'Invincible ignorance' inquires

[Masters_Servant]

You are forgetting the most obvious case that God loves The Son and that Christ’s prayers reflect The Divine Will expressed through His human nature and that God surely listens to The Son. Can God the Father refuse a single thing that the Son would ask through the merits of His Human suffering? Here is your scriptural reference:
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

[note: The above ending is not unlike the reformers dividing the raiment of The Church to take chances on every small fragment of original apostolic teaching and ruining the whole cloth truth]

Luke 1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him, from generation to generation.

Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”

Deut. 1:39 'Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there “the good land” - OT topology for the Promised Land - Heaven], and I will give it to them and they shall possess it.
*

Mercy is always a possibility with God except for one who dies hardened in sin and unrepentant. This soul is lost since he commits the one unforgivable sin against the Holy Spirit by blaspheming His incessant call to the conscience of man to love God.

God has given us a natural means to seek Him out. St. Augustine expressed it best when he said: *“Our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee, O Lord.” *

In addition to all the big clues about God seen in the splendor and metaphors present in the Created Universe (the uncountable bright stars contrasting the utter darkness of space - light vs darkness) our own human spiritual restlessness compels us to seek out God even without hearing the gospel. We are made for friendship with God and our souls naturally seek the peace of beatitude with God. We know we are incomplete and unsatisfied without God – though many try to cover over the pain of that deficiency with every manner of distraction (strong drink, gluttony, lust, vanity, power etc. ).

James

**Original Quote: **(2) Some people who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Catholic Church and do not enter into visible communion with her during their lifetime can be saved if they at least implicitly desire baptism, sincerely seek truth, do the will of God to the best of their ability, are in good faith, and have perfect charity [Denzinger 1647-1648, 1677-1678].

You make a major and erroneous presumption in my view, which is why I said it cannot be founded from Scripture.

First, their is no Catholic church as is presumed in the statement; your first presumption. The earliest church, which is shown in the book of acts, is a far cry from what is witnessed within the Catholic church today and I can say likewise, in most Protestant churches as well.

Second, it presumes ignorance of the Church as opposed to what God has said in regards to Romans 1 & 2, which is their is no excuse for ignorance of Him, so unless the Catholic Church is the 4th leg of the Godhead; there is another erroneous presumption within the statement.

Third, it implies, not explicitly stated, that those that are in “visible” communion are going to be saved and that would contradict Matthew 7 and Luke 13.

Finally, a desire to to anything may be noble; but to the implication is a works-based salvation, which simple cannot be achieved.

Romans 8:28 not according to your merits, your works, but His purpose. One of a multitude of examples concerning the sovereignty of God concerning salvation of anyone and everyone.

As a side-bar: I noticed going through the CCC and other readings there is a true blend of the NT with the OT, which makes up Catholic doctrine and in fact I heard or read, can’t recall…brain leakage…LOL; that some Catholics “boast with an element of pride” that they are the only Christian rooted religion that blends the two. I found that statement consistent with its history, its current practices and in its official writings.

I have discovered that this particular site does not represent most Catholics. Why? This appears to be the place for “very strict” Catholics, whereas in the real word most Catholic pick and choose what doctrines they will adhere to and pick and choose as to weather they agree with the “supreme leader, the Pope”; whereas here, it seems most of you are on the latter path and are actually represent the minority of Catholics, at least in the US.

The good part of that is you can get a better sense of Catholicism in its purest form, but even among this group there is much disagreement on issues, I see people correcting each other often and it seems the longer one has been here, their appears to be a group here, which you may be among, that dominate the landscape. Among this group are the real “hard-core” and thus an even greater minority among all Catholics. It is very fascinating to observe, but this is part of what i do anyway, so this comes kind of natural for me anyway and I enjoy the learning experience, kind of like a people watcher I guess.

 

[Masters_Servant]

They were inspired? Says who? The bible makes no assertions anywhere that the gospel writers are infallable and that the bible is the word of God. Paul does not even exempt himself when he rants about all men being sinners and that all men are liars and are deceived. The Catholic Church is the only one that has taught that the bible is inspired and the authentic word of God. No apostle ever saw anything remotely close to a full NT bible or ever imagined that what they were saying and writing would become the Bible. It is only by the authority of the Catholic Church that any Christian even knows that the bible is valid.

If you would like to divert the conversation to make up for your original error; that is fine, but I won’t be a player. Every Christian knows the Bible is the inspired word of God, way before the Catholic church came into existence, the bible makes the claim as stated in many places, but if you want the easiest place to seek it; for the sake of this lousy diversion, then read Psalm 19 or 119 or 1 Timothy; which you already know to be true and would be true if the Catholic Church came or did not come into existence; the two are separable, not inseparable. God is not dependant on the Church, the Church is dependent on God.

The reality is that there are 800+ million non-Catholic Christians (Protestants) in the world divided into at least 35,000+ denominations all laughing or swearing at each other for their improper dividing of the Word of God. The implications are clear to me - the fruits of error are seen in the legion of divisions within the corpus of Protestantism. Soon it will be every man a bible his pope and there will be 800+ million ideas about what Christianity should be and the only agreeable thing among them will be their contempt for the pope and the only valid authority on the planet.

James

As I explained in a previous post, you, meaning the group in this forum, are the minority within the Catholic spectrum; so the same argument you are using above could also apply within your own ranks; but God is no respecter of persons, much less religion; He seeks and saves the lost sinner wherever He so desires.

Have we gone astray from the actual topic; seems to be very easy to do; or does this relate in your opinion?

 

[CentralFLJames]

**Original Quote: **(2) Some people who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Catholic Church and do not enter into visible communion with her during their lifetime can be saved if they at least implicitly desire baptism, sincerely seek truth, do the will of God to the best of their ability, are in good faith, and have perfect charity [Denzinger 1647-1648, 1677-1678].

You make a major and erroneous presumption in my view, which is why I said it cannot be founded from Scripture.

First, their is no Catholic church as is presumed in the statement; your first presumption. The earliest church, which is shown in the book of acts, is a far cry from what is witnessed within the Catholic church today and I can say likewise, in most Protestant churches as well.

