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

[Tanner9188]

Wow.

Wow.

It is interesting your should bring this verse, because Paul here is referring to the Divine Deposit of Faith which was given to the Bishops by the Apostles. This is the faith that was handed down, and that by which the canon of scripture was created.

Actually, that is sanctifying grace. Do you deny that good works increase a persons’ holiness?

2 Peter 1:4-11
5 For this very reason **make every effort to supplement your faith **with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these things are yours and abound, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these things is blind and shortsighted and has forgotten that he was cleansed from his old sins. 10 Therefore, brethren, be the more zealous to confirm your call and election, for if you do this you will never fall; 11 so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Is not the Apostle saying clearly here that striving toward these virtues will keep one from falling?

C’mon, Tanner, you are creating strawmen here. You have been reading too many of MD’s posts. There is no such a thing as salvation by “works”.

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.

We are saved because he POURS His grace out upon us.

This narrow minded formulation requires one to ignore a great deal of scripture, including the passage from 2 Peter above. If God’s divine achievement “does it all”, then why would the Apostle instruct us to “make every effort”?

No, Tanner, it gives personal honor to God, for the finished work of Christ on the cross that has yet to be finished in us.

Perhaps you have a different understanding of the passage in 2 Peter, but this statement seems consistent to me.

I guess you think this way because you don’t understand the sacramental principle. Sacraments are not things that man does for himself, to save himself, but are a means by which we access the saving grace of God. There is no such thing as “works-salvation”. I think you made that up! That is what a strawman is, something you make up, then argue against. It does not really exist.

I would ask you this, in relation to sacraments. If you were blind, and Jesus put mud on your eyes, and told you to go wash in a pool of water, and you could see, would your cure from blindness be “works based” because you obeyed God?

Do you think the man in the above example has grounds to “boast” about his healing? Did his washing the mud in the pool constitute a “works healing”?

Tanner, CAF is not a venue to try to create “bible christians” out of us poor unspiritual Catholics. If you wish to promote your evangelistic message, I suggest that you create your own forum where you can invite all those Catholics who "have not the spirit of God’ as you and MD do. Maybe MD can help you fund it?

**Lol…no one but God can penetrate stony hearts and turn it into a heart of flesh. But this is why I don’t usually respond to you because you are not interested in what the Bible says as you can tell by your statement directly above. As a Catholic defending the faith; which is why you are in the apologetic section, you do a poor job IMO compared to many of your comrades like CentralFlJames, ESTEBOB, LilyM, Benedictus2, ChurchMilitant to name a few.

But if you follow their examples and grow; you to will one day do a fine job I’m sure in defending the Catholic faith without objection to the Bible. Since James is here now, maybe you could start by just observing him - just a thought that I believe will be of great benefit to you and the CAF.

God bless!**

 

[SteveGC]

I can’t speak for him and I can’t give a person interpretation per se; it is the Scripture that will validate/interpret itself; it is the holy Spirit that indwells a true believer that leads and guides to truth; the knowledge and understanding of Scripture. Think of the Bereans; they heard something, then searched, which means they compared what they heard to what was actually written or said by God.

Wasn’t asking you to speak for MD, just wanted to invite md to also answer this for himself if he comes back. As for the rest, you didn’t answer my question. So I’ll pose it again…is there any possibility whatsoever that Tanner’s understanding of Scripture as it relates to faith/salvation is tainted with any error? Yes or no, if you please.

You might also want to peruse this article: Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura

1. • Not if the contraception is used to kill a baby; like the morning after pill. The use of a contraception like a condom better be used in a marital; I’m not sure what you meant by other. Scripture is pretty silent on that issue, but does tell the Husband and wife not to deny each other unless it is for a short period of time and both are in prayer and agreement. God did tell some people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (paraphrasing) but at that time the earth was scarcely populated to say the least, which is not the case. We have multiplied around here.

