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

[SteveGC]

In WHOM, not WHAT we have put our faith.

We have the same salvation by grace through faith in Him alone: redeemed (purchased) by His blood; once for all justified in God’s sight; reconciled to God by His death; gifted eternal life; the hope (not “hope so”) of our future glorification with Him.

IOW, we’re of the same faith, the same promise, the same living hope, the same family (see the family resemblance?).

There you have it: faith, hope and family. A connection that can’t be broken, sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise Himself. Can’t get a tighter connection than that. It’s a divine connection. :grouphug:

I liken this to an orphan who claims familial bond with a family that lived and died 2000 years ago, without bothering to trace the historical records to ensure that he indeed does belong to the family. Rather, he reads a book that family wrote, interprets it in his own way, believes his own interpretations of it, claims his interpretation of what the family wrote is precisely what that family meant to say, and declares “we are family!”

Let the family speak to you first MD. Authentic descendants of that family are still with us on earth. If you take time to listen to them, and receive the authentic message of beliefs, then you may claim membership in the family which shares in the faith in Christ.

 

[Tanner9188]

Baptism not the mechanism of rebirth ??

Holy Spirit is not the Holy Element ?

The Eucharist is not delivered to Catholics internally ? Absorbed into the bloodstream … by ‘natural’ Intravenous Infusion. Blood going first to the Heart, and only then to the Mind/Brain. Supernatural Grace to us, reinforcing grace previously received.

Where is the Fatal Flaw ? Perhaps only a FF for those who deny Supernatural Grace of Body & Blood.

You are very blind IMO; where is the word “infusion” ever used in the NT? Furthermore; where is it used in connection with justification?

In light of the actual facts and reality of saving grace being imputed to a true believers account at the time of justification.

Here is the antithesis of imputed righteousness.
Psalm 32 -
1 How blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, Whose sin is covered! 2 How blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity, And in whose spirit there is no deceit!

Impute= ‘chashab’
to charge, impute, reckon

Ro 3:25 -
whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. {This was} to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;

Heb 2:17 -
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1Jo 2:2 -
and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for {those of} the whole world.

1Jo 4:10 -
In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son {to be} the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation = ‘hilasmos’
The act of propitiating; placation, atonement, expiation
The act of propitiating: to gain or regain the favor or goodwill of : appease or atone

1 John 2:12 "I am writing to you, little children, because your sins have been forgiven you for His name’s sake.

I leave you with one of the most definite passages in all of Scripture on the topic of justification by grace through faith.
Romans 3 -
being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith.

I wish you all would read and understand Peter’s speech at the Council in Jerusalem and understand that Peter gave one of the most powerful exhortations on grace. It soon after Peter was rebuked by Paul for preaching another gospel among the gentiles with is Jewish brothers.

Acts 15 - (Peter - the preacher of grace by faith)
"Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 "And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit (The True and saving Baptism - Matt. 3:11 & Luke 3:16), just as He also did to us; 9 and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10 "Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11 **“But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.” **

 

[SteveGC]

Tanner,

I see you’re STILL trying to argue the infusion vs. imputation debate by way of explaining (unnecessarily) to us what propitiation means.

Have you not figured out yet that Christ’s atonement is not related to HOW the grace which sprang forth from that atonement is applied to humanity?

Let’s keep this debate focused shall we? We can agree that Christ died once for all, in atonement for our sins, and that the gates of heaven were opened. The argument here is how this Grace is made efficacious to a person. Is it infused or imputed, and when? We say infused in faith and baptism. You say imputed upon belief. That’s the focus. We can dispense with the “lecture” on propitiation then, yes?

 

[Tanner9188]

Wrong yet again, Tanner. Your credibility as a critic of Catholicism grows weaker with every post you make. Take some time out of your day to actually absorb what the Church teaches, instead of relying on whatever anti-Catholic tracts and pamphlets that clearly make up your arsenal of debating skills.

