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

[Tanner9188]

Tanner, none of this answers my questions. Not surprising though. 1 Cor 7 talks about the sacrament of marriage…and says nothing about the morality of contraception.

It doesn’t answer your question because you have a preconceived notion that putting on a condom is a sin; you admit this is speaking of the marital relationship, but I guess one that doesn’t deal with the most intimate part of that relationship. Also, blinded by the Light of the clear reason explained for not depriving one another.

Look, I’ll reveal to you my motives here, since you think that I am sincerely looking for personal guidance on this matter…I’m not. I know that contraception is sinful, a grievance of the Spirit, an insult to God. You obviously believe contraception used in a marriage is moral.

I have no idea if you are looking for guidance and you did not ask for guidance …did you, so why do you presume? Can you show in the Word of God where contraception is a sin; particularly in the NT.

What I’m doing is pointing out that the church of Tanner has no substantial moral guidance within it. I knew you would search the scriptures on this question, and would not find any thing explicit to draw from. I presumed (correctly) that you would espouse a tolerance for contraception, and you should be aware that that faulty belief is less than 100 years old. Contraception has always been a sin since the beginning of Christianity, even the Reformers held to that belief. Why is this all that important to reveal about you? Because you claim to hold the truth about Jesus Christ…about our salvation, our eternal destiny. If you do indeed hold the truth, then you should be intimately aware of what sin is, and what conduct constitutes sin. If you don’t have a firm grasp on morality, and cannot adequately formulate the basis of your guidance on sin, then your authenticity is gravely in question.

Like don’t call anyone “Father” who is a spiritual teacher? Pray only to the “Father”. Don’t have any graven images? Yeah I see your point; you are most obedient to the Word of God.

Let’s move on to the passage again.

“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” What immoralities does he have in mind I wonder?

“Stop depriving one another…and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Could this be related to “love making”? Humm

What does “self-control” relate to?
“akrasia” - Indiscipline with regard to sensuous pleasures

I stand corrected you are right; NOT!

The first question I posed still remains unanswered, however…and yes, I’d love to hear if your answer is yes or no.

Wait a sec, Tanner…“if I want to increase my chances of getting to heaven???” …did you just reverse your theology of once saved/always saved?

What was the question? See the title of the thread “increasing the chances of Catholics”; that would not pertain to me.

 

[Thing]

“If man, as the Protestant theory of justification teaches, is justified by faith alone, by the external justice of Christ, or God, the conclusion which Martin Luther (Sermo de nat. Maria) drew must follow, namely that “we are all equal to Mary the Mother of God and just as holy as she”. But if on the other hand, according to the teaching of the Church, we are justified by the justice and merits of Christ in such fashion that this becomes formally our own justice and holiness, then there must result an inequality of grace in individuals, and for two reasons: first, because 1) according to the generosity of God or the receptive condition of the soul an unequal amount of grace is infused; THIS IS A BIZARRE TEACHING IMO (This is definitely not what God has said) then, also, 2) because the grace originally received can be increased by the performance of good works (Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii, can. xxiv). This possibility of increase in grace by good works…”
newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

Hail Tanner full of grace, blessed art thou among women.

But if everyone is blessed among women, then…

Tanner cannot be called blessed among women…

2 Peter 3
But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and unto the day of eternity. Amen.

 

[moondweller]

Tanner, Moondweller, Quickcat,

For months we have been discussing the nature of salvation using scripture to no avail. When we show you that scripture demonstrates that you need to do the will of God to enter heaven, you simply wave it away, with excuses like, " that was only meant for the saved" or " you don’t understand the context". I have come to the conclusion (which I should have recognized months ago) that using scripture to explain something to you is worthless because you are already in the habit of making scripture say whatever you wish. Such is the weakness of sola scriptura and individual interpretation.

Just because you don’t believe the gospel of salvation “by grace through faith, the gift of God, not as a result of works,” as found in the Scriptures, doesn’t prove “sola Scriptura” weak; but it does say something about one’s “faith.”

You have a problem with the Catholic view that we need to do the will of God to enter heaven because you think it somehow diminishes the work of Jesus on the cross.