OK, so a married couple can use a condom…this is not a sin according to you…this does not interfere in any way with the will of God in the sacred conjugal, procreative act between a united man and woman? Is this what you’re saying?

 

[SteveGC]

One thing’s for sure, Tanner…

For a guy who’s been on here all of 2 months…with over 1000 posts already…you sure are doing alot of talking, and hardly any listening. That can’t be true, can it - did you just join 2 months ago? Regardless, it’s painfully obvious you don’t understand Catholicism…yet you proselytize as if you are some expert in the field. Ever thought about sitting down with a local priest and discussing the faith?

And you are qualified? LOL…that hurts my stomach; when will you drop your pride and self righteousness and come in all humility for the sake of your soul; you make a mockery out of the word of God IMO and others opinions. I say this with love because you may or may not know what the warning is in Scripture in rightly dividing the word of God; this is very serious and should never be handled inappropriately, not just you but all of us. It is a dangerous thing we do here and should be done with fear and trembling because of the potential consequences.

Tanner…dude, seriously…no really, I mean listen to me here…you’re losing ALOT of credibility right now…you don’t see it, I know…you probably think you’re rightly being persecuted as Christ taught you would be…but no…Tanner, that’s not what’s happening. You are ensnared by falsehood, veiling itself as ultimate truth. CFJames will tell you that he is only qualified inasmuch as he is directly and thoroughly relaying doctrines of Christ’s Church. Those are his qualifications…not of his own capacities does he, or any of us, discern scriptural truth and offer it here…our capacities lie in our individual study and attention to, trust in, and communication of The Church’s deposit of faith as given Her by Christ Himself. Inasmuch as he does that faithfully, then yes, he IS qualified. We’ve asked you for your qualifications, and what we have from you is that because you’re indwelt with the Spirit, He reveals all things to you through your reading of Scripture, wherein it was previously hidden from you, until you read it. We’re supposed to believe you’ve developed and formed your entire beliefs based solely on reading Scripture. Never mind that you can’t name one other person who shares in precisely the same interpretation of the Bible as you. Never mind that 1000’s come on here professing the same as you, yet preach to us something different from you. Nevermind all that, right? You are different from them, yes? We should trust you…because this time, we’ve found the real enchilada…the diamond in the rough?
Tanner9188 in reply to guanophore:

Lol…no one but God can penetrate stony hearts and turn it into a heart of flesh. But this is why I don’t usually respond to you because you are not interested in what the Bible says as you can tell by your statement directly above. As a Catholic defending the faith; which is why you are in the apologetic section, you do a poor job IMO compared to many of your comrades like CentralFlJames, ESTEBOB, LilyM, Benedictus2, ChurchMilitant to name a few.

But if you follow their examples and grow; you to will one day do a fine job I’m sure in defending the Catholic faith without objection to the Bible. Since James is here now, maybe you could start by just observing him - just a thought that I believe will be of great benefit to you and the CAF.

God bless!

Wow…

that was the slickest stiff-arm of responding to a post that I’ve ever seen. Incidentally, guan is one of the more astute CAF posters here. You’d be hard pressed to find any Catholic on here in disagreement with guan (psst…including all the ones you named above). Take that for what it’s worth.

 

[Thing]

Solid response!

Catholic definition:
Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest’s absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same.

newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm

Biblical definition:
"repentance" or as a couple of translations use “penance” = “metavnoia” a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a purpose he has formed or of something he has done

Are these the same? Do you see any significant differences? Do these differences change the simple way the Bible speaks repentance in relation to the Catholic definition?
Did the apostles hire a priest or have a priest administer “penance” as a sacrament? Did the apostles speak of a priest or a Pope? Is there more than one apostolic teaching? If two things are in opposition to each other, how can you know which is true?

Whoa there Nellie!

