If John 6 is speaking of the eucharist, how can non Catholics be saved?

[Peter_J]

Of course. All obedience is by grace.
Well agreed a symbol does not save us, nor anything we do, but Christ saves us. He commands us to be saved.
Yes, and is a gift, is a grace, not anything of ourselves.
Yes, you self correct yourself. Any form of communion does not diminish the command. The difference is due to belief in just how the obedience graces us and does not. It then goes to the very reasoning for the command in the ritual in the first place. But as you imply, we all seek to obey in truth and spirit. Yes, as one might also say attempts to make them an ‘‘obedience’’ to attain/keep salvation.
Yes, obedience by desire. To some so unnecessary and shows salvation to be a “box”, a pit we all beware not to fall into. One need not an “out” clause if indeed there were not such an exacting box already.

Blessings

We’re getting a little bit away from the OQ, but let me ask: if what he’s saying is all about the importance of obeying his commands (once we’re aware of the commands) then why is his way of speaking here so different from e.g. the verse where he commands us to love one another?

 

[rcwitness]

Of course. All obedience is by grace.

Well agreed a symbol does not save us, nor anything we do, but Christ saves us. He commands us to be saved.

It is Christ who saves, and we are drawn to Him by the grace of God. God stirs our hearts to conversion. The Sacrament of Baptism is part of believing, and it is NOT just a symbol. Consider the first creation.*
In the beginning God created*the heavens and the earth.2The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters.

Yes, and is a gift, is a grace, not anything of ourselves.

But we must accept it, and keep it. Persevere.

Any form of communion does not diminish the command. The difference is due to belief in just how the obedience graces us and does not.

Whether Baptism or Communion, they are participating in the life of God. Willfully rejecting these, is rejecting God.

It then goes to the very reasoning for the command in the ritual in the first place. But as you imply, we all seek to obey in truth and spirit. Yes, as one might also say attempts to make them an ‘‘obedience’’ to attain/keep salvation.

Catholicism will agree that God, outside of man, desired and accomplished man’s redemption and salvation. Though Mary’s cooperation is the way all Christians would follow. This was because He willed and not because we were faithful or obedient. He gives the gift of faith to trust and cooperate with His grace in order to receive the free gift of salvation. It is never earned. It is received and kept, through the love between Father and Son given to us, and persevered through suffering with Him.

Yes, obedience by desire. To some so unnecessary and shows salvation to be a “box”, a pit we all beware not to fall into. One need not an “out” clause if indeed there were not such an exacting box already.

Sorry you see it this way. It seems rather strange. So, no wonder you have a disdain for the Catholic Sacraments.

Blessings to you also.

 

[JMM1957]

Of course. All obedience is by grace.
Well agreed a symbol does not save us, nor anything we do, but Christ saves us. He commands us to be saved.
Yes, and is a gift, is a grace, not anything of ourselves.
Yes, you self correct yourself. Any form of communion does not diminish the command. The difference is due to belief in just how the obedience graces us and does not. It then goes to the very reasoning for the command in the ritual in the first place. But as you imply, we all seek to obey in truth and spirit. Yes, as one might also say attempts to make them an ‘‘obedience’’ to attain/keep salvation.
Yes, obedience by desire. To some so unnecessary and shows salvation to be a “box”, a pit we all beware not to fall into. One need not an “out” clause if indeed there were not such an exacting box already.

Blessings

Huh?

 

[benhur]

Huh?( to Ben hur’s words:To some so unnecessary and shows salvation to be a “box”, a pit we all beware not to fall into

Hi JMM,

I included all churches can fall into trap of having a rigid way of "salvation’’ as a box. Of course there are proper parameters, but…For instance, some churches give the impression that you just say a sinners prayer and you are saved. To me, that may be but it also may not be. Others say get baptized and you are saved. Others say just follow and keep in good standing with your church and you are saved. Etc., etc… Again, in Acts , some received baptism/gift in the Holy Ghost after water baptism, and others before water baptism.In the OT God had relationships with those circumcised, and sometimes also with those not.

God is supreme and sovereign , and will do what He will do. He can work thru rites and sacraments and He can work beyond , even outside of them.