What Catholics “have a tendency” to do is focus on the inseparable bond of the message AND the messengers. Without authentic messengers, there IS NO message, you see. WE AGREE HERE!!! What protestants have a tendency to focus on is the written text in a vacuum. ** (Silly fundamentalist - focusing on the Word of God in such a narrow fashion - such foolishness on our part)** Ever wonder why Jesus NEVER talks about writing a book? Never once instructed anyone else to write anything down? It’s because He knows that written words cannot hold authentic meaning if those words are not accompanied by authentic teachers.

We get the FULL Gospel focus, Tanner. The Church has received it from Christ DIRECTLY.** (Some of you claim the Apostles - Peter specifically)** She accompanies the written form of that message until the end of the age. It might serve you well to start listening to the appointed messengers of this message, lest you lead yourself and others astray.

On that note…be cautious how much you comfortably reveal on here your motives to proselytize Catholics from the true faith. That’s dangerous ground. :crying:

Sorry; I’m out of cheese!

You emphasize my point as I noted in blue above…thank you very much!

Jesus always was using the term “it is written”, which indicates the use of a scroll or book.

Luke 4 - (Jesus and the Book of Isaiah)
“He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where** it was written…”

You stated above: " It’s because He knows that written words cannot hold authentic meaning…" I believe that Jesus is the Word, written or oral; don’t you believe that?
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”**
Don’t you believe the Word is the “Living Word”? To say no to any of this is to deny the Word of God.

You do not know what you are talking about and seem to just throw out there whatever comes to your mind because you are ignorant of Scripture IMO & observation; maybe because you focus too much on the messengers as opposed the the message, the gospel of GRACE, which is the Person of Christ Jesus.

If you want to increase you chances of getting into heaven, then focus on the message and not the messengers.

Final note; do you believe a mere human could convert someone to another faith or religion? Isn’t that the work of the Holy Spirit concerning the Christian faith? All I can do is be faithful to His word, which He calls all Christians to do…right?

 

[moondweller]

I liken this to an orphan who claims familial bond with a family that lived and died 2000 years ago, without bothering to trace the historical records to ensure that he indeed does belong to the family. Rather, he reads a book that family wrote, interprets it in his own way, believes his own interpretations of it, claims his interpretation of what the family wrote is precisely what that family meant to say, and declares “we are family!”

Let the family speak to you first MD. Authentic descendants of that family are still with us on earth. If you take time to listen to them, and receive the authentic message of beliefs, then you may claim membership in the family which shares in the faith in Christ.

Oh…, so then you claim you were never “adopted” and have not received a spirit of adoption by which we who did received it (the Apostles included) cry out "Abba Father? (Rom 8:15; Eph. 1:5).

You see, Steve, in the faith there’s only one “authentic” Son, the rest of us, including the Apostles, are adopted. If you’re not adopted then you’re not of the family, not of the “household of God.”

 

[Tanner9188]

Tanner,

I see you’re STILL trying to argue the infusion vs. imputation debate by way of explaining (unnecessarily) to us what propitiation means.

Have you not figured out yet that Christ’s atonement is not related to HOW the grace which sprang forth from that atonement is applied to humanity?

Let’s keep this debate focused shall we? We can agree that Christ died once for all, in atonement for our sins, and that the gates of heaven were opened. The argument here is how this Grace is made efficacious to a person. Is it infused or imputed, and when? We say infused in faith and baptism. You say imputed upon belief. That’s the focus. We can dispense with the “lecture” on propitiation then, yes?

Well Steve; since you can’t provide the existence of the infusion of God’s saving grace from a Biblical perspective, then I guess will will move. After all; I provided solid Biblical evidence to support my claim that His righteousness is imputed to the true believer at the point he/she first believes.

 

[Tanner9188]

We disagree on this, but I’m glad that you understand that my position is that “regeneration happens in order for conversion to occur”. They are both simultaneous in time, but logically, regeneration must happen first. A lot of Protestants simply don’t get this.

WASP,

Is this the idea that one must first realize they are sinful and have effectively offended Gods character and the penalty is eternal separation from God; and realize they have nothing at all to offer in themselves to reconcile their offenses to Holy God; therefore they cry out to God for mercy. The first beatitude - spiritual poverty and the 2nd mourning over that reality.

