intercession from the Church.

He also would not need the Church to make a valid acceptance of Christ. This is in his heart.

Although not the normative nor preferred method, baptism can be performed by anyone so long as water is poured, and the trinitarian formula is used. Again, if he atleast had implicit desire for baptism, the Church teaches that salvation is possible for him, presuming the above acceptance and contrition are in order.

His salvation, if achieved, will have actually been through the Catholic Church, for the Church is the conduit of the Holy Spirit for the entire world, and the Spirit instills the Grace needed for salvation. This is true whether or not the man knows, or accepts, this fact.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Isn’t that what it comes down to?
To keep with the subject that I posted this under is your willingness to ask for evidence of scripture to prove itself. So when the bible lacks evidence to support your interpretation you are faced with a choice, believe what you are taught threw the RCC or stick with the original witness of the authors of the NT letters. At this point you choose to follow the one path I follow the other. This fork in the road if you will is encountered repeatedly between Catholics and Protestants. By sheer over whelming numbers you can see that the early followers of Jesus spared no expense in reproducing scripture. With 5600 letters how many thousands upon thousands do think were read to from these? Some of these letters contain warnings “but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ”. Because I did not live 2000 years ago, the warnings contained in scripture, and mens opinions / traditions, what shall the logical thinking man do? listen to tradition not contained in the letters or stick with the letters? In light of pleasing both Father and Son I chose to follow the letter that was so reproduced at great expense. How can I therefor be in error by with Jesus and the early church by following their written instruction? You on the other hand have the assured comfort of the RCC.

Since the Bible points you to both the importance of Tradition and the infallible, teaching authority of the Catholic Church, I do not see that you are on solid ground by holding to the Bible Alone.

The “early followers of Jesus” as you call them, were all members of one Church, and that Church was named the Catholic Church before the end of the first century and within the lifetime of the Apostle John. I’m not sure what fellowship you personally belong to, but let me state unequivocally that it does not have the credentials that the Catholic Church can claim.

Finally, if you really and truly want to follow Jesus and the writings of the early Church which you received from the Catholic Church through the labors of its monks for more than a thousand years prior to the invention of the printing press, then you would examine carefully what the Catholic Church teaches and you would prepare for reception into the Church at the hands of a successor of the Apostles, the local Bishop, next Easter.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Can any of you Roman catholics out there explain to me why you pray to the dead and for the dead. Ralph

“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

 

[ron77nyc]

His familial, or spiritual background is irrelevant. God knows his heart. His contrition, without the instrument of sacramental confession, would have more demands on it to be pure and perfect (truly for the Love of God, rather than the pains of Hell), but it is possible without intercession from the Church.

He also would not need the Church to make a valid acceptance of Christ. This is in his heart.

Although not the normative nor preferred method, baptism can be performed by anyone so long as water is poured, and the trinitarian formula is used. Again, if he atleast had implicit desire for baptism, the Church teaches that salvation is possible for him, presuming the above acceptance and contrition are in order.

So would this man have to accept all that the Church teaches in order to be forgiven
and be accepted by God?

His salvation, if achieved, will have actually been through the Catholic Church, for the Church is the conduit of the Holy Spirit for the entire world, and the Spirit instills the Grace needed for salvation. This is true whether or not the man knows, or accepts, this fact.

The old testament saints had the holy spirit before the Church existed. People who are not catholic today have the holy spirit. God is not confined to the Catholic Church. He sort of does what He wants to do whenever and wherever He wants to do it.

 

[paul_c]

The bible only describes the baptism (immersion) of people capable of hearing, believing, and repenting. It does not have to list all the excluded circumstances, e.g. baptizing a corpse, baptizing with spittle, oil or wine, etc. We must do what we KNOW is right and cannot be wrong.

It describes the baptizing of whole households. Why do you think that excludes children?

All children are conceived and born innocent and pure, without any sin whatsoever.

So you beleive in the immaculate conception of not only Mary, but of every human ever born. Is this correct? If so, why did Jesus have to die for our sins?

**The Catholic church has changed the gospel to a different gospel that is NO gospel:

1. substitution of pouring for immersion
2. “baptism” of infants and those incapable of repentance
3. teaching infants are conceived in original sin and barred from the presence of God when they die “unbaptized”
4. teaching penance and purgatory are necessary for purification from sin, thus nullifying the blood of Christ**

I find this to be an interesting twist. First of all, you are extremely legalistic, debating the efficacy of different forms of baptism.

