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

[moondweller]

Salvation is the freedom from the bondage of slavery to sin.

It is not eternal life in heaven.

As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…

Christ’s atonement made possible what once was not possible…and that is the unbinding of the shackles of sin. Before Christ, we were doomed in slavery.

Christ’s death gave us the key where once it was non-existent…but we must unlock the chains with His help and grace…and we must keep ourselves in His light, lest we re-shackle ourselves to the very sin He came to free us from.

When we die, our eternal destination is based on whether we are still bound to the shackles of sin, or we are satisfactorily unbound.

All by the Grace of God.

If this is the true Catholic definition of saved, then based on this definition, “saved” for the Catholic is never a status/reality entered into during this life."*Salvation is **the freedom from **the bondage of slavery to sin. It is not eternal life in heaven. As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…"*If “saved” is the freedom from that bondage and you’re capable of binding yourselves, then by that definition you’re not truly “saved,” you’ve never been “freed” but still remain subject to bondage. Hence, for the Catholic, there is no concept of salvation during his lifetime. For this reason one could say it’s not a Biblical “faith” which clearly states concerning every true believer in Christ: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."The Biblical believer has truly been freed from the bondage of sin through the redemptive work of Christ. He has entered into a “saved” state by grace through faith in Christ alone, having been redeemed (purchased) out of the slave market of sin (never to return: Gr.: agorazo, ekagorazo, lutroo) by the blood of Christ, the price paid (in full) - according to God’s Word.

 

[Thing]

If this is the true Catholic definition of saved, then based on this definition, “saved” for the Catholic is never a status/reality entered into during this life."*Salvation is **the freedom from ***the bondage of slavery to sin. It is not eternal life in heaven. As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…"If “saved” is the freedom from that bondage and you’re capable of binding yourselves, then by that definition you’re not truly “saved,” you’ve never been “freed” but still remain subject to bondage. Hence, for the Catholic, there is no concept of salvation during his lifetime. For this reason one could say it’s not a Biblical “faith” which clearly states concerning every true believer in Christ: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."The Biblical believer has truly been freed from the bondage of sin through the redemptive work of Christ. He has entered into a “saved” state by grace through faith in Christ alone, having been redeemed (purchased) out of the slave market of sin (never to return: Gr.: agorazo, ekagorazo, lutroo) by the blood of Christ, the price paid (in full) - according to God’s Word.

It is a process, as I think Jesus said; 13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

The corollary being, that those who fail to persevere to the end will not be saved.

A person may return to their bonds, as St. Peter said; like a dog returns to its vomit, or a poster returns to a conversation

 

[Mick_Taylor]

"Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him."
(John 6:53-56).

In the future, please refer to it as the "host" and not a “wafer”.
This is disrespectful and makes the conversation less charitable. Thanks.

Hi elvisman,

It is not the eating of flesh that gives life to sinners. It is the Spirit of God that gives life. If we continue reading further we come to this:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! ** The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. ** Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Notice that if Jesus wanted to teach the disciples that eating His flesh imparts eternal life He would not have clarified the matter by telling them, **“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. **The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

 

[maryj]

Hi elvisman,

It is not the eating of flesh that gives life to sinners. It is the Spirit of God that gives life. If we continue reading further we come to this:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! **The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. **Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Notice that if Jesus wanted to teach the disciples that eating His flesh imparts eternal life He would not have clarified the matter by telling them, **“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. **The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

Boy if I had a nickle for everytime I heard this misinterpretation. “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him”
THAT is what faith is, "completely submitting your intellect(flesh) and your will(flesh) to God. Flesh counts for nothing. It is the Flesh and Blood of Christ that gives life to sinners. It is how we are forgiven. It is in, through, and with the Spirit that we know this. Of course if you are looking at eating flesh through the eyes of flesh you will not see.

 

[SteveGC]

If this is the true Catholic definition of saved, then based on this definition, “saved” for the Catholic is never a status/reality entered into during this life."*Salvation is **the freedom from ***the bondage of slavery to sin. It is not eternal life in heaven. As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…"If “saved” is the freedom from that bondage and you’re capable of binding yourselves, then by that definition you’re not truly “saved,” you’ve never been “freed” but still remain subject to bondage. Hence, for the Catholic, there is no concept of salvation during his lifetime. For this reason one could say it’s not a Biblical “faith” which clearly states concerning every true believer in Christ: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."The Biblical believer has truly been freed from the bondage of sin through the redemptive work of Christ. He has entered into a “saved” state by grace through faith in Christ alone, having been redeemed (purchased) out of the slave market of sin (never to return: Gr.: agorazo, ekagorazo, lutroo) by the blood of Christ, the price paid (in full) - according to God’s Word.