That is all I meant. Did not mean to be disparaging to anyone’s sacraments ( but maybe to ultra dogmatism in them).

Blessings

 

[benhur]

We’re getting a little bit away from the OQ, but let me ask: if what he’s saying is all about the importance of obeying his commands (once we’re aware of the commands) then why is his way of speaking here so different from e.g. the verse where he commands us to love one another?

That has been discussed previously as to the why of such speech (to gnaw on Him). It has to do with correcting even separating followers while still doing it with truth. Even with His love teaching/command He had to use parables.

Blessings

 

[rcwitness]

Hi JMM,

I included all churches can fall into trap of having a rigid way of "salvation’’ as a box. Of course there are proper parameters, but…For instance, some churches give the impression that you just say a sinners prayer and you are saved. To me, that may be but it also may not be.Others say get baptized and you are saved. Others say just follow and keep in good standing with your church and you are saved. Etc., etc… Again, in Acts , some received baptism/gift in the Holy Ghost after water baptism, and others before water baptism.In the OT God had relationships with those circumcised, and sometimes also with those not.

God is supreme and sovereign , and will do what He will do. He can work thru rites and sacraments and He can work beyond , even outside of them.

That is all I meant. Did not mean to be disparaging to anyone’s sacraments.

Blessings

There are times of salvation all through our lives.

We (mankind) are freely offered Salvation (redemption) when the Word became flesh in Mary.

We are freely given Salvation (forgiveness of sins and acceptance to receive the Holy Spirit) when we are Baptized as infants or repent and are Baptized as adults.

We are Confirmed in the Apostolic faith through laying on of hands.

We are kept and strengthened in our salvation through His Eucharistic body and blood.

All these, the believer is compelled and commanded to partake in by the Spirit and the Bride. Salvation is a gift, even as much as faith is a gift. Cooperation in the gift of salvation relies on His grace to accomplish in and through us. We should never use the fact that He converts our hearts to salvation as a means to reject the commands which continue to accomplish salvation in us.

We

 

[benhur]

It seems rather strange. So, no wonder you have a disdain for the Catholic Sacraments.

Blessings to you also.

Hi rc,

Hope you read previous post ( a few above ),which really addresses this. Apologies if I stepped out of bounds. Maybe you are right, for I do disdain somethings, as we all do. For me I think it is things that give us false security or hope ( that is religious things). An example could be OT circumcision. It was ordained of God, so in it self it is good, yet we know it became a stumbling block and many were not regenerated, born of the spirit, yet they thought they were in good standing. Yet those that were in good standing were probably circumcised. Get my drift ?

So as to Catholic sacraments (and some P practices also), yes I have a problem with them in that regard , and it is not easy to always dialogue charitably. Again, my apologies, for I feel we have done well , you and I , in that regard (being thoughtful and charitable) .

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

Hi JMM,

I included all churches can fall into trap of having a rigid way of "salvation’’ as a box. Of course there are proper parameters, but…For instance, some churches give the impression that you just say a sinners prayer and you are saved.

What, you mean you’re not?

Heh, no I kid, but seriously… When you say

To me, that may be but it also may not be. Others say get baptized and you are saved. Others say just follow and keep in good standing with your church and you are saved. Etc., etc… Again, in Acts , some received baptism/gift in the Holy Ghost after water baptism, and others before water baptism.In the OT God had relationships with those circumcised, and sometimes also with those not.

God is supreme and sovereign , and will do what He will do. He can work thru rites and sacraments and He can work beyond , even outside of them.

That is all I meant. Did not mean to be disparaging to anyone’s sacraments ( but maybe to ultra dogmatism in them).

Blessings

Do you mean *sovereign *in a Calvinist sense? (It doesn’t sound like you do, but I wanted to ask to be safe.)