Then you state that the blood of Christ is somehow nullified when we do penance for our sins. How is reparation for sin a bad thing?

And why did Jesus need to die if every one was born sin free? This would imply that no reconciliation was necessary between God and man.

 

[SteveGC]

So would this man have to accept all that the Church teaches in order to be forgiven
and be accepted by God?

No, not necessarily “all”. But by achieving the sanctifying grace that merits him heaven, he will have accepted (whether directly or indirectly) what the Church teaches for salvation.
Ed:

The old testament saints had the holy spirit before the Church existed. People who are not catholic today have the holy spirit. God is not confined to the Catholic Church. He sort of does what He wants to do whenever and wherever He wants to do it.

You misunderstand the teaching. The Spirit had a different role under the old covenant. In the new covenant, He is with The Church, dispensing Grace upon all those who avail themselves of it. The Holy Spirit is indeed for all, whether members of Christ’s One Church or not. He works in the lives of all people, in all places. But the Church is the conduit of His availability to the entire world. You have to remember that there is only one true Church, and Christ’s intention was for the Holy Spirit to be with her, and to reach all people from her. I knew this would probably be a sour point for you (although you claim to be Catholic?). Bottom line, you don’t have to be Catholic, but you are called to be, and frankly, have a better opportunity of sanctifying grace upon death if you are.

Given this illumination, I’ll repeat the part I posted above:

His salvation, if achieved, will have actually been through the Catholic Church, for the Church is the conduit of the Holy Spirit for the entire world, and the Spirit instills the Grace needed for salvation. This is true whether or not the man knows, or accepts, this fact.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic church has changed the gospel to a different gospel that is NO gospel:
3. teaching infants are conceived in original sin and barred from the presence of God when they die "unbaptized"

Gee, what does the Word of God say about our condition?

Psalm 51:5
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

Psa 58:3
The wicked go astray from the womb, they err from their birth, speaking lies.

Gen 8:21
And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done.”

Job 14:4
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? There is not one.

Job 15:14-15
What is man, that he can be clean? Or he that is born of a woman, that he can be righteous? Behold, God puts no trust in his holy ones, and the heavens are not clean in his sight;

Eph 2:3
Among these we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, following the desires of body and mind, and so we were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.

John 3:6
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

4. teaching penance and purgatory are necessary for purification from sin, thus nullifying the blood of Christ

Dan misunderstands Catholic doctrine and argues against a strawman.

This has never been Catholic doctrine. REPENTENCE in necessary for the forgiveness of sin. Penaance and purgation are needed to free us from hte influence of sins that are already forgiven but which still are at war within our members.

2Sa 12:13
David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”

 

[davidv]

Can any of you Roman catholics out there explain to me why you pray to the dead and for the dead. Ralph

Not on this thread.

 

[ron77nyc]

No, not necessarily “all”. But by achieving the sanctifying grace that merits him heaven, he will have accepted (whether directly or indirectly) what the Church teaches for salvation.

You misunderstand the teaching. The Spirit had a different role under the old covenant. In the new covenant, He is with The Church, dispensing Grace upon all those who avail themselves of it. The Holy Spirit is indeed for all, whether members of Christ’s One Church or not. He works in the lives of all people, in all places. But the Church is the conduit of His availability to the entire world. You have to remember that there is only one true Church, and Christ’s intention was for the Holy Spirit to be with her, and to reach all people from her. I knew this would probably be a sour point for you (although you claim to be Catholic?). Bottom line, you don’t have to be Catholic, but you are called to be, and frankly, have a better opportunity of sanctifying grace upon death if you are.

I have been in Protestant Churches and I have been in a Jewish Christian worship service and I know that anyone who believes in Jesus has the holy spirit. How did they get it if they are not Catholic?

 

[paul_c]

Can any of you Roman catholics out there explain to me why you pray to the dead and for the dead. Ralph

Well, we pray for the dead. We do not pray to the dead.

We pray for the dead because they are part of the communion of saints. They can help us though their prayers and we can help them if they are in purgatory.

We only pray to God. We ask the saints for intercession with God but we do not pray to them. Do you understand the distinction?