If Jesus said they would have repented [a change of mind] in sackcloth and ashes, that there, is Catholic penance.
Jesus said they would repent, or desire to be forgiven.
But He said they would, in their desire to be forgiven, wear sackcloth and ashes.
They would actually do something physical, and uncormfortable or unpleasant, He said.
It was obviously in His mind that people who are repentant, or who desire to be forgiven, would do real penance. And sackcloth and ashes to Him seemed like a suitable penance.

But back to Catholicism. I’m not sure if you are mixing up some things.

There are three things here.
Confession — which is a Sacrament instituted by Christ.

[Those whose sins ye forgive they are forgiven…those whose sins ye retain they are retained.

---

Confess your sins therefore one to another

---

teaching them to do all that I have commanded…]

Absolution ---- occurs during confession when the priest says words to the effect, that by the power given by Jesus to the Apostles and with His authority to forgive sins and obeying His Command to His Apostles to forgive sins, I now use that same power to forgive you, absolve you, of all your sins, in the name of and by the power of Jesus Christ.

The last part after confession is penance; this is the bit where Jesus said those people would wear sackcloth and ashes in their desire to be forgiven. As the penitent is already forgiven at the words of Absolution, the penitent leaves the confessional and metaphorically wears sackcloth and ashes by doing a penance showing in everyway a desire to repent and conform to Christ, as Jesus said they would do a real penance not an imaginary, purely intellectual penance. They would actually ‘do’ something real and physical in their desire to be forgiven.

 

[brb2]

that was the slickest stiff-arm of responding to a post that I’ve ever seen. Incidentally, guan is one of the more astute CAF posters here. You’d be hard pressed to find any Catholic on here in disagreement with guan (psst…including all the ones you named above). Take that for what it’s worth.

LOL …

Tanner, everyone has their own style /// especially YOU. G-4 is not just 4-star, he is a certified TOP GUN ! I’ve yet to see you disprove ANY of his apologetics.

But, it’s good to see you have a long list of Catholic mentors @ CAF … who can speak to your errors in logic re: Faith & Reason

Perhaps your biggest to date is this nonsense that Catholics wrongly ‘Stress the Messenger before the Message’. I know you are a big fan of Paul’s ‘message’. Right ?

Lets revisit Paul’s MESSAGE … in a ‘nutshell’ for us ALL.

1st Cor 1:26- 2:5 "For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is written, “LET HIM WHO BOASTS, BOAST OF THE LORD.” When I came to you, brethren, I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God in lofty words or wisdom. FOR I DECIDED TO KNOW NOTHING AMONG YOU EXCEPT JESUS CHRIST AND HIM CRUCIFIED. And I was with you in weakness and in much fear and trembling; and my speech and MY MESSAGE were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT AND POWER, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the POWER OF GOD.

---

So … Tanner, tell us, based on Paul’s writings above … are Catholics wrong to LIFT UP CHRIST IN THE MASS, to celebrate him in the EUCHARIST ?

Recall this, Paul didn’t have a clue what the right message was … until he first was healed and knew [was known by] Christ.

Why do so many protestants teach ‘various messages’ … all claiming to be 'led of the spirit ? Paul makes the case that Christ Alone is his message. It is evidenced, after 2000 years of history, that only the Catholic Church, by lifting up Christ FIRST … has received and proclaims the ONE TRUE MESSENGER & HIS MESSAGE.

Come on Brother Tanner … exercise your FREE AGENCY rights … and join PAUL’s CHRIST’S ] TEAM.

 

[CentralFLJames]

**Lol…no one but God can penetrate stony hearts and turn it into a heart of flesh. But this is why I don’t usually respond to you because you are not interested in what the Bible says as you can tell by your statement directly above. As a Catholic defending the faith; which is why you are in the apologetic section, you do a poor job IMO compared to many of your comrades like CentralFlJames, ESTEBOB, LilyM, Benedictus2, ChurchMilitant to name a few.

But if you follow their examples and grow; you to will one day do a fine job I’m sure in defending the Catholic faith without objection to the Bible. Since James is here now, maybe you could start by just observing him - just a thought that I believe will be of great benefit to you and the CAF.

