How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[Randy_Carson]

D. Justification
In future sections, we will examine the nature of justification and how it relates to redemption, forgiveness, and sanctification, but here we should note that it, like the other aspects of salvation, has past, present, and future dimensions.

1. Justification in the Bible

First, here are some verses showing justification as a past event:
“Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand…” (Romans 5:1-2)

“Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” (Romans 5:9)

“And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.” (1Corinthians 6:11)

Justification is therefore clearly a past event in the life of the believer. Unfortunately, most Protestants have camped out on verses which imply this and have concluded that justification is a once-for-all event, rather than also being an ongoing and not yet completed process.

But however attractive the single, once-for-all view of justification may be to some, there are serious exegetical considerations weighing against it. This may be seen by looking at how the New Testament handles the story of Abraham.

One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul’s discussion of justification in Romans and Galatians, states that when God gave the promise to Abraham that his descendants would be as the stars of the sky (Gen. 15:5, cf. Rom. 4:18-22) Abraham “believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). 1This passage clearly teaches us that Abraham was justified at the time he believed the promise concerning the number of his descendants.

Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

First, the book of Hebrews tells us that “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance, not knowing where he was going.” (Hebrews 11:8)

Every Protestant will passionately agree that the subject of Hebrews 11 is saving faith—the kind that pleases God and wins his approval (Heb. 11:2, 6)—so we know that Abraham had saving faith according to Hebrews 11.

But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it “when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive.” The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, “Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,’ and he was called the friend of God.” (James 2:21-23)

James thus tells us “[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified … when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?” In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.

Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

As a result, justification must be seen, not as a once-for-all event, but as a process which continues throughout the believer’s life. In fact, it is even a process which extends beyond the believer’s life. This is shown by passages in Scripture where Paul indicates that there is a sense in which our justification is still future:

" … for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified;" (Romans 2:13)

“Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” (Romans 3:20)

Commenting on the second of these passages, the famous Protestant exegete, James D. G. Dunn points out that Paul’s statement alludes to Psalm 142:2 and then remarks,
"The metaphor in the psalm is of a servant being called to account before his master, but in the context here [in Romans] the imagery of final judgement is to the fore … Against the view that Paul sees ‘justification’ simply as an act which marks the beginning of a believer’s life, as a believer, here is a further example [in addition to 2:13] of the verb used for a final verdict, not excluding the idea of the final verdict at the end of life … "3

But even apart from such verses, we could deduce a future justification on theological grounds alone. Protestants place much emphasis on the declarative aspect of justification (i.e., God declaring one righteous) and they have places special emphasis on the legal/courtroom contexts in which this declaration may occur. However, the ultimate and final courtroom declaration concerning the believer does not occur until he stands before God (at his death and at the end of the world). So we may infer that the ultimate and final pronouncement of the believer as righteous does not lie in this life. We certainly are declared righteous by God in this life, but the final, consummating declaration of our righteousness will not occur until our Final Judgement, and therefore our final justification will not occur until this time. As a result, there remains a future justification for all believers.

etc., etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Justifications of Abraham
By James Akin
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ABRAHAM.htm

Contrary to the claims of much contemporary Protestant preaching, justification, like the other aspects of salvation, has past, present, and future dimensions. This is shown by a variety of Bible passages, but especially by the Biblical discussion of the justification of Abraham. Contemporary Protestant preaching focuses mainly on the past dimension of justification. This aspect of justification is indicated in verses such as Rom 5:1 (“having been justified”), 5:9 (“having now been justified”), and 1 Co 6:11 (“you were justified”). These passages show that justification is clearly a past event in the life of the believer. But there it also has present and future dimensions. For example, the future dimensions are found these verses:

“For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.” (Rom 2:13)
“For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin.” (Rom 3:20)

etc.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

**Short answer - because there is no necessary logical link between Peter’s being a rock, & the claims of the CC. **​

---

**It takes more than one thread to make a tapestry. **

---

 

[joe370]

First, God’s “elect” is the true church, both in Heaven and presently on earth. It is invisible only in the sense that, as I stated before, in any given Congregation, there are those that are saved and those that aren’t, tares among the wheat. In a visible sense, those that are wheat can be seen and heard.

