It would be a presumption to assume so, until the end of this life.
How does one evaluate this?
Where in the Bible does it say the gospel of salvation should be reduced to one verse?
While the Lord surely knows those who are His, this is not how the Bible says we become members of His One Body, the Church.
What you know of as “biblical christianity” is a modern fundamentalist invention. It emanates from the heresies of the Reformation,which were spawned 1500 years after Catholics wrote, preserved, protected, promulgated and canonized the New Testament. The NT reflects true “biblical christianity”, which is Catholic.
So why don’t you test it against the faith of those who wrote that verse? Why do you believe differently than the early church?
Actually, what made the Bereans noble is that they accepted Apostolic teaching eagerly and openly. Unfortunately, many “bible christians” reject Apostolic teaching, which is infallibly preserved in the CC. They do the opposite of the Bereans, by rejecting the Apostolic message.
Yes, at least implicitly, but it would not be a concern if there were no bible, since the doctrines were whole and entire before a word of the NT was ever written. the doctrines of the CC come from Jesus, not from the pages of a book, however Holy.
No. The infallible gift of the HS has been given to the CC to preserve her from error.
There is not need for Catholics to “read into” the Bible. The Church was formed before any word of the New Testament was every written. The contents of the NT reflect the faith of the Church, but they are not the Source of that faith. Jesus is the Source.
The Word of God teaches that we [every believer] were “baptized by one [Holy] Spirit into one Body” [the Body of Christ]. 1 Cor. 12:13It would be a presumption to assume so, until the end of this life.
1 John 5:13
How does one evaluate this?
Word of God - The Bible
Where in the Bible does it say the gospel of salvation should be reduced to one verse?
1 Cor. 15:2 “…by which [the gospel] ye are S-A-V-E-D…”
While the Lord surely knows those who are His, this is not how the Bible says we become members of His One Body, the Church.
Well, we knwo that Jesus found the Church 2000 yrs ago, and that she knows more than you do. dont you think? who gave you Scriptures?
It’s a bit more than only one verse. Just sayin’
Quickcat,
. Sure, you need to believe in Jesus to be saved. But Paul also taught that you needed to be baptized to be saved. That you needed to partake of the Eucharist to be saved. He had also had a whole list of things that could keep you from being saved… Surely you recognize these…
You believe the Bible to be a modern fundamentalist invention???
,
Despite the fact the majority of Catholic doctrines cannot be found within its pages?
1 Thess 5:12 was not written by “those” it was written by the Apostle Paul while he was being ‘carried along’ by the Holy Spirit.
Had you studied church history you’d be asking yourself this question.
What made the Bereans noble is rather than simply accepting the teachings of men they held them up to the refining light of the word of God to "See whether things things were so."
On the contrary. To be classified as a “Bible Christian” one must embrace the only Apostolic teachings we have, the inerrant word of God.
"Examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so" is exactly what led this “Bible Christian” to reject the claims of Rome.
This is an empty claim, one which attempts to circumvent the teachings of the Lord Jesus, all of which are found only in the pages of Holy Writ.
Again, this is simply another empty claim without biblical merit.
Yes I do! Which is exactly why I reject your arguments.
Indeed there is. Since many of the doctrines Catholics cling to are not supported by Scripture they are forced to “read them” back into the Bible, much like they do with the writings of the early church fathers.
Hi Paul. Could you please provide the passages that teach Paul believed one needs to be baptized and to partake of the Eucharist to be saved?
Paul is not referring to a water ritual in 1 Cor. 12:13. The baptism is the Holy Spirit baptizing the believer into the one Body. This fits with the ONE BAPTISM of Ephesians 4:5. Paul mentions the water ritual ONE time [1 Cor 1:14-17]. He relates that the gospel by which one is saved is found in 1 Cor. 15:1-4. He tells us that the moment we believe on the LORD Jesus Christ we are SEALED by the Holy Spirit [Eph 1:13]. Further Paul relates that we are COMPLETE in the LORD Jesus Christ [Col. 2:10] and that He is the Head of the Body of Christ [Eph. 1:22]. Please list the Bible references for the “whole list” of things Paul says we must do in order to be saved. Did Paul tell the jailer a “whole list” of things he must do in order to be saved [Acts 16:31]?
Paul demonstrates that baptism is needed throughout acts and his epistles. Some examples include: The first thing he does after he regains his sight in Acts 9:18 is to be baptized. When he and Silas were freed from the prison in Acts 16, he baptizes the Jailer and his family (Acts 16-33). in 1Corinthians 14-17 he talks of people being baptized into Christ (and the fact that he was a preacher and not responsible for baptism). In 1Cor 12:13, he talks of all being baptized into one body (the Church), which he also mentions in Ephesian 4:4.
