How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[mikeledes]

Let’s see. Let me highlight some of the words:

[SIGN]Those [Muslims who follow Father Abraham] also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.[/SIGN]

It clearly states that they seek God on their own. Being “moved by grace” is popish speculation - nothing more. It’s an anti-Biblical assumption that God will choose to save people outside of what He has revealed to us in His sacred Word.

I know that YOU said that. But the Catholic Church, in its official pronouncements, has said differently, leaving open the possibility that Muslims can be saved automatically because they “worship the same God” as we do.

I disagree, 1,000 percent. I disagree, because instead of unequivocally declaring that “I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man comes to me unless the Father draws him”, and that there is NO OTHER WAY, or NO OTHER NAME under heaven whereby men can be saved, except through Christ Jesus, the Pope made a declaration that can easily be interpreted as being anti-Biblical.

1. 
   *]Firstly, Lumen Gentium is speaking AGAINST John 3:16, by declaring that you don’t need to have explicit knowledge of Jesus in order to obtain salvation.
   *]Secondly, I am not talking about what YOU are saying, but what the Lumen Gentium is saying - and it is clear that they are saying that Muslims/non-Christians can be saved by some other means other than through the name and knowledge of Christ.

1. 
   Pepcis, where does it say that a Muslim is automatically saved simply by worshipping the Creator? Nor does it state that Islam is an alternative road to heaven. The only way to heaven is through Christ and we believe that anyone who is in heaven is because of Him. “Moved” by grace is not popish speculation, for only by the grace of God can one be saved. Moreover, it is only talking about the possibility of salvation under very specific conditions. You are reading something into the quote that’s not there. If you actually read it within the broader context of Catholic theology, it’s clear that the Catholic Church does not teach that you are saved by Islam or any other religion. If you take it out of context, read into it what you think it says, and reject the explanation given to you by Catholics, then there is very little I can do to change your opinion. All I know is that what you say does not resemble anything I’ve read or heard from reliable Catholic sources. And I don’t know any Catholic here who believes that a Muslim is saved through their religion and not through Christ.
   
   But I do have a related question. Do you believe that the millions of infants that have died are burning in hell? Do you believe that those who have severe mental disabilities are condemned to burn in hell as well?
   
   God Bless,
   Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

I do believe, as a Catholic, that we are saved by grace through faith. By faith, I mean a formed faith (fides formata), that is, a faith that is united to and animated by the love of God. So while I believe in salvation by grace through faith, I don’t believe in faith alone -which makes the love of God ancilliary to salvation.

God Bless,
Michael

The debate I have with you, personally, is not necessarily what YOU believe, but what the Catholic Church presents as the “truth.” You seem to have a solid, Biblical foundation of understanding for what Ephesians 2:8-9 says. We would, however, probably differ on some subtle understandings of the origination of faith.

You and I both understand that when James says “faith alone” that he clearly means that TRUE faith always has its ancillary and complementary works. Which is what James means by “faith alone.”

Even today, there are many people (of all faiths, protestant and catholic) who believe that they do not have to do anything their whole lives to prove their salvation. Some Protestants believe that they will simply be saved by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they confess them, or repent.

I agree with the Catholic Church that you must confess your sins and repent of them. (I John 1:9) But there are some Catholics who believe that you can live your life any way that you choose, and then simply repent at the end of your life. I would say that this is not a true faith, because it produces absolutely no fruit. Christ even states that those fruitless souls will be cast into hell.

Our argument is centered more on whether the Catholic Church promotes a works-based system via its unofficial doctrine.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS to mikeledes:

Those are some good observations, but you are sticking with a literal reading of the terms. As I noted, that interpretation is inconsistent with the full context of the Bible.

You keep speaking of the Bible as if it objectively just agreed with your interpretation of it.

No, I speak as if I have objectively interpreted the Bible. It is WE who must agree with the Bible, not the Bible agree with us.
una fides:

You do not possess the only interpretation of the Bible.

How many interpretations are there that are true?
una fides:

There are thousands of other protestant denominations that interpret the Bible quite differently than you do.

Wrong. There are thousands of divisions within the Body of Christ. Just within Catholicism there are over 200 distinct divisions with differing beliefs, ecclesiology, liturgy, etc.

Even with all of those distinct divisions within Christianity, there are only two main interpretations regarding this dispute.
una fides:

Also what gives you the right to arbitrarily apply literal interpretations to passages that fit your preconceived notions of what Scripture teaches and then in other passages apply them figuratively?

