I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[pete_29]

You know, I’ve had to listen to a few " Preachers " when I worked in corrections. Some were inmates, some were fellow officers, the thing that always got me was that even though they studied their Bibles very hard, they all disagreed on about half of what they each thought certain passages meant.
Why would I leave the Catholic Church for the inferior teachings of millions of Protestants, who all claim that they have a “perfect” interpretation of the Bible, but then can’t agree on everything.

 

[mercygate]

That’s what the scripture says; however, the Catholic ultimately is not bound by the scripture, but by what the Church’s teaching hierarchy teaches.

Thus Ignatius of Loyola’s exhortation to all Catholics in all ages:“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides”.


.

With respect to the quote from Ignatius – it is one of my favorites, and one which my vehemently anti-Catholic Grandmother used to cite with gleeful venom in witness of the evil monstrosity of the Papist organization.

One day, I came across that quotation in its context, *The Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. *The section in question is about “thinking with the Church” and it has nothing to do with having to believe nonsense or put one’s neck under the foot of an arbitrary tyrant. It has to do with trusting the Church above your own opinion.

By the time I read the paragraph in context, although still not Catholic, many of my “whites” (e.g., sola Scriptura, non-efficacy of sacraments, sola fide) had already been shown to be “black” in light of Scripture and the ancient faith. I could have saved myself a couple of decades of struggle had I been disposed to trust the Church.

 

[guanophore]

We both have presuppositions concerning whether or not a person justified by God can lose his salvation; however, as I said earlier, your presuppositions are based upon inference, mine are based upon clear statements—those who are justified by the Father, and given to Christ will never perish (Jn 10:28ff).

Yes, it is very possible to derive a doctrine from one verse, or a group of verses, ignoring the evidence to the contrary.

We have received the Apostolic Teaching, by which we know that it is possible to fall from a state of grace.

When did the 1500 years begin; what I read in the writings of the apostles is that those God justified He also glorified.

What you say doesn’t align with what the apostles say.

Well, we read it differently.

Catholics understand that the Apostle wrote this in the past tense because he is referring to persons who have already been perfected in faith. The Catholic Church does teach that the end of our salvation is glorification, but only those who have finished the race have been glorified, and those of us still here on earth (the church militant) continue to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. If there were no risk of being disqualified, there would be no need for fear and trembling, would there?

The writers of scripture never address those to whom they are writing as ***”to you who believe, and all of you false professors among them.”*** But they address those to whom they are writing as though each one were indeed saved.

I agree with you, which calls into question many assertions you have made previously that some of the verses are addressed to non-believers in the midst of the “true believers”.

The Catholic believes that he as a “moral assurance” of salvation, and that he has been saved, is presently being saved, and hopefully, will be finally saved in the future.

Doesn’t your priest in his sermons and homilies exhort you to endurance, in spite of your “moral assurance???”

Of course! He does this because he believes it is possible to fall from grace, be disqualified, and not finish the race.

Exhortation to Christian living is proper, as the sheep, at times, have the tendency to forget who they are in Christ, and they may fall into sin; however, because of grace, sin doesn’t unsave anyone.

Yes, we are in agreement that sheep have a tendency to wander, and that we all risk falling into sin. What is different is that Catholics believe the nature of sin has not changed just because we are rescued from it. If we fall back into it, our last state is actually worse than the first.

Again, what you’re doing is inferring the loss of salvation on the basis of exhortation.

And you’re going with your magisterium, who teach that John 15 is about salvation, rather than about bearing fruit—again you infer a loss of salvation from a discussion on fruit bearing.

Well, there are many evidences of falling from grace in the apostolic teaching. Some of these are in scripture, and some are not. However, scripture is clear that, for those who persevere, Jesus will not blot out their names from the Book of Life.

That same apostle recorded other straight-forward and clear words, spoken by the same Jesus earlier, ”I give them eternal life, and they will never perish.

May we all cling to that life!

Assumes, without proof, that a justified person can, and will renounce his justification.

You may not be able to accept the “proof” since you are wearing anti-Catholic glasses. T’hat does not nullify the “proof”. However, I do not think the Scripture was ever meant to be a “proof text”. It is a record of our faith, and this Apostolic teaching about the loss of grace is reflected in the Scriptures.