MD, you yourself were never freed from the bondage of slavery either…merely by Christ’s atoning death. And you would have to agree with that. Why? because you acknowledge that you had your part to do. You had to cooperate, through an ascent of your will (which is what faith is)…in order to use the key Christ provided to unshackle you. This is the same way it is for Catholics. Of course, we also believe that baptism must occur in conjunction with this faith in order to make the key efficacious to the locks which bind us in sin. And so, you were not automatically “saved” just by the death and resurrection of Christ either. Nevertheless, this is what salvation is…a cooperation (ascent of the will) of the bound sinner with Christ’s blood sacrifice…and this cooperation unbinds us (SAVES us) from the bondage. The pivotal point, however, is that we indeed can return to the shackles, prodigal sons as many of us are…and the ascent of our will is what makes salvation an ongoing process. Christ’s part is finished. Ours continues unto death. You are “saved” every time you ascent to God…aligning your will with His. Every time you reject God’s will (disobey)…you return to the shackles…disobey enough, and those shackles can quickly relock and bind you back to sin. If your life ceases in this shackled state, you will not see God…ever.

but the key is with us unto our death…and while alive, can be used to unlock the shackles. Grace is that key. Faith is our grasping that key and unlocking ourselves. Obedience is our capacity to remain unshackled and hopefully remain so unto death (and see God).

 

[brb2]

]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.”[/indent]

.

Uh, and continue on … read the next verse 10…

“For we are his WORKMANSHIP, created IN Christ Jesus for GOOD WORKS, which God PREPARED beforehand, that we SHOULD WALK IN THEM.”

In these verses … Paul teaches you Step 1 & Step 2. You love Step 1, and consistently ignore Step 2.

You teach a ‘truncated’ gospel of salvation … one that is Protestant Lite. While Catholicism teaches the complete message of Paul to the saints.

Its as clear as 1,2,3 … Md. Add that next verse to your Pauline understandings. and make St. Paul proud of you …

 

[brb2]

(1)

If those verses show “initial” justification can you show me the word “initial” before the word justification? (2) Define “saved” as in “For by grace you have been saved through faith…the gift of God; not as a result of works…”

I’ll show you from your favorite book … Romans 8:30

“And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified HE ALSO GLORIFIED.”

Glorified [those receiving ADDITIONAL sanctification] = Step 2 Christianity [those who ABIDE in Christ to their last day]

Md … Christianity is a journey, … a process of growth/maturity/wisdom/spiritual discipleship. The trek of the New Man/Woman. Turn back from the plow, and risk ruin.

Saved defined … Those Christ glorifies on their last day

 

[guanophore]

Yes, it was all part of God’s perfect plan from before the creation.

Indeed.

You seem to be suggesting that eating the wafer and drinking the wine are somehow necessary for our salvation. Is this what you believe the bible teaches?

The Bible does not “teach”. People teach. The person who taught this was Jesus. He told us that, unless we eat His Body,a nd drink His Blood, we will have no life in us.

There is a huge difference between eating and drinking bread and wine in remembrance of Christ, and worshiping bread and wine as though it IS CHRIST.

I agree.

Do you imagine that it is necessary for Jesus to physically make His body present in the sacrament in order to make the sacrament useful? What then, will you do with the instruction that we are to worship Him in spirit and in truth?

I believe that Jesus did and said only that which was necessary. This is how we were commanded to remember Him, and it is the most perfect worship, in Spirit, and in Truth.

And how will it be consistent to say that His ONE TIME bloody sacrifice is continually repeated in an unbloody manner… which is the SAME sacrifice?

The same way that it is consistent to sacrifice and eat a lamb every passover, even though every year the firstborn were not killed all over again.

Bingo … you now recognize what the Apostles and ECF’s have been teaching that Christ taught them.

Hugh Difference … it not something you can take our leave, cafeteria style w/o consequences … if you choose/believe wrongly.

I think if you really read the ECF’s, it would be clear to you that they believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the elements.

 

[brb2]

If this is the true Catholic definition of saved, then based on this definition, “saved” for the Catholic is never a status/reality entered into during this life.

"*

.*

WrongO …, you don’t know Catholic Traditions, or Scriptures on Salvation

St. Augustine teaches what the Catholic Apostolic Tradition believed re: SAVED.

"It is an excellent thing that the Punic [Carthinagen] Christians call Baptism itself nothing else but SALVATION, and the Sacrament of Christ’s Body Eucharist] nothing else but life. Whence does this derive, except from an ancient and, as I suppose, apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ hold inherently that WITHOUT BAPTISM & PARTICIPATION AT THE TABLE OF THE LORD it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God [aka Catholic Church] or to SALVATION and to life eternal ? THIS IS THE WITNESS OF SCRIPTURE TOO. " St. Augustine / 412 A.D. in Forgiveness and the Just Deserts of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants.

thus, SAVED defined by Apostles = … Baptism & Eucharist in the Catholic Church

Md … to be IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH … is to be IN CHRIST. All who remain IN CHRIST are saved in ‘real time’ … while living on Earth.