Now they are a state of total humility before a perfect God; therefore their heart is right before God to then receive that mercy.

 

[Tanner9188]

You have a lot of fallacies and inaccuracies in your statements Tanner which some few of the many I will labor to elaborate to demonstrate another macro-level contradiction in your own specious logic. I don’t need to discount them all since at the instant I prove you fallable I can stop. The immediate point I will make on the presumption I can prove you wrong is that your own errors will prove YOU to be uninspired (or more pointedly uninspiring ). If you make a SINGLE error that by your own standard of wanting to toss our Maccabees II on your own projection of error then we can dismiss YOUR opinion just as quickly as “Apocrypha”. After all you are the one announcing your own standard and it would be duplicitious for you to be arbitrary in the application of it while at the same moment trying to present yourself as rational and repeatably credible. In other words, if you would tear out the book of Maccabees II from The Bible based on a perception of error then Catholics would be justified in decapitating the man from the body of believers at the first moment he uttered his own error to prevent a heretical source from polluting the Church. Yes?

To put to bed first things first - let me answer your first question. Is scripture error free? Yes it is - in the sense of scripture that the inspired author intended to say but with the added caveat that the full depth of what was the Holy Spirit said through the pen of the inspired author may be of greater depth and dimension than the human author may have consciously known at the time. There are many cases in scripture (esp. OT) where prophets have given prophecies that have a dual connotation in the prophet’s time and a later fulfillment in the NT etc. I won’t take the space here to give examples but I think you can agree in principal since the NT is fulfillment of OT. The practical impact to this discussion is that what you might interpret as error might really be, and most probably is just a reflection on your own lack of scholarship or anachronistic back-projection or pure logical-deductive error etc. Since I have seen some of your prior analysis and failures of logic based on false assumptions I tend to take most of your ‘red flags’ as first sight indicators of your own personal error since I have yet to see you disprove a single Catholic teaching by YOUR fallable interpretation of scripture. OK - now on to the matter at hand.

Would you say that St. Paul was in error in scripture (Roman 3:4, Romans 3:10-18) when he said all men are liars and are deceived and none are righteous and none understands but seems to have forgotten to exempt himself? Or was Paul telling the truth that he was a liar in an impossible circularity of contradiction? Should we toss out Paul’s Letter to the Romans? Should we toss out ALL of Luther’s teaching for originally desiring to toss out the Antolegomena NT books ( Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Acts of Paul, [the Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache], the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews)? If we use your standard based on that “error alone” (sola errata ) we should toss away as “filth” ALL of Luther’s teachings right? Let’s extend it. Should we toss out the KJV for its errors? If we use the popular Protestant 1611 King James Version Bible as our cannon would have found eleven New Testament verses that the Protestant translators felt were quotes from “Apocrypha” books, and in the margin notes they cross-referenced them as such. So, should we toss out those NT verses or can we just toss out all of Protestantism as “in error”?

Mat 6:7          Ecclesiasticus 7:14 
Mat 23:37       2  Esdras 1:30 
Mat 27:43       Wisdom 2:15-16 
Luke 6:31       Tobit 4:15 
Luke 14:13     Tobit 4:7 
John 10:22     1 Maccabees 4:59 
Rom 9:21       Wisdom 15:7 
Rom 11:34      Wisdom 9:13 
2 Cor 9:7        Ecclesiasticus 35:9 
Heb 1:3          Wisdom 7:26 
Heb 11:35       2 Maccabees 7:7

Now to correct some of your errors:

[continued]

James

James you focus way too much on the messengers and their opinions rather than on the Savior.

Who cares whether Luther wanted to exclude books of not; it is irrelevant and where is the historical evidence of this; I don’t know…every time I have asked one of you to provide it, no one aver does, which makes me wonder if it is all myth concerning Luther getting rid of books. I do recall him referring the Book of James as an epistle of straw; but for what reason I do not know because I never met the guy to ask him. What I do know is that the Protestant Bible is without error.