Those who leave their justified state, however, and fall back into their previous life of sin and disbelief, are actually in a worse state. They have been permanently sealed in baptism, and when they spurn the Sonf of God afresh, there remains no sacrifice for sin.

 

[Reformed]

You know, I’ve had to listen to a few " Preachers " when I worked in corrections. Some were inmates, some were fellow officers, the thing that always got me was that even though they studied their Bibles very hard, they all disagreed on about half of what they each thought certain passages meant.
Why would I leave the Catholic Church for the inferior teachings of millions of Protestants, who all claim that they have a “perfect” interpretation of the Bible, but then can’t agree on everything.

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox are just another Christian denomination. There are a wide range of churches that you consider Protetstant (non-Catholic). Some are true churches and some are apostate false churches. Like all churches, there are degrees of purity. To answer your question, the Catholic Church is not a biblical church; therefore God worked out a remnant saved by grace to depart from Rome (exodus). You should leave because of what God reveals in the Scriptures in regards to the gospel of God’s grace. I appreciate your question. Now that you are retired, I hope you spend time studying the issues to the glory and praise of God.

 

[Mickey]

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox are just another Christian denomination.

No. They are Apostolic Churches (East and West) founded by Jesus Christ. Protestanism has fractured into “denominations”. Some say 500 different denominations–some say 1500–some say 30,000. Who knows?

To answer your question, the Catholic Church is not a biblical church; therefore God worked out a remnant saved by grace to depart from Rome (exodus).

And the Father revealed this 1500 years after the Son’s Resurrection??? I think not.

 

[Reformed]

No. They are Apostolic Churches (East and West) founded by Jesus Christ. Protestanism has fractured into “denominations”. Some say 500 different denominations–some say 1500–some say 30,000. Who knows?
And the Father revealed this 1500 years after the Son’s Resurrection??? I think not.

That is why we are here, to discuss and debate the issues. We can all make sweeping claims, but are they true?

 

[guanophore]

On what basis do you lose your salvation?

Since salvation is obtained by grace, through faith, then loss of faith and falling from grace will cut off our access to that by which we are saved.

The reason that sin separates us from God is that it is an expression of lack of faith, without which, it is impossible to please God. When we are not walking in faith, we are not in a state of grace, and when we are not in a state of grace, we fall into sin.

The literal definition of sin has to do with “missing the mark,” that mark being perfect holiness. No one is perfectly holy.

True, and God is merciful, and patient, and is at work within us to will and to do His good pleasure. If we cooperate with this grace, we die to ourselves day by day, and move from one glory to another.

The reason your opening question in this post is misleading is because “salvation” is not a once and for all event that happens at a distinct moment in time. For most of us, we have been saved, are being saved, and will be saved. It would be more proper to ask “what prevents one from attaining salvation”. On the other hand your question erroneously assumes that sanctification is not part of salvation.

But the apostles exhort the faithful to holiness because of what they are—perfect in Christ.

That’s known as the indicative/imperative—the Gk indicative deals with the state of being; namely, the faithful are perfect in Christ. The Gk imperative mood deals with a command; in this case, ***you are in Christ ***(indicative), live as Christ lived (imperative).

Yet, there is still a long distance between what we have been declared to be, and who God wants us to be. Catholics consider this part of salvation, becoming the righteousness of God in Christ that He has declared us to be.

It’s proper to exhort the faithful to a right Christian life.

Indeed! Because the possiblity exists that we may fall from grace, and our last state will be worse than the first.

 

[sandusky]

De Maria:

In other words, you agree with the Catholic teaching of faith and works.

Otherwise, you are denying the efficacy of works and St. James is EXPLICIT.

James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Note how St. James not only emphasizes works, but denies the concept of faith alone.

I agree with you what you state above—justification for a Catholic is on the basis of grace, faith, and works.
De Maria:

Acts 10:45
And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

According to Scripture then, grace can be viewed as a Divine substance which can be poured and shed by the Holy Spirit. Just as the Blood of Christ is poured out for us and shed for us.
There are manifold gifts of grace.
1 Peter 4:10
As every man hath received the gift, even so minister the same one to another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.