God bless!**

Nice attempt to divide and conquer Tanner. I have nothing but admiration for guanophore’s apologetics style and ability to cut to the chase of the matter in a few words. How ironic that you would hold me up as an example when I desire and would hold his style as more exemplar and would prefer to be as charitable and as concise and to the point as he is.

James

 

[paul_c]

Hi Paul, Would this be a good example of what you mean? Paul you have a friend who is unregenerate or lost and you are talking one day with your friend and are gravely concerned about not knowing Jesus. So in your compassion for your friend you present the Gospel of Jesus to him and explain the dire consequences of not accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. You friend politely tells you: “shove it; I’m not interested in what you said and I don’t believe a word of it”. Now you are very sad because you know the consequence; can you tell your friend, since he blatantly rejected the gospel, that he remains/is bound in his sin unless he repents? Would heaven be in agreement with your assessment? Why? Is it because the power is in the messenger or in the message?
You see some believe the power to loose and bind is unique to special messengers; like Peter or the apostles. But is this really what the Bible teaches? Did we not show that you, mere lay person, can do it because the real power is in the gospel, not the messenger of the gospel. What is this authority that allows or permits the messenger to deliver the message; is it not divine in origin? Is the message from heaven?

Of course Matthew 18 verifies that you as a lay person can indeed do what is obvious, practical and commanded.

Tanner, while it is true that a lay person can evangelize, that does not make him a priest. Priests, through their training and ordination, have the power to transmit the grace of God through the sacraments. You do not have that power. All you can do is exhort others to follow God. In our case, we are exhorting people to gain those graces through the sacraments. In your case, you are exhorting people to forsake the graces available through the sacraments. Hopefully, not many are listening to your message because it is to their detriment.

If you look at James (“You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”) and believe he is making the point against faith alone, then what do you do with the apparent contradiction of Paul in Ephesians 2:8 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”
How do you reconcile these? Scripture must validate Scripture as you rightly said. So we know we are missing something here; so if you can figure it out, it is like a riddle or a puzzle. I will give you a clue as to unravel the mystery. In reference to James; does God need to see a mans works to know if God himself justified the person?
in reference to Ephesians; who would people boast “in” if they were able to credit themselves with doing works that resulted in salvation? Man or God?

See what you figure out for yourself; might want to do some “key word or phrase” searches to see what other parts of Scripture say concerning “faith” and “works”. Let me know what you find; I look forward to hearing from you and enjoy yourself; for you are searching through the voice of God.

Blessings.

It is so amazingly simple to reconcile those two readings You need BOTH Faith and Works. Faith because intent matters to God and if you are doing works for love of God, they will be counted as righteous. Remember the descriptions in the sermon on the Mount? (Matthew 6) Those that prayed, fasted or Gave Alms for public praise already got their reward. Only those that did it for love of God were credited as righteous. Works are also needed because love is active. It is doing things for others without expecting anything in return.

And by the way, why do Protestants always quote Ephesians 2: 8-9, without adding verse 10?
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
10 For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them

We are made FOR good works. You need BOTH faith and Works…

 

[moondweller]

paul c:

It strikes me Moondweller, that you can’t bear to say that the theological virtues are Faith, Hope and LOVE, and as you shouldknow 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.

Faith, hope and love certainly should be the virtues of the saved believer, as Paul states in 1 Cor. 13:13; but the believer himself entered into his saved state (a concept not known to Catholicism) strictly “by grace through faith” in the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ (Eph 2:8; cf. Acts 16:31). The saved (by grace through faith) are now called to “walk by faith” in the hope they now possess (eternal life) expressing it in love toward others, but especially toward the brethren. But our love is not the essence of Christianity but rather God’s love toward us by sending His own Son:1 John 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."This selfless love is the essence and message of God and true Christianity.

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.