 

[eddie_too]

if a person denies that Jesus created an hierarchical church, it is even easier to deny His Church’s teachings, including those on the seven sacraments.

having a faith that is based primarily on one’s own understandings of sacred scripture or the understandings of those who rebelled against the successors to the apostles naturally leads to confusion and misunderstandings about Jesus and His Church.

we should expect such misunderstandings since Jesus created His magisterium to avoid such situations arising among His followers.

it serves little purpose to explain, to those who do not believe that Jesus created a magisterium, the teachings of the RCC. the hearts and minds of those who reject the magisterium are not disposed to learning what the successors to the apostles teach about Jesus. instead they fill their hearts and minds with thoughts and desires that oppose the teachings of the successors to the apostles. perhaps they do this to assuage a guilty conscience. perhaps they do this because of their lack of knowledge and understanding. perhaps it is a little bit of both and even other unknown reasons.

in any case, when a person insists on trying to prove the magisterium wrong, it serves little purpose to engage that person because they are not properly disposed to receive the authentic teachings of the Lord. these kind of people are here to dissuade catholics from being faithful to the teachings of the RCC. they are not here to learn. they are here to impart false teachings.

there is an exception to not engaging, when such a person’s errors are so grievous or misinformed that they might endanger the faith of another, it is always appropriate to refute the misinformed opinion and to offer what the RCC actually teaches.

if you think I am wrong and such people will accept the Lord’s teachings from the successors to the apostles even though they are disposed to do the exact opposite, carry on.

 

[Michael68]

Hi rc,

Hope you read previous post ( a few above ),which really addresses this. Apologies if I stepped out of bounds. Maybe you are right, for I do disdain somethings, as we all do. For me I think it is things that give us false security or hope ( that is religious things). An example could be OT circumcision. It was ordained of God, so in it self it is good, yet we know it became a stumbling block and many were not regenerated, born of the spirit, yet they thought they were in good standing. Yet those that were in good standing were probably circumcised. Get my drift ?

So as to Catholic sacraments (and some P practices also), yes I have a problem with them in that regard , and it is not easy to always dialogue charitably. Again, my apologies, for I feel we have done well , you and I , in that regard (being thoughtful and charitable) .

Blessings

So, you have a problem with baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and annointing the sick?

 

[JMM1957]

if a person denies that Jesus created an hierarchical church, it is even easier to deny His Church’s teachings, including those on the seven sacraments.

having a faith that is based primarily on one’s own understandings of sacred scripture or the understandings of those who rebelled against the successors to the apostles naturally leads to confusion and misunderstandings about Jesus and His Church.

we should expect such misunderstandings since Jesus created His magisterium to avoid such situations arising among His followers.

it serves little purpose to explain, to those who do not believe that Jesus created a magisterium, the teachings of the RCC. the hearts and minds of those who reject the magisterium are not disposed to learning what the successors to the apostles teach about Jesus. instead they fill their hearts and minds with thoughts and desires that oppose the teachings of the successors to the apostles. perhaps they do this to assuage a guilty conscience. perhaps they do this because of their lack of knowledge and understanding. perhaps it is a little bit of both and even other unknown reasons.

in any case, when a person insists on trying to prove the magisterium wrong, it serves little purpose to engage that person because they are not properly disposed to receive the authentic teachings of the Lord. these kind of people are here to dissuade catholics from being faithful to the teachings of the RCC. they are not here to learn. they are here to impart false teachings.

there is an exception to not engaging, when such a person’s errors are so grievous or misinformed that they might endanger the faith of another, it is always appropriate to refute the misinformed opinion and to offer what the RCC actually teaches.

if you think I am wrong and such people will accept the Lord’s teachings from the successors to the apostles even though they are disposed to do the exact opposite, carry on.

Who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and develop true doctrine? That is the ultimate question that needs to be answered first before someone can move forward in their faith journey. There are only two choices that I see for someone who is searching for that answer. You either believe that Jesus established a visible church with Apostolic succession, with doctrines that don’t change with the seasons, or you believe that any individual can can study the Scriptures themselves and come to an accurate knowledge of true doctrine. I think the latter has already been proven to be false by the splintering of denominations. So that only leaves one choice left.

 

[rcwitness]

Who has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and develop true doctrine? That is the ultimate question that needs to be answered first before someone can move forward in their faith journey. There are only two choices that I see for someone who is searching for that answer. You either believe that Jesus established a visible church with Apostolic succession, with doctrines that don’t change with the seasons, or you believe that any individual can can study the Scriptures themselves and come to an accurate knowledge of true doctrine. I think the latter has already been proven to be false by the splintering of denominations. So that only leaves one choice left.