Personally I feel that the more positive re-expression of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” to convey that it is possible to be saved viz invincible ignorance is not too useful to anyone since it does not state the extreme risks associated with being ignorant. Surly it is safe to say that God’s justice would not permit him to condemn a soul who did the best it sincerely could do without formal knowledge is reasonable. But I see this re-expression as more of an outreach to ecumenism and evangelization than it is a grant that many or even any are saved outside of the formal church membership. Possibilities can be a far cry from actualities. Ignorance itself only mitigates culpability and imparts no grace in and of itself. We are born in a defective and estranged relationship due to original sin and will go to hell as a default - otherwise Christ would not have needed to come at all.

The Church is called to evangelize the world and in the manner of St. Paul we must become as a Greek to a Greek or a Jew to a Jew or be all things to all men if we are to convert them. In other words stating the obvious that all things are possible for God is theologically safe since God had gone on record for having said that Mercy is HIS domain and His only. It is an attempt to reach out to the partial-truth Christians outside of the Catholic Church and to pacify fears that deceased friends and relatives who were not Catholic still have some hope of salvation. But we can never judge for God. The inner-workings of Divine Justice is in an eternal tension with Divine Mercy and we know that Mercy wins out but we can only trust that God resolves it all in a universally just and fair way and is not arbitrary. All are destined to grace but not all are destined to glory since God has in His Divine Providence already foreseen all our personal choices and knit them without prejudice to grace into His plan so that our freewill becomes integral with His objective end in ways that further it irrespective of that choice. God grants us the benevolence to be for or against Him without forcing His will through a fate we ourselves have no choice in. But I digress.

We should be careful to not try to be “too severe” or “elitist” - humility is what made God fall in love with Mary and choose her to be the mother of Jesus. We should not be at all focused on the exclusionary aspects of Christianity (e.g. those many who go by wide gate to their own destruction) since God desires all to be saved and has the power do so for anyone who sincerely seeks Him out. But in truth God must elevate our humanity to His own divine nature for Him to have a true, intimate and authentic relationship with us. that takes grace operating through cooperative assent. Love must be bi-directional. Ignorance is not the same thing as humility – though it would be “wise” for an ignorant soul to find refuge in humility rather than take pride in his ignorance (or his imagined knowledge). Humble ignorance is good but itself produces no sanctifying grace. But humility does gain God’s determined attention - He seeks the humble out and will save these in some way known only to Him to elevate them against the core of evil - pride and men who embrace it.

I invite you to consider that the last few words of the catechism that considerably narrow the gate to exclude the many who lacking the basic courtesies and love of one’s fellows are unwilling to order themselves to enter in single file one behind his neighbor: and have perfect charity.

Perfect charity is of course impossible without grace. How it gets there is God’s domain and The Church does not presume to know the interior state of any soul or God’s internal workings in any one soul. “I will show mercy to whom I shall show mercy” is plain enough. God elects of His own will in matters of Mercy and we are all in need of it. But the risk of not actively cooperating with God’s grace makes apathy and conformity to “the world” an election to “go to one’s own place” (ref. Judas’ turning aside to go there in Acts 1:25 ). Rather than stealing the forbidden fruit the fault becomes refusing to extend one’s hand to partake of the salvific fruit from the Tree of Life - Jesus on the Cross - Eucharist.

No one but the Catholic Church (and our schismatic “same faith” Orthodox brothers) have Eucharist.

Your claim that “there is no Catholic Church and is is a far cry from what is shown in Acts” is ridiculous and can’t be backed by historical fact. The earliest Church existed about 30 years before the events in Acts were even recorded. You don’t seem to understand bible history either. The Catholic Church put together the bible in 382 AD by Pope Damasus and St. Jerome and initially accepted at the Council of Rome. Do you really think that the Catholic Church would have included books into the bible that did not conform to Christianity and the Church practices? Have you ever read any of the Early Church Fathers who make it very clear that there was always a belief in “real presence”. ordination, sacramental forgivness and an authoritative ecclesial hiearchy of bishops and clergy?
Snippets from Early Church Fathers:

Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons*, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers." The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

“See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Christ Jesus does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles. Do ye also reverence the deacons, as those that carry out the appointment of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

More here: The Biblical Church

At least you agree that Protestantism bears almost no resemblance to the Early Church. Christianity was NEVER secular and was always apostolic with worship services that included both the reading and teaching of scripture along with the center of worship being integral with reception of the converted Bread and Wine (Eucharist) during the agape feasts. The original liturgy has since been more formalized but and standardized but is decidedly Catholic. What other church on the planet other than Catholics and Orthodox can make any credible claim to apostolic succession?

None.

James

 

[Mark01]

Getting back to the topic of Invincible Ignorance for just a bit even though I have really enjoyed reading the preceding post which have given me some really great insights.

When we talk about invincible ignorance vs. vincible ignorance it may be better to use the terms innocent for the former and culpable for the latter. As we mature we lose our innocence and we become responsible for our own ignorance. In the process often times we become stubborn and resist plain simple truths because of the things we have been taught by those who have had the greatest influence in our lives. We are all guilty of this to some degree or other. It is when we refuse to take upon ourselves the obligation to search out the true nature of one’s salvation and stop searching because we “feel” we have the truth, that ignorance becomes culpable through the sin of pride.

Jesus first called his disciples out to form a community, “ekklesia”, in the Gospel of Matthew and was very specific in telling Simon who he was going to make the central figure in directing His community. The Church has four marks or characteristics as can be found in scripture. I won’t list the particular chapter and verses because I’m not a big fan of doing so I like to look at all of scripture not just a few verses and please don’t take it for my word but go search it out, even if you are very familiar with the Bible it may be a learning experience.

The Church today is just as it was when Jesus first called His disciples to form that community. Christ our Lord is the Head of that Church under His protection and guidance and has been for 2000 years. The Church is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic.

The question is this; is one’s individual church a part of the “Ekklesia” of Christ or is pride standing in the way?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Second, it presumes ignorance of the Church as opposed to what God has said in regards to Romans 1 & 2, which is their is no excuse for ignorance of Him, so unless the Catholic Church is the 4th leg of the Godhead; there is another erroneous presumption within the statement.

You are creating your own presumptions by creating a false dichotomy between The Church and what she teaches. Do you have any evidence that what The Catholic Church teaches is not consistent with scripture? The Bible was written for and by Catholics and is 100% Catholic. Even so, the Word of God is not all contained in written form and is in fact contained in Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and in The Living Word of God – Christ Himself. One must live by every word that comes from God and that also means that literally one must partake of Eucharist (normatively).

There is nothing in Romans ½ that is inconsistent with the Catholic Church.