Actually, you’re stating the essence of the Law which is to love God with all your heart, mind and soul, and you neighbor as yourself. But no one is saved by the principle of law. No one can be saved BY loving God and others. One is saved BY God and that “by grace through faith.” If, as you say: “To be saved we must love God and love one another,” then you are preaching a salvation based on law, personal merit. Love toward God and men should be the spiritual result of true salvation, a testament of one’s salvation, but it’s never the cause of it - according to the Scriptures.

What you fail to understand, Paul, is that 1 Cor. 13:13 is written to those who ARE saved. For the saved, yes, faith, hope and love are to abide (love being the greatest).1 Cor 13:12-13 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known. But now faith, hope, love, abide these three; but the greatest of these is love."This can only be written to those who ARE saved, my friend. It also speaks of the assurance of the believer’s salvation in that now (presently) we see dimly, but then face to face. Now we know in part, but then we’ll know fully just as we have been fully known. There’s no uncertainty here.

But here’s your problem, Paul, there’s no concept of “saved” in Catholicism. So everything you read addressed to believers about conduct in the Scriptures is interpreted by you as a condition for a future salvation. IOW, in Catholicism your future salvation (whatever that means to you) is contingent on your present behavior. That’s called salvation by works. The Apostle Paul calls it a “different gospel.”

 

[Tomster]

To you , James, Tomster and anyone else; I give the same answer to this question through the forum.

I would not listen to one thing I say or anyone else says or teaches unless, like the Bereans, you can search the Scripture and see if it is true. If it is true, then embrace it, if it is not true, then reject it. Nothing magical in that; this is why we have a divine standard of truth so we don’t get blown by every wind of doctrine.

Hope this clarifies these things. I might also add; that if you are unable to discern the things of God on your own, then you probably don’t have the resident Truth Teacher. God made promises to those whom He loves by giving the Spirit of Truth to each individual believer; so they can discern and understand what is right and what is not concerning the wisdom, knowledge and understand of His revelation.

Much love and blessing,

Tanner

Sorry, we need some more clarification. Which edition of the New Testament were the Bereans using? If you want to really follow their example wouldn’t you necessarily be restricting yourself to examining the Old Testament alone since the Catholic Church had not yet determined which books were to be included in the Canon of the Bible?

 

[Tanner9188]

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…

** I’ll try to remember that, but don’t you ever do that again either; you have done that on some occasions yourself.**

Yes I’m happy to emphasize the messengers, Tanner. More than happy to do so. EDIT 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. EDIT 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.

Please do not put words in my mouth; I said you need to focus on the message, not the messengers; that is quite different that to say totally ignore the messengers. Also; you admit that you are happy to emphasize the messengers; that is not surprising since that is what my point is. I wish it were true that you put your faith in Christ alone, then we could all join hands and go visit the JW’s and Mormons. You all have much in common IMO.
You said the following above: “As such you erroneously believe that Scripture now exists as the sole, stand-alone source of the faith…but it isn’t.” I believe the Protestan Bible is the special revelation, Word of God, given to man for wisdom and knowledge of salvation in Chris and sufficient for spiritual faith and practice. I also believe there is no other special revelation, as opposed to general revelation (i.e creation), given to us by God. You seem to believe this is incorrect; if so what is the other special revelation given to us by God and how do you know it is from God?

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

Please say it some more; it hasn’t soaked in; the armor keeps reflecting the fiery darts…LOL…no I’m not serious.

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.

What about trusting in His promises; like receiving the Holy Spirit at the moment you believe in your heart. He would give the Spirit of Truth to lead and guide the individual to wisdom , understanding and discernment of His truth. Do you trust Him when He says there is but one name given to us for intercession and do you show that trust by being a doer?

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.

**So should we then call Paul a liar when He spoke of the Bereans? Should we than call Jesus a liar when He told the Jewish authorities: “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;” I would argue that if you can’t search the Scriptures on your own and identify the truths; then the truth is not in you; especially since we have a completed OT and NT. I does not negate receiving help via a pastor, bible study, commentaries or other tools, but with the tool used it still must be compare to Scripture for authentication. **

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.
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.