So … another myth of Moondweller bites the moondust
​

​

 

[elvisman]

Hi elvisman,

It is not the eating of flesh that gives life to sinners. It is the Spirit of God that gives life. If we continue reading further we come to this:

On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?” Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! **The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life. **Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.” From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him. “You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve. Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.

Notice that if Jesus wanted to teach the disciples that eating His flesh imparts eternal life He would not have clarified the matter by telling them, **“The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. **The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.”

The words he spoke ARE spirit and life. When he said, "No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him" - he meant that this truth hadn’t yet been revealed to them.
That’s why he doesn’t call them back and say - "Hey, wait a minute!! I’m only speaking metaphorically!!"

The normal Greek word for “eat” (phagon) is not what the Gospel writer (John) used here. The Greek word used here is “trogon”, which means to gnaw and much like and animal eats. Jesus was using hyperbole as he always did to drive his point across.

He meant what he said about eating his flesh and drinking his blood. That is why he said, "Does this shock you?"

---

Let me ask you something:
Do you honestly believe that all of the Early Church Fathers - many of whom were persecuted and put to death for this belief - simply made this stuff up for fun to fool future generations?

 

[guanophore]

To the O.P.

Since Catholicism has no concept of the word “saved” for its members in this present lifetime, I don’t think yours is a fair question to ask.

This is a false statement, Moon. You see, the NT is Catholic, written by Catholics. Therefore, everything in it represents Catholic belief.

The Catholic Church has held fast to the teaching of the Apostles, that we are saved when we are born again from above by water and Spirit. Our sins are remitted ( Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16), we become members of the family of God ( John 3:3,5) we become children of God ( 1 John 3:1) and heirs according to God’s promise ( Galatians 3:29). This entails that we can then call upon God as our Father and he considers us as His children (Galatians 4:6).

We are justified by grace, through faith, which places us into a right relationship with God and we become his child (see Galatians 3:27-29). Here we have forgiveness of our past sins and we are able to worship God acceptably. We are spiritually transferred
"He has delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Col 1:12-14

Once a person is saved, the blood of Christ covers the sins that we commit and confess (1 John 1:7-10) and we remain in a state of God’s grace as we continue to serve and love Him. God continues to forgive our sins based upon our having been cleansed by the blood ( cts 8:22).

We are destined "To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."1 Peter 1:4, 5.

Toward that inheritance, we are sealed with the HS.
30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, in whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Eph 4:30-31

Being saved means

To be forgiven of your sins
To be justified by God through faith in Jesus (declared righteous, not guilty)
To receive the free gift of eternal life offered to us through Jesus Christ
To experience the new birth (ye must be born again, become a child of God)
To have a personal, intimate relationship with the Lord Jesus
To be delivered the from penalty of sin (which is death, eternal separation from God)
To receive the finished work of Jesus
To be taken out the kingdom of darkness and put into the kingdom of His light
To have a hope that goes beyond the grave, ( because He lives, I too will live with Him for all eternity)
To be sealed by the promised HS

These are just some of the things that happen, there are many more. But, as you can see, it is an error to say that the Catholic Church has no teaching on being saved in this life.

I think a more realistic question would be, “How does a Catholic decrease his chances of not getting into heaven.” IOW, what must a Catholic do now in hopes to be saved (help secure his acceptance into heaven) later.

I am not sure this question makes any sense at all. There is nothing about heaven that is “chance”. Can you reframe the question without using those words, so can follow you better?

 

[guanophore]

Salvation is the freedom from the bondage of slavery to sin.

It is not eternal life in heaven.

I think it is both. The ultimate freedom from the bondage of sin is eternal life in heaven!

As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…

Christ’s atonement made possible what once was not possible…and that is the unbinding of the shackles of sin. Before Christ, we were doomed in slavery.

Christ’s death gave us the key where once it was non-existent…but we must unlock the chains with His help and grace…and we must keep ourselves in His light, lest we re-shackle ourselves to the very sin He came to free us from.

When we die, our eternal destination is based on whether we are still bound to the shackles of sin, or we are satisfactorily unbound.

All by the Grace of God.

Yes. In baptism, we are washed and regenerated

Titus 3:5-8
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life. 8 The saying is sure.

We become heirs of the hope of eternal life.