Our problem with the Catholic view is that you believe that you must “do” in order to enter heaven. What we understand “the will of God” to be is to believe in the work that Jesus has DONE on the cross. There’s the chasm which separates our beliefs.

But consider the alternative: if we aren’t doing the will of God, whose will are we doing? our own? Satan’s? Isn’t it in fact, obvious that those that will go to heaven would be doing the will of God? Because isn’t it also obvious that if we are to be saved, we will have the spirit of God within us, which will compell us to do the will of God?

Here’s your disconnect with the Scriptures. It is those who ARE saved, have been redeemed and reconciled to God through faith in Christ that now have the Spirit within them.1 Cor 6:11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."The Spirit indwells a cleansed temple, one that has been purified of all defilement (sins) by blood and created a new creature in Christ. Entrance into heaven is based wholly on one’s identity, not one’s works.

Also, what is the point of personal morality, if it has no effect on salvation. Why did Jesus bother to preach, if all that mattered was his personal sacrifice?

This could actually be considered a blasphemous statement if it was expressed in statement form. The exhortation to a moral lifestyle is for the redeemed to glorify God in their yet unredeemed bodies while on earth. Why is that so hard for you to understand?1 Cor 6:20 "For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body."It’s quite simple, Paul.

Why did Jesus bother gathering disciples around him if his intention wasn’t to build a visible church?

Upon personal belief in Christ men are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ which is the church (1 Cor. 12:13; Col. 1:18). In this sense the church is invisible.

If his goal was to simply have people learn about salvation from a book, why didn’t he write one personally?

It was to be the Spirit’s work to produce the Scriptures. His was the work of salvation.

Why did he bother to get baptized, if baptism is to no effect? Why did he bother to train his Apostles to baptize? Why did St. Peter instruct the first converts to be baptized at Pentecost, if baptism was in fact meaningless?

It’s not “meaningless.” It’s just not the “means” of salvation. Salvation is “by grace through faith.” If you’ll take an honest look at the historical record in Scripture, only those who first believed were subsequently baptized.

Why does virtually every epistle have a section on how to live the Christian life, if the only thing required is to believe that Jesus saved us by dying on the Cross and personal morality is ineffectual?

This was answered above: 1 Cor. 6:20

Why do Protestants evangelize, if God has already picked the elect and personal decisions have nothing to do with it?

Not all Protestants are Calvinists. And yet many Catholics are Augustinian in their view of election. Nevertheless, God has ordained that men enter salvation “by faith” according to His “grace” through the preaching of the propositional, gospel message of the Person and sacrificial work of Jesus Christ. Because Catholicism has changed the method of salvation from personal faith in Christ to water baptism, it’s religious system produces its own “converts” by that sacramental method. I have never been approached (evangelized) by a Catholic to believe in Christ for salvation.

How do you explain how a person who has acknowledged Jesus and thus has been born again, turns around and subsequently commits a heinous crime? How is this possible for the elect?

Sin is always possible while in these yet unredeemed bodies. And, in reality, sinlessness is impossible. But the true believer is to walk by the Spirit (who now indwells him) and he will not carry out the desire of the flesh (Gal. 5:16).

How do you deal with the issue of Free will? If man is either pre-ordained elect or reprobate, can he have free will? If he doesn’t have free will, how do you explain the choices you personally know you make every day?

Again, your question is framed in the theology of Calvinism/Augustianism. I’m neither. But one is not saved by believing the theology of either Augustine or Calvin, just as one cannot be saved by being Catholic or Protestant.

 

[paul_c]

Tanner,

Back to the original post: How does a Catholic increase their chances of getting into heaven? The simple and straightforward answer is " by living a sacramental life and doing the will of God, which is for us to love him and our neighbors." Any knowledgable Catholic will answer essentially the same way, with more or less detail

Now switch the question to what Tanner believes would increase his chances of getting into heaven. I suspect that you would say that its completely out of your hands and is solely dependent on God’s plan and Jesus’ sacrifice… .Is my view of your view correct.?

Now this makes it all very clear. Your emphasis is on the value of God’s grace. Now we would agree that without God’s grace, we are nothing. After all, he did create us and Jesus did suffer for us to redeem us after our ancestor Adam turned from God through sin.

