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

[reen12]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

An ‘economy’ of salvation. Grace as ‘commodity.’

One can ‘earn’ an indulgence, and have it ‘applied’ to another.

Like transferrring ‘assets?’ http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

 

[uglygal]

It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, I simply believed that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with his blood and I called upon him to save me: just like the Philipian jailer in Acts 16:31. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” He did, and he was. To the saved believer, the thought of someone trying to administer God’s grace through some ritual is the highest form of idolatry there is. Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.

Why do catholics not rejoice that another believes in Jesus but must immediately delve into picking apart another’s faith just because they don’t think it is correct

Do you realize at all that in your pursuit to be ‘correct’ and correct others who are ‘incorrect’ you can actually destroy the faith of those who are weaker in their faith? or those who do not see the fullness of faith as you claim to possess?

It reminds my of Isaiah 42

*Here is my servant, whom I uphold,
my chosen one in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him
and he will bring justice to the nations.

He will not shout or cry out,
or raise his voice in the streets.

A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out.
In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; *

A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out … too bad there’s so many others willing to do the job

 

[jmcrae]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/reen12/fonts2.jpg

An ‘economy’ of salvation. Grace as ‘commodity.’

One can ‘earn’ an indulgence, and have it ‘applied’ to another.

Like transferrring ‘assets?’ http://bestsmileys.com/nono/9.gif

reen12

To be honest with you, a treasury of merits makes a whole lot more sense to me than a snow-covered dung hill.

Why is it possible to believe that Christ stands in your place at the Judgement Day (you don’t even go - God the Father is tricked into thinking that Christ is really you, and passes sentence on you according to what He sees in Christ in His court room) - but somehow it’s this great horror that you could go to the courtroom of God carrying a gift that Christ gave you out of His treasury of merits - something (the price of the fine, let’s say) that would keep you “out of jail” so to speak, while God passes His judgment on you, without being tricked into thinking that Jesus is really you?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I appreciate the hint. What’s the will of God?

John 6:40 says:
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You are parsing out meaning without considering the whole of Scripture. Jesus also calls each of us to pick up our cross and follow Him. And he calls us to keep His commandments. And He calls us to love one another. Are these any less the will of God? Of course not.

vichlopet:

Galatians 4:7
Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

Amen! But this is not a guaranty that one will forever remain both son and heir. It teaches that by baptism one is returned to a right relationship with God in Christ… and made a member of the family of God. But of course we also know from scripture that free will leaves open the possibility that one is such a present state may later become disinherited. Consider Hebrews…

[23] Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for he who promised is faithful;
[24] and let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works,
[25] not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.
[26] For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
[27] but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries.
[28] A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
[29] How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:23-29)

*Always *read the passages you quoted in context with the rest of scripture and in context with the Tradition and teaching authority of the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. (1 Tim 3:15, [emphasis added].)

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

jmcrae:

It’s not just “discipline” - he loses his salvation and goes to Hell, if he sins.

"He loses his salvation and goes to hell, if he sins,” is a salvation of works.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Why do catholics not rejoice that another believes in Jesus but must immediately delve into picking apart another’s faith just because they don’t think it is correct

I’m not attacking this person’s faith. I think His/Her faith is wonderful - a true gift of God. But it is this person that - from their faith - has attacked the Catholic position on justification and raised the notion that Catholic sacraments are the “highest form of idolatry” (see post #1). I do not belittle this person’s faith. I am merely suggesting that the doctrine surrounding that faith hinders it from being fully appreciated and acted upon.

uglygal:

Do you realize at all that in your pursuit to be ‘correct’ and correct others who are ‘incorrect’ you can actually destroy the faith of those who are weaker in their faith? or those who do not see the fullness of faith as you claim to possess?