Love is one.

2 Corinthians 8:7
Therefore, as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, and knowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye abound in this grace also.

If God’s grace of love can be shed in our hearts, then at least some of the Grace of God is substance. Divine substance.

Romans 5:5
And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

And God is love:
1 John 4:8
He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

And that confirms the teaching that Grace is a participation in the life of God:

CCC Search Result - Paragraph # 1997 (361 bytes ) preview document matches
7 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ,
URL: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1997.htm

The best way for you to prove your point is to show us a measure (a cup, pint, quart or gallon) of grace.
De Maria:

Like any word, grace has many meanings. You have no authority to deny one because you accept another.

Unless you can disprove by Scripture, the fact that Love is grace and the interpretation of the Catholic Church, why should I believe you that grace is simply an attitude?

Show me a pint of grace.
De Maria:

One of your messages claimed that our participation in grace was passive. That God alone was active. Have you changed your mind or why do you seem confused by my stressing the efficacy of works?

That’s not what I said at all, De Maria. What I said was that in salvation, the active part of grace is God’s, man passively receives that grace.

However, as we’ve discussed, men do actively work.

 

[sandusky]

Worst for who? I am not the one who believes in a god who
will send a person to suffer for all eternity when this same person has followed what this god has commanded him to do: love one another.

I believe in a God of mercy, a God who says: Ephraim how can I part with you, Israel how can I give you up?

What a sad place you are in right now for you to believe in such a god.

:doh2:

 

[sandusky]

Okay, what’s so hard to understand about ONE (1).

Not any, not some, ONE.

If Christ established A Church, that Church would still be here today because he said “the gates of hell will not prevail against it” and He promised that He will be with her until the end of time.

So for the fourth time, which ONE? Methodist, Reformed Methodist, Presbyterian, Disciples of Christ, United Presbyterian, Anglican,etc.

The reason these Churches are not one today is because of doctrinal disagreement. If it is truly the Church that Christ established, they would all be ONE church.

So again, WHICH ONE? And please trace it back to Peter.

And please don’t say that all these Churches make up the one body of Christ because they are all separate churches. If these are really the body of Christ, then it would be like the body of Christ that has been hacked to pieces.

Those who adhere to sola scriptura; they all go back through the reformation to the apostles.

 

[Mickey]

That is why we are here, to discuss and debate the issues. We can all make sweeping claims

Amen.

“The Church, which is catholic and one, is not split asunder nor divided, but is truly bound and joined together by the cement of its priests, who hold fast to one another.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage (+ 258)

 

[guanophore]

The Catholic faces the same dilemma.

He may do everything required of him by the church, and may be nothing more than a goat.

Is that correct?

Or, is that not possible?

No, that is not possible. What is required of the Church is “believe upon the One whom He has sent”.

The Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. If a person does this, then they are not a goat.

 

[De_Maria]

Those who adhere to sola scriptura; they all go back through the reformation to the apostles.

Thats wishful thinking. The Apostles contradicted sola scriptura:

St. Paul taught us to keep Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The infallibility of the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The importance of oral teaching:
2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

And the authority of the Church which extends even to the heavenly realm:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

St. Peter taught us that men were inspired to speak the word of God:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, sola Scriptura contradicts the teaching of the Apostles.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Mickey]

sola Scriptura contradicts the teaching of the Apostles.

Yes.

 

[sandusky]

No, that is not possible. What is required of the Church is “believe upon the One whom He has sent”.

The Church teaches that we are saved by grace, through faith. If a person does this, then they are not a goat.

IOW, faith alone?

I don’t know which Catholic to believe?

 

[De_Maria]

Actually, men are to put their faith in Jesus Christ for salvation: “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved…” (Acts 16:31).

At the time of belief all that He accomplished on the cross is then appropriated to the believer, in full: redemption from sin and reconciliation to God. IOW, upon faith in Christ the believer is perfectly and completely redeemed and reconciled to God. It’s called the “good news,” the “gospel” of Christ.

Thats false. Even the demons believe:
James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

The vehicle which God established for appropriating what Jesus accomplished on the cross to the believer is Baptism.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

There’s nothing man-made about this.

