How does a Catholic increase the chance of getting into Heaven?

[brb2]

Tanner …

You fought a hard fight. But, in the end you and your likeminded colleagues fell short.

I admire your confidence and assurance, but argueing apologetics against God’s Churchmen is a tough proposition, when the scriptures don’t support your premise. You lost every argument, and you know it. CFJ, G-4, etc, etc, … had you on the ropes in every round.

Come back soon with the other 9 concerns about Catholic dogmas, from your Top 10 list. If you can prove Catholics wrong … you will have proven the Peter, the Apostles, & the ECF’s wrong /// and thats not gonna happen.

 

[moondweller]

BTW - I thought Catholic apologist John Martignoni fixed your wagon about 7 months ago (e.g. Bible Christian Society:Newsletter #106 (Martignoni Rebuts Moondweller) )? Or was that some other less infamous Moondweller?

Nope. That was me. But let me go back and check my Bible to see if the Holy Spirit changed the context of Jn. 15:1-6. Nope, again. It’s still about fruit bearing, not salvation. Hold on. I’ll make one more Biblical reference check to make sure the Holy Spirit didn’t throw me a curve that only John Martignoni caught to “fix my wagon”:"Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."Yup. All remains the same. He didn’t miraculously change all Bibles to read:“For by works you have been saved through fruit bearing. And that all of yourselves, not as a gift of God, that all men should boast.”

You do seem to be backsliding to your proclivity for pithy judgements and knee-jerk instinct to contradict all things Catholic.

A little defensive, are you? I don’t contradict “all” things Catholic. I do, however, challenge those teachings that are uniquely Catholic and do not conform to the gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures.

Do you care to elaborate on why my comments are “convoluted”? I could not imagine somone objecting to being happy over having such a profound redeemer as Christ.

I certainly wouldn’t either. What I consider convoluted is the phrase “O necessary sin of Adam, which gained for us so great a Redeemer.” It’s totally convoluted to accredit sin “necessary” at all - in any way, shape or form. As if to put a kind of positive spin on it and the disobedient act of Adam. You make redemption out to be some kind of cosmic soap opera. Paul confronted the same kind of twisted logic when he wrote:Rom 5:20 - 6:2 "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign (i.e., as king) through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?"It’s just as twisted to say, “O necessary increase of sin that grace may abound.”

You see, it was because of sin, and the penalty of it (death, both spiritual and physical), that God sent a Redeemer. But you cross the line when theologically you call the sin of Adam “necessary.” “Necessity” must be circumscribed to the mercy of God and His sending a Redeemer; a Redeemer on Whom we are to believe so that His finished work of redemption on the cross might be applied, in full, to the believer at the time of faith in Him.

This is why we worry about you MD. We know that you think you have a true belief in Jesus and you have all these opinions about everyone else but you can’t have a true belief in Jesus while rejecting His Church. You heard His words: “Those that reject you reject Me and He who sent Me”.

This Jesus said to His Apostles whom He sent out with the gospel concerning Himself and belief in Him for the forgiveness of sins and the free gift of eternal life. Their message was not about them but HIM, so, essentially, if men rejected them (their message) they rejected Him. For example:1 Cor 1:17 “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.”

1 Cor 1:21-23 …but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness,"

1 Cor 2:2 "For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."Notice their message was not at all about themselves, but the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ the righteous and belief in Him for eternal life. So, to reject them (i.e., their message) was to reject Christ. The object was always the message, not the bearers of the message.

The Catholic Church have the apostolic succession. We have been through all this 100s off times before with you MD…

Yes, I know we have. But the Apostolic message hasn’t changed. It’s still not about one church’s claim to Apostolic “succession.” You’ve strayed from their message.

Obeying Christ is BOTH believing AND obeying all that He told us - and somethings are not written in the Bible MD. When are you going to stop being disobedient and learn?

Joh 3:36 "He that believes (pisteuo) on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believes not apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him."The Greek word peitho means to persuade (see Acts 28:23) And in this verse apeitheo means to be unpersuaded and therefore remain in disbelief (see Acts 14:2). Obedience is to believe and be saved. The obedient walk of the saved/justified is one of faith (see 2 Cor. 5:7).

Adam and Eve most certainly did have eternal life - up to the point where they sinned.

**LOL! ** Then they didn’t have ETERNAL life, did they? What did God say to Adam in Gen. 2:17? Hence, Adam did not possess eternal life. Compare that to what Jesus says concerning those who believe in Him in Jn. 3:14-18; Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:10-13. And Paul followed through with his teaching: “For the wages of sin is death (historically, to all men through Adam, see Rom. 5:12) but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Also, note that I said that not only will God restore us to eternal life HE WILL ELEVATE our nature to make us better than Adam and Eve ever were - like Christ.

Yes, but neither Adam nor Eve, nor their descendants, ever possessed eternal life. You can’t “restore” something never possessed.