Good question. I have just as much right as you, or the Pope. Christ gives us that right.
una fides:

Who gets to have the final say as to the correct interpretation?

The local church.
una fides:

You will keep interpreting the Bible according to your tradition and the interpretation based on the oral teachings you’ve already accepted. Why not stick with the oral Tradition of the early Church instead?

I don’t stick to anything that resembles tradition.

 

[mikeledes]

The debate I have with you, personally, is not necessarily what YOU believe, but what the Catholic Church presents as the “truth.” You seem to have a solid, Biblical foundation of understanding for what Ephesians 2:8-9 says. We would, however, probably differ on some subtle understandings of the origination of faith.

You and I both understand that when James says “faith alone” that he clearly means that TRUE faith always has its ancillary and complementary works. Which is what James means by “faith alone.”

Even today, there are many people (of all faiths, protestant and catholic) who believe that they do not have to do anything their whole lives to prove their salvation. Some Protestants believe that they will simply be saved by the blood of Christ, regardless of whether they confess them, or repent.

I agree with the Catholic Church that you must confess your sins and repent of them. (I John 1:9) But there are some Catholics who believe that you can live your life any way that you choose, and then simply repent at the end of your life. I would say that this is not a true faith, because it produces absolutely no fruit. Christ even states that those fruitless souls will be cast into hell.

Our argument is centered more on whether the Catholic Church promotes a works-based system via its unofficial doctrine.

Hi Pepcis! What I believe is what the Catholic Church teaches. I believe that saving faith is a formed faith, a faith united love. I believe that a person can live a life of sin and then if they truly believe and repent of all of his or her wickedness at the end of your life, you will be saved - even if you do not have the opportunity to live a godly life, as in the case of the thief on the cross. The Catholic Church does not teach that you can live any way you like without worrying about the consequences and then save yourself through a hypocritical repentance. I also believe that a person can start off with living faith and then fail to bear fruit and end with a dead faith ( 2 Peter 1:9).

John 15:2

2 Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit He prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

Christ, not the “visible Church”, is the Vine. A false professor can hypothetically be a member of a congregation, but they can never be in Christ, they can never be a “branch” in the True Vine. I believe, as did the Church for 1500 years prior to John Calvin - including Augustine - that a person can begin with living faith and then turn away from the love of God and “shipwreck” that faith:

1 Timothy 1:9

**19keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith. **

You can’t suffer shipwreck of *your faith * if you never had faith to begin with. And if you had “false” faith, then it was never “afloat” in order to be shipwrecked. And since faith, love, repentance, and confession of sins are required for salvation, I don’t believe salvation is through faith alone. Love , repentance, and confession may be rooted in faith, but I don’t believe you are saved until all of this has been accomplished. Faith is the beginning and foundation of a logical chain of acts (i.e. love of God, sorrow for sins, repentance, confession) that end in justification and/or glorification. I believe that the love of God is as essential to salvation as faith and that love is not just a byproduct of being saved. Like faith, love is condition for salvation.

God Bless,
Michael

.

 

[mikeledes]

Wrong. There are thousands of divisions within the Body of Christ. Just within Catholicism there are over 200 distinct divisions with differing beliefs, ecclesiology, liturgy, etc.

Even with all of those distinct divisions within Christianity, there are only two main interpretations regarding this dispute.

Can you cite these 200 distinct divisions within Catholicism?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[una_fides]

No, I speak as if I have objectively interpreted the Bible. It is WE who must agree with the Bible, not the Bible agree with us.

There are many thousands of other protestant denominations who claim the same thing yet they all disagree on virtually every issue in the Book down to every fundamental one. How is anyone to know who has the correct interpretation? Obviously if they are all claiming the same thing as you, which is that they are all “correctly interpreting the Bible,” then they are going wrong somewhere. They are all claiming the same Holy Spirit is guiding them but to vastly different conclusions.

For this reason, Christ gave us the Church to settle these matters of dispute. How did the primitive Church settle matters of dispute in the days of the Apostles? They called together a Church council at Jerusalem to decide. It was led by the Apostles and the Holy Spirit who guided them to coming to the correct decision to settle the doctrinal dispute over whether the Gentiles needed to be circumcised and keep the law to be saved. They did not sit down and say, “Well let’s just objectively interpret Scripture on this matter”–as if such a thing were possible anyway! You cannot interpret Scripture apart from the teaching tradition you have already received and accepted. You see the world through the goggles you put on.