 

[elvisman]

If this is the true Catholic definition of saved, then based on this definition, “saved” for the Catholic is never a status/reality entered into during this life.
“*Salvation is **the freedom from ***the bondage of slavery to sin. It is not eternal life in heaven. As such, salvation is a process, because we are capable of binding ourselves back to sin throughout our lives…”
If “saved” is the freedom from that bondage and you’re capable of binding yourselves, then by that definition you’re not truly “saved,” you’ve never been “freed” but still remain subject to bondage. Hence, for the Catholic, there is no concept of salvation during his lifetime. For this reason one could say it’s not a Biblical “faith” which clearly states concerning every true believer in Christ:
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.”
The Biblical believer has truly been freed from the bondage of sin through the redemptive work of Christ. He has entered into a “saved” state by grace through faith in Christ alone, having been redeemed (purchased) out of the slave market of sin (never to return: Gr.: agorazo, ekagorazo, lutroo) by the blood of Christ, the price paid (in full) - according to God’s Word.

Actually, you’re wrong.
You’re confusing Redemption with Salvation.

What Christ did on the cross redeems us. We have been paid for. It gives us the hope of salvation - not eternal security. Even Paul stated many times that he and we don’t have a guarantee (Romans 11:22, Hebrews 10:26-27, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 4:4). We have a moral assurance of salvation - IF we endure - because of Jesus’ redemptive, finished work on the cross.

Salvation is being rescued from evil and eternal damnation - and you ain’t there until the end of your life. I’ve already showed you the scriptures IN CONTEXT that show this to be the case.

Simply believing does NOT save you. As I’ve shown you, even the demons believe and tremble - and they are damned (James 2:19).

And again - as I have already shown you - the Christian CAN and DOES fall back into sin and can even lose faith:
**Romans 11:22, Hebrews 10:26-27, 2 Peter 2:26-27, **Matt. 7:21, 1 Cor. 9:27, 1 Cor. 4:4, Matt. 24:13, 1 John 5:13

Nice try - but no cigar . . .

 

[brb2]

**

Actually, you’re wrong**.
You’re confusing Redemption with Salvation.

What Christ did on the cross redeems us. ** **

Salvation = eternal life. Christ’s passion on Cross offers redemption for mankind, for our sin debt [disobedience]. John the Baptist answers Moondweller’s dogmatic ideas on the ‘faith vs works’ issue, with regards to salvation.

John 3:36 “He who believes in the Son has Eternal Life [Salvation]; he who DOES NOT OBEY the Son SHALL NOT SEE LIFE, but the wrath of God rests upon him.”

John the Baptizer saw the faith vs works matter just as did James the Just. Belief [saving faith], is defined by Obedience to the Son, as evidenced by gracious works enabled by his Holy Spirit.

So SAVED defined by earliest Catholic Apostle / St. John the Baptist] : Belief in the Son, which leads to Obedience to his Word; by indwelling, abiding, baptismal power of HS.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, we know that the Scripture are “God-breathed” (theopneustos) by Divine revelation (2 Tim. 3:16-17), i.e., Scripture itself. Since neither you nor I were there we both must rely on the early church (by “church” I don’t mean the RCC) that recognized all the Apostolic writings distributed among the churches. Even Peter himself right away recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 14-16).

But the Catholic Church was there from the very beginning MD. Peter as first pope recognized that some of Paul’s “letters” were misunderstood by the ignorant who were interpreting Paul’s written words contrary to what was ORALLY being TAUGHT. It is not at all clear that Peter believed that ALL of what Paul wrote what we today call scripture. At best Peter had a short list of Paul’s writings HE considered inspired by HIS authority as leader. But for the most part Peter was speaking mostly about OT scripture and HOW they related to Paul’s ORAL teachings. You do know that at least 2 of Paul’s writings were lost don’t you? Use some simple logic here MD. If Peter believed that ALL of what Paul wrote had an equivalence with OT scripture then that would mean some of inspired scripture was lost. How could it be possible that inspired scripture was lost? Clearly God would not let that happen and so clearly we can deduce that NOT all of what Paul wrote was inspired or accepted as inspired (certainly not his logistic instructions to his helpers etc.). You fall headlong into yet another error of your personal theology and private interpretation.

Not a single apostle every saw a bible nor ever conceived that bible or NT would be constructed. The Apostles, including Paul thought Jesus’ return was imminent in their own lifetimes – they had no intention of writing a bible when they thought Jesus was coming very soon. Do you know of a verse in the bible that no one else does that tells us what is cannon? That Table of Contents is in there – but the Catholic Church is the one who put it together.

But the true reality is that people and councils only recognized them as what they were from the moment they were penned. The Holy Spirit did not depend on men to confirm His work. As for the councils of Hippo and Carthage they were provincial, not ecumenical, so they had no authority to speak for the whole church (again, by “church” I don’t mean RCC). Nor did the Bishop of Rome even attend those councils and your church didn’t officially have a canon until the council of Trent. Canonization is not “inspired,” the Scriptures are. The canon is made up of those writings which are Divinely inspired (theopneustos). Grasp the difference? Early church writers quoted from the N.T. Scriptures even before a council on canonization ever took place.