**In what church can they be seen and heard? if you say it doesn’t matter then God is indeed a God of “confusion.” Confusion, division and dissension runs amok in the protestant world!
**
**Please tell me where I can go to find this visible church where the wheat can be seen and heard-- where unity exits, so I may attend!
**

Second, below are excerpts from the Council of Trent concerning “Justification”, which is the equivalent to “salvation”.

DECLARATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Source:wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

**Those GOOD works are the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of the increase of our justification! Our good works are indeed a sign of our justification; the cause is the work done by God and God ALONE! Without Jesus’ SACRIFICIAL EXPIATION, OUR GOOD WORKS WOULD BE FOR NAUGHT! Jesus’ work on the cross alone, validate the fruits and signs of justification obtained – is the cause of its increase in the world! However, the bible still tells us that good works are absolutely necessary for our justification, salvation and glorification! **

**Again, show me in the official Catechism of the C.C. where it says, Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema --and I will renounce Catholicism. Salvation is a free gift IF we do good works!
**

Sanctification is the ongoing process of bring a Christian to the likeness of Christ as evident through good works, to which God saved un unto good works.

I agree!

What this is saying is that justification is part of sanctification. The problem, as I see it, is the Bible teaches that Justification occurs at the moment of Salvation, “justified/saved before the Lord for the forgiveness of sins because of the Lord’s work on the cross”.

**So we are justified/saved before the Lord for the forgiveness of sins because of the Lord’s work on the cross! I don’t have to do anything, like take up my own cross and follow in Jesus’ footsteps, if I want to follow Jesus and be saved? You sound like my dad --If you believe Jesus saved us, then you can do what ever you want --Jesus will pick up the tab --no worries --what a comfortable ideology! **

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

**Are you saying the C.C. teaches that **Good works take away from the glory of God in salvation? Really?!!! Clearly the C.C. does not teach that the doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus!

---

Romans 8:29-30 tells us the sanctification process…the justification to the glorification…point A (justification) through to point B (glorification), in between A and B is the process, which is sanctification.

Are we required to do anything between point A and B?!

I**f you were to read the CCC, --you would see that salvation is a free gift by God --that is why Jesus died on the cross for us. However good works, according to your bible are required as well; The bible speaks of faith plus works:

No Catholic is saying that the Catholic doctrine of justification derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus; we are simply adhering to what Jesus’ bible says:

“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” James 2:14-17

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. James 2:24

“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:20

“He will render to each one according to his works…” Romans 2:6-11.

“eternal life by perseverance in good works” Romans 2:8

Ephesians 2:8-9: “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith-and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God-not by works, so that no one can boast.”

Either Saint Paul is guilty of hypocrisy or protestants take this out of context; I’ll opt for the latter! The point was to stress that we are ALL saved by faith in Jesus Christ ALONE, not by obeying the Mosaic Law or by any HUMAN ACTION; without Jesus’ ransom, all works would be futile, because we all fall short of the glory due to our inherent sinful nature, however that doesn’t invalidate the preceding passages --does it?
** :t humbsup:

Looking forward to your rebuttal!

 

[Randy_Carson]

**Short answer - because there is no necessary logical link between Peter’s being a rock, & the claims of the CC. **​

**It takes more than one thread to make a tapestry. **

So, out of the dozen or so quotes from Protestant scholars I provided, you’re taking issue with just this one?

 

[joe370]

Non-Catholic, I ask again, is it necessary for the Ekklesia established by God 2000 years ago to maintain unity and oneness, to avoid division and dissension? If what you say is true – ALL Christians belong to the same --one invisible church, then why are there so many different and unique churches in the world, ALL claiming something the other churches deny; that doesn’t sound like unity and oneness to me?

Answering questions is a two way street, is it not?

 

[JRKH]

I will Echo Joe here also. I also asked a question to which I would really like an answer. It was on Page no 45, Post no (I hate to say it) 666. For convenience I will re-post the question just in case you did not see it.

Jesus Gave this clear instruction to His Disciples regarding a brother who sins against you. (And let us recognize that spreading a false teaching is a sin against the body of Christ.)

Matthew 18: 15-18
15 "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 "But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 **"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. **18 "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

So tell me, If I as a Catholic Christian, sin (doctrinally) against you, a non-catholic Christian. How do we resolve,ultimately, our dispute? We must necessarily assume that we have already discussed the matter between us and consulted the Bible. Further, we have brought in several “witnesses so that each fact is confirmed”. However since we have BOTH brought witnesses, we are still at an impasse. What are we to do now?