As far as you speaking of Paul, he was the greatest of sinners according to himself; this is fact, so where is the circular reasoning, then you proceed to take the passage out of context or imposed on it your own beliefs. Your reasoning to justify books that are not inspired, the 2nd canon, fly in the face of God and His work of the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth to man without error. You again focusing on the messengers fallibility rather than the infallible message, the gospel of grace, which is the Person Of Christ Jesus. You all do this so much; it has become habit and you do not realize it IMO.

 

[Tanner9188]

[continued from prior]

The Doctrine of Purgatory was established LONG before The Council of Trent. You need to understand that Catholics hold to sacred traditions and only dogmatically define them when they become under attack by heretics. That does not mean that they only become defined at the moment they are dogmatically proclaimed through correcting anathemas. God often uses heretics (like the reformers) to help the Catholic Church focus and define its teachings and this is the practical application and benefit of Protestantism on the Catholic Church - your forefathers were used as convenient motivators to give rise to sharpening our pens and tightening up our theology for God’s Church. If not for the millions of souls lost in death and those who are suffering eternal loss Catholics would owe a word of thanks to Protestants to help us dig deeper into The Deposit of Faith to formally declare the truths that were being trampled upon by the Reformers.

Here you go again; focusing of the messengers instead of the message, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the Living Word of God. None of it is given by Jesus or His apostles; therefore it is to be rejected. What is this “deposit of faith”; another Catholic invention not found in the Living Word? Come on, who are you fooling except yourself and maybe others that by into thoughts.

For the record, the Deuterocanonicals were defined as “inspired” as early as The Council of Rome in 382 AD and further ratified in Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD). Christian Purgatory belief and practices are ancient. Some of the earliest Christian writings outside the New Testament, like the Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity (both 2nd century), refer to the Christian practice of praying for the dead. Also we know from the forensic evidence of the early 2nd century Christian catacomb prayer inscriptions The Church believed in the efficacy of prayer for the dead. See THE EXISTENCE OF PURGATORY for early Church Father quotes.

You know the true history better than that, the Catholic stance on those books were varied and great liberty was given to the local overseers as whether to teach on them as Scripture or devotional purposes; then over time they became formalized as Scripture. Some false religions use and accept other Deuterocanonicals not contained in the Catholic version; some were accepted and some rejected by Trent. You can’t have too many contradictions; someone may catch on to the truth IMO; God forbid.

I can stop here and need not take the time and space to rebut the so called “errors” in Maccabees anymore so than I need rebut what you’d have to also call (by the same standard) errors in the NT. For example: *Matt 13:31-32: " “the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree.” *. There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don’t grow into trees. You need to discern the sense of scripture when reading it. The authors are often using “poetic” or hyperbole to make a point.

True, unless you put it into the context of the point Jesus was making; but why bother to do that? The mustard seed was the smallest of the agricultural seeds, which Jesus often used an agricultural references when comparing the Kingdom; especially since it was a predominantly agricultural society. What does a tree provide? shade and nesting, perhaps this was Jesus point…ya think? You know this; and by misleading anyone reading this, you trample under foot the Son of God.

OK - I think its pretty clear we have proof positive that you are fallable and therefor are not qualified to be teaching scripture - much less criticizing apostolic Catholic teaching. :guillotine:

James

No! You have only managed to prove you own fallibility and misleading information that others may actually believe thus increasing the blood of the Savior on to yourself unless you repent.

 

[Tanner9188]

Oh…, so then you claim you were never “adopted” and have not received a spirit of adoption by which we who did received it (the Apostles included) cry out "Abba Father? (Rom 8:15; Eph. 1:5).

You see, Steve, in the faith there’s only one “authentic” Son, the rest of us, including the Apostles, are adopted. If you’re not adopted then you’re not of the family, not of the “household of God.”

I’m adopted and an heir; joint-heirs with Jesus Christ
The Spirit itself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God. :bluelite:

 

[paul_c]

In WHOM, not WHAT we have put our faith.