The redeemed, the Scriptures reveal, are “made righteous” in Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:19), He being the “Last Adam.” All true believers now possess, giftwise, ETERNAL (everlasting) life, being no longer in Adam but now “in Christ.” Life eternal was never in Adam but is found only in the resurrected Son, gifted by God through faith alone in Him alone (see 1 Jn. 5:9-13)

 

[moondweller]

CentralFLJames:

Had man not fallen Christ would not have needed to suffer the indignity of taking on human flesh as Son of Man through the lineage of Man.

Taking on humanity was not suffering indignity for Him. He rather gloried in it often calling Himself “the Son of Man.” When He suffered indignity was when our sins were imputed to Him on the cross. When “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf…” (2 Cor. 5:21).

The whole reason why Satan rebelled is because in his angelic intelligence he perceived that man, who is created vastly inferior to the nature of the angelic beings would fall and Christ would take on flesh out of His love for man. That was too much for his angelic pride since that meant angels would have to serve Jesus in the flesh and man too.

**WOW! ** This is a new twist. Compare your unbiblical theory to Is. 14:12-15, a prophetic insight into the fall of Lucifer.

Try to get past the bible-school view of the world MD and get on to the adult fare. A greater good and glory is revealed in how Jesus as the vine can take root in the tare fields of humanity and through a select seed of faith rise up and take over the entire field of error to overcome it and remake it into a new Garden.

Well, Biblically (in context) Christ, the Vine, has to do with believers bearing fruit through Him (Jn. 15:1-6). The “tares” (false believers) are something the enemy plants in a field (not a “garden”) and are allowed to grow with the wheat (true believes) during this age. But at the end of the age they’re gathered up and burned (Matt. 13:24:30). The believer’s job on this earth, during this church age, is to spread the gospel (good news) of salvation which is through faith in Christ alone. Not take over this fallen world system and remake it into a “new Garden.”

It is a cooperative work between God with fallen humans ( I no longer call you slaves but friends) who must sweat by their brow in new spiritual works with Christ (the light yoke) to till God’s new field and bring it to harvest. If you are not gathering you are scattering bro…

If you’re not preaching salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone you’re not one of His workmen “handling accurately the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:16).

In essence Adam in eating the forbidden fruit planted the seed for The Tree of Life (the cross with Christ as the new salvific fruit - Eucharist) here on earth through God’s committed love for man and His own Son.

The cross isn’t the “tree of life” and Adam planted no seed. What’s divinely revealed of Adam’s “seed,” however, is that they’re ALL (including all, excluding NONE) born into this world under judgment and condemnation, spiritually dead, and in dire need of LIFE eternal which is found only in the resurrected Christ, obtained through faith in Him alone.

You don’t seem to see very much of the salvation picture MD.

Oh but I do. I see Christ.

 

[guanophore]

No comment; getting tired of all of your whining.

I have been accused of a lot of stuff here, but this is a first! I am very interested to learn what I wrote that came across as whining!

**Evangelism of Catholics is against the forum rules; I respect the rules that are put forth **

It is a mystery how you can believe this is true. You are right,there is a bias here. Catholics are allowed to evangelize.

**Don’t confuse pride and arrogance with assurance; something God has given in His grace and written in His word.

Not only that but that is the pot calling the kettle black IMO**

I see that you were either unwilling, or unable to respond to the list of judgemental and condescending remarks that were collected for your review. It is impossible NOT to equate your “assurance” with pride and arrogance, since you are talking down to us from such a high pedestal.

But I would never even come up with such an evil intent. Perhaps you could add that to your list.

James has no “evil intent”. He simply made a very fine and thorough collection of your pompous and condescending expressions, so that it would be more clear to you how it is we perceive you this way. It is a shame that you were not able to look into the mirror he held up, and be enriched by the experience.

You will not have to even think of speaking to me again; for I will never respond to any more of your immoral nonsense; another to add to your list.

It is not immoral or nonsense to give feedback to others. You have said all these things, and the gathering of them all in one place definitely drives home the point about your attitude.

May God bless you with a heart of repentance; another one to add to the list.

I am sure you would like for those who notice your faults to “repent” from doing so, and avoid confronting you about your attitude. However, it is not loving to confirm others in error. If you really want to be effective in sharing your faith, these areas are the ones that, if addressed, will result in a much more positive experience for you - especially with Catholics. You can run away from the thread, or you can refuse to respond to James, or anyone else who notices your attitude, but that will not fix the problem.

 

[HereticAmI]

“The “tares” (false believers) are something the enemy plants in a field (not a “garden”) and are allowed to grow with the wheat (true believes) during this age.”

But the field is the world and so tares must mean something more than simply false believers, as not all believe, but yet the unbelievers are in the world as well. The point of the parable is two-fold. First, one can always can always repent and become that new creation and so the darnel is transformed into wheat. This is the first reason why the wait until the time of growing is over before there is any attempt any separation

Secondly, the root system of wheat is shallow and the root system of both the wheat and the tares will become intertwined, as they are growing intermixed, and so in pulling up the tares now, one rather risks pulling up the wheat as well.