What say you noncatholic, how do we resolve our dispute?
By taking it to the “invisible body of True believers”?
By taking it to the Visible, Authoritative Church Established by Christ.

Peace
James

 

[NonCatholic]

Non-Catholic, I ask again, is it necessary for the Ekklesia established by God 2000 years ago to maintain unity and oneness, to avoid division and dissension? If what you say is true – ALL Christians belong to the same --one invisible church, then why are there so many different and unique churches in the world, ALL claiming something the other churches deny; that doesn’t sound like unity and oneness to me?

Answering questions is a two way street, is it not?

Please forget the word invisible for a moment, you keep twisting what I am saying…I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose. The unity that exists among believers is more on a spiritual level than a temporal level. However, the church I go to is unified on both levels, but it is a very small church. If you were to go to a very large church you would have all kinds of examples of unity and confusion.

We should start a new thread on “What is unity in the church”; there are so many tares out there because church disipline as the Bible defines it is almost non existent. When is the last time anyone saw someone’s sin brought before a congregation…I have never seen it yet Jesus laid out the blue print for it. As a result, we have all kinds in the church. I always get back to what is a Christian? Jesus emphasized and contrasted the “few” versus the “many” (Matt 7)…he is referring to religious people, not secular. What is scary about that is in 7:14, the last sentence “few there be that FIND it”

 

[joe370]

Please forget the word invisible for a moment, you keep twisting what I am saying…I don’t think you’re doing it on purpose. The unity that exists among believers is more on a spiritual level than a temporal level.

Firstly, I apologize if I misinterpreted your supposition! Secondly, what do you mean when you say, “unity that exists among believers is more on a spiritual level than a temporal level.” After all Jesus built a temporal Church circa 33 AD; if it had been a spiritual church only, (which of course it is because it is guided by the H.S.) --what are all those temporal churches the bible speaks of? What are all those temporal united Catholic churches in the world, all those temporal, divided Protestant churches in the world today with actual locatable addresses? Jesus prayed that His church would be one, united Church, just as He and His Father are one, that there would be one truth regarding any one doctrine --that is the only way His church could remain one and it still is one and it is called the C.C.

Take for example the Church in its infancy. It spread, and especially to the important metropolis of Antioch, the capital city of the Roman Province of the East and an important center of Greek culture. It was in Antioch that the name of Christian was first given to the believers. And it was there that people of many religious backgrounds, Greeks especially, but also Cypriots and Romans, came to accept the teaching and divinity of Christ. For the first time – about the years A.D. 42-45 – the temporal Church began to appear as more than just another Jewish sect. It was becoming “Catholic.”

This posed a problem. The great majority of Christians were Jews. In Antioch as in Jerusalem, they considered themselves bound to circumcision, to their dietary laws, and to the customs that forbade their eating with Gentiles. Since the Eucharist took place on the occasion of a meal, the Jews considered it impossible to celebrate it together with their new Gentile brethren. First instance of potential division and dissension crept into the Apostolic Church; And for an Apostle like St. Peter, the difficult dilemma was to decide whether he, a Jew, should refuse to share communion with Gentiles; or, as an Apostle, should rise above such distinctions; or again whether he should insist that the non-Jewish Christians, a small minority living among Jews and well aware of Jewish prescriptions at the time of their Baptism, submit freely to Jewish ritual and law. To many, the matter seemed clear. Christ had commanded His disciples to spread His Good News to all nations. Yet, to pious Jews, the Baptism of non-circumcised members into the Church was an act of treason towards Judaism, while St. Peter’s lodging and eating with them was even more shocking and contrary to the law. The matter had to be settled, especially since both Jewish and Gentile converts were coming under intense and disruptive pressures from extremist Jewish nationalists who were now persecuting Christians for betraying their heritage and country.