We have the same salvation by grace through faith in Him alone: redeemed (purchased) by His blood; once for all justified in God’s sight; reconciled to God by His death; gifted eternal life; the hope (not “hope so”) of our future glorification with Him.

IOW, we’re of the same faith, the same promise, the same living hope, the same family (see the family resemblance?).

There you have it: faith, hope and family. A connection that can’t be broken, sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise Himself. Can’t get a tighter connection than that. It’s a divine connection. :grouphug:

It strikes me Moondweller, that you can’t bear to say that the theological virtues are Faith, Hope and LOVE, and as you should know from 1Corinthians 13, the greatest of these is Love.

Love is the essence of Christianity because it is the essence of God, yet your theology seems to ignore it, focusing instead on Faith and Hope. Because you have faith, you have hope. But thats not enough. To be saved, we must love God and love one another. Jesus said that this was the essence of Scripture.

 

[brb2]

MoonD; you will notice among Catholics, I’ve noticed this pattern over and over,

They have a tendency to focus on messengers (i.e. Peter, Pope, & ecf’s et al) rather than the message, the gospel of grace, which is the Person of Christ.

Remind them over and over because until they focus on the message; they cannot begin to come to the truth of the Person in the message.

.

Tanner, Tanner, Tanner … read again what you wrote above. You contradict U-self, thereby disproving your premise, and actually pointing out the validity of Catholic FOCUS. Catholics indeed focus on the messenger(s) … the Person of Christ, and those saints who are IN CHRIST.

Who died on the Cross ? Christ or his message ? Christ said, " If I be lifted up, I will draw all men to ME". Christianity is PERSON(al) relationship with Christ … not the protestant THEORY of the Christian message. You & Md can have ALL your Faith in Bible Scripture Theories … but that won’t get you to heaven. Your ‘Faith Alone’ in the scriptural MESSAGE won’t seal the deal.

Recall what Christ said at the Judgment … “Depart from me, I never KNEW YOU”.
The scriptural MESSAGE is only the means God uses to convict a person and bring about conversion / adoption INTO the PERSON of CHRIST.

Rebirth my ‘protesting’ friend … REBIRTH into the PERSON, not the message. The two become ONE, when the H.S. is INFUSED into the new convert by GRACE.

 

[SteveGC]

Sorry; I’m out of cheese!

You emphasize my point as I noted in blue above…thank you very much!

Jesus always was using the term “it is written”, which indicates the use of a scroll or book.

Luke 4 - (Jesus and the Book of Isaiah)
“He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. 17 And the book of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the book and found the place where** it was written…”

You stated above: " It’s because He knows that written words cannot hold authentic meaning…" I believe that Jesus is the Word, written or oral; don’t you believe that?
“In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”**
Don’t you believe the Word is the “Living Word”? To say no to any of this is to deny the Word of God.

You do not know what you are talking about and seem to just throw out there whatever comes to your mind because you are ignorant of Scripture IMO & observation; maybe because you focus too much on the messengers as opposed the the message, the gospel of GRACE, which is the Person of Christ Jesus.

If you want to increase you chances of getting into heaven, then focus on the message and not the messengers.

first off, do me a favor please. Do not quote me and then insert your own words into the body of that quote. I know you’re using font colors to distinguish your words from mine, but I’d rather you wrote your words outside of my quote boxes, thanks.

as to your comments…

Yes I’m happy to emphasize the messengers, Tanner. More than happy to do so. But you’re setting up yet another strawman by claiming that I emphasize them over and above Christ’s message, or Christ Himself. It doesn’t surprise me…the protestant mentality is typically one of “either/or”…failing to see the authentic reality of “both/and” in so many Christian mysteries. When I say messengers, Tanner…I mean first and foremost Christ Himself. And as such, it follows that the apostles were undoubtedly the first receivers of His teachings. And so, they are absolutely included in the body of necessary messengers. Your disconnect is in your denial of the necessity of authentic messenger accompaniment of Sacred Scripture that God has willed to exist until He comes again. As such you erroneously believe that Scripture now exists as the sole, stand-alone source of the faith…but it isn’t. You further err when you presume that the Catholic focus on the messengers means that we put our faith in humans as opposed to Christ. And so, allow me to spell it out for you…

Catholics put their faith in Christ alone.