But you take this to the extreme and make man nothing but an automaton, carrying out our preprogrammed lives to an ultimate end that we neither choose or deserve. It is a huge slight to God that you think that he isn’t capable of more than what a normal computer programmer nowadays could accomplish. It also denies the entire dignity of man. Why would Jesus have to be sacrificed for a bunch of preprogrammed robots? Why would he have spend 3 years preaching love and morality if it didn’t matter and man really didn’t have a choice in what he did anyway? What is the point of your beloved Scripture in this theology? Whether you read it or not, whether you follow it or not, has no impact on your final destination, which was pre-ordained, right? What is the point of evangelization? The evangelist gets nothing by doing that, because he was already saved or condemned despite this action, and neither does the person being evangelized, who likewise was already saved or condemned regardless of his decision.

Lets say you are not comfortable with what I just wrote. Maybe you feel that man needs to make a conscious decision to believe in Jesus to be saved. Well, now the entire predestination argument falls away, because man had a choice. and once he has a choice, how could you logically argue that only this one choice counts while all others are superfluous, including the possible choice to recant the first choice to believe in Jesus.

You see, this Protestant theology is built on Sand. You know that man has dignity beyond that of a robot. and that men make choices all the time. You know that every society is based on a common morality. You understand that you are expected to do good and to avoid what is evil and it only makes sense that you will ultimately be rewarded based on how you did these things. While it might seem nice to Give Jesus and God all the credit, it is equally wrong to give them all the responsibility for our actions. We must be responsible ourselves. This in no way demeans God and it certainly doesn’t diminish the Cross, without which man would not have the option to be saved.

Think about this one further time. Every thing God does is for a reason. He gave us the 10 commandments and the beatitudes and the works of mercy to follow because its meaningful for us to do so. Otherwise, why would he have done so? Our theology says that doing so will get you to heaven, Failure to do so will condemn you to hell. Jesus himself verified that (Matthew 19).

You can see what a beautiful lie Sola Fide is. It purports to giving God all the credit, but what it does is separate Man from any motivation to do the good works which would save him. This is the second most effective lie the Devil has propagated. the first was, “eating the apple will make you like God, having the knowledge of good and evil.” Of course, what it really did was separate man from God by introducing him to evil. You see, Sola Fide, plays to man’s laziness, while the Apple plays to man’s pride. Sola Scriputura, also plays to man’s pride in a similar way because it makes men think that they know more than the Apostolic Church.

 

[CentralFLJames]

It doesn’t answer your question because you have a preconceived notion that putting on a condom is a sin; you admit this is speaking of the marital relationship, but I guess one that doesn’t deal with the most intimate part of that relationship. Also, blinded by the Light of the clear reason explained for not depriving one another.

I have no idea if you are looking for guidance and you did not ask for guidance …did you, so why do you presume? Can you show in the Word of God where contraception is a sin; particularly in the NT.

Like don’t call anyone “Father” who is a spiritual teacher? Pray only to the “Father”. Don’t have any graven images? Yeah I see your point; you are most obedient to the Word of God.

Let’s move on to the passage again.

“But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.” What immoralities does he have in mind I wonder?

“Stop depriving one another…and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” Could this be related to “love making”? Humm

What does “self-control” relate to?
“akrasia” - Indiscipline with regard to sensuous pleasures

I stand corrected you are right; NOT!

What was the question? See the title of the thread “increasing the chances of Catholics”; that would not pertain to me.

Tanner, it’s pretty clear you are here for no other reason than to convince yourself that you are “saved” through your own polemic works. You answer almost NONE of our questions and bounce around from topic to topic like a maniac with a scatter gun shooting from the hip at all things Catholic. Your rapid fire take-no-prisoners approach and utter ignorance of church history is just making it conspicuously obvious that you can’t answer the mail we give you and are not part of the same Christian Church of our forefathers in apostolic times. Do you think you are winning any points here or gaining converts??? Who are you trying to impress?

Don’t look know bro but you just shot yourself in the foot (again):
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_134.gif

Facts:

• Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law. Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue. Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29].

*For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

“You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born, [and some commit abortion]” (Jerome: Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]). *

More here: Early Church: Contraception/Sterilization

• Call no man father??!! Tanner, are you that fundamentalist???!!! Please, St. Paul called himself a father! Better read your bible Tanner. Here are some scripture points to guide you in your re-education: Call no man father?"