**What do you base your theory on and where did you learn this theory or are you just expressing your opinion? (referring to first long sentence listed directly above in green)

What do you know about Gods will for our lives? Is His will the same for ours (MD & I) as it is yours?

Are you deluded into believing your Church is not fragmented and a majority of the “faithful” are of the cafeteria variety, particularly in the US? I can’t think of one that is not; maybe you are the exception. It is not just now; it is its history, but this is true with all churches because they have humans that make up the church; just don’t delude yourself, which I don’t think you really are.**

 

[Tanner9188]

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.

Since infusion is not used in Scripture and you claim “Catholics have thousands of scriptures to support INFUSION.” then provide 3 passages that support infusion of saving grace; otherwise don’t bring you foolish statements my way. Thanks and God bless you a bunch.

 

[moondweller]

SteveGC:

ALL Catholics are adopted into the family of God, md…did you think I meant that we’re blood relatives??

Well, Steve, you’re the one who presented the idea of the “authentics.”

All Catholics, including all clergy, all popes, all the apostles, every last one of us are adopted.

That’s not true. Not all Catholics (including priest, popes and prelates) are saved. It’s only the saved who are adopted and cry out “Abba Father.”

And if you were baptized with the necessary, accompanying faith, you also have been adopted.

Not if I believe that it was the baptism itself that caused the adoption (such as baptizing an infant). Salvation faith, which results in the believer’s adoption into the household of God, has an Object, hence, wrong object, wrong faith, no adoption.

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.

First of all I have no spiritual mother to abandon. Adoption is a legal binding, a legal contract. It’s not something one can volitionally desert. It’s the Father who does the adopting, not the adoptee. Adoption is not like a marriage contract which can be legally dissolved by a writ of divorce.

By all accounts thus far, it appears you have.

If this is how it appears to you then you have no idea what being adopted by God really means. Yours is a faulty understanding.

And so, to claim unity and one mind with the family you have clearly abandoned is a fallacy on your part.

Or…your concept of “adoption” is thoroughly flawed.

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.

So when did the object of faith change from Christ Himself to your church?

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.

You talk as if its your church that does the adopting.

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 can’t “run away” from a place you’ve never been. I was never Catholic. Here’s what the Scriptures say:Gal 3:26 "For you are all sons of God (how?) through faith in Christ Jesus."Nope, it doesn’t say anything about converting to Catholicism.

 

[Tanner9188]

Take up my challenge … and you will see

And, by the way … where is the word “Faith ALONE” used in your Protestant [Catholic] Bible in conjunction with Salvation ?

**Can you quote a verse that says “Catholic Church”, “Roman Catholic Church”, “Catholic Priest”, “Immaculate conception”. “Perpetual virginity”, “Pope”, “Purgatory”, “Petrine succession”, “succession”, “Vicar of Christ”, “Pray to a saint”, “Rosary”. “Mary Queen of Heaven”, “Magisterium”, “Pontificate”, “Absolution by a priest”, “Mass”, “Original sin”, Infant baptism", “deposit of faith”, “Indulgence”, “co-mediatrix” etc etc etc

Grace alone by Faith alone in Jesus Christ alone is justification and because the word “alone” is not after phrases “by faith” or similar and frequent phrases; is implicit and given the very frequent use of the phrase gives further evidence and strong implicitness and by the lack of any other conditional next to the frequently used phrase is even stronger evidence of the implicitness.**

 

[Tanner9188]

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.

Solid as a rock!

 

[moondweller]

Since infusion is not used in Scripture and you claim “Catholics have thousands of scriptures to support INFUSION.” then provide 3 passages that support infusion of saving grace; otherwise don’t bring you foolish statements my way. Thanks and God bless you a bunch.

BRB has no idea what the Catholic doctrine of infusion is.