What was the fix? The Apostles met in Jesus’ temporal church in Jerusalem (James was the bishop until it was sacked 70 AD) --Historians argue about the date, their various theories ranging from A.D. 48 to 52. Scripture scholars wonder whether the assembly described in chapter 15 of the Acts of the Apostles refers to one meeting or two. But no one disagrees that the assembly was one of the great moments in the history of’ the temporal Church. The leading Apostles were there: Peter and Paul, John, and James the Less. (the Apostolic Church) So were their close assistants and companions, Barnabas, Silas, Titus, and others. Many, especially those of the Pharisees’ party in Jerusalem, insisted that the Gentiles should be circumcised and instructed to keep the prescriptions of the law of Moses. Others, especially Paul and Barnabas, argued against them. St. Luke tells us that the discussion went on a long time. In the end the issue was settled: no conditions arising out of the Jewish law were to be imposed on converts to the fledgling temporal Apostolic Church. The decision of the 1st of 21 ecumenical councils was of course a vital one. It marked the break between Christianity and the Jewish faith. It curbed division and dissension before it could ever affect any damage!

This Universal Christian faith would be represented henceforth by a very temporal authoritative Apostolic Church and preached in variety of traditions. (no bible existed yet) --If it wasn’t for that 1st council, division might have reared its ugly head right from the word go! Early Christianity might have resembled Protestant Christianity, which would have fractured Jesus One temporal Church, His Body, the temporal House of the Living God and the pillar and foundation of a very temporal truth, just as the reformation did. Truth can be found in a very temporal, collection of books, called the bible, codified and canonized by a very temporal C.C. How could a spiritual church (invisible church if it’s not temporal as well) --define a very temporal canon? How can unity exist only on a spiritual level, if a real tangible temporal Apostolic Church doesn’t exist?..

 

[joe370]

…However, the church I go to is unified on both levels, but it is a very small church. If you were to go to a very large church you would have all kinds of examples of unity and confusion.

That is my point exactly! If unity is to be found at your little church (I promise, no disrespect intended) --created by a mere man, what about all the division and confusion in those larger churches? Also, if Jesus didn’t build the temporal church you belong to it, why do you belong to it? (not to impugn the work of the founder of your church)

We should start a new thread on “What is unity in the church”;…

The bible is quite clear on defining unity in The Only temporal Church built by God and promised to be in the world in perpetuity!

**…there are so many tares out there because church disipline as the Bible defines it is almost non existent. **

There are so many tares out there in the protestant world as well as the C.C., (THE DIFFERENCE IS THESE TARES CAN’T CHANGE THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH AS THEY DO IN THE PROT. WORLD) – because of sola scriptura, and a lack of authority, which led to a diminished discipline in the protestant isolated churches. Church division, as the bible CLEARLY CONDEMNS, is quite corrosive in in the Protestant world; church discipline is alive and well, thriving in the Apostolic Catholic Church. That is the very reason why I left one of many temporal Lutheran churches and joined the Only Church built by God!

**When is the last time anyone saw someone’s sin brought before a congregation, I have never seen it yet …
**

It is called confession. All disputes are resolved by bishops of their district, cardinals and on a very rare occasion, the pope --ex cathedra, literally meaning “from the chair”,which refers to a teaching by the pope that is considered to be made with the intention of invoking infallibility through the guidance of the infallible Holy Spirit, which is guiding and protecting the Deposit of Faith as per your bible. (not by the infallibility of a mere man -the pope has no power/authority without the H.S. --GOD!)

… Jesus laid out the blue print for it. As a result, we have all kinds in the church.

Are you saying that, as a result of Jesus’ blueprint, we have all kinds in the church? All kinds of what?

I see it everyday in the C.C.–YOU EVER NOTICE THAT CATHOLICS ON THIS FORUM ALWAYS AGREE WITH ONE ANOTHER; THAT IS BECAUSE THERE IS ONE AUTHORITATIVE APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH, EMULATING THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE 1ST AUTHORITATIVE APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH --WITH PETER, PAUL, JOHN AND JAMES SPEARHEADING JESUS’ ONE CHURCH.

I always get back to what is a Christian?

How does one know where to find true Christianity in the protestant world when division and dissension runs amok? This was so nerve-racking for me as a Lutheran!

**Jesus emphasized and contrasted the “few” versus the “many” (Matt 7)…he is referring to religious
people, not secular.
**
Logically speaking, are these religious people only found at the spiritual church you attend as opposed to the larger churches the world over, riddled with division and disunity?