You are getting low into the pickle barrel now of ignorant Protestant polemics. We rarely hear these sorts of polemics anymore since even most Protestants are starting to realize how stupid they are; and we put them down so fast anyway so don’t bother anymore.

James

 

[moondweller]

Tanner …

This is John MacArthur’s doctrines ! Md and I have discussed this man and his beliefs before … and Md doesn’t buy into the ‘whole package’ of JM’s gospel.

On please, BRB, JM doesn’t have his own packaged gospel. He preaches Christ as the gospel message and I agree with him fully. You twist things according to your twisted mind.

 

[moondweller]

paul c:

How do you deal with the issue of Free will?

How do you deal with the issue of free will by baptizing infants?

 

[moondweller]

**
MD; you have been condemned**…

Looks to me like the Tomster is since he desires to be saved by his works and keeping the big 10 (cf. Jn. 14:6). :tiphat:

 

[paul_c]

How do you deal with the issue of free will by baptizing infants?

Infant baptism is the parents agreeing to bring their children up in the faith. this preserves the child until they reach the age of consent at which time they will decide whether or not they want to be confirmed as adult members of the church.

Now, answer the question yourself, how do you deal with free will if man has no role in the only thing that really counts: our eternal destination?

 

[Tomster]

**
MD; you have been condemned**…

Are you absolutely sure of that? Now you are peddling your own doctrine of eternal damnation. I sure am glad that you are not God and I am equally glad that you are just a fallible human being.

Hint: Don’t play God! He doesn’t like it when you do.

 

[Tomster]

Tanner, it’s pretty clear you are here for no other reason than to convince yourself that you are “saved” through your own polemic works. You answer almost NONE of our questions and bounce around from topic to topic like a maniac with a scatter gun shooting from the hip at all things Catholic. Your rapid fire take-no-prisoners approach and utter ignorance of church history is just making it conspicuously obvious that you can’t answer the mail we give you and are not part of the same Christian Church of our forefathers in apostolic times. Do you think you are winning any points here or gaining converts??? Who are you trying to impress?

Don’t look know bro but you just shot yourself in the foot (again):
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/10/10_5_134.gif

Facts:

• Christians have always condemned contraceptive sex. Both forms mentioned in the Bible, coitus interruptus and sterilization, are condemned without exception (Gen. 38:9–10, Deut. 23:1). The early Fathers recognized that the purpose of sexual intercourse in natural law is procreation; contraceptive sex, which deliberately blocks that purpose, is a violation of natural law. Every church in Christendom condemned contraception until 1930, when, at its decennial Lambeth Conference, Anglicanism gave permission for the use of contraception in a few cases. Soon all Protestant denominations had adopted the secularist position on contraception. Today not one stands with the Catholic Church to maintain the ancient Christian faith on this issue. Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29].

*For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’" (Letter of Barnabas 10:8 [A.D. 74]).

“You may see a number of women who are widows before they are wives. Others, indeed, will drink sterility and murder a man not yet born*, [and some commit abortion]” (Jerome: Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

More here: Early Church: Contraception/Sterilization

• Call no man father??!! Tanner, are you that fundamentalist???!!! Please, St. Paul called himself a father! Better read your bible Tanner. Here are some scripture points to guide you in your re-education: Call no man father?"

You are getting low into the pickle barrel now of ignorant Protestant polemics. We rarely hear these sorts of polemics anymore since even most Protestants are starting to realize how stupid they are; and we put them down so fast anyway so don’t bother anymore.

James

Good grief! Not ANOTHER “Sola.”?

“Sola Tanner”

 

[Tomster]

God

WOW! Now Sola Tanner is claiming to have private revelations. This is getting better everyday.

 

[moondweller]

Infant baptism is the parents agreeing to bring their children up in the faith. this preserves the child until they reach the age of consent at which time they will decide whether or not they want to be confirmed as adult members of the church.

No it isn’t. According to Catholic doctrine the act of baptism infuses into the soul so called “sanctifying grace” which, according to Catholic doctrine, is initial justification for the one baptized. Hence, no free will exercised by the infant being baptized. It’s literally forced on him.

