I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes

[Reformed]

If the Arminians are right on this issue, I give them credit. Romans 11 is not talking about people groups. It’s talking about inidviduals. Why? Did all Jews reject Christ? If this were so, then we wouldn’t have a Peter, a John, a Paul, etc? Did all the Gentiles believe in Christ? Obviously not because then all the Gentiles Paul came in contact with would be Christian. This passage is clearly about individuals because who is grafted into the olive tree? Gentiles as a group? Then that would mean that this olive tree includes Gentile unbelievers and believers. And yet Paul specifically states who he is talking about:

17But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive, were grafted in among them and became partaker with them of the rich root of the olive tree,
18do not be arrogant toward the branches; but if you are arrogant, remember that it is not you who supports the root, but the root supports you.
19You will say then, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."
20Quite right, they were broken off for their unbelief, but you stand by your faith Do not be conceited, but fear;
21for if God did not spare the natural branches, He will not spare you, either.
22Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

The key verse is verse 20. Paul identifies the subject of this passage as believing Gentiles (you stand by your faith). So this passage can only refer to Gentile Christians, for only believers can be grafted into the olive tree. Hence, what Paul says in verses 21 to 22 applies to believers because only they can continue in God’s kindness and only they can be cut off from the olive tree. That link I referenced stated the following:

Calvinists have traditionally tried to resolve the difficulty in one of two ways. The first way is to say that the branches do not represent individuals, but nations. The broken off branches represent the nation of Israel, and the engrafted branches represent the Gentiles as a people group. The problem with this interpretation is that Paul is speaking of individual branches that have been broken off and grafted in to the true Israel of God. The branches clearly represent individual Jews, for the entire nation has not been rejected. There are believing Jews [the remnant] who have remained in the olive tree. The grafted in branches represent individual Gentiles as only believing Gentiles have come to enjoy the favor and election of God. It is only believing Gentiles that can be called spiritual descendants of Abraham, and it is beyond argument that not all Gentiles have embraced Christ.

God bless,
Michael

I consider you to be one of the nicest and grounded Roman Catholic Christian that I have met on this site. I would like you to participate on this particular thread with me. I think other Roman Catholics need someone they can trust before they participate. And you my friend, are that person.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731

 

[Usagi]

Reformed,

Any thoughts on my post #493, in response to your spurious list of Catholic “requirements” for salvation?

If this discussion is going to go anywhere, please stop relying on your assumptions about Catholic beliefs and listen to the people you are talking to.

Usagi

 

[Reformed]

Most definitely.

An often superb method of education for those seeking to come into the Church, but hardly a requirement for salvation.

Or a Protestant minister, or a lay Christian, or an atheist. There is only one baptism, not one for Catholics and one for others.

That “be baptized” is an important step in the process is easily supportable from Scripture. For adult converts in the New Testament, it almost always follows immediately after “Believe,” usually as part of the same instruction.

Also not technically required for salvation, since the desire to be baptized will suffice in cases where a person cannot receive the rite before death.

Incorporation into the Body of Christ is a natural result of the believing and being baptized. That the Body is split among mutually opposed communions is a sad reality of our times.

Also not strictly required, since non-Catholic Christians can be saved.

Again, only needed due to the sad divisions in Christianity at the present time. And again, not strictly required since non-Catholic Christians can be saved.

Which falls under “believe that the words of Jesus (in Scripture, no less) are true.” Though, again, all that is necessary is not to obstinately deny any such revealed truth. Mere ignorance does not damn.

As aids in your sanctification, provided by Jesus Himself, yes. Not to gain salvation. Most of the sacraments can only be fruitfully participated in by one who is in the state of grace.
8. Don’t commit a mortal sin

Make use of the channel of forgiveness that Christ has left us, yes.

There is no such thing as “the sacrament of last rites.” The “last rites” can include anointing of the sick, final confession, and a final Holy Communion (called “viaticum,” or “food for the journey”).

Also, the last rites are certainly not required, and many die without them.

Please quote where Paul says that.

Purgatory is not necessarily a place; describing it as an event or condition may be more accurate. Indeed, it may well be the very presence of the Lord that brings about the purgation of our final imperfections and makes us into the sort of people who can live in Heaven.

Not necessary for salvation.

Not necessary for salvation. The rosary is a particular form of devotion that is not even practiced in all Catholic cultures.

If you die in God’s friendship, you are saved and will go to Heaven, there’s no doubt about that. He has promised it and we can take His word for it.