Shall I repeat that? Or will that suffice? Perhaps read it a few times and let it soak in.

Faith in Christ, however, is faith in EVERYTHING Christ is. The Bible is not everything Christ is. It is an inspired, written record of God’s teachings, but this written record is impractical and inefficacious if authentic, inspired humans do not co-exist with it. It must always be accompanied by divinely appointed people, because this is how Scripture has ALWAYS been designed.

In the OT, there were always prophets and other inspired persons who taught the people what the written word meant. No one read the written words on their own and received the authentic message. Divinely inspired humans had to be there to do that. In the NT, yes, Christ indeed did often emphasize “it is written”…but you fail to see that because Christ (in his HUMAN nature) is present with man, He Himself is the necessary, inspired human accompaniment to Scripture. So it also goes whenever the apostles or their ordained clergy quoted from Scripture. You see, humans have always been, and will always be, necessary companions with the written word. But not just any humans…they must be divinely appointed by God…and this appointment is effected by the laying on of hands in Christ’s name…occuring and recorded multiple times in Scripture.

What you do, by leaving the messengers out, is you abandon the fullness of the Gospel…the fullness of Christ. At best, you receive a partial understanding, a partial set of truths…more often, you receive error…and then you promulgate it and wind up creating chaos…the last 500 years has been (and continues to be) witness to that madness.

Tanner9188:

Final note; do you believe a mere human could convert someone to another faith or religion? Isn’t that the work of the Holy Spirit concerning the Christian faith? All I can do is be faithful to His word, which He calls all Christians to do…right?

Yes, conversion is ultimately the work of the Spirit. But people are most often the instruments of that work. Problem is…many do NOT have the Spirit within them, yet believe they do. Or they have the Spirit within them, but oppose Him in a mulitude of ways, rejecting His guidance, going against His will. As such, these people tend to believe they are called to proselytize others to their set of beliefs. When they are successful, they often pull people further from the truth than they originally were (i.e. pulling lukewarm Catholics out of The Church). This is my assessment of you, and MD. And my warning was simply that God does not will you to do what you are doing here…nor do the forum moderators have much tolerance for that type of agenda on here. Take that for whatever it’s worth to you…probably not much.

 

[SteveGC]

Oh…, so then you claim you were never “adopted” and have not received a spirit of adoption by which we who did received it (the Apostles included) cry out "Abba Father? (Rom 8:15; Eph. 1:5).

You see, Steve, in the faith there’s only one “authentic” Son, the rest of us, including the Apostles, are adopted. If you’re not adopted then you’re not of the family, not of the “household of God.”

ALL Catholics are adopted into the family of God, md…did you think I meant that we’re blood relatives?? All Catholics, including all clergy, all popes, all the apostles, every last one of us are adopted. And if you were baptized with the necessary, accompanying faith, you also have been adopted.

The challenge we throw at you is whether or not you have abandoned your family…your spiritual brother, Jesus Christ…your spiritual mother, Mary…your Father in Heaven who adopted you. By all accounts thus far, it appears you have. And so, to claim unity and one mind with the family you have clearly abandoned is a fallacy on your part. You are not linked in the same faith, md. Your rejection of Christ’s Church sets you in the wilderness…still adopted presumably, but voluntarily separated. The danger is that your abandonment can become permanent if you do not take heed of Christ’s authentic message of the faith.

That is why I likened your statement to that of an orphan who does not know his family, yet thinks he does because he has a book written about them, all the while he rejects the perpetual earthly existence of this family all around him, a family who is ready to welcome him back home so that he can truly know them. Perhaps orphan was not the best term, because it suggests that the family abandoned him. Allow me to re-express it as a “run-away”, a better term because it more accurately expresses that God never rejects (orphans) anyone, yet He allows those who run away to do so despite the beckoning to return.