Now, answer the question yourself, how do you deal with free will if man has no role in the only thing that really counts: our eternal destination?

I answered all your questions here.

 

[moondweller]

Are you absolutely sure of that? Now you are peddling your own doctrine of eternal damnation. I sure am glad that you are not God and I am equally glad that you are just a fallible human being.

Hint: Don’t play God! He doesn’t like it when you do.

I’m not playing God I’m simply referring to the Word of God regarding how one comes to the Father (Jn. 14:6) and what it states concerning the ministry of the 10 Commandments which you believe you must keep for entrance into heaven:2 Cor 3:7 “But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading {as} it was, how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.”

 

[SteveGC]

It doesn’t answer your question because you have a preconceived notion that putting on a condom is a sin;

Preconceived notion? You mean, like a notion preconceived since the dawn of Christianity? Well then, yes…I’m guilty as charged.

Like don’t call anyone “Father” who is a spiritual teacher? Pray only to the “Father”. Don’t have any graven images? Yeah I see your point; you are most obedient to the Word of God.

Really? You’re resorting to classic Chick-tract attacks now? Desperation at it’s finest. Have a look here.

What was the question? See the title of the thread “increasing the chances of Catholics”; that would not pertain to me.

The question was…Is there any possibility whatsoever that what you preach to us is in error? You don’t like to say simply “yes” or “no”. But from what I’ve gathered in the many posts you’ve made since I posed that question…it’s clear your answer is “yes”…AND…“no”.

In other words…you only are “sure” *within yourself and for yourself *that you are absolutely correct. But you don’t venture to step out into the spotlight and assure anyone else that you are absolutely correct. You just resort to “search the scriptures and you’ll see for yourself that I’m correct”. You’re like a cheater in the playground who plays tag with everyone but never moves more than an inch away from home base, so that he’s always safe and never “it”. You hide behind an errant claim of “sole-authority of Scripture” when pressed for the authenticity of your interpretations. Not only that, but you use the crutch of Spirit-led interpretation, claiming that the Spirit within verifies that everything you preach to us here is absolutely correct…atleast to YOU. So you claim to be one of the earthly possessors of the full, true teachings of Christ, just as the Catholic Church claims to be. The Church can show apostolic succession all the way back to Peter…through the divinely powered laying on of hands…and what you “show” us is that “if we search the scriptures”, we’ll see you’re right…and therein lies your authenticity. Well, we’re NOT seeing you’re right as we search the scriptures…what we ARE seeing is that you’re mostly wrong.

But then you have yet another easy out…you get to claim (rightly) that we are simply regurgitating what the Church teaches, and how the Church reveals what scripture teaches about Christian truths. So, we are not really searching the scriptures “on our own” so much as we are showing you what we’ve learned from the Church. And you’d have us in a pickle…except for two things…

1. The Spirit isn’t a private interpreter of doctrinal truths as we read Scripture in a vacuum.

but more importantly…

1. **You lack the confidence to proclaim that you’re right…and that EVERY ONE else that disagrees with you must be wrong. **

And why is that important?

Because without expressing that…then we must believe that there is a distinct possibility that you ARE wrong…and that someone else who claims to be Spirit led is right…but wait…they’re not confident enough to proclaim that either…so we’ll move on to the next guy…nope…no good there either…ok, so we’ll just read it ourselves with sincere heart-felt humility and faith…just like you have…and we’ll come up with whatever the Spirit tells us is true…and then…I guess we’ll finally know??? Hmm…no…because we’ll never have the assurance that we ARE correct, as it manifests itself in our fear of proclaiming to anyone (except ourselves) that we ARE indeed correct.

So…why don’t you just profess that you ARE correct…and everyone else in disagreement is wrong? Because, you know if you do that, you are accountable to God for deceit, for leading the flock astray…and the punishment for that is death.

Ever wonder why the Catholic Church has NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER in making that very same proclamation to the entire world???

Things that make you go hmmm.