I don’t believe the Church Teaches individuals are unable to see many true meanings to Scriptures. Godly men find truth in Scriptures. The problem arises when men cast aside the official Church Teachings and come to conclusions which contradict her faith. We should all look to Scripture in the mindset of magisterial Teaching.

Each generation has its magisterial body. The Apostles being the foundation. None can be in opposition with what has been established.

 

[JMM1957]

I don’t believe the Church Teaches individuals are unable to see many true meanings to Scriptures. Godly men find truth in Scriptures. The problem arises when men cast aside the official Church Teachings and come to conclusions which contradict her faith. We should all look to Scripture in the mindset of magisterial Teaching.

Each generation has its magisterial body. The Apostles being the foundation. None can be in opposition with what has been established.

I hope you know what I meant. Of course an individual can read Scripture and come to an understanding about God and His will to some extent. I was referring to Church doctrines specifically.

 

[benhur]

So, you have a problem with baptism, communion, confirmation, marriage, holy orders, and annointing the sick?

Only in the regard that I mentioned. Otherwise I have no problem with them and are His giftings. It is how *we deal with them, how we *apply them, and define them etc., that is to be considered.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

What, you mean you’re not?

Heh, no I kid, but seriously… When you say

Do you mean *sovereign *in a Calvinist sense? (It doesn’t sound like you do, but I wanted to ask to be safe.)

No,that is another topic. We are “safe” in this conversation (Calvin is in his box).

Blessings

 

[Peter_J]

No,that is another topic. We are “safe” in this conversation (Calvin is in his box).

Blessings

Glad to hear it.

To be honest, I’ve had some very dear Calvinist friends, but it has always bugged me how they think they’re the only ones who see God as “sovereign”.

 

[rcwitness]

Hi rc,

Hope you read previous post ( a few above ),which really addresses this. Apologies if I stepped out of bounds. Maybe you are right, for I do disdain somethings, as we all do. For me I think it is things that give us false security or hope ( that is religious things). An example could be OT circumcision. It was ordained of God, so in it self it is good, yet we know it became a stumbling block and many were not regenerated, born of the spirit, yet they thought they were in good standing. Yet those that were in good standing were probably circumcised. Get my drift ?

So as to Catholic sacraments (and some P practices also), yes I have a problem with them in that regard , and it is not easy to always dialogue charitably. Again, my apologies, for I feel we have done well , you and I , in that regard (being thoughtful and charitable) .

Blessings

No worries as far as you and I are concerned. I have “run ins” with immature Christians often. You are far from that.

Yet, there are things which trouble me about the traditions some of your faith comes from. The “interpretation” of the Sacraments being a crucial point of division.

The Sacraments have an aspect of God’s promise with them. We have an aspect of our belief and trust in them. They should never be understood as separate from acceptance of His WHOLE ministry. They are participations along the journey of “belief in Him”. Baptism being a necessary step of initiation. Eucharist being the means of keeping in Him and Him in us. None of the Sacraments can be participated in without humble faith, or they are the very act of profanity and/or betraying what Jesus is offering to us.

There is only those two options when participating in them.

 

[rcwitness]

Here is a good Word to bring confidence in the Catholic Eucharist.

Col 2:9 “For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…”

 

[eddie_too]

for me the eucharist comes down to Jesus said it, I believe it.

Jesus said this is My Body. Jesus said this is My blood. I refuse to consider the possibility that Jesus was being clever or deceptive or mysterious or confusing. He said it. He told us to do the same thing. when Jesus tells me, this is My Body, that is enough.

 

[Michael68]

for me the eucharist comes down to Jesus said it, I believe it.

Jesus said this is My Body. Jesus said this is My blood. I refuse to consider the possibility that Jesus was being clever or deceptive or mysterious or confusing. He said it. He told us to do the same thing. when Jesus tells me, this is My Body, that is enough.

I agree and wonder how anybody can get symbolically from that