What is scary about that is in 7:14, the last sentence "few there be that FIND it"

I guess that leads me back to my initial question --is it necessary for the Ekklesia established by God 2000 years ago to maintain unity and oneness, just as It did for 1500 years, to avoid division and dissension? If what you say is true – ALL Christians either belong to one of these larger churches not created by God, riddled with division and confusion, or they belong to your little man-made church, 1500 years removed from the church Jesus built, or they belong to the One Church, the Apostolic Church built by God --the only church that cannot fail, that lead all into truth-- Jesus said to His One Apostolic Church built circa 33 AD,* ‘When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth’* (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth. He is truth essentially in himself, and He is the the mystical body, the church (Trinity) – and he is the one who leads Jesus’ church into all truth–that continues to maintain unity on a world wide scale. Leaders in the C.C. are powerless without the H.S…

 

[joe370]

…Why are there so many different and unique churches in the world, ALL claiming something the other churches deny regarding the truth vis-a-vis any one particular doctrine —that doesn’t sound like world wide unity and oneness that Jesus prayed for:

"I have revealed you[a] to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word. 7Now they know that everything you have given me comes from you. 8For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me. 9I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours. 10All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them. 11I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name—the name you gave me—so that they may be one as we are one. 12While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled. 13"I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them. 14I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. 15My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. 16They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. 17Sanctify* them by the truth; your word is truth. 18As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. 19For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified. ** JOHN 17:6-19

I hope I am not twisting what you are saying, even if I regretfully was, I still can’t seem to refute anything said by catholics on this forum.

God bless and remember, I never, nor does any catholic at this forum judge non-Catholics, we just attempt to illustrate why we believe what we believe:

Matthew 7
Judging Others

• "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

 

[joe370]

Jesus said to His One Apostolic Church built circa 33 AD, ‘When he, the Spirit of truth. has come, he will guide you into all truth’ (John 16:13).

Sidelight:

Did the H.S.–promised by GOD to be with Jesus’ One Church, His Mystical Body in perpetuity --**stop guiding **Jesus’ One Church, His Mystical Body --into all truth, once all of the Apostles died --or at any other time in history? If the H.S. left Jesus’ One Church, once all of the Apostles died, then I absolutely cannot trust my bible, or any doctrine established by the C.C. e.g. the Trinity which almost all protestant churches embrace as truth, or the Immaculate Conception! This always troubled me as a former Lutheran!

Either the C.C. got it right vis-a-vis ALL doctrines, thanks to the guidance of the the H.S., or they got it wrong on just one doctrine (after all that’s all it would take to prove that the C.C. failed) --and the Holy Spirit is not guiding Jesus’ One Church --totally invalidating ALL scripture --ALL Christianity, regardless of affiliation.

Kind of a sobering thought, if one really thinks about it!!!

 

[benedictus2]

Quote:
Originally Posted by tomarin forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
and why is there no doctrinal unity in this so-called “invisible” church? why did the early church bother to combat heretical movements if doctrinal purity is not an important issue?

Can I see your faith in Christ? Can you see my faith in Christ? Can you read/see my heart? Can I read yours? Can God? Yes, He can and He knows who are the “called” because he determined the “called” before the foundation of the world. (Eternity past) **The true church of God is not necessarily known, especially if you are Catholic, because Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema…kind of a dilemma? **

The true church(Ekklesia) is the body/assembly of believers whom God called unto salvation…So the individual member can be seen in the assembly, but not all people in that assembly are necessarily saved. Only the Holy Spirit can confirm that within the believer.

Have you been confirmed by the Holy Spirit who delivers you to Christ unto salvation?

Christ said He will build His Church upon Peter. Christ built only one Church. If the true Church is this invisible group of believers, why did Christ have to establish a Church if it was going to be invisible anyway? Christ builds a Church and hides her?

Christ established a Church, the Catholic Church and she was born on Pentecost day.

No one is assured of salvation. Let me put this to you, since you are so convinced you are saved. Say for example that you raped a woman and whilst in the act of rape you were shot in the head.

Would you still consider yourself saved?

 

[benedictus2]

**Short answer - because there is no necessary logical link between Peter’s being a rock, & the claims of the CC. **​

**It takes more than one thread to make a tapestry. **

Can you plaese clarify so we are sure we are on the same page.

Which claims of the Church has no logical link to Peter being the Rock?
Maybe once you’ve pointed that out we can then establish the link that you are missing.

 

[NonCatholic]

Have you been confirmed by the Holy Spirit who delivers you to Christ unto salvation?

Christ said He will build His Church upon Peter. Christ built only one Church. If the true Church is this invisible group of believers, why did Christ have to establish a Church if it was going to be invisible anyway? Christ builds a Church and hides her?