 

[Tomster]

I can’t speak for him and I can’t give a person interpretation per se; it is the Scripture that will validate/interpret itself; it is the holy Spirit that indwells a true believer that leads and guides to truth; the knowledge and understanding of Scripture. Think of the Bereans; they heard something, then searched, which means they compared what they heard to what was actually written or said by God.

1. • Not if the contraception is used to kill a baby; like the morning after pill. The use of a contraception like a condom better be used in a marital; I’m not sure what you meant by other. Scripture is pretty silent on that issue, but does tell the Husband and wife not to deny each other unless it is for a short period of time and both are in prayer and agreement. God did tell some people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth (paraphrasing) but at that time the earth was scarcely populated to say the least, which is not the case. We have multiplied around here.

As far as the Bible interpreting itself you still have not addressed the fact that if what you say is true why are there so many different sects within Protestantism interpreting the same Bible differently?

 

[moondweller]

]
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.

Can you show me in Scripture where it talks about “gracious works?” needed for salvation?

I certainly do concede that, according to the Scriptures, those who “have been saved by grace through faith, a gift of God…not as a result of works” (Eph. 2:8-9) are now “created in Christ Jesus FOR good works,” that they “should walk in them” (Eph. 2:10). But I have yet to find where any man is ever saved (or, to Catholics its, “being saved”) by ANY works at all, “gracious” or otherwise.

 

[Thing]

Solid as a rock!

Yes, those bad old protestants excuse Luther all his faults and follow him.
But point to all the Catholic faults and abandon them.

Those protestants were Catholic and followed a bad man, they said.

Not good, solid as sand.:tsktsk:

 

[moondweller]

granophore:

Do you imagine, that when “all of Judea” came out to be baptized, there was no line?

John the Baptist wasn’t an Apostle, nor was he commissioned to preach the gospel of Christ which is based on His sacrificial death and subsequent resurrection. He knew nothing of these things. I’ll ask again for you to show me where men lined up for miles to personally confess their sins to they Apostles that they might absolve them.

Even under the Law forgiveness of sins was by the shedding of blood, not confessing.Heb 9:22 And according to the Law, {one may} almost {say,} all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness."Now compare this with the Apostolic message concerning the forgiveness of sins in Acts 10:43; 13:38; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:14).

The Apostles did not separate confession from an act of faith. These did not become separated until the Reformation.

The Apostles never taught confession as the means for the divine act of forgiving sins. Divine forgiveness was directly connected to faith in the One whose blood was shed:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Yes, and part of that gospel of forgiveness of sins is "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive them. This should not be separated from the proclamation.

As I pointed out in a previous post, 1 Jn. 1:9 is not addressed to believers but to those who were leaning toward Gnosticism. A true believer is one who has acknowledged (confessed) his sinful state and having believed in Christ, received the forgiveness of sins.

This passage is commonly misapplied to excuse the nature and effects of sin on the believer. IN fact, the Love of Christ is so deep that He will watch us walk right through the gates of Hell. This is the freedom HIs love grants to us. He loves us enough to allow us to walk away from Him.

Yes, this is what you’re taught. You see? There’s no concept of “saved” in Catholicism.

Sin has no more power over the one who is “in Christ”. However, the nature of sin does not change upon the death of Christ. Sin still separates people from God.

No, my friend, you misinterpret the Scriptures. Through ONE MAN sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and death spread to ALL men because ALL sinned (in Adam, see Rom. 5:12). For this reason ALL men are born to die; and ALL men are born spiritually dead, ALL in need of LIFE eternal. But Paul tells us of a “righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for ALL those who BELIEVE,” both Jew and Gentile alike (Rom. 3:22), “for” he says, “ALL sinned (i.e., in Adam) and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.”

So yes, guanophore, the wages of sin IS death (which occurred for ALL men in Adam). “But,” says Paul: “the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” This is the very thing Christ Himself said in Jn. 3:14-18; 5:24.

Indeed, and that faith that gives eternal life is faith that acts, faith that obeys, faith that abides with love and hope.