There is no unity in interpreting Scripture apart from the Church, which canonized it according to Tradition. Did you ever wonder how the books of the Bible made it into the Bible? Catholic Church fathers actually decided upon which books were and were not inspired and they gathered them together after much deliberation and canonized them at a Church council (Carthage in AD 397).

How many interpretations are there that are true?

There is only one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism; just as there is only one Church that possesses the one truth. You claim your Baptist church, which started up over a century and a half after Christ somehow recovered the truths lost since the days of the apostles. So basically Christ establishes the perfect religion, the perfect faith; he reveals to the world the truth, gives his Church the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth, he promises to guide her and lead her until the end of time and promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against her and the Spirit calls her the “pillar and foundation of truth” only to let that truth be lost for over 1500 years until people started reading a Bible canonized by the “false Church” that took over and somehow spread across the universal world and then interpreted this Bible according to whatever fancy they could conjur up:::::gasp::::::and you want me to believe that is the true Church?

Wrong. There are thousands of divisions within the Body of Christ. Just within Catholicism there are over 200 distinct divisions with differing beliefs, ecclesiology, liturgy, etc.

There is only one Catholic faith. Your feeble attempt to throw out numbers you found in a Jack Chick track won’t work on any educated persons. There are a few liturgical variations within the Catholic Church, which she permits, and which are varying forms of the same Mass. There is only one hierarchy, one Pope, and one faith, which can be traced back to the days of the apostles and continues until the present day.

Even with all of those distinct divisions within Christianity, there are only two main interpretations regarding this dispute.

Regarding this disputed verse, yes. There are those who interpret John 3:16 according to their own traditions and those who interpret it in light of sacred Tradition, which is the sum of the teachings of the early Church fathers, what they universally or virtually unanimously accepted all over the world as being correct.

 

[una_fides]

Good question. I have just as much right as you, or the Pope. Christ gives us that right.

We do not have a divine right to interpret Scripture any way we want.

The local church [has the final say as to the correct interpretation of Scripture].

To which of the many thousands different sects of local protestant churches are you referring? The one that agrees with you and your interpretation of Scripture, which you claim to be the only “objective interpretation”?

One of the most important things we can possibly do when approaching discussions on God’s Word is to humble ourselves and realize that we can be wrong and can come to wrong conclusions on even foundational things. Until we detach ourselves from what we believe in the sense of taking a few steps back and examining it to see whether it is reasonable and with readiness to admit error, we will truly be lost in our own prideful conclusions. We must–myself included–humbly beg for light from heaven willing to forsake anything for God and for His truth. We are not God, and we must realize his ways and thoughts are high above ours. So we then approach as beggars imploring his grace and light to guide us into the truth.

I don’t stick to anything that resembles tradition.

If that is the case, then you wouldn’t go to a baptist church. The word “tradition” means what has been handed on. The baptist church has handed on its teachings, which are based on their interpretations of Scripture, for several centuries now. It is a teaching tradition. A baptist then teaches others about Jesus and the Bible as he interprets and understands it. Then others turn and interpret the Bible accordingly. You can replace the word “baptist” with pentacostal, episopalean, Jehovah’s witness, or any group that claims the Bible as its source and see that they spread their teachings by handing it on to the next generation. That is the definition of tradition.

Here will be the biggest shocker for you: The Bible itself is a product of Tradition! The early Church fathers compiled the various individual books floating around and decided which should and should not be included as considered to be divinely inspired. They based their decisions on Tradition: whether these books had been received and read during Mass, whether they could be traced to an apostle or an immediate follower of an apostle, whether they were Christocentric. They knew these things because of the oral Tradition they had received as well as the Holy Spirit, which guided them to this conclusion, just as he guided them to the others that they came to regarding faith and works, baptismal regeneration, etc. So you see, you really do follow a tradition, whether you admit it or not.

 

[PEPCIS]

Notice that Lumen Gentium mentions that these works are not done on the person’s own apart from God but that they are moved by GRACE.

As I told Mike, that’s popish speculation. There is no Biblical warrant to make such a statement, and it actually goes against the Word of God.
una fides:

You have a very different understanding of grace than that of Scripture.

I’m not sure that you even know what I think regarding a definition for Grace.
una fides:

Typically baptists only understand grace as pertaining to one’s initial salvation but playing no role in the continual ongoing process of salvation, which you refer to as sanctification.