How do you claim this when just above you admitted you were not there. How do you know that the people only recognized “them” (what is “them”) as “what they were” (What was that “letters”? this is more double speak) from the moment they were penned? Did the 3,000 people baptized at Pentecost tell Peter “Wait – these are conditional baptisms – we won’t get confirmed until Saul stops persecuting us and gets renamed to Saul and starts writing his Epistles 20 years from now". GOOD GRIEF MD ! Cut us a break and use some common sense. PEOPLE believed the SPOKEN WORD of the apostles decades BEFORE a single drop of ink was put to papyrus or a single stroke of text was fired into clay tables. Don’t forge that GOD BREATHED ON THE APOSTLES. The inspired words were inspired long before they were put to paper. They were revealed to “men” in the instant they were spoken. Writing means nothing - we don’t need a bible since we have it all in our teachings and traditions. Only Protestants need a bible so they can re-spin it ways they want to believe it.

You seem to like the word theopneustos – but you still have absolutely no way to know what was “God breathed” without the Catholic Church telling you which is. Then you try to down play the early Catholic Councils as lacking the authority to defined Canon? Are you suggesting that Christianity did not start until AFTER the Protestant Revolution forced the Catholic Church to formally define the cannon which was ALREADY ACCEPTED for 1400 years and not called into question??? OR do you mean to say Catholics owe the Canon to the Protestants for trying to rip out 5 NT books out of the ACCEPTED Bible to force us to Canonize it?? HAHA – you are something else MD - I can’t believe you can take yourself seriously. WHAT AUTHORITY DID LUTHER HAVE WHEN HE CALLED HIS SINGLE MAN COUNCIL MEETING AT WITTENBERG TO REINVENT CHRISTIANITY ACCORDING TO WHAT HE WANTED??? Get a sense of reality MD. You can’t have double standards and irrational positions like this. If you want to pretend that there was no Canon defined until Trent (after we anathematized the Protestants to cull the heard and make everyone more agreeable?) then you HAVE TO also admit that sola scripture did not begin until AFTER the Protestant’s were anathamatized and so you have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to rebel since you had no Bible-centric authority since it did not exist. You also HAVE to admit that for 1400 years prior to the Reformers Christians HAD NO NEED OF SOLA SCRIPTURA – unless you want to try to make the case that these all went to hell? Is that the position you want to take MD???

The Catholic Church has always been The Catholic Church. You want to call us the RCC – but that is what you call us – that is not who we are. We are all simply Catholic here with different rites.

Scripture is not “Scripture” until the Catholic Church accepts it as scripture. We did that all the way back in 382 AD. We made it dogmatic at Trent since it was clear the Protestants wanted to reinvent a new Christianity and wanted to redefine the bible to accommodate their new neo-Christianity-lite religion and wanted to pull out more books.

So you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth again MD in claiming that there was no authority to define Canon in the early church without the bishop of Rome (you forget the Council of Rome under Damascus) but then claim the early Church fathers used the NT canon before it was defined and that usage was sufficient authority. Sorry – you can’t have it both ways. If we went on popularity of usage then the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache should be in the bible (Catholics do hold the Didache as an important traditional reference outside of Canon).

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Well, we know that the Scripture are “God-breathed” (theopneustos) by Divine revelation (2 Tim. 3:16-17), i.e., Scripture itself. Since neither you nor I were there we both must rely on the early church (by “church” I don’t mean the RCC) that recognized all the Apostolic writings distributed among the churches. Even Peter himself right away recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Pet. 14-16).

But the Catholic Church was there from the very beginning MD. Peter as first pope recognized that some of Paul’s “letters” were misunderstood by the ignorant who were interpreting Paul’s written words contrary to what was ORALLY being TAUGHT. It is not at all clear that Peter believed that held ALL of what Paul wrote what we today call scripture. Peter was speaking mostly about OT scripture. You do know that at least 2 of Paul’s writings were lost don’t you? If Peter believed all of what Paul wrote had an equivalence with OT scripture then that would mean some of scripture was lost. How could it be possible that inspired scripture was lost? Clearly God would not let that happen and so clearly we can deduce that NOT all Paul wrote was inspired and you fall headlong into yet another error of your personal theology and private interpretation.

Not a single apostle every saw a bible nor ever conceived that bible or NT would be constructed. The Apostles, including Paul thought Jesus’ return was imminent in their own lifetimes – they had no intention of writing a bible when they thought Jesus was coming very soon. Do you know of a verse in the bible that no one else does that tells us what is cannon? That Table of Contents is in there – but the Catholic Church is the one who put it together.