Third, it implies, not explicitly stated, that those that are in “visible” communion are going to be saved and that would contradict Matthew 7 and Luke 13.

Being in communion means being in FULL conformance to the teachings of The Church. Don’t confuse physical presence in Church with being in communion. There are no doubt many in the pews who are Catholic in name only and are in grave sin who will go to hell if they do not repent and confess their sins.

Finally, a desire to to anything may be noble; but to the implication is a works-based salvation, which simple cannot be achieved.

Works are an essential signal grace of one who is saved. It is impossible to have a living faith that can save one if there are no works of love – that is charity present in the workings of the soul. Works are a signal grace of salvation.

es 2:24 You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

As a side-bar: I noticed going through the CCC and other readings there is a true blend of the NT with the OT, which makes up Catholic doctrine and in fact I heard or read, can’t recall…brain leakage…LOL; that some Catholics “boast with an element of pride” that they are the only Christian rooted religion that blends the two. I found that statement consistent with its history, its current practices and in its official writings.

True – the Catholic Church is 100% holistic with both the OT promises and foreshadowing as well as the fulfillment in NT. This is how we discerned our Marian devotions and dogmas as well since we see the perfect symmetry in the New Adam and the New Eve and the prophesied role of “The Woman” in Genesis and Revelation.

I have discovered that this particular site does not represent most Catholics. Why? This appears to be the place for “very strict” Catholics, whereas in the real word most Catholic pick and choose what doctrines they will adhere to and pick and choose as to weather they agree with the “supreme leader, the Pope”; whereas here, it seems most of you are on the latter path and are actually represent the minority of Catholics, at least in the US.

This is a site for highly informed Catholics. I agree that there are many who are not well catechized in the Church and we are doing our part to help teach. The Church is going through a new period of re-awakening as we speak. Some Catholics have just a very simple faith that is not well steeped in deep teachings – but that can be sufficient for them as long as they do not commit grave sin and repent of it and get forgiveness if they do.
Most of the apostles could not even read or write and I am certain that all but Judas was saved. The pope speaks with the same authority as the apostle Peter.

The good part of that is you can get a better sense of Catholicism in its purest form, but even among this group there is much disagreement on issues, I see people correcting each other often and it seems the longer one has been here, their appears to be a group here, which you may be among, that dominate the landscape. Among this group are the real “hard-core” and thus an even greater minority among all Catholics. It is very fascinating to observe, but this is part of what i do anyway, so this comes kind of natural for me anyway and I enjoy the learning experience, kind of like a people watcher I guess.

I have seen no material disagreement among Catholics here in Catholic belief. There are some different opinions about what the fate is of non-Catholics with respect to actual magnitude of numbers lost or saved – but that is not a thing that is taught and is open to discussion and disagreement. All Catholics believe in the core dogmas or its automatic excommunication and they are no longer Catholic. There are no heresies in the Catholic Church.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

If you would like to divert the conversation to make up for your original error; that is fine, but I won’t be a player. Every Christian knows the Bible is the inspired word of God, way before the Catholic church came into existence, the bible makes the claim as stated in many places, but if you want the easiest place to seek it; for the sake of this lousy diversion, then read Psalm 19 or 119 or 1 Timothy; which you already know to be true and would be true if the Catholic Church came or did not come into existence; the two are separable, not inseparable. God is not dependant on the Church, the Church is dependent on God.

I don’t want to get off topic either. But I need to challenge your unsubstantiated assertions.

Firstly, every Chrisian knows the bible only because the Catholic Church is/was the sole Christian Church on the planet since the time of pentecost and because it assembled the bible and told everyone that it is the inspired word of God If the Catholic Church had not assembled the bible you would be likely reading a strange Marcion heretical NT like book that would have all references to the Jews and the OT removed from the Pauline epistles. That’s one of the reasons why the Catholic Church developed the cannon - to fight rouge Christians who were breaking away into their own exotic teachings.

If you do a survey of Church History you will note that outside of some fringe heretical groups and a few internal factions (e.g Gentile and Jews) the early Church was all Catholic and remained so till the 16th century. There just was NO other Church in existence ( no bible churches, no baptists, no evangelicals, no SDAs or JWs etc). The essential marker of the true church are: “one”, “holy”, “catholic/universal”, “apostolic”. But the undebatable character is seen in our 2,000 continuous celebration of Eucharist and the succesion of oversight and instruction of the Christian communities by apostolically appointed community clerical leaders (e.g. Bishops, priests and deacons). These leaders were all hand chosen, ordained and installed apostolic successors of the apostles. There was simply no other church other than the Catholic Church (and Orthodox) until after the Protestant uprising. It was thus only in the 16th century that Christianity ever before saw massive apostasy and defection from the apostolic authority to teach and effect the sacraments and enter into the worship of the mass to go “do their own thing”.

You need to admit or come to learn that there was NO bible for nearly 400 years after Christ’s resurrection. Ask a 2nd century Catholic apologist (who was usually a bishop) to look up “1 Timothy” and he would look at you funny and probably tell you “since when does the student challenge the teacher and since when does Paul’s letter to our brother Timothy dictate the fullness of what we believe?”. He would then probably banish you from the fellowship of the Christian community until you repented for 1-10 years. Besides all that “1 Timothy” is just general discussion to Timothy and I can’t imagine what you are driving at here??

Your conclusions concerning The Church are also wrong - God committed forever to the indefectibility of The Church for all time. He told us “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it [the church].” God Has spoken and given His Word - which is eternal. While the Church’s members are all sinners and are not individually impeccable the Church itself has Christ at its head and therefor is as incorruptible as is Christ and can not teach error – since that would be making God a liar about hell not prevailing.

Jesus is no more separable from His Church than the the Trinity is separable from His 3 Divine Persons. Have you forgotten the teachings about the church as a marraige between the bride and the bridegroom and how divorce is ungodly?

As I explained in a previous post, you, meaning the group in this forum, are the minority within the Catholic spectrum; so the same argument you are using above could also apply within your own ranks; but God is no respecter of persons, much less religion; He seeks and saves the lost sinner wherever He so desires.

Have we gone astray from the actual topic; seems to be very easy to do; or does this relate in your opinion?