 

[SteveGC]

The exhortation to a moral lifestyle is for the redeemed to glorify God in their yet unredeemed bodies while on earth. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I don’t know why it would be hard for paul c to understand, but I’ll tell you why it’s hard for me…

Why do people who are already redeemed and inevitably bound for heaven no matter what being exhorted to do anything?? I thought they WOULD DO everything God willed them to do by His own power…not theirs. That’s what you and Tanner preach here. Isn’t their obedience to morality automatic…else they wouldn’t be the redeemed in the first place? Exhortation flies right in the face of this notion of yours.

unless of course…“exhortation” is not really the word you were wanting to use? I’m expecting you to cleverly tap dance around this now.

 

[paul_c]

No it isn’t. According to Catholic doctrine the act of baptism infuses into the soul so called “sanctifying grace” which, according to Catholic doctrine, is initial justification for the one baptized. Hence, no free will exercised by the infant being baptized. It’s literally forced on him.I answered all your questions here.

But you see, you are looking at this totally through your protestant lenses. Yes, the infant has grace infused into his soul, which will allow him to do good growing up. But as the infant grows to the point where he/she can make his own decisions, He has to decide to stay in the state of grace through his/her ongoing actions. This is were free will comes in. We know that children can be sinning by the age of 7 or thereabouts (the age of understanding) so we teach them to confess their sins and reconcile with God at about that age. this is necessary before they recieve the Eucharist, which may only be done while in the state of Grace.

So yes, the infant;s parent’s in an act of mercy and love for their child, have them baptized so that grace may be infused into them. But this in non way inteferes with the child’s free will, once he or she is old enough to exercise it

 

[CentralFLJames]

Apparently you are in Limbo; with the babies that died before being sprinkled with water and as a result of that Catholic teaching; grieved many parents at the time they needed consoling the most; but do they still teach that? I’m pretty sure they have changed on that; not sure, i have heard mixed opinions on this subject.

Just more of your scatter gun approach here Tanner. We have called your personal theology “on the carpet” on various points and rather than defend yourself you just move to another condescending attack of Catholic teaching and belief.

And again, you make some more amateur mistakes. Here you would use the same technique of the demagogue to tell people what they want to hear - just like a politician. Tanner, do you imagine that anyone goes to hell but Catholics? Take away the emotionalism of the topic of infant death and let’s apply your idea that objective truth changes if one only cries about it enough and wants to ignore scripture.

False compassion does no one any good Tanner. If your child grows up to reject Christ and died unrepentant he goes to hell no matter how much you might want to comfort your spouse or his wife and family otherwise. And if you are negligent as a parent and do not baptise your infant child and it dies before the age of reason it is YOU who are at fault for any of it’s supernatural loss for not having been a responsible parent and declaring the child to the Lord (as all God’s people have done since ancient Jewish times). Although God is not limited to the sacraments and we hope in His mercy the Catholic Church believes every word of scripture and will not teach speculation as “dogma” to contradict what is written in scripture and just to pacify people.
Tanner9188;5623320:

…
This [disposition of infant’s dieing unbaptised] is totally “Catholic” opinion; as it says. opinion on interpretation; sounds a little fallible. Especially in light of what David said, which leaves no doubt as to where children who die are. But they did not search the Scripture and when they did; they took it out of context to impose their opinion.

What is the reason people go to hell? For rejecting the Son of God or rejecting what has been revealed in His general revelation if they have not heard the gospel; then how in the world would a child or infant have that capacity - logical reasoning based on Gods character. Ouch!

2 Samuel 12 -
Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick…

23 “But now he has died; why should I fast? Can I bring him back again? **I will go to him, but he will not return to me.” **

David certainly knew where the child was; why doesn’t the Catholic Church?

Nice double talk Tanner. Why don’t YOU give us YOUR interpretation of “Where the Child Was” rather than being ambiguous and condemning Catholic insights that are not even dogmatically taught? You seem to be whining that the Catholic Church has not revealed all the mysteries yet – as if The Catholic Church speaks before the Holy Spirit reveals His truth.

Sorry Tanner but “papal infallability” does not mean “omniscient” (as you apparently think of yourself). The Catholic Church only teaches what has been revealed to it from the Deposit of Faith by the Holy Spirit. We have the benefit of 1,000’s of years and millions of man-hours of scripture study, historic and traditional insights and of course the Holy Spirit’s guidance. Don’t you think a qualified “Catholic opinion” on a matter has more pedigree than your opinion that is less than 5-30 adult years formed? Or am I too generous here?