That certainly is not my experience. All the Baptists I know, including myself, understand that there is not only God’s providential grace which He bestows upon everyone, but there is His saving Grace which He extends to those He intends to save. In addition, there is the ongoing process of grace which He bestows to those who continue in Him through sanctification.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Your understanding is that “without having a proper understanding of who” God is, one cannot enter salvation. Yet this goes against this Catholic teaching that ANYONE “can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church. . .”

You do not understand what the Church means when she says through no fault of their own and what other conditions are necessary.

I don’t need to. When you want to guard against counterfeits, you don’t examine what the counterfeit looks like, but you study the real thing. When you know the real thing, you don’t have to know what the counterfeit looks like, because it will ALWAYS look different than the real thing.

One thing is for sure, the Bible (the real thing) states unequivocally that the ONLY way to get salvation is through mental assent/acknowledgment of who Christ is. In reading the Lumen Gentium, it must be assumed that the Pope was speaking of the AVERAGE Muslim who had the mental faculties to consider the gospel message, but “through no fault of their own” had never heard the gospel presentation. That is anti-Biblical. End of story.
una fides:

You must first have an understanding that the only way to make it into heaven is to be completely holy.

Yes, something that is impossible for man. Woe is we. We are undone, because we are unclean, and we all dwell together with other men who are unclean!!! What are we to do? (Isaiah 6)
una fides:

Scripture and Tradition teach that we actually become holy in this life and must be holy to enter heaven. Heb Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

Very good. We become holy by Jesus Christ. If you don’t know Him, you can’t be holy. End of story.
una fides:

These invincibly ignorant people who are cooperating with the grace available to them are not yet justified. However, we do understand that if the gospel message would be made available to them they would readily accept. People in such a state who have perfect charity for God and perfect contrition for their sins could potentially be special ones that God has chosen to reveal to them his saving truths through an extraordinary means in order that they may be saved.

Man, you must be in a totally different world than the one that I live in!! These “invincibly ignorant people” are doing anything but “cooperating with the grace available to them”, and could NEVER be justified outside of the knowledge of Christ. In fact, when presented with the gospel of grace, they spit on it, and reject it outright. That’s not just MY experience, but the experience of the multitude of Christianity. Maybe you haven’t heard, but the GREATEST persecution of Christianity is in Muslim countries, where they are anything but cooperating with the grace that can free them from the grips of hades.

 

[PEPCIS]

Also please notice that Christ told him he needed to be born of water and of the Spirit. He needed to be baptized.

I take the “water” to mean the water of the womb. That’s done. Now you need to be born of the Spirit.

 

[PEPCIS]

Ok so you got your interpretation of the Bible from the Holy Spirit alone?

Where else would one get their interpretation?
una fides:

Where the Spirit of God is there is unity for there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

Yeah, that’s why there is disagreement between the various sects of Catholicism, right?

 

[una_fides]

Man, you must be in a totally different world than the one that I live in!! These “invincibly ignorant people” are doing anything but “cooperating with the grace available to them”, and could NEVER be justified outside of the knowledge of Christ. In fact, when presented with the gospel of grace, they spit on it, and reject it outright. That’s not just MY experience, but the experience of the multitude of Christianity. Maybe you haven’t heard, but the GREATEST persecution of Christianity is in Muslim countries, where they are anything but cooperating with the grace that can free them from the grips of hades.

When I stated “these invincibly ignorant people,” I am not referring to “the average Muslim” as you wrongfully deduce. Those who are invincibly ignorant of Christ and his Church AND who have perfect charity for God and an openness to his truth and are not guilty of any deliberate sins and who would convert if the gospel message was brought to them. I agree that this scenario is very rare and that most of the time people do spit on the gospel message when it is initially received. Nevertheless, we read in Scripture of those people to whom the apostles and their successors brought the gospel message who did in fact convert. The Church has sent out missionaries throughout the world and who have through God’s grace performed extraordinary miracles in some cases and in other cases who have merely proclaimed the gospel message leading to the conversion of souls. Yes, even Muslims can convert and do convert. A famous Muslim, I forget his name, recently converted to the true Church and was baptized by the pope himself. Anyone who culpably refuses to join the one and only Church of Christ cannot be saved.

 

[una_fides]

I take the “water” to mean the water of the womb. That’s done. Now you need to be born of the Spirit.