I as a Catholic am not in a position to survey all 1.2. billion Catholics to make a determination about how many are not well catechized. I can admit that The Church is cognizant that adult Catholics are in need of re-training since many have not gone back to refresh what they were originally taught as children in catechism school. But we should not take that admission as an indication that the majority are in disagreement with church teaching. They just may not be as mature in their faith and the knowledge of the full teaching as some of us here are. I really see no open dissension within the Church. Again. anyone who rejects core tenants is automatically excommunicated. Don’t confuse some of the clever political groups who are using titles like “Catholics for Women Priests” or “Catholic for Abortion” etc. as being Catholic. There are many hate groups out there who are using defrocked priests and religious people who are no longer practising Catholics to smear the Church and try to make it appear that there is another rebellion going on. This is just not so. We do have some minor differences of opinion over such non doctrinal things as speaking in tongues (the charismatic movement) or centering prayer (a form of meditative prayer that is controversial) etc. But these are within the purview of healthy Catholic discretion and dialog and the local pastors are free to decide their own parish policies over such minor matters.

Probably best to get back on topic,
James

 

[Truth_Seeker17]

@ James: I think that when MS referred to 1 Timothy, he could have been talking about 2 Timothy 3:16, which says “All Scripture is inspired by God [lit 'God-breathed]”.

Getting back to the topic of Invincible Ignorance for just a bit even though I have really enjoyed reading the preceding post which have given me some really great insights.

When we talk about invincible ignorance vs. vincible ignorance it may be better to use the terms innocent for the former and culpable for the latter. As we mature we lose our innocence and we become responsible for our own ignorance. In the process often times we become stubborn and resist plain simple truths because of the things we have been taught by those who have had the greatest influence in our lives. We are all guilty of this to some degree or other. It is when we refuse to take upon ourselves the obligation to search out the true nature of one’s salvation and stop searching because we “feel” we have the truth, that ignorance becomes culpable through the sin of pride.

Jesus first called his disciples out to form a community, “ekklesia”, in the Gospel of Matthew and was very specific in telling Simon who he was going to make the central figure in directing His community. The Church has four marks or characteristics as can be found in scripture. I won’t list the particular chapter and verses because I’m not a big fan of doing so I like to look at all of scripture not just a few verses and please don’t take it for my word but go search it out, even if you are very familiar with the Bible it may be a learning experience.

The Church today is just as it was when Jesus first called His disciples to form that community. Christ our Lord is the Head of that Church under His protection and guidance and has been for 2000 years. The Church is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic.

The question is this; is one’s individual church a part of the “Ekklesia” of Christ or is pride standing in the way?

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut! I just have a couple follow-up questions for you. First of all, when (at what age) does a person stop becoming innocent and start becoming culpable? Does it vary from person to person?

And when you say that it’s a sin of pride when we ‘feel’ as though we’ve already found the truth, could you not make the same argument against Catholicism? That Catholics, because they ‘feel’ they have the only source of truth, have become too closed-minded and unwilling to accept theologies contradictory to the Catechism?

Just a thought.

 

[Masters_Servant]

Personally I feel that the more positive re-expression of “no salvation outside the Catholic Church” to convey that it is possible to be saved viz invincible ignorance is not too useful to anyone since it does not state the extreme risks associated with being ignorant. Surly it is safe to say that God’s justice would not permit him to condemn a soul who did the best it sincerely could do without formal knowledge is reasonable. But I see this re-expression as more of an outreach to ecumenism and evangelization than it is a grant that many or even any are saved outside of the formal church membership. Possibilities can be a far cry from actualities. Ignorance itself only mitigates culpability and imparts no grace in and of itself. We are born in a defective and estranged relationship due to original sin and will go to hell as a default - otherwise Christ would not have needed to come at all.

The Church is called to evangelize the world and in the manner of St. Paul we must become as a Greek to a Greek or a Jew to a Jew or be all things to all men if we are to convert them. In other words stating the obvious that all things are possible for God is theologically safe since God had gone on record for having said that Mercy is HIS domain and His only. It is an attempt to reach out to the partial-truth Christians outside of the Catholic Church and to pacify fears that deceased friends and relatives who were not Catholic still have some hope of salvation. But we can never judge for God. The inner-workings of Divine Justice is in an eternal tension with Divine Mercy and we know that Mercy wins out but we can only trust that God resolves it all in a universally just and fair way and is not arbitrary. All are destined to grace but not all are destined to glory since God has in His Divine Providence already foreseen all our personal choices and knit them without prejudice to grace into His plan so that our freewill becomes integral with His objective end in ways that further it irrespective of that choice. God grants us the benevolence to be for or against Him without forcing His will through a fate we ourselves have no choice in. But I digress.

We should be careful to not try to be “too severe” or “elitist” - humility is what made God fall in love with Mary and choose her to be the mother of Jesus. We should not be at all focused on the exclusionary aspects of Christianity (e.g. those many who go by wide gate to their own destruction) since God desires all to be saved and has the power do so for anyone who sincerely seeks Him out. But in truth God must elevate our humanity to His own divine nature for Him to have a true, intimate and authentic relationship with us. that takes grace operating through cooperative assent. Love must be bi-directional. Ignorance is not the same thing as humility – though it would be “wise” for an ignorant soul to find refuge in humility rather than take pride in his ignorance (or his imagined knowledge). Humble ignorance is good but itself produces no sanctifying grace. But humility does gain God’s determined attention - He seeks the humble out and will save these in some way known only to Him to elevate them against the core of evil - pride and men who embrace it.

I invite you to consider that the last few words of the catechism that considerably narrow the gate to exclude the many who lacking the basic courtesies and love of one’s fellows are unwilling to order themselves to enter in single file one behind his neighbor: and have perfect charity.

Perfect charity is of course impossible without grace. How it gets there is God’s domain and The Church does not presume to know the interior state of any soul or God’s internal workings in any one soul. “I will show mercy to whom I shall show mercy” is plain enough. God elects of His own will in matters of Mercy and we are all in need of it. But the risk of not actively cooperating with God’s grace makes apathy and conformity to “the world” an election to “go to one’s own place” (ref. Judas’ turning aside to go there in Acts 1:25 ). Rather than stealing the forbidden fruit the fault becomes refusing to extend one’s hand to partake of the salvific fruit from the Tree of Life - Jesus on the Cross - Eucharist.

No one but the Catholic Church (and our schismatic “same faith” Orthodox brothers) have Eucharist.

