How do Catholics answer to John 3: 16?

[PEPCIS]

And I believe that the Baptist church - or churches, since there are several - also has a number of teachings that are incorrect. The pagan Greeks did not have a proper understanding of God and they worshiped Him without having a proper understanding of who He was. This does not mean that they were saved. So to say that Muslims worship God does not necessarily mean that they are automatically saved or that the Muslim religion is a way of getting saved.

I agree, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. In the Lumen Gentium, it says

[SIGN]But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. . . Those 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]
Sorry, but this is about as works-based as you can get!

You correctly told me that “The pagan Greeks did not have a proper understanding of God and they worshiped Him without having a proper understanding of who He was. . .[but] This does not mean that they were saved.”

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. . .”

 

[PEPCIS]

Well I guess I`ll answer you one more time.

I’m gonna gues that you are talking to me. I can’t tell if you are, because you didn’t address me by name, so you shouldn’t take it as a surprise that I hadn’t answered you yet for your previous questions.

Garland:

You seem to be very fond of luther and his teachings so why not follow all of them.

I’m actually quite fond of many of the Catholic’s teachings, but I don’t follow Catholicism. There are some fundamental reasons for that, and it shouldn’t be to hard to see why.

[Luther]
taught. . .

I snipped what you posted because you’re making claims that are not backed up by any documentation. Some of those things can be attributed to Luther, but much of your rant was nothing more than pathetic jabs at Protestantism.

 

[PEPCIS]

Protestants never read John 3:16 in context. Just a few verses later in verse 21 Jesus says “But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” Here Jesus does not emphasize those who believe but “whoever lives by the truth.” Jesus implies that they come into the light of faith precisely because they have been living in the truth. Jesus is not divorcing faith from works. He is identifying one with the other. Moreover. these are not boastful , self-righteous works done under the system of obligation, but works that have “been done through God.” Once again, we see the unfortunate tendency of Protestants to interpret Scripture’s use of faith to be faith alone which only appears in James 2:24 where it is denounced. Scripture never uses such terminology; rather, it invariably couples faith with the works in the realm of grace for the purposes of justification.

There are only two ways to interpret John 3:21:

1. 
   *]Those who “live by the truth” are the saved who do works of righteousness, and therefore prefer to “come into the light”, or
   *]Those who “live by the truth” is a phrase that means “do works of righteousness.”
   
   If we take the second interpretation (which is what you do), then you are advocating a works-based system of belief. Yours is works-based, because you claim that if we “live by the truth” (do good works), that we can “come into the light of faith precisely because they have been living in the truth.” In other words, we come to salvation because we do good works.
   
   If we take the first interpretation (which is what I do), then we are advocating a faith-based system of belief. This is what mikeledes and I agree is the correct understanding of proper Biblical teaching regarding faith and grace.

 

[mikeledes]

Let’s be clear here: I’m being consistent. I’m not bending “rules of grammar and semantics” just to make it say what I want it to say. I’m USING proper rules of grammar and semantics that will maintain a consistent context with the WHOLE TEACHING OF THE BIBLE.

If you and I were going to the movies, and when we arrived at the theatre, you asked me to pay because you “forgot” your wallet, I have one of two things that I can do to interpret what you mean when you say “forgot.”

1. 
   *]To maintain friendship, I can ASSUME that you mean you honestly forgot your wallet.
   *]I can gauge the truthfulness of your claim against your past actions.
   
   In the first case, I interpret words in their literal meaning, while in the second case, I interpret words in the greater context of their meaning. Gauging your truthfulness by your past actions is a means of interpreting your words in the greater context of their meaning. Either you are using “forgot” in a literal sense, or you are using it in the sense that you didn’t really forget, but the end result is the same – you don’t have your wallet and you need me to pay for your ticket.