You will undoubtedly disagree, md. But the Catholic Church is that authentic family…with Christ Himself truly and substantially as its Head.

 

[SteveGC]

Well Steve; since you can’t provide the existence of the infusion of God’s saving grace from a Biblical perspective, then I guess will will move. After all; I provided solid Biblical evidence to support my claim that His righteousness is imputed to the true believer at the point he/she first believes.

Well, you left out your acknowledgment that your exhaustive dissertation on propitiation was completely irrelevant to the discussion on this issue…but I’ll take it’s omission from your post as your acknowledgment of that fact.

As for your “providing solid Biblical evidence” in favor of imputation vs. infusion…you found one verse which used the term “imputed”, and made it appear as if that proves God’s grace is imputed (merely covers over the sinful man, as opposed to filling that man with Grace). But it doesn’t do any such thing in that verse. That verse is talking about how God does not hold the faithful accountable for their sins. It is using “imputed” in a sense distinct from the sense you wish to use it. We’re talking about how Grace is effected in a man, not how God forgives man. Imputed has several meanings. The one you wish to convey, the graceful covering over of the evil nature of man, is not the meaning of imputed as used in Psalm 32. Rather, imputed in that verse is analogous to charging someone with something, or ascribing to them some penalty. You’re looking for something that reveals that God’s Grace covers over (without penetrating the soul) the sinful nature of man. You have yet to reveal it to us.

So, no sir…you did NOT provide any such “solid” evidence. Care to try again?

 

[brb2]

As for your “providing solid Biblical evidence” in favor of imputation vs. infusion…you found one verse which used the term “imputed”,

You’re looking for something that reveals that God’s Grace covers over (without penetrating the soul) the sinful nature of man. You have yet to reveal it to us.

So, no sir…you did NOT provide any such “solid” evidence. Care to try again?

Tanner —

SteveGC, called your weak bluff attempt to ‘cover-over’ your misunderstandings of justification. Try again … we want your ACE apologetic argument to support heretical ideas of IMPUTATION

Make your best case … or else your Defense rests.

Catholics have thousands of scriptures to support INFUSION. Do you really think we can’t support EVERYTHING we say/believe with Kingly/Qweenly proofs ? We deal from the full deck of NT & OT scriptures — You & Md play with a partial deck, and always seem to turn up the JOKER card.

 

[Thing]

James you focus way too much on the messengers and their opinions rather than on the Savior.

Who cares whether Luther wanted to exclude books of not; it is irrelevant and where is the historical evidence of this;

If only the protestants could have thought like this during the reformation; who cares about what we hear of abuses in indulgences etc; I suppose they would have stayed Catholic if they gave to the Church what they give to Luther.

 

[brb2]

And now a challenge to Moondweller, who is confused on the matter of Grace(s).

As we Catholics keep telling you, Catholic WORKS are of Christ. GRACIOUS works only, not our own efforts to try to earn merit or favor of Christ. Yet, you still reject this reality. You are obstinate on the matter, and in opposition to the scriptures. Those from Christ, James, John … and even Paul.

Md …

Make your best case that ‘gracious works’ are not scriptural, and I will prove that U B wrong.

I know you won’t accept the challenge … or will say it is ‘off topic’.
But, if you don’t accept, perhaps Tanner will sub as ‘relief pitcher’ for you

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here you go again; focusing of the messengers instead of the message, which is the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is the Living Word of God. None of it is given by Jesus or His apostles; therefore it is to be rejected. What is this “deposit of faith”; another Catholic invention not found in the Living Word? Come on, who are you fooling except yourself and maybe others that by into thoughts.

So which of these messages would you pay a blind ear to and ignore the messenger Tanner?
Isaiah 13:14 I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

Job 2:4 "Skin for skin! Yes, all that a man has he will give for his life.

Matthew 4:3 “…If You are the (E)Son of God, command that these stones become bread.”