Lastly, if you’d like to know how much wheat has been pulled so far, first think of both Catholic and Protestant attempts to quite literally purge the heretics and some others from among us, and then consider how many humans were prevented from flowering to completion and how many more humans saw the harm in the act and decided to have nothing to do with us. For the cruel irony, in making the attempt, some did show us their fruit by way of showing us that they didn’t have a clue when it comes to understanding the parable of the wheat and the tares. Oh, and recall here also, when two of the twelve spoke to the raining of fire on some and our Lord in reply saying something about those two not discerning the spirit that gave rise to their words.

 

[CentralFLJames]

“The “tares” (false believers) are something the enemy plants in a field (not a “garden”) and are allowed to grow with the wheat (true believes) during this age.”

But the field is the world and so tares must mean something more than simply false believers, as not all believe, but yet the unbelievers are in the world as well. The point of the parable is two-fold. First, one can always can always repent and become that new creation and so the darnel is transformed into wheat. This is the first reason why the wait until the time of growing is over before there is any attempt any separation

Secondly, the root system of wheat is shallow and the root system of both the wheat and the tares will become intertwined, as they are growing intermixed, and so in pulling up the tares now, one rather risks pulling up the wheat as well.

Lastly, if you’d like to know how much wheat has been pulled so far, first think of both Catholic and Protestant attempts to quite literally purge the heretics and some others from among us, and then consider how many humans were prevented from flowering to completion and how many more humans saw the harm in the act and decided to have nothing to do with us. For the cruel irony, in making the attempt, some did show us their fruit by way of showing us that they didn’t have a clue when it comes to understanding the parable of the wheat and the tares. Oh, and recall here also, when two of the twelve spoke to the raining of fire on some and our Lord in reply saying something about those two not discerning the spirit that gave rise to their words.

Great insight.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Nope. That was me. But let me go back and check my Bible to see if the Holy Spirit changed the context of Jn. 15:1-6. Nope, again. It’s still about fruit bearing, not salvation.

Hold on. I’ll make one more Biblical reference check to make sure the Holy Spirit didn’t throw me a curve that only John Martignoni caught to “fix my wagon”:"Eph 2:8-9 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."Yup. All remains the same. He didn’t miraculously change all Bibles to read:“For by works you have been saved through fruit bearing. And that all of yourselves, not as a gift of God, that all men should boast.”

MD, we know that you have a peculiar need to always try to push round pegs into square holes just to get all discussions mapped to your favorite salvation formula of “grace through faith to the exclusion of works” – even when everyone here and every sophomore in bible-school knows that works of law are an entirely different thing than works of grace. Can we nudge your old rusty needle out if its old worn vinyl groove since this tune is getting quite monotonous?

Speaking of context and fruits – comparing St. John to St. Paul is like sentimentally comparing the nuances of textures and flavors of citrons to pomegranates tasted at a experential-distance of 10 years. It might work if it was all bottled as wine - but citron is more heady and tart than sweet and probably better in pickles and salt-of-the-earth fare.

Really MD, you should forget everything you were taught and go back again and re-read the bible fresh from cover to cover and imagine that everything you currently believe is really Catholic teaching. Use your own zeal for critiquing Catholicism as a forceful means to really go critically review ALL of what you now believe. I just betcha that your contrarian personality does a flip-flop just to have a shadow-boxer to debate. I’d put money against all reason that you’d knock yourself out proving you are really a “closet Catholic”.

The immediate context of John’s verse is* “Jesus Is the Vine and His Followers Are The Branches”* – branches grafted to the ancient tree of faith tap-rooted in the Abrahamic promise (The Jews). Like the entire NT the over-arching theme is the very same theme that we hear from the very first utterance of John the Baptist - “Salvation by the forgivness of sins”. The entire NT is all about Salvation MD. Nice try. But you just can’t possibly succeed in passing a weak electrolyzing current of human wisdom through the Tiber to seperate oxygen from hydrogen just to breath in pure oxygen rather than deal with the current and get what you want. It’s really all about avoiding the embarrassment of having to get your feet wet again in crossing back over isn’t it? It’s either pride or fear of looking silly to those you waved bye-bye to years ago hoping to never see again. Am I right? MD, you have self-marooned yourself on a sandbar/spoil-island and taken refuge in an a flimsy stick-frame 16th century shanty with a leaky roof that was built by a mentally ill misanthrope. But the tide works against you and your hut is built below the high-water mark. What you are going to do when the deluge comes and you’re over your head and have no arc (The Church) to get into?