1. 
   Let’s analyze your case. First of all, what is being gauged here is the truthfulness of my statement, namely, that I forgot my wallet. So what is being gauged here is whether I’m using the word “forget” correctly and thus telling the truth or if I’m using the word incorrectly and thus lying. Now if this is an attempt to provide an alternative definition to “forgotten” then the one commonly used (i.e. to forget something I really knew or had) - then you undermined your argument by stating the following:
   
   Either you are using “forgot” in a literal sense, or you are using it in the sense that you didn’t really forget
   
   It’s very simple. If I purposely left my wallet at home or actually had my wallet and knew it, then, as you yourself said, I didn’t really forget. So I am not using two senses of the word “forget.” The word “forget” has a single meaning and sense. If reality does not match that definition, then I am lying. I DID NOT forget.
   
   In the case of 2 Peter 1:9, it is not the subject of the verse who’s making the claim that he’s “forgotten that he was cleansed of his past sin.” Rather, it is the inspired author himself, Peter, who makes the claim. He is the one who asserts that this person WAS cleansed from his sins and that he has forgotten that fact. Since there is only one meaning of the word “forgotten,” then it is clear Peter is using this word the only way it is commonly used and understood. If he meant something else, he would have used another word.
   
   The issue here is not that this verse is inconsistent with the rest of the Bible. Rather, it is inconsistent with the theological framework you’re using to interpret the Bible. As a result, you are indeed bending the rules of semantics and grammar - creating new senses of the word forget unsubstantiated by the Bible or a good dictionary - in order to make it fit.
   
   God Bless,
   Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I agree, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. In the Lumen Gentium, it says

[SIGN]But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. . . Those 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]
Sorry, but this is about as works-based as you can get!

You correctly told me that “The pagan Greeks did not have a proper understanding of God and they worshiped Him without having a proper understanding of who He was. . .[but] This does not mean that they were saved.”

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. . .”

First of all, it does not say that they are saved through their good works. Everyone is saved by grace. Their good deeds, as it clearly states, are evidence that they are being moved by God’s grace.

Secondly, what I said was that just because we say Muslims worship God does not mean that they are automatically saved. Nor is the Catholic Church teaching that Islam is an alternative road to heaven. Lumen Gentium is talking about the possiblilty of the salvation for those who do not have explicit knowledge of the Christian faith through no fault of their own. It is not saying that all Muslims or non-Christians will be saved through their good deeds.

I insist that this should be the subject of another thread.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

If we take the first interpretation (which is what I do), then we are advocating a faith-based system of belief. This is what mikeledes and I agree is the correct understanding of proper Biblical teaching regarding faith and grace.

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.

BTW, please don’t take anything that I say personally.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

BTW, please don’t take anything that I say personally.

God Bless,
Michael

I don’t. I can tell that we are at odds over definitions and such, but I also can tell that you are approaching this conversation with good, honest intentions. I appreciate that.

I’ll come back later when I get home from work. No more break time left.

 

[mikeledes]

I don’t. I can tell that we are at odds over definitions and such, but I also can tell that you are approaching this conversation with good, honest intentions. I appreciate that.

I’ll come back later when I get home from work. No more break time left.

Thanks! I hope I’ll be around when you come back! Oh, and pardon all my typos. I’m a terrible editor and I’m usually multi-tasking when I type.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[una_fides]

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 as the Bible as if it objectively just agreed with your interpretation of it. You do not possess the only interpretation of the Bible. There are thousands of other protestant denominations that interpret the Bible quite differently than you do. 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? Who gets to have the final say as to the correct interpretation? 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?

 

[una_fides]

That’s the Protestant faith.

Perhaps you may have failed to realize but there is not one protestant faith. There are thousands all based on the same Scriptures and interpreting them in vastly different ways.

 

[PioYapJr]

It is clear from this thread that the Bible can be interpreted in various ways depending on the color of the glasses you wear. Out there in the non-Catholic world there are thousands of glasses of various shades. Our division in Christianity has become a great stumbling block for non-Christians (those people whom some of us lightly dismiss as destined to the eternal hellfire). Looking at us from the outside, they are led to believe that our book is full of contradictions. If they remain outside the fold because we could not agree, and go to hell (as our non-Catholic brothers maintain) is it not partly our fault?
Jesus, being clear-headed saw the need for an interpreter of our faith and expectedly He gave us such a body. Those outside the Church have the impression that the authorities in the Church are just bunch of ignoramuses dishing out this doctrines and that.Not only that, they attribute bad faith to those authorities. I suggest that people read and find out the credentials of those people who contributed in the development of doctrines and study how these beliefs have become official. When we ride on a plane we need to be sure about the credentials of the pilot and the tract record of the airline (actually we rely on governmental authority to do this). Average Catholics do rely on similar ‘governmental authorities’ which is the Catholic Church. For the others let them examine the credentials and ‘track records’ meticulously of the ‘plane’ that will carry them to the most important destination!