Yes. I try daily to remind myself that it is not about winning arguments, but about seeking truth, so that all may be fully appreciative of the graces bestowed by Christ. I sincerely believe that is the first goal of apologetics. If one is weak in their faith, I do not try to squelch it. I try to kindle truly.

uglygal:

It reminds my of Isaiah 42…A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out … too bad there’s so many others willing to do the job

It is never my goal to accomplish the ends you suggest. But I will certainly explain to all who challenge the Catholic faith the reasons for my hope in Christ. It is my prayer that I do so with charity and in meekness.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

cfrancis:

Which means a Christian - to whom Paul is writing in both Romans and Philippians, can be cut-off! Exactly!

No gentile is being cut-off in Romans 11; Paul is exhorting those in the church who are conceited by their in-grafting not to be conceited.

The condition for the Jews having been cut-off was unbelief (v20); in the next clause of that verse Paul says of the Roman church, “but you stand by faith…if indeed you continue in the kindness of God”—a conditional statement: “IF…”

If someone does not continue in faith, that one never had a saving faith (cf Lk 8:11ff).

As I stated earlier in the thread, this is seen in other passages as well; here’s one:**Colossians 1:21-23

21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds,

22 yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—

23 if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister.**
That passage seems to teach the possibility of losing salvation IF one draws the inference “if we do not continue in the faith, we shall be lost.”

However, one has not been saved, if one does not continue in the faith (cf Lk 8:11-14). The past fact of one’s being reconciled to God (v 21, Gk. aorist tense) will be manifest by his continuing in the faith (v 23).

cfrancis:

As JM says, Paul does not even mention discipline! He is speaking about salvation!

Your belief is that one must work out salvation with fear and trembling because you believe that one can lose his salvation.

My belief is that one cannot lose his salvation, but he works out his salvation with fear and trembling because it is God who as at work in him to will and to work, and if he resists God, he will, more likely than not, be disciplined by God.

cfrancis:

Paul, in both Romans and Philippians is writing to Christians, those who have already been baptized and are part of the Church. If, as you say, we are guaranteed to persevere once we are saved, then Paul’s words are not only hollow, but not necessary.

Paul is writing to two different churches, both of which consist of true believers, and those professing to believe, but who don’t really believe. (See my statement above concerning Col 1:21-23).

cfrancis:

Instead, NT shows many Christians who did not always persevere. Some came back to the faith (Peter!) and some did not (Ananias and Sapphira).

So Ananias and Sapphira are in hell? How do you know that?

 

[jmcrae]

"He loses his salvation and goes to hell, if he sins,” is a salvation of works.

I don’t really think so, since “works” aren’t good deeds or lack of sin; they are the stuff that was put aside from the Old Covenant, such as kosher food and circumcision, etc., - but you can call it whatever you want; it’s what the passage itself says.

You can’t disagree with the Bible just because the Bible disagrees with your theology. Can you?

 

[sandusky]

I don’t really think so, since “works” aren’t good deeds or lack of sin; they are the stuff that was put aside from the Old Covenant, such as kosher food and circumcision, etc., - but you can call it whatever you want; it’s what the passage itself says.

You can’t disagree with the Bible just because the Bible disagrees with your theology. Can you?

If one can lose salvation based upon “performance,” than salvation is no longer on the basis of grace, but works.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

"He loses his salvation and goes to hell, if he sins,” is a salvation of works.

No. The Catholic doctrine of salvation is a salvation of grace. It is grace that gives faith. It is grace that keeps us from sin. It is grace that allows repentence. And it is grace alone that gives merit to our works in Christ.

There are no works apart from Christ that can merit grace for salvation. But the sinful exercise of free will can certainly separate us from Christ and could result in eternal damnation.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[sandusky]

No. The Catholic doctrine of salvation is a salvation of grace. It is grace that gives faith. It is grace that keeps us from sin. It is grace that allows repentence. And it is grace alone that gives merit to our works in Christ.

There are no works apart from Christ that can merit grace for salvation. But the sinful exercise of free will can certainly separate us from Christ and could result in eternal damnation.

Peace,
-Robert

If one can lose salvation on the basis of “sin,” then salvation is no longer of grace, but works.