Your claim that “there is no Catholic Church and is is a far cry from what is shown in Acts” is ridiculous and can’t be backed by historical fact. The earliest Church existed about 30 years before the events in Acts were even recorded. You don’t seem to understand bible history either. The Catholic Church put together the bible in 382 AD by Pope Damasus and St. Jerome and initially accepted at the Council of Rome. Do you really think that the Catholic Church would have included books into the bible that did not conform to Christianity and the Church practices? Have you ever read any of the Early Church Fathers who make it very clear that there was always a belief in “real presence”. ordination, sacramental forgivness and an authoritative ecclesial hiearchy of bishops and clergy?

At least you agree that Protestantism bears almost no resemblance to the Early Church. Christianity was NEVER secular and was always apostolic with worship services that included both the reading and teaching of scripture along with the center of worship being integral with reception of the converted Bread and Wine (Eucharist) during the agape feasts. The original liturgy has since been more formalized but and standardized but is decidedly Catholic. What other church on the planet other than Catholics and Orthodox can make any credible claim to apostolic succession?

None.

James

James;

Just my opinion from your writings; you have too much perspective from the human point of view as opposed from the godly point of view. I do not mean you are not godly, what I do mean is you make statements that contain theological error because you see things from the human perspective. For example, humility had nothing to do with God setting His love upon Mary, not the other way around as you stated; it was God that allowed and made Mary the humble servant that she was/is. He purposed it.

You seem to view things outside of God’s sovereignty and my advice to anyone whom I notice this pattern is find a good book on the sovereignty of God, which J.I. Packard has one worth reading or use a concordance on the sovereignty of God.

I think most people do not seem to realize that redemption of some men/women is not primarily for our benefit, but for Jesus benefit. The book of Romans is the key book in the entire NT IMO, to understand the purpose of salvation, how it is accomplished and why.

No one is saved unless God purposes it; no one.

‘we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose’. "called because of one’s humility, of ones merit, of ones works, of ones religion, no “according to His purpose”…period!

Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know-- 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of
God,

Concerning the Apostle Paul:
But rise and stand on your feet; for I have appeared to you for this purpose, to make you a minister and a witness both of the things which you have seen and of the things which I will yet reveal to you.

according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will,

Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me His prisoner, but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the power of God, 9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began,

You said: “Protestantism bears almost no resemblance to the Early Church”; that is a gross exaggeration of what I said. I won’t get into the Catholic difference of what we see today, 100 years ago 500years ago or 1500 years ago; to the Apostles it would be unrecognizable, but many of the Protestant churches would not bode well in resemblance either.

Honestly; I don’t want to go down this path; it accomplishes nothing and only adds animosity between people; we have enough of that in our world today as it is and is quite sad; something we probably both can agree on.

God bless you brother,

MS

 

[Masters_Servant]

Getting back to the topic of Invincible Ignorance for just a bit even though I have really enjoyed reading the preceding post which have given me some really great insights.

When we talk about invincible ignorance vs. vincible ignorance it may be better to use the terms innocent for the former and culpable for the latter. As we mature we lose our innocence and we become responsible for our own ignorance. In the process often times we become stubborn and resist plain simple truths because of the things we have been taught by those who have had the greatest influence in our lives. We are all guilty of this to some degree or other. It is when we refuse to take upon ourselves the obligation to search out the true nature of one’s salvation and stop searching because we “feel” we have the truth, that ignorance becomes culpable through the sin of pride.

Jesus first called his disciples out to form a community, “ekklesia”, in the Gospel of Matthew and was very specific in telling Simon who he was going to make the central figure in directing His community. The Church has four marks or characteristics as can be found in scripture. I won’t list the particular chapter and verses because I’m not a big fan of doing so I like to look at all of scripture not just a few verses and please don’t take it for my word but go search it out, even if you are very familiar with the Bible it may be a learning experience.

The Church today is just as it was when Jesus first called His disciples to form that community. Christ our Lord is the Head of that Church under His protection and guidance and has been for 2000 years. The Church is One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic.

The question is this; is one’s individual church a part of the “Ekklesia” of Christ or is pride standing in the way?

Thank you for bring us back to topic. No such thing in Scripture as invincible ignorance, all will give an account for their actions with a few exceptions, which are those to young to know the difference or an adult who in incapacitated mentally to know the difference. But from Bible; all not some but all will be held to give an account of their life and those that have never heard of Jesus have a law unto themselves, see middle to end of Roman 1 and beginning of Romans 2 of how God accomplishes this without bias.

 

[Mark01]

I think a reasonable assertion would be that as a young child we develop mentally in stages. Early on we have a basic understanding of right and wrong, that develops into understanding why it is right and wrong and it is a progressive learning curve. I can not say nor can any one else for that matter say when a certain individual reaches the age of understanding. It is going to vary depending on mental capacity and environment. Some people may never reach the age of reason , such as the blessed ones who are mentally handicapped or persons that have suffered brain injury. It is however safe to say that the majority of the people in western society are responsible for their actions in the 8- 15 age range. Legally by the age of 18.

I agree whole heartily, there are many Catholics who “feel” that The Church is right, many who never understand why they believe that or feel that way.

It is my belief one must never stop studying and searching for the truth in Christ, in doing so we only become stronger in the truth which ultimately makes us better Christians. Only God has all the answers but as true members of Christ Church we have a responsibility not only to learn the truth but to teach it as well and we can’t do that correctly with out some pretty intensive study of The Word of God. The Church holds the deposit of faith that Christ and the Apostles and their students who later became teachers passed on to others. The Church has for the last 2000 years protected and preserved that deposit of faith and passed it on to the next generation. The Church holds the “keys” given to Peter until the owner of those “keys” comes again to take them back.

There have been many times in history that the people who held those “keys” did some pretty terrible things. There have been sinners in The Church from the beginning, but there have always been those saints who have brought The Church back on course. They did not abandon The Church because of scandal nor did The Church abandon them, many suffered and died in staying with The Church but they stayed and persevered to the end. They took up their cross and followed just as Jesus commanded.

 

[Masters_Servant]

I don’t want to get off topic either. But I need to challenge your unsubstantiated assertions.

Firstly, every Chrisian knows the bible only because the Catholic Church is/was the sole Christian Church on the planet since the time of pentecost and because it assembled the bible and told everyone that it is the inspired word of God If the Catholic Church had not assembled the bible you would be likely reading a strange Marcion heretical NT like book that would have all references to the Jews and the OT removed from the Pauline epistles. That’s one of the reasons why the Catholic Church developed the cannon - to fight rouge Christians who were breaking away into their own exotic teachings.