Yes it does! But it’s not the obedience or the love or the hope by which God saved the believer or gifted him eternal life in Christ - it was through his FAITH in Christ alone: “For by grace you have been saved through faith…”

I agree that God’s grace is a mystery and a stumbling block to men. However, your contrivance of Catholic belief as “God must see something good to merit salvation” is contrary to what the Catholic church believes and teaches. On the contrary, it is the fact that he made purification for our sins on the cross that enables us to participate in this purification.

Did you not read the verse carefully? It says “when HE had made purification of sins…”. There’s no participation on your part. He accomplished it on the cross through the shedding of HIS blood, when our sins were, at that time, imputed to Him.

They are two inseparable sides of the same coin, Moon. If we are under His grace, then we will not continue in sin. Sin separates people from God, and causes death.

Again you misunderstand the Scriptures. Sin came into the world through ONE man only, causing death to reigned through that one man. But"those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17).

 

[Tomster]

Well, Steve, you’re the one who presented the idea of the "authentics."That’s not true. Not all Catholics (including priest, popes and prelates) are saved. It’s only the saved who are adopted and cry out "Abba Father."Not if I believe that it was the baptism itself that caused the adoption (such as baptizing an infant). Salvation faith, which results in the believer’s adoption into the household of God, has an Object, hence, wrong object, wrong faith, no adoption.First of all I have no spiritual mother to abandon. Adoption is a legal binding, a legal contract. It’s not something one can volitionally desert. It’s the Father who does the adopting, not the adoptee. Adoption is not like a marriage contract which can be legally dissolved by a writ of divorce.If this is how it appears to you then you have no idea what being adopted by God really means. Yours is a faulty understanding.Or…your concept of “adoption” is thoroughly flawed.So when did the object of faith change from Christ Himself to your church?You talk as if its your church that does the adopting.You can’t “run away” from a place you’ve never been. I was never Catholic. Here’s what the Scriptures say:Gal 3:26 "For you are all sons of God (how?) through faith in Christ Jesus."Nope, it doesn’t say anything about converting to Catholicism.

Actually supernatural adoption is mentioned several times by St. Paul with the proper legal term of the language of the Temple. Thus in his letter to the Romans 8:15: “For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear: but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry Abba (Father)” (cf. Eph. 1:5; Gal. 4:5). The term evokes the current concept of juridical adoption usually defined as: a gratuitous assumption of an outside person as son with the right of inheritance. This human adoption is a moral substitute of natural filiation, which creates a right in the adopted person without changing his physical nature or personality. The adoption spoken of in Holy Scripture transcends the natural order and therefore also the natural concept of common adoption, with which it agrees only analogously. In fact, man, who by faith answers Christ’s call, according to the documents of revelation, is enriched by sanctifying grace, which establishes between creature and God a relationship of paternity and sonship by virtue of spiritual regeneration which resolves itself into an ineffable participation of the very nature of God. Cf. John (Prologue of the Gospel): “He gave them power to be made the sons of God”: 2 Peter 1:4: “He hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature.”

Supernatural adoption therefore means an intrinsic transformation of the soul, a vital divine communication, which makes man domesticus Dei, i.e., a member of the divine family (Eph. 2:19), like to God in being and action. In the ancient litugy and in the writings of the Fathers divine adoption is a dominant motif: the Greeks especially (St. Athanasius, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexandria) illustrate the relationship between our adoptive filiation and the natural filiation of Jesus Christ with respect to the Father, and prove that the one is the effect of the other. The Scholastics go deeper into this truth (cf. St. Thomas), and after the Council of Trent the theologians fix the expression of this truth in these terms: adoption is a formal effect of sanctifying grace by which the faithful become sons of God, and so brothers of Jesus Christ, their Coheir of eternal life.

I know it is safe to say that the above memtioned Fathers and Saints and the participants at the Council of Trent under the protection of the Holy Spirit “searched the Scriptures.”