 

[una_fides]

I agree, but that is not what the Catholic Church teaches. In the Lumen Gentium, it says

[sign]But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Mohamedans, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.
[huge gap of much content]
Those 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]
Sorry, but this is about as works-based as you can get!

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. . .”

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

Luk 1:28 And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Act 13:43 And when the synagogue was broken up, many of the Jews and of the strangers who served God followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.
Notice that they were to “continue in the grace of God.” God’s grace is a continuing force moving souls to perfection.

2Co 1:14 As also you have known us in part, that we are your glory: as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. And in this confidence I had a mind to come to you before, that you might have a second grace:
2Co 8:7 That as in all things you abound in faith and word and knowledge and all carefulness, moreover also in your charity towards us: so in this grace also you may abound.
Eph 4:29 Let no evil speech proceed from your mouth: but that which is good, to the edification of faith: that it may administer grace to the hearers.

Romans 1:7-12: To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you: Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you. For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you: That is to say, that I may be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine.

These people were already justified initially and had the same faith as Paul, and the Apostle says he will impart “spiritual grace” to strengthen them. God’s grace works through human beings who cooperate in his plan of salvation and actually participate in his salvific mission (in a secondary sense):
Col 1:24 Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church"

Rom 12:6-8 And having different gifts, according to the grace that is given us, either prophecy, to be used according to the rule of faith; Or ministry, in ministering; or he that teacheth, in doctrine; He that exhorteth, in exhorting; he that giveth, with simplicity; he that ruleth, with carefulness; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.
1Co 12:29-30 Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all doctors? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the grace of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret?

There are different graces given by God to perfect his people.

Gal 1:15 But when it pleased him who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace,

2Pe 3:18 But grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

**1Ti 4:14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood. **
**2Ti 1:6 For which cause I admonish thee that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee by the imposition of my hands. **

1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God, I am what I am. And his grace in me hath not been void: but I have laboured more abundantly than all they. Yet not I, but the grace of God with me:
2Co 9:8 And God is able to make all grace abound in you: that ye always, having all sufficiently in all things, may abound to every good work,

When we do good works and labor on Christ’s behalf, we cooperate with his grace so that we cannot take credit as if God owed us anything. These works are IN Christ and we are prompted to do them by his grace. They are not works of debt but are a labor of grace in Christ.

to be continued…

 

[una_fides]

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. . .”

… continued …

You do not understand what the Church means when she says through no fault of their own and what other conditions are necessary. You must first have an understanding that the only way to make it into heaven is to be completely holy. 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.
Act 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
The Church from the beginning has always taught that sins are actually washed away not just covered up and hidden.

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.

“I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men: For kings and for all that are in high station: that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all piety and chastity. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God: and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus: Who gave himself a redemption for all, a testimony in due times.” (1 Timothy 2:1-6)

God desires all to come to him, and we believe that all men have enough grace available to them to cooperate with in order to be saved. To those who cooperate with the grace available to them and God finds favor in them, not according to their own works but according to his grace with which they are cooperating by their free will, God can give them a special revelation. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that such special people if necessary God could have an angel reveal to them the saving truths about Christ or could impart to them some special infused knowledge before they die. Then through a perfect love animated by grace they could enter the Church through a baptism of desire. This understanding is not ruled out by the Church’s teaching in the catechism or from Vatican II and in fact neither states how such invincibly ignorant people can be saved. It merely states that it’s possible. I believe certain ones can be saved but that they will not be saved through their invincible ignorance. I believe that God could bestow upon them a special way for them to accept Christ. Certainly we serve a merciful God that would not let any perish who are not guilty of any actual sin.