[continued]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

But the true reality is that people and councils only recognized them as what they were from the moment they were penned. The Holy Spirit did not depend on men to confirm His work. As for the councils of Hippo and Carthage they were provincial, not ecumenical, so they had no authority to speak for the whole church (again, by “church” I don’t mean RCC). Nor did the Bishop of Rome even attend those councils and your church didn’t officially have a canon until the council of Trent. Canonization is not “inspired,” the Scriptures are. The canon is made up of those writings which are Divinely inspired (theopneustos). Grasp the difference? Early church writers quoted from the N.T. Scriptures even before a council on canonization ever took place.

How do you claim this when just above you admitted you were not there. How do you know that the people only recognized them as “what they were” (What was that “letters”?) from the moment they were penned. Did the 3,000 people baptized at Pentecost tell Peter “Wait – these are conditional baptisms – we won’t get confirmed until Saul stops persecuting us and gets renamed to Paul and starts writing his Epistles 20 years from now. HOBOY! Cut us a break MD – PEOPLE believed the SPOKEN WORD of the apostles decades BEFORE a single drop of ink was put to papyrus or a single stroke of text was fired into clay tables.

You seem to like the word theopneustos – but you still have absolutely no way to know what was “God breathed” without the Catholic Church telling you which is. Then you try to down play the early Catholic Councils as lacking the authority to defined Canon? Are you suggesting that Christianity did not start until AFTER the Protestant Revolution forced the Catholic Church to formally define the cannon which was ALREADY ACCEPTED for 1400 years and not called into question??? OR do you mean to say Catholics owe the Canon to the Protestants for trying to rip out 5 NT books out of the ACCEPTED Bible to force us to Canonize it?? HAHA – you are something else MD - I can’t believe you can take yourself seriously. WHAT AUTHORITY DID LUTHER HAVE WHEN HE CALLED HIS SINGLE MAN COUNCIL MEETING AT WITTENBERG TO REINVENT CHRISTIANITY ACCORDING TO WHAT HE WANTED??? Get a sense of reality MD. You can’t have double standards and irrational positions like this. If you want to pretend that there was no Canon defined until Trent (after we anathematized the Protestants to cull the heard and make everyone more agreeable?) then you HAVE TO also admit that sola scripture did not begin until AFTER the Protestant’s were anathamatized and so you have NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER to rebel since you had no Bible-centric authority since it did not exist. You also HAVE to admit that for 1400 years prior to the Reformers Christians HAD NO NEED OF SOLA SCRIPTURA – unless you want to try to make the case that these all went to hell? Is that the position you want to take MD???

The Catholic Church has always been The Catholic Church. You want to call us the RCC – but that is what you call us – that is not who were are. We are all simply Catholic here with different rites.

Scripture is not “Scripture” until the Catholic Church accepts it as scripture. We did that all the way back in 382 AD. We made it dogmatic at Trent since it was clear the Protestants wanted to reinvent a new Christianity and wanted to redefine the bible to accommodate their new neo-Christianity-lite religion and wanted to pull out more books.

So you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth again MD in claiming that there was no authority to define Canon in the early church without the bishop of Rome (you forget the Council of Rome under Damascus) but then claim the early Church fathers used the NT canon before it was defined and that usage was sufficient authority. Sorry – you can’t have it both ways. If we went on popularity of usage then the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache should be in the bible (Catholics do hold the Didache as an important traditional reference outside of Canon).

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

Now that’s a good one, James. I can’t use the original Source??? I can’t use Divine revelation, true Apostolic teaching? You restrict me to secondary sources only?

You misunderstood. I am not going to let you read “black” in the bible and call it “white” through private interpretation. So to extricate your personal spin on scripture I want you to quote a single Early Church Father who taught a single Protestant Sola. You know you can’t since it never happened. So why can’t you just be honest and say “I can’t” rather than play these rope-a-dope games?

Moses actually did enter the land, and that wholly by GRACE (Matt. 17:2). If we accept your logic we would have to conclude that Moses wasn’t saved. But you fail to understand that God dealt with national Israel as under the Law. Their faith was to be in God alone and their obedience was to be according to the covenant of Law (Mosaic). But James, Someone greater than Moses has come and inaugurated a new covenant in His blood by which men are saved by GRACE through FAITH in Him alone (Jn. 14:6; cf. Rom. 6:14).