Spiritual fruits are OUR spiritual works God gives us so we may serve Him. To some degree these are even signal graces which give us progressive confidence in our own salvation. If you have no discernible works you have absolutely no assurances of salvation. These spiritual-works differ from natural works because God’s grace permits us to produce in and out of season (as opposed to the natural fig tree that did not feed The Lord when He was hungry – and was cursed to whither away).

MD, in reflecting on what you say here, I must note that for a guy who has an aversion for works you are fairly self-defeating in your exhaustive works to avoid looking too Catholic. But so far you have only succeeded in avoiding the “works of reason”. And, you remind me of the sort who would rather sit and take rest under the shade of the apple tree patiently suffering your own hunger pangs to wait for lunch to fall in your lap under God’s gravity rather than choosing to perspire as God’s creature to stretch forth your hand to choose your portion and satisfy your hunger. Is it too hard and too much too chew or is everyday of the week The Sabbath in MD’s world?

I am seeing a pattern here MD. Every-time I read your, ahh, “works” (), I get this image of ‘the man behind the words’; a dweebish tinkerer; a man hell bent to the tedious task of endlessly innovating the most convoluted and impossible ways conceivable to construct the most elaborately improbable and absurd Rube Goldberg alternatives to Apostolic Catholic teaching. Just thought I’d pass that along for feedback.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/Rubenvent.jpg/450px-Rubenvent.jpg

How to Avoid Catholic Works So You Too Can “Just Believe” and Be Saved Without Exceeding the Requirements and Boasting

I’ll try to address the rest of your comments later on today since I have things to do.

James

 

[moondweller]

MD, we know that you have a peculiar need to always try to push round pegs into square holes just to get all discussions mapped to your favorite salvation formula of “grace through faith to the exclusion of works” – even when everyone here and every sophomore in bible-school knows that works of law are an entirely different thing than works of grace. Can we nudge your old rusty needle out if its old worn vinyl groove since this tune is getting quite monotonous?

Speaking of context and fruits – comparing St. John to St. Paul is like sentimentally comparing the nuances of textures and flavors of citrons to pomegranates tasted at a experential-distance of 10 years. It might work if it was all bottled as wine - but citron is more heady and tart than sweet and probably better in pickles and salt-of-the-earth fare.

Really MD, you should forget everything you were taught and go back again and re-read the bible fresh from cover to cover and imagine that everything you currently believe is really Catholic teaching. Use your own zeal for critiquing Catholicism as a forceful means to really go critically review ALL of what you now believe. I just betcha that your contrarian personality does a flip-flop just to have a shadow-boxer to debate. I’d put money against all reason that you’d knock yourself out proving you are really a “closet Catholic”.

The immediate context of John’s verse is* “Jesus Is the Vine and His Followers Are The Branches”* – branches grafted to the ancient tree of faith tap-rooted in the Abrahamic promise (The Jews). Like the entire NT the over-arching theme is the very same theme that we hear from the very first utterance of John the Baptist - “Salvation by the forgivness of sins”. The entire NT is all about Salvation MD. Nice try. But you just can’t possibly succeed in passing a weak electrolyzing current of human wisdom through the Tiber to seperate oxygen from hydrogen just to breath in pure oxygen rather than deal with the current and get what you want. It’s really all about avoiding the embarrassment of having to get your feet wet again in crossing back over isn’t it? It’s either pride or fear of looking silly to those you waved bye-bye to years ago hoping ot never see again. Am I right? MD, you have self-marooned yourself on a sandbar/spoil-island and taken refuge in an a flimsy stick-frame 16th century shanty with a leaky roof that was built by a mentally ill misanthrope. But the tide works against you and your hut is built below the high-water mark. What you are going to do when the deluge comes and you’re over your head and have no arc (The Church) to get into?

Spiritual fruits are OUR spiritual works God gives us so we may serve Him. To some degree these are even signal graces which give us progressive confidence in our own salvation. If you have no discernible works you have absolutely no assurances of salvation. These spiritual-works differ from natural works because God’s grace permits us to produce in and out of season (as opposed to the natural fig tree that did not feed The Lord when He was hungry – and was cursed to whither away).

MD, in reflecting on what you say here, I must note that for a guy who has an aversion for works you are fairly self-defeating in your exhaustive works to avoid looking too Catholic. But so far you have only succeeded in avoiding the “works of reason”. And, you remind me of the sort who would rather sit and take rest under the shade of the apple tree patiently suffering your own hunger pangs to wait for lunch to fall in your lap under God’s gravity rather than choosing to perspire as God’s creature to stretch forth your hand to choose your portion and satisfy your hunger. Is it too hard and too much too chew or is everyday of the week The Sabbath in MD’s world?

I am seeing a pattern here MD. Every-time I read your, ahh, “works” (), I get this image of ‘the man behind the words’; a dweebish tinkerer; a man hell bent to the tedious task of endlessly innovating the most convoluted and impossible ways conceivable to construct the most elaborately improbable and absurd Rube Goldberg alternatives to Apostolic Catholic teaching. Just thought I’d pass that along for feedback.