Thank you for sharing your interpretation of that passage. Interestingly, on the interpretation of this passage and the understanding of the water as baptism, the Church fathers who were dispersed throughout all the world are in universal agreement that it is referring to baptism. Think about this for a minute. St. Paul travels around preaching the gospel to people all around the known world and with communication what it was the fact that the universal Church all understood this passage the same way in the east and in the west I would think has a lot more weight than those trying to interpret these passages 1500-2000 years later independent from the oral teachings of the apostles that were present in the early Church.

Here are two commentaries on that passage taken from the Catena Aurea:

St. Augustine: It is the Spirit that speaks, whereas he understands carnally; he knew of no birth save one, that from Adam and Eve; from God and the Church he knows of none. But do you so understand the birth of the Spirit, as Nicodemus did the birth of the flesh; for as the entrance into the womb cannot be repeated, so neither can baptism.

St. John Chrysostom: If any one asks how a man is born of water, I ask in return, how Adam was born from the ground. For as in the beginning though the element of earth was the subject-matter, the man was the work of the fashioner; so now too, though the element of water is the subject-matter, the whole work is done by the Spirit of grace. He then gave Paradise for a place to dwell in; now He has opened heaven to us. But what need is there of water, to those who receive the Holy Ghost? It carries out the divine symbols of burial, mortification, resurrection, and life. For by the immersion of our heads in the water, the old man disappears and is buried as it were in a sepulcher, whence he ascends a new man. Thus should you learn, that the virtue of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, fills all things. For which reason also Christ lay three days in the grave before His resurrection. That then which the womb is to the offspring, water is to the believer; he is fashioned and formed in the water. But that which is fashioned in the womb needs time; whereas the water all is done in an instant. For the nature of the body is such as to require time for its completion; but spiritual creations are perfect from the beginning. From the time that our Lord ascended out of the Jordan, water produces no longer reptiles, i.e. living souls; but souls rational and endued with the Spirit.

Furthermore, when we compare the teaching with other Scripture it becomes clear that it is referring to water baptism:

1 Peter 3:20-21 Which had been some time incredulous, when they waited for the patience of God in the days of Noe, when the ark was a building: wherein a few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water. Whereunto baptism, being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but, the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

This passage is clearly speaking of water baptism. The context and meaning could not be clearer.

When we are baptized, our sins are washed away:
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.

Once this foundation is understood, other verses then begin to make much more sense as well:

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

And here is a verse I’m sure you’re quite familiar with:
Tit 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

God most certainly saved us according to his mercy, and Catholic teaching is that we cannot in any way merit first grace, which is what we receive in baptism. All the good works in the world of all the saints would not make God indebted to us to save us. We are only saved by his grace and by his grace we are also able to accept and continue to cooperate with his grace and do his will. We must also persevere in his grace until the end to be saved, as Christ himself warns us in Scripture (Mat 10:22; 24:13; Mar 13:13).

 

[PioYapJr]

It’s hard for me to believe that some religious denomination really hold that all non-Christians are condemned to eternal hellfire. This is more absurd than saying that Hitler is better than God. In fact a God who would do such thing is immeasurably unjust, thoughtless and cruel. He would be worse than Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot combined. Those people inflicted sufferings to their victims for only a short time. And their victims are only an insignificant number compared to the victims of your God. It would not be surprising therefore that a large portion of humanity would reject your God. But your God is not truly the Christian God. The God that you preach is giving a bad name to the true Christian God whom we know to be merciful and just and whom we know to be a God of love.
Reading through the New Testament about Christ does not give this idea of a cruel and tyrant God at all.
The true Christian God who is our Lord Jesus Christ described himself more authentically in Matt 25:31-45. “…I was hungry and you give me food to eat. …” , “… for whatsoever you do to the least of my brethrens, you have done it to me…” .
I am a Catholic and I believe that if properly informed about the coming of the Son of God, one must respond appropriately. In the passage just cited, Jesus gives us a general criteria for all people, specially those who have not heard about Him and those who heard about but in a distorted and unattractive way.

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi Pepcis. I disagree with the argument that the sacraments create a false sense of salvation and that this is a result of the teachings of the Church.

I understand. Let me see if I can put it down more directly. It is my understanding that the Catholic Church teaches that after baptism, if a man commits a mortal sin, that he would lose his salvation. After baptism, anyone who committed a mortal sin and did not do penance would not regain salvation and would not be forgiven by God.