Do YOU have even a clue about what the Jews in David’s time thought happened after death? Do you know that it was not until till the Wisdom literature that the Jews had any real solid hope for a resurrection? The most any Jew in David’s time believed in was a happy death where one would no longer be held to the exacting standards of God or be subject to His Wrath. Recall that even in Jesus’ time many Jews believed in the Sadducee’s teaching of NO RESURRECTION.

As an aside, can you understand why Christ’s message was so profound to the Jews? This message of repentance, faith and baptism was a double edge sword to the Jew - an enigma. It was completely exasperating to the Jew because Jesus gave credible teaching that there was no longer a guarantee at death to escape Yahweh’s Wrath for violating the letter of the Law; AND because there was a credible hope that the just and faithful man could be resurrected and gain eternal rest and friendship with God. The Jew felt trapped between the rock of the law and the flesh of a compassionate divine-human heart. The Jew had to make decisions as permanent and as life altering and as irrevocable as their ancestors did in the days of deliverance from Pharaoh.

So, since you are acting like you have the mind of God can you tell us what was in David’s head?

Apparently you are in Limbo →
I say this because your own Church explicitly teaches a “works justification” and you deny the Protestant faith, and maybe the Catholic teaching unless you are the typical cafeteria variety? I don’t know; but your Church does teach a meritorious works justification.

You keep saying Catholics teach works salvation but we keep telling you we don’t. But for the record do you have a problem with God doing works through His people?

James

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
Tanner, Moondweller, Quickcat,

You obviously don’t understand my point here. What I am saying is that you are so fixated on your interpretation of scripture that you can consider no other interpretation , no matter how well documented, described or authoritative. Because you can interpret scripture selectively to say anything you desire (like stating definitively that Sole Fide is biblical), it is pointless for us to argue scripture with you. You are just proving my point.

paul c:

You have a problem with the Catholic view that we need to do the will of God to enter heaven because you think it somehow diminishes the work of Jesus on the cross.

Our problem with the Catholic view is that you believe that you must “do” in order to enter heaven. What we understand “the will of God” to be is to believe in the work that Jesus has DONE on the cross. There’s the chasm which separates our beliefs.

The chasm that separates our beliefs is that you think doing something to enter heaven is a bad thing. Why would that be the case? There is a distinct difference between earning your way to heaven (which you can’t do on your own) and cooperating with God in thought and action. (which we do out of love, in imitation of our Lord). Explain why Jesus exhorted everyone, good and bad alike, to follow the commandments, if it was to no real effect?

Quote: Paul C
But consider the alternative: if we aren’t doing the will of God, whose will are we doing? our own? Satan’s? Isn’t it in fact, obvious that those that will go to heaven would be doing the will of God? Because isn’t it also obvious that if we are to be saved, we will have the spirit of God within us, which will compell us to do the will of God?

It is quite simple, but yet you’ve missed it. The exhortation to a moral lifestyle is because that is what you need to stay in the state of grace, once you are redeemed (which comes through baptism). If redemption was permanent upon belief, as you say, there would be no need to exhort anyone because the spirit of God would be within them. But the fact is, the spirit of God is within all of us and speaks to us through our consciences, yet we have the ability to go against our consciences. When we do that our consciences scream out to us to reconcile but not everyone heeds their conscience.

 

[SteveGC]

moondweller:

It’s not “meaningless.” It’s just not the “means” of salvation. Salvation is “by grace through faith.” If you’ll take an honest look at the historical record in Scripture, only those who first believed were subsequently baptized.

The “means” of salvation is God’s Grace made available to us through the atonement.

Faith is an application of that grace. As is baptism. As is obedience. As is repentance. None of these applications is the “means” of salvation, assuming by “means” we mean the “source”. They are the “means” in as much as we define it as the “application to our soul”. All of these applications require our free will. All but baptism are lifelong applications because eternal life is judged in the next life, not this one.

Without any of these applications, God’s Grace still retains absolute power and accessibility to save…but remains inefficacious for us personally.

Let me ask you moon…can a “true” believer NOT be baptized and STILL be “saved”?