I’ll try to address the rest of your comments later on today since I have things to do.

James

As usual, you said absolutely nothing, James. When you come back come back with some real theological content (I think I just requested the impossible). All your Oregin syle of allegorizing and spiritualizing the Scriptures gets tiring to read.

 

[moondweller]

“The “tares” (false believers) are something the enemy plants in a field (not a “garden”) and are allowed to grow with the wheat (true believes) during this age.”

But the field is the world and so tares must mean something more than simply false believers, as not all believe, but yet the unbelievers are in the world as well. The point of the parable is two-fold. First, one can always can always repent and become that new creation and so the darnel is transformed into wheat. This is the first reason why the wait until the time of growing is over before there is any attempt any separation

Secondly, the root system of wheat is shallow and the root system of both the wheat and the tares will become intertwined, as they are growing intermixed, and so in pulling up the tares now, one rather risks pulling up the wheat as well.

Lastly, if you’d like to know how much wheat has been pulled so far, first think of both Catholic and Protestant attempts to quite literally purge the heretics and some others from among us, and then consider how many humans were prevented from flowering to completion and how many more humans saw the harm in the act and decided to have nothing to do with us. For the cruel irony, in making the attempt, some did show us their fruit by way of showing us that they didn’t have a clue when it comes to understanding the parable of the wheat and the tares.

Tares (darnel) look like wheat but are not. Their destiny is to be reaped at the end of the age and burned. So, no, there’s no transforming process going on in this parable. The key here is outwardly “look like.” You know, like an imposter. But the One who planted the wheat knows the difference (2 Tim. 2:19).

Oh, and recall here also, when two of the twelve spoke to the raining of fire on some and our Lord in reply saying something about those two not discerning the spirit that gave rise to their words.

What???

 

[HereticAmI]

Tares (darnel) look like wheat but are not. Their destiny is to be reaped at the end of the age and burned. So, no, there’s no transforming process going on in this parable. The key here is outwardly “look like.” You know, like an imposter. But the One who planted the wheat knows the difference (2 Tim. 2:19).What???

The problem with your reading is that the parable proceeds on the assumption that you can tell the difference, and so the servants ask their master, should we not uproot the tares now? And you know them by their fruit, just as you know wheat from darnel when both mature and bear fruit, since they are very distinguishable when each bears its own fruit. That is how the servants in the parable could tell the difference and why they asked their master for permission to uproot the tares.

Again, we don’t uproot now because even the thief on the cross can become a new creation the moment before his death, again, that’s reason no. 1. It gets read into the parable since the whole point of the gospel is to be born again and you can be so up until the moment you breath your last here on earth. The second reason is, again, we don’t uproot the tares since that will uproot the wheat as well. Why do you think that I am not a member of any RCC or Protestant denomination? Could it be because almost all of them have in fact tried to uproot the tares, and with some tragic consequences still being felt to this day?

Re your shrug, two apostles called upon their Lord to rain down fire on some and their Lord told them that such was not motivated by a Godly spirit. So too with wanting to uproot the tares, since the evil one could less about his tares being uprooted as that one would gladly trade that loss for the loss of some wheat as well. That was my point, in other words, if you’re looking to uproot the tares now, it isn’t a Godly spirit that is inspiring you.

 

[WASP]

This is an EXCELLENT attitude WASP and one that will naturally garner a lot of respect and patient attention in these forums and one that will be open to the illumining of reason by faith. I am confident if you can keep this kind of reasonable perspective and objectively open that the Holy Spirit will in short-order bring you to the inner insights necessary for overcoming the doctrinal hurdles you still have (which are quite understandable coming from the Protestants Tradition and perspective).

Thank you very much for your kind response. However, I realize that I maybe should’ve posted a Part 2 message to explain where I’m coming from. I have a friend that I work with who is Roman Catholic. I come from a fundamental Bible Church background and have never really interacted with any Catholics. The only things I know about Catholicism is what I’ve been told by others. You might imagine that, in my theological circles, others are not so kind about Catholicism. So I have been talking to my friend about the Church.

It’s been very interesting because I have gained perspective on why you believe and teach certain things. As I previously posted, I can understand your position on Mary, the Saints, and Eucharist–things most Protestants go ballistic over. And though I disagree with your views on those items, I personally don’t view them as essential doctrines of the Faith. So I can be cool with them.

On the other hand, I have posted elsewhere that I would lay down my life for the belief that God declares the believing sinner righteous through faith alone in Christ. Please forgive me in advance if I come across as too harsh in these forums, but I 1,000% believe in this doctrine. With that said, you may understand why I could never become a Catholic. “Here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God.”

 

[moondweller]

Again, we don’t uproot now because even the thief on the cross can become a new creation the moment before his death, again, that’s reason no. 1. It gets read into the parable since the whole point of the gospel is to be born again and you can be so up until the moment you breath your last here on earth.