Romans 2:6-16 Who will render to every man according to his works. (7) To them indeed who, according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life: (8) But to them that are contentious and who obey not the truth but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation. (9) Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. (10) But glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (11) For there is no respect of persons with God. (12) For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. (13) For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified. (14) For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves. (15) Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, (16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[una_fides]

First you must be saved. The difference between your position and mine is “evangelical.” Catholicism puts the emphasis on works, while the evangelical puts the emphasis on faith.

Example: Nicodemus has TONS of work, yet Jesus told him “Ye must be born again.” If Jesus had never said anything to Nicodemus, a Catholic would tell him that he had earned his way into heaven, that he was in a state of grace, because he had performed all that the church had required of him. Yet, Jesus did not give him that assurance, but told him he needed salvation.

According to Catholic theology, you absolutely cannot be saved without faith. Works alone do not justify anyone. I don’t know where you got this idea.

From the Council of Trent:
CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.
CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema. CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Also keep these in mind:

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; … let him be anathema.

history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

As someone else earlier noted, where ever you received your anti-Catholic teachings, you should ask for your money back.

Catholic theology does not teach that Nicodemus would have already been justified just because he did good works. Also please notice that Christ told him he needed to be born of water and of the Spirit. He needed to be baptized.

 

[una_fides]

Holy Spirit.

School and Holy Spirit.

Those contained within the canon of Scripture. All others are anathema.

Baptist.

Bible.

You haven’t shown that I don’t. Give me your opinion, properly juxtaposed with my statements and the Scriptures under consideration.

Ok so you got your interpretation of the Bible from the Holy Spirit alone? So basically you are telling me that nothing that you have heard or read outside of Scripture has influenced the way you interpret Scripture. How did you first come to believe that Scripture was even inspired? Did you just randomly one day find a book that said “Holy Bible” on it, having no idea what it was, and in this isolated world you started reading this book and came to all the conclusions you now hold and then and only then afterwards found a Baptist church that teaches things that you read on your own into the Bible? Do you also think that such reading isolated from apostolic Tradition would really produce the correct interpretation even if that were the case for someone, which it never is? The truth is that you likely were either brough up baptist or someone taught you about Jesus and told you that you needed to be saved and then gave you a Bible and told you to read some verses and then you believed them and the Bible and Jesus and “got saved” and then went to that church where you received further instruction. Such is the case for the vast majority.

You went to baptist school? so did I! I actually graduated from a school known as the most anti-Catholic in the United States. It puts out more anti-Catholic literature than any other!! I’ve heard sermons where the president of the school said that if Pope John Paul II followed Catholic teaching then he is in hell! I’ve heard all the arguments.

When at this school, I read into the many different traditions of various main stream protestant denominations. I heard their persuasive arguments and read the Scriptures they cited. They all had scholars to back up their interpretations, but the thing was that they differed on every fundamental issue in the book. Their arguments were persuasive and I could see how people could believe them. In many cases they cited the Greek, and I met many people from these varying protestant traditions, and they seemed like genuinely nice and sincere people just trying to know the truth. Most significantly, they all claimed–just like you just did and just as I used to do–that their interpretations were led by the Holy Spirit and that’s how they knew they were correct. The obvious problem we then encounter is that with this abundance of good, honest, and sincere people interpreting Scripture and thinking they are correct (and in many cases dogmatically proclaiming that they have the correct interpretation of Scripture and anyone who disagrees is incorrect) yet all disagreeing with each other on every issue in the book down to the most fundamental; how is anyone to know who is really being guided by the Holy Spirit?? How can one know that the interpretation he was sold on is correct??