So, if you can lose your salvation, that is something that man alone does, not God. And if you can lose it, that means that you alone can “regain” it. Again, that is separate from God. God is DEPENDENT upon man for granting grace, instead of man being dependent on God for the granting of grace.

Furthermore, in order to regain salvation, a person must perform the sacrament of penance. This means that the individual must WORK in order to regain his salvation. Catholicism defines the sacrament of penance as having three parts:

1. 
   *]“contrition”
   *]"confession to a priest’
   *]“performance of works of satisfaction such as fasting, saying prayers, alms giving, or any other such works of piety which the priest should give him to do.”
   
   
   mikeledes:
   

   First of all, the sacraments are Christocentric.

   I’m not sure how you define “Christocentric”, but it would appear that the works are man-centered
   
   

   [Catholics]
   believe that Christ applies to the individual the spiritual benefits He merited on the Cross through the sacraments.

   
   And that is my whole point: if you can only obtain eternal life THROUGH the sacraments, then it is clear that you must WORK in order to inherit eternal life. This is different than the Protestant scheme which states that works flow from faith, whereas Catholics say that faith flows from works.
   
   
   mikeledes:
   

   The sacraments are means of grace that are meant to deepen our relationship with Christ and for our spiritual growth, not works that you do in order to get brownie points with God.

   But, if you must work to inherit eternal life, then you are working to “get brownie points with God.”

 

[PEPCIS]

Actually, you’re making my point for me. Forget has one basic meaning. So what is being gauged is not the meaning of the word “forget” - we all know what that means - but the truthfulness of my statement. In other words, does reality correspond to the meaning of the word forget. If I really and unintentionally left my wallet at home, then reality *does *correspond to the meaning of the word “forget” and hence I am being truthful. I did forget. If I intentionally left my wallet or actually have my wallet, then reality does not correspond to the meaning of the word forget and hence I’m lying. As your yourself said, I did not forget. I am purposely using the word incorrectly.

mikeledes:

Context establishes whether I am being truthful or not. However, context does not change the meaning of the word forget.

Sorry, but that’s Biblical Interpretation 101. If you want to understand what a word means, you MUST understand the context of the word. The word “interpretation” means “to give definition to a word or phrase as a result of the context in which it is given.” It is the context which gives or adds significance and meaning to a word.

Context ALWAYS sets the meaning of the word, and oftentimes will CHANGE its meaning. For example, in we read: “And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold, the Lamb of God!” (John 1:36)

In this case, Jesus was not a LITERAL lamb that went “baaaaaah” and ate grass. He was a FIGURATIVE lamb of sacrifice. The meaning of “Lamb” changed from a LITERAL one to an ALLEGORICAL one.

For the same token, “forgot” is not used in the LITERAL sense, but in a FIGURATIVE sense, indicating that they were told, they had learned, and they had practiced Christianity, but had never fully owned it. They had “forgotten” what they had been told. But in this context, since they had never truly accepted Christ as their personal savior, they could never truly “remember.” It’s a play on words.

 

[PEPCIS]

"Lumen Gentium:

Those [Muslims who follow Father Abraham] also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life.

Pepcis, where does it say that a Muslim is automatically

saved simply by worshipping the Creator?

More importantly, where does it say that a Muslim IS NOT automatically saved simply by worshipping the same Creator (which we know he does not).

mikeledes:

Nor does it state that Islam is an alternative road to heaven.

Nor does it state that Islam IS NOT an alternative road to heaven.

mikeledes:

The only way to heaven is through Christ and we believe that anyone who is in heaven is because of Him.

But this does not say that “the only way to heaven is through Christ.” Instead, it speaks about some ethereal means of achieving salvation OUTSIDE OF THE NAME OF CHRIST.

“Moved” by grace is not popish speculation, for only by the grace of God can one be saved.

It is “popish speculation” precisely because the Pope is suggesting that God’s grace operates outside of the knowledge of Christ to effect salvation. That is unbiblical.

mikeledes:

Moreover, it is only talking about the possibility of salvation under very specific conditions.

It’s possible that the rings of Saturn are made from fairy dust, but it’s useless speculation to speak of things that we cannot know, or to give false hope where none should be extended.

mikeledes:

You are reading something into the quote that’s not there.