The thief on the cross was not a “tare.” The parable is not about conversion, transformation or salvation but the removal of all stumbling blocks prior to Christ setting up His Kingdom on earth:Matt 13:30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’"Sorry, my friend, but you’re misunderstanding and therefore misinterpreting the parable. Tares don’t become wheat in this parable. One rule that should be observed in trying to interpret a parable is don’t read into it that which is not there. Most people, like you, do. Christ interprets the parable for us:Matt 13:36 ¶ Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and {as for} the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil {one;} and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Again, tares in this parable never become wheat. This isn’t a parable on salvation but identification.

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t contradict “all” things Catholic. I do, however, challenge those teachings that are uniquely Catholic and do not conform to the gospel message of salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone as revealed in the Scriptures.

What you really mean is you enjoy the work of throwing the gauntlet to strike the cheek of the apostles and their successors (the Catholic Church’s apostolic succession) to challenge the 2,000 year old teachings that do not conform to MD’s infallible private interpretations.

May we dare to approach Pope Moondweller’s throne to ask: ‘who handed down your apostolic teaching to you’? Can you point to even 1 or 2 generations of apostolic bishops who taught you what you now call “faith” or are you like most of the other neo-Christians who went the do-it-yourself-salvation route and are self taught? What exactly is Moondweller’s pedigree & why should anyone listen to him? Why should any listen to you over any other descendent of the self-taught plough-boy-students of Luther’s; student who 1st learned the “gist” of the fragile theology of sola scriptura and sola-fide when the Reformers shattered the stained-glass window images of the Catholic Church as a first lesson in proper Reformed Christian Theology. I believe that lesson was “Salvation by Faith in the Revolution & in rocks that can be thrown not built on”. Are we talking about the same meaning of faith in this thread?

There is no bible verse that says “salvation through faith in Christ alone” – this is an innovation and MD’s own private construction. You are adding to the gospel.

The apostolic teaching is not reducible to a single written salvation-slogan. There are about 35,000 verses in the Bible. It’s not a perfect metaphor but these are all like vital capillaries of life giving water & blood that flow through the Body of Christ – that is, His Church. If God had wanted a single salvation formula HE would have given us a single formula or word. Here is wisdom MD – GOD DID give us a Single Divine Word but this Word is not written on parchment. This word is written in our hearts and it is “Jesus” as Living Word of God – that same word which begot the entirety of Creation when God said “let there be LIGHT” – and it was perfected on the 8th day – the Lord’s Day when The Word made flesh rose again after illumining the darkness of the bowels of earth for 3 days.

Our being taken together within The Church, The Body of Christ, is made for works - unless you do not consider preaching the true gospel of good-news a work? Do you? We are to labor by the sweat of our brow all our days – not only to feed ourselves but now to feed others and to build up God’s Kingdom. The labors are intensified by our salvation. The Jews escaped their bondage and their labors only to be given the hardship of becoming God’s People - tested like metal in the furnace and annealed - but now having the assurances of being able to worship God as He promised. We too must walk the walk as well as talk the talk just as the Jews had to walk through the dessert all the way to the Promised Land. No Jew ever believed himself into the Promised Land MD. Recall here that many of the original Jews who remained faithful died in the dessert and were not actually able to enter the promised land. Was this a failure of faith or a breaking of divine promise – or did God have greater things to give beyond the discernment on the vistas of hope?

We are told that we must be faithful and carry our crosses and yoke ourselves to Christ who does the greater and predominant work. It’s a double yoke bro – there’s real work to be done – but how great a companion to labor with – yes? . But do you really know what “FAITH” is?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

But do we hope for the right things and have are our sights set on the greatest hope? Sometimes I get the impression that some here in these forums hope only that they can win some to “their side” to bolster their own faith in a “salvation by numbers” theory. Under most of that, even if on the “right side” of the teachings there is often lurking a form of self-idolatry – the hubris masquerading as untested and un-exercised faith that St. Paul warned about (e.g. boasting).

*Hebrews 11:9-10 By faith [Abraham] made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

Matthew 16:18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

**Catholics know who builds the City of God that is built on the solid rock foundations of the Apostle and know who is the ambassador/Vicar who has its keys in safekeeping for The Lord. ***

*Hebrews 11:39-40These[sup]1[/sup] were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

[sup]1[/sup] All the OT people of faith: Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, the Jews who passed the parted sea/felled the walls of Jericho, Rahab, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, others who were tortured, chained and put in prison, murdered, persecuted, mistreated, left destitute.*

James 2:20 - Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? Good works in God’s grace are required for justification. But there is nothing in the Scriptures about “saving faith.”

Faith must be yoked and put to the test or you will not enter into the promised land and only see it at a distance and fall short. How bitter will it be for those who have the vision of the greater Glory but can’t enter to claim it for being DISOBEDIENT - even while believing!!