This is what I was speaking of before; you look at things form a human and overlook the divine. God could have used rocks to a Bible together, but He purposed men. Weather it was men or rocks, God’s purpose is fulfilled and is independent of anything else.

cut

Jesus is no more separable from His Church than the the Trinity is separable from His 3 Divine Persons. Have you forgotten the teachings about the church as a marraige between the bride and the bridegroom and how divorce is ungodly?

No I have not forgotten, for the church is the body of believers that God has purposed to worship Him according to His sovereign will. Our difference is “what is the church”; that is where we seem to disagree. Scripture gives a well defined description/definition of His church.

I as a Catholic am not in a position to survey all 1.2. billion Catholics to make a determination about how many are not well catechized. I can admit that The Church is cognizant that adult Catholics are in need of re-training since many have not gone back to refresh what they were originally taught as children in catechism school. But we should not take that admission as an indication that the majority are in disagreement with church teaching. cut
James

It is no different than Christians that read and study the Bible; few do it seriously and most do it on Sundays, these are the little fruit types that have a tendency to see things more from the worldly view and are more susceptible to the fiery darts of the evil one because they have not put on the “full” armor of God.

James it has been nice talking with you and sharing each others thoughts on the things of God, but I feel we are getting more into the feeling that i am here to put down your Church and that accomplishes nothing. people are people and we are all sinners in need of the Savior regardless of our religious differences in theology. I don’t mind discussing theological differences, but this seems to be heading in a different direction and I do not want to come across as bashing someones religion; it won’t make me feel good nor will it produce any “fruit” for His kingdom; I see this as getting to know and understand the more devout among the Catholic faith. How will that benefit me; I do not know, maybe it won’t, but I do enjoy talking about the things of God; in fact my favorite topic of discussion.

I will answer anything else I see here you have written, but then it is time to move to a different topic, which neither one of us seems to be able to stay on…LOL

 

[Mark01]

Thank you for bring us back to topic. No such thing in Scripture as invincible ignorance, all will give an account for their actions with a few exceptions, which are those to young to know the difference or an adult who in incapacitated mentally to know the difference. But from Bible; all not some but all will be held to give an account of their life and those that have never heard of Jesus have a law unto themselves, see middle to end of Roman 1 and beginning of Romans 2 of how God accomplishes this without bias.

Masters Servant we both agree there is no mention of invincible ignorance in the written Word. I also agree that all except those who are very young or have been blessed by God and remain as little children mentally as adults are capable of culpable ignorance and yes all and not some are going to be judged. The way is narrow and only a few, that my brother is why we should search out the truth. There is no excuse not to, but in the end there is only one truth not many. I think the Bible shows us that as long as we keep searching for that truth and we love our fellow man and God with all our heart, God will be merciful. God loves he does not hate. He makes no divisions as man does. I pray for unity that all may be saved. There is only one road not many, but I will not take away from God what is God’s. It is He who will judge and with my poor feeble mind I continue to search so that I may be blessed. I’ll end with a prayer.

Oh my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead us all into heaven especially those most in need of Thy Mercy. Amen.

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut! I just have a couple follow-up questions for you. First of all, when (at what age) does a person stop becoming innocent and start becoming culpable? Does it vary from person to person?

It would have less to do with age than circumstances, I think. A seven year old attending Catholic school has a higher responsibility to God and to his Catholic faith than a college student who was raised to be an atheist and has never thought of spiritual things in any serious way, because the seven year old Catholic has access to a great deal more information than the atheist college student has - and the seven year old has had far less exposure to errors that could lead him astray.

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi;6360348:

Don’t worry, no offense is taken dude! However, I really don’t see the connection of the verses you quoted. They only depict the fruit of one’s faith, which is good works. It doesn’t speak of Jesus looking at the hearts of unbelievers for salvation.

There is no salvation outside the Church of Christ. That is true. Everyone who believes and trusts in the saving work of Christ on the cross is a part of His mystical body, the Church. Anyone who does not, including Jews and Muslims, are outside the Church and hence, cannot be saved. For if we can be saved by our own good works and/or obedience to the law, then Christ did not need to suffer and die on the cross for us.

I see where you are coming from, but for me what stands out is the very beginning of Matthew 25 (where I quoted it anyway)

31 When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory.
32 All the nations

will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. (Matthew 25:31-32)

All the nations. Not all of the Christians, not all of Israel, but ALL of the nations. That is what stuck out for me. That’s where I made the connection.

And I am glad that you have taken no offense. I really value that we can have open discussions here respectfully. I appreciate you sharing your point of view with me.

Joshua

Yes, from all the nations He will separate those who trusted in Christ as their Lord and Savior from those that did not. Every person, as long as he/she is alive has a chance to be saved. It all boils down to accepting Christ.

 

[CentralFLJames]

glenconnor;6363975:

Yes, from all the nations He will separate those who trusted in Christ as their Lord and Savior from those that did not. Every person, as long as he/she is alive has a chance to be saved. It all boils down to accepting Christ.

My friend It’s quite a bit more than just trusting in Christ unless by that you also mean trusting the truth in everything Christ said and then also doing all that He commanded?

No one gains heaven by simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God. Even the demons believe that yet they still actively work against Him to destroy souls.

One gains heaven by believing that Christ is the Son of God, repenting (daily), loving God and Neighbor (Charity) and doing God’s will and obeying Christ’s commandments and also doing acts of Mercy to serve God and become Christlike for others. Notice the action verbs in there that are all works of grace (e.g. “believing”, “repenting”, “loving/acts of charity”, “doing”, “obeying”, “serving”).

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

James;
Just my opinion from your writings; you have too much perspective from the human point of view as opposed from the godly point of view. I do not mean you are not godly, what I do mean is you make statements that contain theological error because you see things from the human perspective. For example, humility had nothing to do with God setting His love upon Mary, not the other way around as you stated; it was God that allowed and made Mary the humble servant that she was/is. He purposed it.

You seem to view things outside of God’s sovereignty and my advice to anyone whom I notice this pattern is find a good book on the sovereignty of God, which J.I. Packard has one worth reading or use a concordance on the sovereignty of God.

Some Scripture Relevant to the points I’d like to make:

*Isaiah 55:9 As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.

1 Peter 5:5 Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

Col 3:12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.*

You are not God and I am not God. A godly view is a view to the kingdom and to the building up of the kingdom of God - an apostolic mission view. Enough said.