Sure there is, you are trying to sidestep God’s command.
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

It’s what God Himself has wrought through the work of His Son - to His glory.

What God has wrought is salvation for those who seek it in good deeds:
Romans 2:7
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Again, assurance is not necessary to salvation, but it’s nice to have it.

I think this is one of the major draws of OSAS. People want to quell the anxiety of not knowing. It is difficult to live by faith, hope, and love. It is much easier to live by assurance.

I see no problem with hard words and exhortation:1 Corinthians 15:1-2

1 Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand,

2 by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain.The grammar doesn’t state that the “vain” belief became “in vain,” but that if it was “in vain,” it was so from the point of its origin.

I see a problem with your interpretation of it. Paul is clear that they received the gospel, and stand in it. These are persons in a state of grace. One cannot “hold fast” to something which one has never grasped. One believes in vain if one let’s go of what one once grasped (falls from grace).

The concept “true believer” is not found in scripture, but only in Reformed theology, designed to dispense with verses that are problemantic (too Catholic sounding).

The whole chapter deals with the resurrection, a subject which they knew, and Paul’s qualifying statement, unless you believed in vain, recognizes and calls to their attention that some probably have a non-saving faith. They heard and believed the gospel, as do demons, but they had no love for Christ. The truly saved have a love for Christ, and they hold fast to the gospel, and they endure to the end (cf Lk 8:15; Jn 8:31; 2 Cor 13:5; 1 Jn 2:24; 2 Jn 9).

If they believed as demons, then they would not have “received” the word and be standing in it. They would have nothing to which they could “hold fast”.

It’s God who initiates salvation, and God who finishes salvation (cf Php 1:6; Heb 12:1; etc.).

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

The difference is that the Catholic teaching is that our salvation is not finished until we are glorified.

Those against whom judgment will come are referred to in the passage as hupenantios—adversaries, opposed to the Gospel (v27). That doesn’t sound like a “right relationship” to me, but that they ”believed in vain,” from the beginning (cf Heb 3:6, 14).

No, those who are adversaries never never received the gospel, or after "standing"in grace, stepped out of it. They either never grasped anything to which they could “hold fast” or they let go of that which was holding them.

What I find presumptuous is a leadership who teaches that’s it’s presumptuous to believe a writer of Scripture when he states that the purpose for his writing Scripture is so that one may know he has eternal life.

It would be presumptuous to take this verse out of it’s context, and singling it out, interpret it’s meaning apart from all the other verses that also speak about eternal life.

 

[Reformed]

Thats false. Even the demons believe:
James 2:19
Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

The vehicle which God established for appropriating what Jesus accomplished on the cross to the believer is Baptism.

Mark 16:16
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Sure there is, you are trying to sidestep God’s command.
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

What God has wrought is salvation for those who seek it in good deeds:
Romans 2:7
To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

Sincerely,

De Maria

Do you agree that the Christian life and pilgrimage is one of repentance and faith? We are struggle with disobedience and sin as Christians. My question is how much obedience is required by an indivudual to maintain his adopted child status before our Holy and righteous God? Does God grade us on a curve? It almost seems that Catholics believe our adoption into the family of God is conditional and based on our personal obdience to our Heavenly Father? Does your eathly father threaten to cut you off from your earthly family when you disobey him?

 

[sandusky]

Thats wishful thinking. The Apostles contradicted sola scriptura:

St. Paul taught us to keep Tradition.
2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

The infallibility of the Church:
1 Timothy 3:15
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

The importance of oral teaching:
2 Timothy 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

And the authority of the Church which extends even to the heavenly realm:
Ephesians 3:10
To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

St. Peter taught us that men were inspired to speak the word of God:
2 Peter 1:21
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

So, sola Scriptura contradicts the teaching of the Apostles.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I’m waithing for you to show me a pint of grace, De Maria. :coffeeread:

 

[Reformed]

Amen.

“The Church, which is catholic and one, is not split asunder nor divided, but is truly bound and joined together by the cement of its priests, who hold fast to one another.”
St. Cyprian of Carthage (+ 258)

I’mn not sure when you quote non-biblical source to be helpful when discussing and debating the gospel of God’s grace. The Bible is much more effectual when discussing issues with biblical Christians. Please give it a try.