One can not even properly worship God without the true faith MD - ask Cain about that. This is why Catholics offer to God the one Holy and pleasing sacrifice knowing in full faith that this is what God desires.

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered God a better sacrifice than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.

Unless you are redefining the word faith without a footnote to qualify it to mean both belief and obedience then you are in error and not biblical. Is this your intention?

For this bit anway here is the bottom line:

James 2:24
You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

YOU ARE WHAT YOU DO NOT WHAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE.

James

 

[nuntym]

The thief on the cross was not a “tare.” The parable is not about conversion, transformation or salvation but the removal of all stumbling blocks prior to Christ setting up His Kingdom on earth:Matt 13:30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’"Sorry, my friend, but you’re misunderstanding and therefore misinterpreting the parable. Tares don’t become wheat in this parable. One rule that should be observed in trying to interpret a parable is don’t read into it that which is not there. Most people, like you, do. Christ interprets the parable for us:Matt 13:36 ¶ Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, and the field is the world; and {as for} the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil {one;} and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels.

"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.Again, tares in this parable never become wheat. This isn’t a parable on salvation but identification.

raises hand uhm, what about the “and those who commit lawlessness” part of Jesus’ explanation?

 

[brb2]

As usual, you said absolutely nothing, James. When you come back come back with some real theological content (I think I just requested the impossible). All your Oregin syle of allegorizing and spiritualizing the Scriptures gets tiring to read.

Oh contraire’ ! He spoke for all here, … who have repeatedly pointed out that Catholics only understand James the Just, CFJ, and PAUL … to be speaking of ‘gracious works’.

Why, when we repeatedly explain this to you, do you refuse to accept ? Augustine speaks extensively on this issue … and the Church accepts his understanding on this topic.

So, why keep tossing out your tired, tarred pitch ? You really don’t have a single scriptural teaching with which to deny the validity of Catholicism. Come join a Church that is right on History, right on morals, right on faith, and right for U.

Don’t worry about what the naysayers will think of you. Be a trend setter in Ecumenism Would you rather please Christ … or your Protesting buddys ?

 

[moondweller]

What you really mean is you enjoy the work of throwing the gauntlet to strike the cheek of the apostles and their successors (the Catholic Church’s apostolic succession) to challenge the 2,000 year old teachings that do not conform to MD’s infallible private interpretations.

As I said, I challenge any teachings (no matter how old one might claim those teachings are) that don’t conform to the theopneustos Scriptures we both acknowledge are the written Word of God.

May we dare to approach Pope Moondweller’s throne to ask: ‘who handed down your apostolic teaching to you’?

Sure. It was handed down and preserved by the Holy Spirit in theopneustos Holy Writ so that the truth of the gospel message, which is salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone, would not be lost in the mire of the fertile imaginations of men down through the centuries. Salvation truth is a matter of divine revelation not the product of any man’s imagination - not even those who sit on thrones. In Scripture the only throne the believer is encouraged to approach is the “throne of grace” (Heb. 4:16), and that throne is not placed in a basilica in Italy.

Can you point to even 1 or 2 generations of apostolic bishops who taught you what you now call “faith” or are you like most of the other neo-Christians who went the do-it-yourself-salvation route and are self taught?

I know of no so-called “apostolic bishops,” now or in history. Nor do I adhere to a “do-it-yourself-salvation.” What I adhere to is a “can’t-do-it-yourself” salvation that requires of me faith in the, once for all, finished, redemptive, reconciliatory, propitiatory, expiatory, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. And the assurance of my salvation is a vacant cross and empty tomb (Rom. 4:25 - 5:2).

What exactly is Moondweller’s pedigree & why should anyone listen to him?

This sounds familiar: Matt. 21:23; Acts 4:1-7. Nothing ever really changes, does it? The religious are still asking the same question. They didn’t think some Galilean fishermen knew anything either.

There is no bible verse that says “salvation through faith in Christ alone” – this is an innovation and MD’s own private construction. You are adding to the gospel.

Actually, I’m not. In the Scriptures salvation is always said to be gifted “by grace” (i.e., unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved favor) “through faith…not as a result of works,” period (Eph. 2:8-9). Just like justification and eternal life (Rom. 3:24; 6:23). Works then follow the saved, but the works are not what saved/saves them. The theopneustos Scriptures are VERY clear on this all important point:Acts 15:8-9 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; and He made no distinction between us (believing Jews) and them (believing Gentiles), cleansing their hearts by faith."As I said, the same is divinely revealed for the believer’s justification. The Apostolic teaching is again very clear. So simplistically clear that the “pedigreed” religious always seem to stumble over it:Rom 4:4-6 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:” (cf. Rom. 5:1-2; Gal. 3:23-27)

The apostolic teaching is not reducible to a single written salvation-slogan.

I agree. The Word of God is never reduced to the category of “slogans.” But there are key verses in the theopneustos, written Word of God that concisely, in-a-nut-shell, communicate the doctrine of divine salvation. Just as there are key verses in the Scriptures that reveal to us who Christ is.