I have made no theological errors since I only promulgate infallable Catholic theology or else occasionally take liberty to offer personal insignts in areas where theology is not settled and then only where it is not contrary to dogma or scripture. I think you may have misunderstood me.

My statement about Mary’s humility was not intended to be a holistic and complete expression on the matter but rather a recognition of one of the major factors that certainly had to be part of God’s consideration. It is highly consistent with the recurring scriptural theme of God elevating the lowly and humbling the proud. It follows that if Mary offered herself in humility as the “handmaid of the Lord” and is then elevated by God as “blessed among women” that this means God blessed her more than even pre-fall Eve as first woman. Ergo, Mary along with her other divinely valued attributes had to be the most humble woman in human history to become most blessed - the perfect new Eve who literally delivers the antidote to sin and pride - humility incarnate - Jesus.
Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Matthew 23:12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Luke 1:52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble.

Prov 3:34 He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.
*

God did not make Mary humble. This is not a supernatural virtue that is imputed by grace - it is a proclivity that survives from our original wounded nature that extends from the natural universally given human facilities that is bound to the conscious habit through the workings of human freewill and personal election. Though it is also certain that in God’s Omniscience there were seen other reasons He “highly favored” Mary and filled her “full of grace” to perfect every aspect of her natural virtues and facilities to imbue her with the fullness of every supernatural virtue fitting to become “Mother of God”. But my own opinion here is that chifley it was Mary’s humility that was paramount and God foresaw it and elected to preserver her from original sin by pre-saving her in advance of Christ’s sufferage by the eternal and timeless merits of that passion (because surely “I AM” is in the “Eternal Now” and has dominion over all points in time.).

You are starting to reveal that you are probably subscribing to one of the variants of Calvinist theories . Without judgement I invite you to consider that you are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing - being ungodly in your world view. I believe that you may simply be injecting what is still a human view. You seem to embrace a reformed Calvinistic infralapsarianistic view of God and I suspect that you may be deluding yourself into believing this to be a “godly” perspective. What is your faith and how is your “godly view” any different than what you claim I am doing?

Are you not simply putting God onto “the reservation” of a human cranium to conform Him to your own theological framework of thinking? I dare say that we both are highly cognizant in our mutual belief that God is absolutely sovereign. But that does not mean that God is unable to form a partnership with us lowly humans and express His will through human estate. After-all, clearly God in His second Person as Jesus bent His knee for Love’s sake and for Mercy sake to be born of “The Woman” to become man. Now that is humility and demonstrates why humility is so valued by God since it is the very channel by which humanity is repatriated to God. Owing to the infinite degree of sovereignty and majesty of God - His “election” to become the Christ Child reveals a divine humility can ever be equaled by man - just accepted as Mary humbly accepted her role as trustee for nurturing and care of God in the flesh. God trusted His very earthly care and life to the humble handmaid of the Lord. Humility invites divine reciprocation - The Christ Child. Profound.

I do not believe that God made Mary humble. Mary choose the habit of humility to instill it as an electable virtue through her freewill. God calls us all to humility and God foresaw this woman Mary’s humility in eternity. While humility was certainly a critical virtue in God’s choosing her to be the human mother of His Son it was not the only thing - the capacity for elective love, chastity and purity of heart are all part of it too.

This all has less to do with formal theology than it does spiritual discernment through one of the deeper senses of scripture that St. Thomans Aguinas enumerates and describes in his [Summa Theologiae](http://www.newadvent.org/summa/Summa Theologiae) (1267-73). Old Testament topology (an insight into Divine Providence) clearly incites an expectation that “The Virgin” will have the attributes that are first sung in the Song of Hannah, from the Books of Samuel (1 Samuel 2:1-10). How profound that Mary would harmonize Hannah’s Song many centuries later:
The Magnificat/Mary's Canticle:

See Hannah’s Prayer 1 Samuel 2:1-10) and compare to
Luke 1: 46-65 The Magnificat*
And Mary said:
"My soul exalts the Lord,
47And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.
48"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave*;
For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
49"For the Mighty One has done great things for me;
And holy is His name.
50"AND HIS MERCY IS UPON GENERATION AFTER GENERATION
TOWARD THOSE WHO FEAR HIM.
51"He has done mighty deeds with His arm;
He has scattered those who were proud in the thoughts of their heart.
52"He has brought down rulers from their thrones,
And has exalted those who were humble.
53"HE HAS FILLED THE HUNGRY WITH GOOD THINGS;
And sent away the rich empty-handed.
54"He has given help to Israel His servant,
In remembrance of His mercy,
55As He spoke to our fathers,
To Abraham and his descendants forever

No one is saved unless God purposes it; no one.

God purposes that all be saved but will not force anyone to love Him nor to bend their will and force them to repent. God suffered Pharoah with 7 progressive severe inticements to repent before He hardened Pharoah’s heart - we always have choice but it gets progressively harder as we fall deeper into disobedience. God simply could have changed His will by Divine decree - but that’s not how He operates. God can not love or receive love from a mindless robot animated by irresistible grace. The consequence of Love is a respect for freewill and the loss of the obstinate and the proud. No one is created for damnation.

‘we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose’. "called because of one’s humility, of ones merit, of ones works, of ones religion, no “according to His purpose”…period!

God calls all to Himself for whatever objective purpose God has. God created no one for destruction nor damnation. No one is predestined to hell. Those who are lost are irreplaceable and there is no other soul in all of creation that can do as well the thing that the lost souls were created to do. All of creation suffers for each soul lost - yet through some mystery those lost will not diminish God’s glory nor cause any loss of joy and happiness in heaven.

You said: “Protestantism bears almost no resemblance to the Early Church”; that is a gross exaggeration of what I said. I won’t get into the Catholic difference of what we see today, 100 years ago 500years ago or 1500 years ago; to the Apostles it would be unrecognizable, but many of the Protestant churches would not bode well in resemblance either.

There has been not one single alteration of Catholic belief from the first century to current times. Not one. What there has been is an expansion on theological insight and depth of teaching. But this is no different that Paul coming after the resurrection to add significant insights into Christianity that the original apostles did not record. The Church never adds to the deposit of faith - it only gives expositions on it.