No, you’d be carrying the figurative expression too far. I was speaking of The Promised Land (Israel) as a prefigurement for Heaven and because of Matt 17:2 happening BEFORE Christ died DON”T make the mistake of thinking Moses was saved by The Law. NO ONE WAS EVER SAVED BY THE LAW – the LAW CONVICTS and it’s the pathway and servant to Grace. It is there to bring us to humility so that we can plead for mercy - the perfect antidote for hubris - the root cause of our original sin. JESUS SAVED MOSES – just as JESUS saved ALL those who do God’s will. The entire OT was a spiritual prefiguring for what we get in the NT. The LESSON God taught us through Moses is that ONE MUST be OBEDIENT as well as faithful to enter the promised land. MOSES DID NOT get to posses the OT Promised Land (Israel). YES – he got to enter the heavenly Promised Land because he REPENTED and placed His Trust in God (and Jesus saved Him by HIS grace in Eternity since HE was present in the burning bush – God’s Wisdom, Love and Mercy). But the CONSEQUENCE of Moses’ disobedience was He could not enter the Earthly Promised Land. This was MEANT to be a lesson to us – we MUST obey as well as be faithful – even if we are highly esteemed and favored by God. Except for Jesus’ in His humanity. Mary was the only human in history to be both fully obedient and fully faithful.

You don’t seem to think that Jesus’ grace could not save Moses before Jesus took flesh in NT times?? Yet we know that this is the case because of men like Moses (viz Matt 17:2) being seen as saved BEFORE Christ died and because Mary was also hailed as being PRESERVED as sinless and “full of grace” BEFORE Christ died in her time – because Jesus already pre-saved her in Eternity.

This has been hashed over a thousand times on this forum. The context in which James presents his teaching is that of a “said” faith: “…if a man SAYS he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?” James isn’t denying salvation by grace through faith alone. Nowhere does James conclude that a man is actually saved or justified by works. But, like Abraham, those whom God declares justified (reckons righteous) by faith demonstrate their faith through works. But it’s not the works by which God justifies any man. Even James quotes Gen 15:6:"Then he (Abram) believed in the Lord; and He (the Lord) reckoned IT (his faith) to him as righteousness."After about twenty years his faith in the Lord had matured and was demonstrated by his willingness, in obedience, to offer up Isaac. It’s called “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). James’ point: The justified by faith will demonstrate their faith by works. But, as with Abraham, works are NEVER the cause of divine justification (Rom. 3:28-30; 4:5-6; Gal. 3:24). For the doctrine of justification you must study Paul’s Epistles.

But you do admit that works of grace are paired with grace and MUST be present for the one who is justified and remains justified and does not later betray Christ through a work of freewill??

[cont]

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I can just as easily say that where true men of faith are there the church is. And I would be far more accurate since the true church is made up only true believers. Not all “Bishops” are believers. “Bishop” (Gr. episkopos) is a church office, it’s not “the church.” In Scripture episkopos (also interpreted “overseer”) and presbuteros (elder) are one and the same. Neither are called hiereus (priest). According to the N.T. Scriptures there is no special office of hiereus in the church. Only the general priesthood of all true believers.

Next Post:

But you don’t have anything close to the pedigree or true teachings of the Early Church fathers who personally knew an apostolic successor MD. And so we often catch you in these forums saying any thing at all that you want to say since you imagine in your own mind that you know better than the 2,000 year old Catholic Church who has always held to the sacred traditions and teachings. There is no possible way to refute the historical fact that the early church had bishops and priests and an ecclesial structure. To say otherwise is show yourself as utterly ignorant of Church History or to be purposefully deceptive. Sure there were some heretical bishops who were condemned just as there was an apostate apostle (Judas). But in case you did not make the connection, by using this line of argumentation that there were heretical bishops you are admitting that you believe that The Early Church has bishops. At least be sincere MD and stop the duplicitious arguments just for the sake of argument and start admitting when the history proves you wrong.

Given that you have just been caught red-handed in a duplitious and spurious argument NO ONE here can trust YOUR private interpretation. So we have to go to the history of the people who were closer to the apostles to get the truth if you won’t accept it from Catholics. But the problem is – that means you have to again trust Catholics since that’s ALL anyone was back in the first 1400 years outside of a schism and a few heretical leaders.

History calls you a liar MD if you dare try to say that there was not a distinction between the Ministerial Priesthood and the Lay, Universal Priesthood. If what you say is true then Jesus would have had the Last Supper out on the green with thousands of followers rather than just have the 12 in the upper room.

Sorry – you have struck out again. Are you going to continue to play this plastic and artificial wiffle-ball game all your life MD and swing at air and never get on base?

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

I never said one is saved by the Scriptures. One is to believe the Scriptures which reveal salvation by grace (God’s) alone though faith alone (“apart from works”). IOWs, one is to believe God’s Word. Sola Scriptura has to do with the authority of Scripture."

Where does the Bible say “one is to believe The Scriptures” which reveal salvation by Grace???

Here is the first thing Jesus said about belief.

Mark 1:14 After John [The Baptist] was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. 15”The time has come," he said. "The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!"