 

[LilyM]

Thing;4233552:

I like the one where the blind man wants to be healed and Christ mixes mud and spittle in His hands and rubs it on the mans eyes with the instructions to go and wash it off.

I’m just glad that the blind man didn’t have to be healed again and again. When Christ restored his sight, it was once for all.

How do you know? What about the other blind man whom Christ attempted to heal once, obviously the job was botched because the man couldn’t see properly (for whatever reason) and Christ had to make a second attempt?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

If one can lose salvation based upon “performance,” than salvation is no longer on the basis of grace, but works.

How so?

Let’s say salvation is the equivalent of being pulled out of a pit. Jesus - by His cross and resurrection - pulls us out of the pit. We are free to throw ourselves back in, or to fall in if we are not carefull. How does this latter action on one’s part make Christ’s action “works-based?”

Peace,
-Robert

 

[jmcrae]

If one can lose salvation on the basis of “sin,” then salvation is no longer of grace, but works.

Actually, sin results in a loss of grace, and if you lose your grace (which came from God) then either you have to get it back, or else you won’t have it, and you won’t go to Heaven.

One way I have heard it expressed is, you can’t work your way into Heaven by means of good deeds, but you can certainly work your way out of Heaven by the lack of good deeds, and by means of committing sin.

 

[Gamera]

why did you stop at verse 17? verse 18 is the answer. Are you born of God? Then that which is born of God can not sin, it’s your new nature, the spiritual man made in the likeness of Christ.

No, that isn’t what verse 18 says. It reads, “We know that any one born of God does not sin, but He who was born of God keeps him, and the Evil one does not touch him.”
It doesn’t say “can not sin.”

 

[Gamera]

"He loses his salvation and goes to hell, if he sins,” is a salvation of works.

No, it isn’t. Salvation by works (a heresy called Pelagianism condemned by the Catholic Church) would be the idea that a person could perform enough good deeds to “earn” admission to heaven. Catholics don’t believe that.

 

[reen12]

I don’t hold - for one moment, that Jesus was a God/man,
but even I can see that Jesus is said to have ‘freed’ man from
the Law
…yet 1500 years later, man was again bound by laws of man’s own making. Deja vu.

By the 16th century, the Jesus of scripture was unrecognizable -
as ‘interpreted’ and ‘added onto,’ by the first ecclesial entity.

Peter has the Keys!

The Roman heirarchy is going to need a lot more than a
set of keys to undo what’s already been done, over the centuries

• to mar the face of Jesus [more than did the Roman soldiers.]

You shut the door to the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. [Matt. 23: 13]

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees …tie up heavy loads and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them. [Matt. 23: 1 - 4]

A perfect example of “What goes 'round, comes 'round.”

Back to a legal mindset - in terms of God and the things of God.
“Valid” this, ‘illict’ that…

It’s always of interest to follow a debate.

reen12

 

[Gamera]

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a106/reen12/Lionsasanxietiesaboutsalvationredoc.jpg

Like Daniel - surrounded by the lions…God rescued Daniel.

God has rescued, too, those surrounded by the lions of false doctrine,
who come to realize that grace truly is amazing.

“Whom the Son of man sets free, is free indeed.” [John 8: 36]

reen12

An anti-Christian could make an identical cartoon lampooning the Bible. How would you react?

 

[Gamera]

Well I never actually considered the two to being related…his church and the Catholic church.

“Never?” But you said you “converted from Catholicism.” Now you’re saying you “never” believed a principle doctrine of the Catholic faith. Which is it? Did you “convert from Catholicism?” Or did you “never” believe Catholicism in the first place?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Actually, sin results in a loss of grace, and if you lose your grace (which came from God) then either you have to get it back, or else you won’t have it, and you won’t go to Heaven.

One way I have heard it expressed is, you can’t work your way into Heaven by means of good deeds, but you can certainly work your way out of Heaven by the lack of good deeds, and by means of committing sin.

Yep. I’ve heard the same thing.

Peace,
-Robert