The truth is that Christ did not leave his Church in a chaotic state. From the beginning he established apostles to guide the Church, and we know from both Scripture and from history that they appointed followers to take their place and preserve his message until the end of time. The first generations of Christians dispersed throughout the world clearly taught and believed the same foundational teachings that the Catholic Church does today. They taught that man was not justified by sola fide, that man had to cooperate with grace, that baptism was the sacrament of faith for initiation into the Church that placed a soul into a state of grace, that Christ really meant it when he said “this IS my body” and “this IS my blood” and “my flesh is really food and my blood is really drink” (John 6), and that the apostles passed on their authority to their successors who also passed on their authority to theirs in order to “rule the Church of God, which he has purchased with his own blood” (Acts 20:28). This Church, as Scripture says is “the pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim 3:15), and against it not even the gates of hell will prevail (Mat 16:18). Christ did not found many individual Churches all believing different things and teaching different things. Instead he infused it with the gift of his Holy Spirit–the Spirit of unity and of truth. Where the Spirit of God is there is unity for there is only one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

Confessing sins, in the tradition of the Catholic Church, is a work. It is a REQUIREMENT of those who wish to remain in grace (to go to heaven) to confess regularly. The seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are all about WORK, and have nothing to do with grace. Grace can only be received, and never earned.

This is incorrect.

Ok, so I should be more circumspect here. Confession is a sacrament that bestows MORE grace upon the sinner who sins venial sins, but RESTORES grace to those who sin mortal sins.

mikeledes:

The sacraments are means established by Christ through which God bestows His grace. In other words, they are not works by which you earn grace. Rather, they are 7 ways God bestows His gifts.

I’ll go along with that. But here’s the main thrust of my criticism against the Catholic Church: the institution of sacraments creates a false sense of salvation for many Catholics because they have never personally acknowledged Christ as Savior.

John 3:16 is a clear teaching against anyone who is rooted in works, and the 7 sacraments present a means to the Catholic to work their way to heaven. The Catholic system of religion is formatted to get everyone into the same mold, with no emphasis on personal union with the Savior.

I know this first-hand, from my grandmother. She lived her whole life in the Catholic Church, and yet she never knew that she was personally responsible to have accepted what Christ performed on the cross for her as payment for her sins. Because of the Church’s teachings, she believed that the road to heaven was paved with confession and prayers, instead of repentance and faith.

My aunts convinced her to accept Christ’s work on the cross as payment for her sins, but as death came, she was frightened. She was frightened because she had never confessed her sin of abortion to the Church, and she believed that she would recieve judgment in hell for that sin. Oh, that she would have truly turned to Christ for absolution, instead of a set of Hail Mary’s, and the tradition of Church.

Is she in Hell today? No, I do not believe so. I believe that her ignorance of what Christ DID accomplish for her was wiped away the moment she died. It was the teachings of the Church which brought this condition of ignorance upon her.

 

[PEPCIS]

Let’s analyze your case. First of all, what is being gauged here is the truthfulness of my statement, namely, that I forgot my wallet.

No, what’s being gauged is the meaning of “forget.” You do this by examining the context of the word. In the IMMEDIATE context, it is unclear what is meant, so we must go to the GREATER context to develop a definition that fits with the truth.

mikeledes:

Now if this is an attempt to provide an alternative definition to “forgotten” then the one commonly used (i.e. to forget something I really knew or had) - then you undermined your argument by stating the following:

[SIGN]Either you are using “forgot” in a literal sense, or you are using it in the sense that you didn’t really forget[/SIGN]

It’s very simple. If I purposely left my wallet at home or actually had my wallet and knew it, then, as you yourself said, I didn’t really forget. So I am not using two senses of the word “forget.” The word “forget” has a single meaning and sense. If reality does not match that definition, then I am lying. I DID NOT forget.

Thank you. You made my point for me. You used the greater context of your past statements and actions to inform yourself of the proper meaning of the word “forget.” Lying is not the central issue. The DISCOVERY of the lie by means of an investigation into the greater context is the issue.

 

[mikeledes]

Ok, so I should be more circumspect here. Confession is a sacrament that bestows MORE grace upon the sinner who sins venial sins, but RESTORES grace to those who sin mortal sins.

I’ll go along with that. But here’s the main thrust of my criticism against the Catholic Church: the institution of sacraments creates a false sense of salvation for many Catholics because they have never personally acknowledged Christ as Savior.