Christ established a Church, the Catholic Church and she was born on Pentecost day.

No one is assured of salvation. Let me put this to you, since you are so convinced you are saved. Say for example that you raped a woman and whilst in the act of rape you were shot in the head.

Would you still consider yourself saved?

You don’t get it. Someone said earlier they would renounce their Catholicism if the church teaches that you cannot know you are saved.

Your example is so ridiculous that I will not comment further on it. You make things way to complicated, not the way God intended-another Gospel?

 

[joe370]

**You don’t get it. Someone said earlier they would renounce their Catholicism if the church teaches that you cannot know you are saved.

Your example is so ridiculous that I will not comment further on it. You make things way to complicated, not the way God intended-another Gospel?**

That was me, Joe370, and I will renounce Catholicism, if you can prove that the C.C. TEACHES THAT PEOPLE CANNOT KNOW IF THEY ARE SAVED! I will renounce ALL of my beliefs if you can prove, I am wrong!

Looking forward to your rebuttal…

**Please, tell me how God intended the Gospel to be dispersed!
**
That is easy —the Apostolic, Catholic Church —or perhaps it was your church? —created when???

 

[Randy_Carson]

Your example is so ridiculous that I will not comment further on it. You make things way to complicated, not the way God intended-another Gospel?

Jesus told his disciples to remain in his love because just as we enter freely into a relationship with Christ, we are free to leave him. Scripture is overflowing with examples of this. In Romans 11:22, Paul says, “Note 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.” In Galatians 5:4, Paul says, “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” This verse implies that they were united with Christ and in grace before they fell. In 1 Corinthians 9:27, Paul again warns the Christians against being overconfident: “I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.” This is not the language of “once saved always saved.”

 

[JRKH]

NonCatholic,
I don’t know if you are a believer in OSAS or not (can’t tell from the few posts I’ve read here) but I posted a couple of passages on another thread and would appreciate any comments you (or others) might have on the them.

HERE IS THE LINK

Peace
James

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonCatholic,

You know…you have a point there … that was a rather exaggerated setting for a question.

Your example is so ridiculous that I will not comment further on it.

So, allow another attempt: Under what, if any conditions, can a person with free will claim at one point in his life to be ‘saved’ and then later in his life go about objectively breaking the 10 Commandments?

There are seveal referces from St. Paul that were given identifying that it is not over, until it is over and we stand before the Judgment Seat of God. But, the one I like best is Christ’s parable of the 10 Virgins (Matt 25:1-13)

“Then the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones, when taking their lamps, brought no oil with them, but the wise brought flasks of oil with their lamps. Since the bridegroom was long delayed, they all became drowsy and fell asleep. At midnight, there was a cry, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’ Then all those virgins got up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil, for our lamps are going out.’ But the wise ones replied, ‘No, for there may not be enough for us and you. Go instead to the merchants and buy some for yourselves.’ While they went off to buy it, the bridegroom came and those who were ready went into the wedding feast with him. Then the door was locked. Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, I do not know you.’ Therefore, stay awake, for you know neither the day nor the hour.”

The way I read this, unless you persevere until the end, you will not be saved. Please note, the story does not end with something like*…“Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, you were pretty good girls after all, come on in!.’ Therefore, it does not make a difference if you stay awake or not, for while you know neither the day nor the hour, it does not make any difference because you have been saved!” *

In the first and true version, Christ is quite clear about what is expected of all ten. And, except for what looks like a momentary lapse in judgment (not taking any oil) there is no difference between the five wise and five foolish: they were all virgins, they all went to the designated place, they all had their own lamps, they all took a nap… but, look at the different outcomes!

In the second and fanciful verson the Lord is being made a fool of! His rules (no one in after the door is locked) is not worth keeping and surely He will show us mercy. And, sure enough! The Lord does not mind being made a fool of and He lets them in! What the heck?!! You know, if Christ had given that ending, there would have been no doubt as to the basis for OSAS. But, you and I know this is not how the parable ends.

For these five who did not persevere until the end, the loss was great. You know, there could have been more (or less) then five foolish virgins in this story!

So, to paraphrase as I piggy-back on Benedictus2’s question: were these five foolish virgins in the OSAS cagegory? And, if not, why not? Hopefull, this is simple and straight forward

God bless