It is only your opinion that the Apostles would not recognize the Catholic Church. But I differ with you since the apostles would certainly all recognize the breaking of bread and the mass on the Lord’s Day since we do substantially the same things they all did in the first century. They would recognize every single sacrament of The Catholic Church and would probably smile to see how well integrated with scripture and formalized it all is now. But except for some old school Protestant liturgies that derive from the Catholic Church (Anglican, Presbyterian and Lutheran etc.) they would be shocked to see that there is no worship of God through the sacrificial offerings of Bread and Wine and offerings of prayers and alms nor any submission to any recognizable apostolic spiritual authority on earth.

Honestly; I don’t want to go down this path; it accomplishes nothing and only adds animosity between people; we have enough of that in our world today as it is and is quite sad; something we probably both can agree on.

God bless you brother,

MS

There is some risk of disturbing one’s peace in these kinds of discussions but that is better than missing the truth and not attaining to the fullness of the faith and “being all that we are called to be”.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

No such thing in Scripture as invincible ignorance, all will give an account for their actions with a few exceptions, which are those to young to know the difference or an adult who in incapacitated mentally to know the difference.

I think this is the first time I have found myself advocating for the doctrine of invincible ignorance since I think don’t believe that this principal comes into play very often at all in the west. There is too much awareness of Christian doctrines and too much readily available information. Once a person is exposed to the truth he has a compelling moral obligation to go seek it out objectively and consider it more fully. There is no relief from the moral obligation and natural desire to know the truth. An outright “knee jerk” rejection of Catholicism is culpable since it relates to spiritual sloth - a capital sin.

And I said before there is substantial scriptural evidence of the doctrine of invincible ignorance.
*
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.*

Would you challenge Christ’s very own words that “they know not what they do” and claim that these are not in a state of invincible ignorance at the time they crucified Christ? Remember, the Romans revered Caesar as a god and it would been culturally nearly impossible for them to accept Jesus as God based only one hearsay information that some of the soldiers may have heard from the crowds. It is also doubtful any Christians were in the crowd proselytizing as their master was being crucified.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

This is what I was speaking of before; you look at things form a human and overlook the divine. God could have used rocks to a Bible together, but He purposed men. Weather it was men or rocks, God’s purpose is fulfilled and is independent of anything else.

Are we beginning to commend ourselves again (2 Cor 3:1)?
Hebrews 10:16 This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

2 Cor 3:3 You yourselves are our letter, written on our hearts, known and read by everybody. 3You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
*
My friend, you yourself are thinking like a human - strange that we are human huh?
God could just as easily have “written His laws on our hearts” and not let people think that a book can save them. Funny that is exactly what He did no?

The idea that the bible saves or is even necessary for our salvation is a Protestant fabrication. God saves and He normally does it through the instrumentality of other Christians who are able to convert by example. The faith principally comes as a gift from God through other members of His Church. Few come into the faith by blindly picking up a bible out of the library or bookstore and reading it without first being attracted to Christianity in some way - again usually through observing or interacting with a Christian (either through admiration or by conflicted tension and admiring how they stand up to adversity).

No I have not forgotten, for the church is the body of believers that God has purposed to worship Him according to His sovereign will. Our difference is “what is the church”; that is where we seem to disagree. Scripture gives a well defined description/definition of His church.

We don’t need to go to scripture to get a definition of God’s Church. It is the same Church that has always existed for 2,000 years. It’s the Catholic Church which has both formal members as well as informal members who are not really aware that the are part of us. There is no concept of an ‘invisible church’ that many Protestants will claim is the case. The Church is a physical place that one can go to and receive instruction and petition help since it is “the pillar and foundation of truth”. These are concrete terms with the durability of a physical place with order and structure and continuity of members from age to age (so that a perfect offering can be made east to west). When Paul said “take up matters to the Church” he did not mean to use private discernment to rationalize doing any subjective thing one wants to do or believe. There is only one truth - not a legion of truths and personal opinions.

Nonetheless, if one wants to go to scripture and the early church fathers to get insights into what is the biblical church s then it can be read about here:
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

James it has been nice talking with you and sharing each others thoughts on the things of God, but I feel we are getting more into the feeling that i am here to put down your Church and that accomplishes nothing. people are people and we are all sinners in need of the Savior regardless of our religious differences in theology. I don’t mind discussing theological differences, but this seems to be heading in a different direction and I do not want to come across as bashing someones religion; it won’t make me feel good nor will it produce any “fruit” for His kingdom; I see this as getting to know and understand the more devout among the Catholic faith. How will that benefit me; I do not know, maybe it won’t, but I do enjoy talking about the things of God; in fact my favorite topic of discussion.

I will answer anything else I see here you have written, but then it is time to move to a different topic, which neither one of us seems to be able to stay on…LOL

Master Servant - I think you are here because God has purposed you to have the fullness of the faith. You have a great and positive Christian attitude and are clearly in love with God and His precepts. It would be very good for you to stick around and learn some things about the Catholic Faith since we all firmly believe that it is the One True Faith and the single Church establised by Christ on earth. Our members are never impeccable nor perfect in any way but The Church itself is alive with God’s spirit and His care and protections and grace. To the soul disposed to grace there is enormous grace available in the sacraments.

James

 

[Bengoshi]

Bengoshi;6375255:

My friend It’s quite a bit more than just trusting in Christ unless by that you also mean trusting the truth in everything Christ said and then also doing all that He commanded?

No one gains heaven by simply believing that Jesus is the Son of God. Even the demons believe that yet they still actively work against Him to destroy souls.

One gains heaven by believing that Christ is the Son of God, repenting (daily), loving God and Neighbor (Charity) and doing God’s will and obeying Christ’s commandments and also doing acts of Mercy to serve God and become Christlike for others. Notice the action verbs in there that are all works of grace (e.g. “believing”, “repenting”, “loving/acts of charity”, “doing”, “obeying”, “serving”).

James

Just a simple question: Assuming arguendo that we are also saved by good works in cooperation with grace, how much good works would be sufficient to merit us salvation?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Just a simple question: Assuming arguendo that we are also saved by good works in cooperation with grace, how much good works would be sufficient to merit us salvation?

A peculiar question. Are you looking for a magic formula that specifies the minimums necessary to gain you the same guarantee of salvation that the Reformers promised under their new theory of sola fide?

I think Jesus said it pretty clear:
*Luke 10:27 And he [Jesus] answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with **all **your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.”

Luke 12:48 From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.
If I were to summarize I’d say “give it your all” and then some.

James