Matthes 4:6 If You are the Son of God, throw Yourself down; for it is written, HE WILL COMMAND HIS ANGELS CONCERNING YOU’; and ‘ON their HANDS THEY WILL BEAR YOU UP, SO THAT YOU WILL NOT STRIKE YOUR FOOT AGAINST A STONE.’"

Matthew 4:9 All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me."

Matthew 27:40 You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!"

Luke 23:37 If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself."

Matthew 16: 22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Matthew 26:25 Then Judas, the one who would betray him, said, “Surely not I, Rabbi?” Jesus answered, “Yes, it is you.”

Luke 23:39 One of the criminals who were hanged there was hurling abuse at Him, saying, “Are You not the Christ? Save Yourself and us!”
I won’t bother to give you some of the outrageous Luther quotes that you will claim are all taken out of context (remove a man’s drunken and lustful rantings from the beer hall or the madam’s parlor and the words no doubt do loose some of their context.).

Pardon me for asking this Tanner, but are you adult with a post High School level of education? I don’t want to sound too hard on you here but your lack of depth of reasoning maturity casts considerable doubt on if I am wasting my time here pointing out all the errors. Or is all this superficial insight just arrogance? I know that Jesus told us that God can speak wonders out of the mouth of babes but I think you are caught in the gap somwhere. Just some feedback - you sound like a teenager who is all pumped up with that newer version of that “old time religion” that you might of picked up from a self-styled protestant “preacher” and are just re-parroting in these forums. Is your dad a fundamentalist preacher? Be honest…

You know the true history better than that, the Catholic stance on those books were varied and great liberty was given to the local overseers as whether to teach on them as Scripture or devotional purposes; then over time they became formalized as Scripture. Some false religions use and accept other Deuterocanonicals not contained in the Catholic version; some were accepted and some rejected by Trent. You can’t have too many contradictions; someone may catch on to the truth IMO; God forbid.

In saying the early church gave Catholics “great liberty” is this an admission of a papal and ecclesial structure in the early church?

Why are you not preaching the Dedache and The Shepherd of Hermas - the early church all did? Who would Tanner believe and trust to tell him what is “cannon”?

True, unless you put it into the context of the point Jesus was making; but why bother to do that? The mustard seed was the smallest of the agricultural seeds, which Jesus often used an agricultural references when comparing the Kingdom; especially since it was a predominantly agricultural society. What does a tree provide? shade and nesting, perhaps this was Jesus point…ya think? You know this; and by misleading anyone reading this, you trample under foot the Son of God.

Ah, I see, the old “Context” argument. Well, let’s be consistent. The context was Jesus SPOKE these words in a crowd of believers and those converting. He never read any of it. And the context of NT written scripture was always READ and TAUGHT in CHURCH!
If you were consistent with your own context argument you would be listening to the priest, bishop or deacon reading or preaching you scripture TO the assembly not having the student teach the teacher. Shady and duplicitously convenient logic Tanner…

No! You have only managed to prove you own fallibility and misleading information that others may actually believe thus increasing the blood of the Savior on to yourself unless you repent.

I see. You are saved and Catholics aren’t? Where do you draw the line between bigotry and self righteousness? I am fallable but you are not? Is that what you are saying here Tanner? I don’t teach my own interpretations on dogma - but the same apostolic teaching that was handed down to me. You teach heterodoxy that no apostole or early church father would recognize as Christian.

James

 

[nuntym]

MoonD; you will notice among Catholics, I’ve noticed this pattern over and over, something I did not see before, but clearly see now and it is this. They have a tendency to focus on messengers (i.e. Peter, Pope, & ecf’s et al) rather than the message, the gospel of grace, which is the Person of Christ. Remind them over and over because until they focus on the message; they cannot begin to come to the truth of the Person in the message.

God bless you and all who read and understand.

"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives him who sent me. " Matthew 10:40

Funny though how Jesus repeats this in the Last Supper, just before he announces that someone is going to betray him: “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who receives any one whom I send (note: uhm messenger?) receives me; and he who receives me receives him who sent me.” (John 13:20).

And oh yeah: “And if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say to you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomor’rah than for that town.” Matthew 10:14-15