Here is wisdom MD – GOD DID give us a Single Divine Word but this Word is not written on parchment. This word is written in our hearts and it is “Jesus” as Living Word of God

But the doctrine of salvation was not left to hearsay, nor is it preserved for all generations on the hearts of men; for the simple fact that men die and are prone to err. Hence, God has given us the Scriptures through which He preserves His word in this world, and has been doing it this way ever since Moses. The Man Christ Jesus Himself appealed to them as God’s authority, as did the Apostles and the early church writers.

We are told that we must be faithful and carry our crosses and yoke ourselves to Christ who does the greater and predominant work. It’s a double yoke bro – there’s real work to be done – but how great a companion to labor with – yes? . But do you really know what “FAITH” is?

Yes, I really know what faith is. And better still, I know “in Whom” I’ve believed. The work of salvation was DONE, finished, by one Man only, historically, on one cross only. And the Scriptures testify that he “who does not work, but BELIEVES in Him who justifies the ungodly, HIS FAITH (not his works) is credited as righteousness.”

Unless you are redefining the word faith without a footnote to qualify it to mean both belief and obedience then you are in error and not biblical. Is this your intention?

Faith is faith. What matters in salvation is the Object of one’s faith. Scripture is extremely clear as to the object of the faith that saves:Acts 16:30-31 "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved…"But many stumble over the stumbling block and still consider the simplicity of faith in Christ alone foolishness:1 Cor 1:23-24 “…but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

YOU ARE WHAT YOU DO NOT WHAT YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE.

I am what I am (bac) by the grace of God because in Whom I’ve believed.

 

[moondweller]

raises hand uhm, what about the “and those who commit lawlessness” part of Jesus’ explanation?

It’s all right there in the quote:"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.The tares in that parable represent all stumbling blocks and all those who commit lawlessness. Keep in mind, those who wear religious garb and appear “holy” on the outside can and do commit lawlessness. “Pedigree” means nothing!

 

[brb2]

The tares in that parable represent all stumbling blocks and all those who commit lawlessness. Keep in mind, those who wear religious garb and appear “holy” on the outside can and do commit lawlessness. “Pedigree” means nothing!

Do you imply the Catholic Church is a ‘stumbling block’ and guity of ‘lawlessness’ ?

And, pedigree means nothing to Christians? Why then did Matthew go to great lengths to set forth Christ’s pedigree … from Adam to Joseph/Mary ? And why did Christ repeatedly refer to himself as "son of man’, and scriptures teach him decended from David ?

Indeed, the elect are reborn ‘into Christ’. Our unique pedigree is EVERYTHING to us. The Church is our ‘heritage’, our history, our necessity. Until you accept the Church for what it is … you are gravely errant.

 

[elvisman]

All true believers now possess, giftwise, ETERNAL (everlasting) life, being no longer in Adam but now “in Christ.” Life eternal was never in Adam but is found only in the resurrected Son, gifted by God through faith alone in Him alone (see 1 Jn. 5:9-13)

As I schooled Tanner a few posts ago, I shall also school you, my prideful friend.
The following verses speak to the CONTEXT of the New Testament on the subject.
You see - CONTEXT is what you get when you take the scriptures at their intended meaning - not simply picking a verse here and there and building doctrines around them when there are other scriptures that speak clearly against them. Salvation is NOT a slam-dunk - it is a process - and those who endure to the end will be saved.

**The fact is, my angry friend, that true believers in Christ can and DO fall into serious sin even AFTER being born again. If you don’t believe this then - you are DEAD wrong and you deny free will. As I stated before, this is why the brilliant Protestant author C.S. Lewis acknowledged, "God’s mercy demands Purgatory."
**
Here is the Biblical PROOF that you are not eternally secure until AFTER death. (I’m pasting it from my earlier post - just in case you missed it the first time around):

Romans 11:22
“See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God’s kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.”

Hebrews 10:26-27
“If we sin deliberately after receiving knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains sacrifice for sins but a fearful prospect of judgment and a flaming fire that is going to consume the adversaries.”

2 Peter 2:26-27
For if they, having escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of (our) Lord and savior Jesus Christ, again become entangled and overcome by them, their last condition is worse than their first.
For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them**.
(This speaks directly to the Catholic teaching of invincible ignorance vs. serious sin of a believer and/or apostasy.)

Matt. 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven’

1 Cor. 9:27
"I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified**"

 

[nuntym]

It’s all right there in the quote:"So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.The tares in that parable represent all stumbling blocks and all those who commit lawlessness. Keep in mind, those who wear religious garb and appear “holy” on the outside can and do commit lawlessness. “Pedigree” means nothing!

Hmm, how about those people who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ but still keep sinning—I mean those who still rape, and fornicate, and lie, and steal, and etc.—aren’t they lawless too?