Paul is completely consistent with the Catholic understanding of the economies of salvation. To enter heaven, you need to die in the state of grace. You enter the state of grace by being baptized into the Church, This is a covenential action, in which God forgives all previous sins, provides saving grace and makes you a member of the Church if we desire to do his will from that date forward. To stay in the state of grace, you must love god and your neighbor. if you fall from grace through sin, you can be reconciled through the sacrament of reconciliation.
Where does it say in the Bible that it, and it alone is the source for all doctrines? It does say in the Bible that not everything Jesus taught has been written down. Therefore some of the things Jesus taught were given to the Church as Sacred Tradition.
Actually the Bible was written and compiled by the Catholic church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for teaching and liturgical purposes.
Thats an interesting way to look at it, but what are the facts of history that show the Holy Spirit led the Reformation. Why would the Holy Spirit lead the church into division? And what exactly is the result of the Reformed churches. Its impossible to quantify because the only consistent thing they teach is that the Catholic Church was somehow wrong, but of course they could never agree on what was wrong or what was right. Because the Reformed movement was built on division, it has never stopped dividing.
The Bible was written by Catholics for Catholics. While it is true that not every doctrine is explicitly spelled out in scriptures, no Catholic doctrine is counter to scripture.
This passage on obeying the church hierarchy, written by A Catholic Apostle deserves to be obeyed as well.
If you studied Church history, you would, as Cardinal Newman said, be forced to become CAtholic.
What made them noble was that they were open to the preaching of Paul and Silas, while those in Thessalonica were not willing to give them a hearing.
Interpreting the Bible is difficult across time and culture and many are misled into thinking that their own biased assumptions are actually the word of God. What “Bible Christians” miss is an authentic interpretation of scripture from the Church which wrote it under the auspices of the Holy Spirit. Isn’t it amazing that " Bible Christians" claim to understand the Bible better that the Catholic Church, which was its author? When “bible Christians” reject the claims of the Catholic Church, they are rejecting Christ, who said in Scripture that he would be with it until the end of time.
On another Catholic thread someone wrote that the RCC has never fully defined how to be saved. No Catholic refuted this. Is it true?
I am glad you see this. Protestant theolgy is for sure a heresy. You can not go wrong with any being a part of any True Apostolic and Orthodox tradition. The Eastern Orthdox Church certainly is this and the Roman Catholic is as well when you are at a Latin Mass or at least a Novus Ordo that is conducted properly.
Paul wasn’t baptized, Saul of Tarsus [a good Jew] WAS baptized by a DEVOUT MAN ACCORDING TO THE LAW [Acts 22:12,16]. This was the “economy” he emerged from. The Jews were still under the Law when this transpired. If water baptism saves in this dispensation of the grace of God, Paul certainly didn’t want people to be saved because he was glad he “baptized none, but…” [1Cor. 1:14-17]. He states the Christ “sent him NOT to baptize.” The 12 apostles to Israel could never have said this.
Well, do you think that what Jesus is worthless or He just did not know what He was saying? when He said to the chosen ones, go into the whole world Baptizing them in teh name of the F S and HS. I think that what God says it must be done dont you think? He also if you are not borne of water and Spirit you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Hummm…
Your first question is a very important question in the pursuit of the truth, one I sincerely asked while I myself departed for a time from the Catholic Church. But in honest pursuit of truth I think it would be reasonable to claim that your interpretation could also be incorrect. So how do we resolve which one of us is correct? There is only one God, one truth, we both can’t be correct, one of us is mistaken, or perhaps both. My interpretation is not based on my own presumptions of what I claim to know or understand about the faith based on an english translation that someone more educated than me tried to translate. Beings I wasn’t there to eyewitness the claims of the Gospel I’m putting a great deal of faith in the Church, the writers, the original translators, the new translators and every person who has maintained the sacred writings for 2,000 years. So I rely heavily on Catholic (Universal, i.e. the worldwide faith) Tradition, though my own capacity to reason the passage allows for understanding the passage inline with Catholic Tradition. I would assume your interpretation is based on what you’ve been taught from those more versed in scripture interpretation than yourself as well. But I would argue it is important to rely on the interpretation of those far closer to Christ than myself, and that those interpretations have to be consistently held for 2,000 years. Is my interpretation what the early Roman martyrs held to, was it consistently held and taught right up to today? What did Irenaeus think? How about Ignatius of Antioch? Is my interpretation a new modern whim based on society’s insight or is it the unchanging faith of Jesus Christ?