Usagi

Post 43 above. I thought the post was very good. I think it is very difficult to discern Roman Catholicism and to be a Roman Catholic. I think the best way to not talk beyond each other is to read and comment of the Scriptures together as Christians. Please consider joining me on the following thread and comment on chapter 1.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731

 

[Reformed]

I have decided to abandon my participation on all threads with the exception of this one:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731

Please join us.

 

[RHC]

---

Dear Rachel,

Thank you for your willingness to share your journey. I also thank you for your service as a military family. There is a greater sacrifce serving in the military than making a living in a civilian life.

I wanted to see where you are commng from, especially since you are currently part of a PCA Church (Reformed). As I menitoned, Scott Hahn was also PCA. I notice that many who leave Protestantism have roots somewhere in Roman Catholicism. Your husband is Irish Catholic. You call yourself a cradle Protestant too. I’m not sure your family’s opposition to your conversion is a valid reason to leave biblical Christianity. I do look forward to discussing things with you. Before we start a discussion and debate, I would like to see if you could get your husband’s permission to debate with me. I believe in the federal headship of the man of a Christian household. Therefore, I would rather debate with your husband, but your situation is different.

Lord bless you and your family,

Reformed

Reformed,

I am not sure if you are still watching this forum, but in case you are, there are several errors I wish to correct, if for no other reason than to set the record straight:

1. My husband and I are both cradle Protestants, born and raised. His extended family is Irish Catholic; his mother left the Church for reasons unknown.
2. My family’s disapproval is by no means the reason we (my husband and I) are converting. That would be a very weak reason indeed. The post you quoted was saying that they are having trouble accepting our conversion, but it did not say that was the reason we were converting. I am very close to my family and would not convert to spite them. We are converting because we believe the Catholic Church to be in line with the teachings of Christ and because we can no longer excuse some of the egregious errors we found in Protestantism.
3. I am not sure what you mean by “federal” headship of a man over his household, but, no, I will not comply with your request. My husband knows I am participating in this forum, and he is fine with that. He has no interest in debate, theological or otherwise. I do not need to ask his permission to participate in an Internet discussion; I can have my own opinions and make statements without his direct supervision. He does not police me as one would a child. In the interest of peace, I will presume that your request had a pure motivation and was not an insult.

Given that you have said you are no longer participating in this thread, I see no reason to post regarding St. Paul, as I said I would do. A debate lacks luster when there is only one side, wouldn’t you agree?

Peace to all here.

 

[Reformed]

Reformed,

I am not sure if you are still watching this forum, but in case you are, there are several errors I wish to correct, if for no other reason than to set the record straight:

1. My husband and I are both cradle Protestants, born and raised. His extended family is Irish Catholic; his mother left the Church for reasons unknown.
2. My family’s disapproval is by no means the reason we (my husband and I) are converting. That would be a very weak reason indeed. The post you quoted was saying that they are having trouble accepting our conversion, but it did not say that was the reason we were converting. I am very close to my family and would not convert to spite them. We are converting because we believe the Catholic Church to be in line with the teachings of Christ and because we can no longer excuse some of the egregious errors we found in Protestantism.
3. I am not sure what you mean by “federal” headship of a man over his household, but, no, I will not comply with your request. My husband knows I am participating in this forum, and he is fine with that. He has no interest in debate, theological or otherwise. I do not need to ask his permission to participate in an Internet discussion; I can have my own opinions and make statements without his direct supervision. He does not police me as one would a child. In the interest of peace, I will presume that your request had a pure motivation and was not an insult.

Given that you have said you are no longer participating in this thread, I see no reason to post regarding St. Paul, as I said I would do. A debate lacks luster when there is only one side, wouldn’t you agree?

Peace to all here.

Hi RHC,

My comment about Federal headship is done with the utmost respect for both you and your husband as my brother and sister in Christ. Federal headship is taught by the Apostle Paul, “a man is the head of a woman”. As long as he knows that you are participating on this site, I would love to continue in our discussion. I just appeal to you to discuss these things on this particular thread. Your participation would be a big (+) for all of us. You are quite unique because you are coming from the denomination that I belonged to and are converting to Roman Catholicism. The PCA is also the denomination of RC Sproul which some on here might be familiar with. Maybe I can see things from your perspective by going through the Epistles of Paul together with you and with others as well. It is just a relaxed casual study through the Scriptures. Here is the thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=273731

Please join us.