John 3:16 is a clear teaching against anyone who is rooted in works, and the 7 sacraments present a means to the Catholic to work their way to heaven. The Catholic system of religion is formatted to get everyone into the same mold, with no emphasis on personal union with the Savior.

I know this first-hand, from my grandmother. She lived her whole life in the Catholic Church, and yet she never knew that she was personally responsible to have accepted what Christ performed on the cross for her as payment for her sins. Because of the Church’s teachings, she believed that the road to heaven was paved with confession and prayers, instead of repentance and faith.

My aunts convinced her to accept Christ’s work on the cross as payment for her sins, but as death came, she was frightened. She was frightened because she had never confessed her sin of abortion to the Church, and she believed that she would recieve judgment in hell for that sin. Oh, that she would have truly turned to Christ for absolution, instead of a set of Hail Mary’s, and the tradition of Church.

Is she in Hell today? No, I do not believe so. I believe that her ignorance of what Christ DID accomplish for her was wiped away the moment she died. It was the teachings of the Church which brought this condition of ignorance upon her.

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. First of all, the sacraments are Christocentric. Any Catholic who doesn’t understand this has not been properly catechized. We believe that Christ applies to the individual the spiritual benefits He merited on the Cross through the sacraments. So the sacraments are rooted in the person and work of Christ and every informed Catholic knows and accepts this. In the case of the sacrament of confession, the person cannot subjectively appropriate that which is offered by God in the sacrament if they do not have faith and repentance. The person is not turning to a work or the priest per se for absolution. The One who has merited forgiveness of sins for us and grants absolution is Christ. So in the sacrament of confession, we turn to Christ and seek Divine Mercy. That’s why if a person confesses but does not have faith or is not truly repentant, that person does not receive forgiveness. Hence, one who has not acknowledged Christ as Savior cannot subjectively appropriate that which is offered in the sacrament.

While your first-hand experience of Catholicism through your grandmother may not have been positive, that has not been the case of many Catholics for the last 2000 years. There have been numerous holy Catholic men and women of God prior to the Reformation, during the Reformation, and after the Reformation who have had a personal and powerful union with their Savior. One of the best known medieval Catholic devotional works is Imitation of Christ - a Christocentric work written over a century before Luther that emphasizes a personal relationship with our Savior. I ,along with many Catholics, acknowledge Christ as my Savior and have a personal relationship with Himt. Hey, you can’t get more personal than receiving Christ in the Eucharist, but that’s another subject. In the case of your grandmother, I don’t believe it was the teachings of the Church that brought a “condition of ignorance upon her”, for the same teachings have brought many to a personal relationship with Christ and have enriched their spiritual life. Rather, it is the poor transmission of the Church’s teachings that unfortunately leads to a misunderstanding or a lack of appreciation of the purpose of the sacraments. 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.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

No, what’s being gauged is the meaning of “forget.” You do this by examining the context of the word. In the IMMEDIATE context, it is unclear what is meant, so we must go to the GREATER context to develop a definition that fits with the truth.

Thank you. You made my point for me. You used the greater context of your past statements and actions to inform yourself of the proper meaning of the word “forget.” Lying is not the central issue. The DISCOVERY of the lie by means of an investigation into the greater context is the issue.

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.

Context establishes whether I am being truthful or not. However, context does not change the meaning of the word forget. If a particular word has more than one meaning, then context is used to gauge which meaning is being used - not to create a new meaning that has never been used and is not substantiated by any objective standard.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[PEPCIS]

First of all, it does not say that they are saved through their good works. Everyone is saved by grace. Their good deeds, as it clearly states, are evidence that they are being moved by God’s grace.

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.

mikeledes:

Secondly, what I said was that just because we say Muslims worship God does not mean that they are automatically saved.

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.

mikeledes:

Nor is the Catholic Church teaching that Islam is an alternative road to heaven.

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.

Lumen Gentium is talking about the possiblilty of the salvation for those who do not have explicit knowledge of the Christian faith through no fault of their own. It is not saying that all Muslims or non-Christians will be saved through their good deeds.

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.