If I say to you, “Mike, I am pro-choice,” then it is clear that you can read into that statement that I am not willing to put any effort into stopping abortion. You might even assume that I am actually PRO-ABORTION, and am just using the term “pro-choice” as a euphemism for my position. Words mean something, and the fact that the Pope failed to state unequivocally that there is no other name under heaven whereby men can be saved, and he left open the possibility that Muslims COULD be saved simply because they were “good” worshippers, goes against everything that the Bible speaks of.

mikeledes:

If you actually read it within the broader context of Catholic theology, it’s clear that the Catholic Church does not teach that you are saved by Islam or any other religion.

As I said, the better question is why the Church did not say that? The Lumen Gentium says that a Muslim who is, “through no fault of his own” worshipping the same God as I am, and being given the grace from God, could be saved. The Lumen Gentium states that if this Muslim were to “do [God’s] will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience” That’s using Islam to get to heaven, because he would be doing God’s will as it was revealed through Islam, and by the dictates of his conscience (which is formed by Islamic teachings).

mikeledes:

But I do have a related question. Do you believe that the millions of infants that have died are burning in hell? Do you believe that those who have severe mental disabilities are condemned to burn in hell as well?

I believe that the Lord of all the earth will do right. Mine is not to question if His actions are evil if… I am happy to know that God cannot do injustice.

 

[PEPCIS]

I believe that a person can live a life of sin and then if they truly believe and repent of all of his or her wickedness at the end of your life, you will be saved - even if you do not have the opportunity to live a godly life, as in the case of the thief on the cross.

But that’s not really the same as we have been discussing. The Catholic Church tries to make a distinction between initial justification and a different justification that is ongoing - which is really a confusion between justification and sanctification.

mikeledes:

I also believe that a person can start off with living faith and then fail to bear fruit and end with a dead faith ( 2 Peter 1:9).

Then you believe that Jesus lied when he said:

[SIGN]“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” (Matthew 7)[/SIGN]

Here are people who actually PRODUCED fruit, and ended up with a dead faith. I would say, instead that they BEGAN with a dead faith, and it was such that Jesus could see through all of their good works and know them for who they truly were.

2 Peter 1:9 is simply a picture of another man with dead faith. One tries to produce good works to counterfeit his faith. The other doesn’t produce ANY works because there is no desire.

Christ, not the “visible Church”, is the Vine. A false professor can hypothetically be a member of a congregation, but they can never be in Christ, they can never be a “branch” in the True Vine. I believe, as did the Church for 1500 years prior to John Calvin - including Augustine - that a person can begin with living faith and then turn away from the love of God and “shipwreck” that faith:

1 Timothy 1:9

19keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.

You can’t suffer shipwreck of *your faith * if you never had faith to begin with.

You can if you are like those who Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7. You have the guise of faith, and you can even have “good” works. Such people can (and often do) shipwreck their faith.

I often refer to these kind of Christians as “sunshine Christians.” That’s because when the sun is shining, and everything is copasetic, they will wear the garb of the Christian. But as soon as rain comes - as soon as troubles and persecutions begin, they will walk away from the faith.

 

[PEPCIS]

Can you cite these 200 distinct divisions within Catholicism?

I will if you can cite the THOUSANDS of protestant denominations.

 

[PEPCIS]

There are many thousands of other protestant denominations who claim the same thing yet they all disagree on virtually every issue in the Book down to every fundamental one.

You’re just repeating a lie. Be careful.

The fact is, protestant denominations, regardless of how many, agree on the vast majority of doctrines, including those held by the Catholic Church. It’s just when there are disagreements, they are typically in areas that are not essential to matters of salvation.

One major “division” among protestants is that between Arminianism and Calvinism. Such a difference has potential to cause much strife and schism. Yet there are many other areas where protestants differ that do not amount to a hill of beans.
una fides:

How is anyone to know who has the correct interpretation?

No one can truly know everything. If we could, then we’d be God.
una fides:

Obviously if they are all claiming the same thing as you, which is that they are all “correctly interpreting the Bible,” then they are going wrong somewhere.

Whenever you have a difference of opinion in interpretation, then there is typically ONE person wrong. The problem of differences becomes exasperating when you consider the many doctrines that sects make differences upon. So even if one sect or denomination has 90% of their doctrine correct, that means that they have 10% wrong.
una fides:

There is only one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism; just as there is only one Church that possesses the one truth.

The question is, do you belong to the right denomination? Catholicism, or Baptist? Which is right? Or is it the Pentecostals?