1 Corinthians 11

11:1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Head Coverings
2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife [1] is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife [2] who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. [3] 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
1 Cor 11

 

[guanophore]

Do you mind going back to the OP and share the gospel of God’s grace according to Paul? We are not discussing the other apostles on this post. Thanks.

I think this is one of the main sources of departure in Protestant theology from the Apostolic view. Catholics determine the gospel according to Jesus Christ, and use the whole revelation of God, instead of restricting it to the life and work of Paul only.

 

[guanophore]

I am simply asking you to post the gospel of God according to the Apostle Paul. I really think you cannot do it. Focus on the word “gospel”.

Oh believe me, I can do it! I have learned that it is a cul de sac.

The Catholic way of life is not confined to Paul:

Acts 2:41-42
42 They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

You erroneously imagine that Paul’s gospel was different than that of the other Apostles.

Your silence and lack of attempt appears that the Roman Catholic gospel cannot be supported by the Epistles of Paul (over half of the NT).

Reformed, the Catholic gospel is not “Roman”. It most certainly is supported by Paul, who was a Catholic, writing for Catholics. It is not confined to the writings of Paul

Please give it a try.

Been there, done that, thanks anyhow!

I don’t think the Protestant Reformers thought it was a silly game when they left the Roman Catholic Church for the gospel proclaimed by Paul.

Clearly not. Then it stands to reason that, although you appear to be here on CAF to play silly games, this is not really the case. You are posting an average of 29 posts a day in an effort to reach the elect, some of whom you must believe are members here.

 There is a reason to my madness.

This much is evident, however maddening.

Remember, the Protestant Reformation was an apparent recovery of the biblical gospel of God’s grace proclaimed in the Scriptures. The foundational books of the Reformation was Paul’s Epistles to the Galatians and Romans.

Apparent being the operative word here.

So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome.

Yes, your not so secret agenda.

Do you at least agree that the Protestant Reformers broke from the Roman Church since they believed in another gospel grounded in Scripture alone?

Among other reasons, yes.

Does that imply that the Roman Catholic gospel is dependent on Sacred Tradition to support the gospel proclaimed by Rome?

The gospel is not “Roman”. In order to support this contention, you would have to show that those Apostolic communities not in union with Rome, who also find the Gospel message supported in Sacred Tradition are in error for some other reason

Here is the apparent contrasting theme:

The Roman Catholic gospel is dispensed by the Roman Catholic Church through the many Roman Catholic sacraments. This sacramental way of salvation is different than Paul’s gospel.

No. Paul is Catholic, and as an Apostle, confected all the sacraments. I am not aware of him performing a wedding but it would not surprise me at all if he did. He did not have time to baptize all the converts he made (there were so many!) so he had the help of others.

I think you will find Paul does not support salvation through the Catholic Sacraments. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s why we are on this thread.

I do not think you are on this thread to discover you are wrong.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Romans 1:16-17

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

What is the gospel of God’s grace according to the Apostle Paul?

http://christianmystics.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/sunrisecross.jpg

The Light of the Gospel

Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. For what we proclaim is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.
2 Cor 4

Isn’t the question:​

• What is the gospel of God’s grace according to the Apostle Paul?
  its own answer ?

 

[guanophore]

Isn’t the question:​

• What is the gospel of God’s grace according to the Apostle Paul?
  its own answer ?

Great point!

 

[Reformed]

Great point!

You quoted 1 John 2:2-3. I asked you to give me your understanding of the biblical doctrine of the atonement and propititation. You glossed over this topic with an inadequate response. Do you believe in the full atonement of Jesus Christ?

Here is some work on the biblical doctrine of the atonement:

monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=atonement

 

[guanophore]

You quoted 1 John 2:2-3. I asked you to give me your understanding of the biblical doctrine of the atonement and propititation.

Catholics do not derive doctrine from reading the bible. We receive doctrine from the Apostolic authorities appointed by Christ. We then read the bible through this lens, so that we correctly understand what we are reading.

You glossed over this topic with an inadequate response. Do you believe in the full atonement of Jesus Christ?

You must have missed my post.

What I have posted there is Catholic teaching, and I embrace it as Apostolic.

Reformed;4342582:

Here is some work on the biblical doctrine of the atonement:

monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=atonement

I think I will pass on your anti-catholic website. The plethora of errors I encountered in a previous search were overwhelmingly prohibitive. It is hard to find so much ignorance and misinformation all in one place!

I have always been fascinated by the fact that Protestants define themselves by what it is about Catholicism they do not embrace.