Was this written down and posted on signs along the road way or was it excitedly conveyed word of mouth among all those who were anxiously waiting for the Messiah to deliver the Jews?

There would be no bible for over 350 years from this first utterance. The Apostles were not even selected yet! WHO told us these accounts? SACRED TRADITION.

The GOOD NEWS is to believe what Jesus has TOLD us – and tells us even today through HIS CHURCH. The bible is NOT the principal means of learning The Good News. I’d wager than fewer than 2% of Christians converted to Christianity by reading a Gideon’s Bible in their hotel room. Nope – PEOPLE are invited into the faith by The Church – members of God’s family who are baptized into the faith (even when many themselves may be ignorant of the true faith).

If scripture were to tell us to believe by scripture alone (sola scriptura) then it would mean mere possession of scripture (placing it under one’s bed pillow?) would be our magic ticket. Too bad 98% of Christians could not read a bible for about 1800 years after Christ came huh? I suppose they all went to hell for believing in Christ, and following the Catholic Bishops and confessing their sins, and doing good-works to feed the hungry and take care of the needy. All that perspiration invalidated their belief huh???

Do you really take yourself seriously MD?

Slaves to grace." That’s a new one. You seem to give grace a negative connotation. One does not need the Scriptures to be saved. If I share the gospel of Jesus Christ with my neighbor (which I have), and if he turns from his unbelief to belief in Him (which he did not), then God saves him by grace alone through faith alone. But one grows in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ through the study of the Scriptures, and one’s salvation is confirmed by the Scriptures. It’s good to be grounded in God’s Word and “it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace” Heb. 13:9). Christ Himself was thoroughly acquainted with the Scriptures and often appealed to them as the final authority in divine matters. The true believer should be as well."

By the expression “slaves to grace” means we would not be able to resist grace and God could just violate our freewill to “possess us” against our own will. That is your view – that the elect really have no choice in the matter and are just mindless little cookie-cutter tin robots that wait around for God to decide to pour His grace into them before they are saved. Uh uh. God does not want robots. He does not want to force us to love Him nor try to overwhelm us and tempt us like Satan would with big gifts and impress us with amazing supernatural feats. He wants us to accept Him out of free will as a lover would in choosing their mate without over regard to gifts and power etc. He wants authentic lovers – who will love Him for His own sake out of His goodness.

One can grow in grace and knowledge through reading the scriptures just as much as one can by being TAUGHT THE TRUTH of scripture. There are other ways to grow in grace – through exercising the virtues – especially charity. One may also grow through self-denial and sufferage and especially through the sacraments (Eucharist/confession) and through a lot of prayer.

Yes, Jesus as Living Word of God, being living scripture, it is an understatement to say Jesus was aquainted with scripture. But he did not teach any NT scripture in the Jewish Synagogue – He read the Old. The NEW was SPOKEN long before it was written.

Grace" is connected to the cross. The Apostles were chosen to deliver to the world the message of the cross for men to believe that they might be saved “by grace through faith” in Christ alone (1 Cor. 1:18,21). In each generation believers are left in the world to pass on the good news of salvation through faith in Christ to their own generation (see Jn. 17:15-17). The Holy Spirit preserved this truth in Holy Writ for all subsequent generations. It’s the way God has preserved His Word in this world since Moses. God has not left His Word concerning Christ, faith, grace and salvation to be passed on by the mouths and ears of fallible men. It’s His written Word that preserves the truth concerning salvation that the Reformers returned to.

The message of the cross was heard far and wide by not only the apostles but by the men who put Jesus to death.

I like how you say faith is preserved from generation to generation through BELIEVERS – notice you admit here the faith is in the body of believers – which is THE CHURCH – NOT THE BIBLE. No early Christian had a lone-ranger sort of faith (e.g. no ‘me my bible and my Jesus’). Nope, it was a covenantial body of believers in The Church who believed as a body of believers in each other’s shared faith and in Christ and in the Church leadership (which has Chris as its head). But then you backslide and go back to “Holy Writ” as being the repository of preserved truth. The bible has the truth in it but its NOT all of it and ITS NOT self teaching. Every Bible could be confiscated and burned and that would not stop the Christian Faith since the faith is in The Church – the body of believers. The Bible is there to be TAUGHT from not to be interpreted without the “pillar and foundation of truth” – the Church.

God would NEVER trust fallable men to all be able to pick up a bible and teach himself objective truth in matters he is ignorant of and to absorb all that Jesus taught by reading. NOPE that is why God gave us His Church. No, God has not left His written word to be reinterpreted by ‘the unschooled and ignorant who would often misinterpret things sometimes hard to understand to their own [and other’s] destruction”.

Where do you get these other new teachings of yours from MD? My bible doesn’t say anything like what you say it does.

James