Is this rejecting Christ ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
snarflemike said:
So by that same logic, in the 16th century the Protestant reformation was false because “Christian teaching never taught this until recently.”

So which is it? Can’t have it both ways.
Click to expand...
I never said I agreed 100% of the protestant reformation

But you are right in that if the protestant reformation was not taught before by the apostles or the apostolic churches, then it is false
 
The understanding of doctrine can deepen and develop. The Church understands that yes it is true that he who believes and is baptized will be saved and he who does not believe will be condemned.

She understands too there is the universal salvific will of God (cf. 1 Tim 2:4). God wills the salvation of all …and God “can” find ways we do not see or know (and as I noted they would still be saved by Jesus Christ…not their good deads or incorrect beliefs etc) --for example the child in some very remote place that has never heard the name of Jesus…These two truths are not to be opposed.

So too it is to be noted that some can be said to “believe and be baptized” and thus be initially saved --but later fall away and condemn themselves. The Church holds the various truths together.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
But you are damned if you do not repent and believe. These are the clear, unfiltered, words of Christ Jesus (mark 16)
Click to expand...
Actually he does not say there “repent” only believe and be baptized…and then only those who do not believe are condemned…so I guess one can just “believe”, “be baptized” and then continue on with murder and adultery and the like…since the “clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ” that you only need to do those two things…no need to repent.

Or again:

Unless you hate your mother you cannot be my disciple!

There “see the clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ”.

So are you his disciple?.. If you sent a mother day card --unless it said – I hate you --or or at least “I love you’s etc” — then you are not his disciple.

Now of course the Church would explain that Jesus is using a figure of speech there --and not meaning hate like we would take it…but then again someone could stand and state "“see the clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ”.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
You said it was not accountable to them until he said it. Did he not say it in John 6? And if you are referring to the lords supper in the upper room, are you saying that at that point in time, none of the other 500 brothers had life yet? And that converts who were baptized and received the holy spirit were not saved until they had the Eucharist?

If someone died without the Eucharist, are they damned? No!
Click to expand...
If they were told that they must eat, and they had the opportunity to eat, and they did not eat, then the condemnation of Jesus in John 6 applies to them. This is pretty simple stuff, and something any bible literalist should agree with.
But you are damned if you do not repent and believe. These are the clear, unfiltered, words of Christ Jesus (mark 16)
Click to expand...
If one must eat something, and that thing is not made available to eat, then one would of course not be held accountable for that situation.

You seem determined to explain away John 6:53, and yet the words could not be more plain.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I never said I agreed 100% of the protestant reformation

But you are right in that if the protestant reformation was not taught before by the apostles or the apostolic churches, then it is false
Click to expand...
Brother, you’re Catholic! 👍
 
snarflemike said:
So Jesus did not have to undergo death and resurrection after all?
Click to expand...
Jesus can “forgive sins” etc and give life to his disciples in a way --and even make his Mother very holy --prior to the event that took place in time. God is outside of time.

Mary did not wait until the Cross and Resurrection to know the reality of the redemption. She knew “true life” her entire existence.
 
Bookcat said:
Actually he does not say there “repent” only believe and be baptized…and then only those who do not believe are condemned…so I guess one can just “believe”, “be baptized” and then continue on with murder and adultery and the like…since the “clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ” that you only need to do those two things…no need to repent.

Or again:

Unless you hate your mother you cannot be my disciple!

There “see the clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ”.

So are you his disciple?.. If you sent a mother day card --unless it said – I hate you --or or at least “I love you’s etc” — then you are not his disciple.

Now of course the Church would explain that Jesus is using a figure of speech there --and not meaning hate like we would take it…but then again someone could stand and state "“see the clear, unfiltered words of Jesus Christ”.
Click to expand...
OK. Grant that

I should have then said ‘‘clear, unfiltered, meaning of the word of Christ’’

For he is not using a figure of speech here. Jesus commanded the apostles, 11 physical human being to go into the nations and the world and make disciples, that they should believe and be baptized and that if people’s refused to be converted, they fall under condemnation. How figurative can you get?

This required the movement of physical bodies with audible voices preaching the gospel and commanding men to repent and be baptized at the consequence of their eternal soul being condemned.
 
snarflemike said:
If they were told that they must eat, and they had the opportunity to eat, and they did not eat, then the condemnation of Jesus in John 6 applies to them. This is pretty simple stuff, and something any bible literalist should agree with.

If one must eat something, and that thing is not made available to eat, then one would of course not be held accountable for that situation.

You seem determined to explain away John 6:53, and yet the words could not be more plain.
Click to expand...
I believe in the Eucharist.

However I’m with tertullian on the interpretation of john 6. And this was before his turn
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
This required the movement of physical bodies with audible voices preaching the gospel and commanding men to repent and be baptized at the consequence of their eternal soul being condemned.
Click to expand...
Again --NOTHING in that verse about repentance. Gee…now which Bank am I going to knock off tonight?

A person could say that --See See --this was the Mission! It was right from Christ --it was others who later made it more complicated…

It is the task of the Church to give the final understanding of Sacred Scripture…

And the Church sees that together with the reality expressed in that verse there are other realities…

Ones that are going to take into account that say a child in some remote area of the world (who lies dying of some disease)…who has never heard the Name of Jesus or that there is only one God…that Jesus can save them in ways we do no know or see…

That God “can” do such --does not remove the obligation of the Church to proclaim the Gospel (and there is much more to it than a final salvation --as important as that is!)
 
are you saying that repentance is different than believing?

At the end of Luke 24 Jesus said that repentance for the remission of sins should be preached to all nations
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
are you saying that repentance is different than believing?

At the end of Luke 24 Jesus said that repentance for the remission of sins should be preached to all nations
Click to expand...
My Douay Rheims says “penance and remission of sins” which is not quite the same thing:

And he said to them: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead, the third day: [47] And that penance and remission of sins should be preached in his name, unto all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. [48] And you are witnesses of these things. [49] And I send the promise of my Father upon you: but stay you in the city till you be endued with power from on high. [50] And he led them out as far as Bethania: and lifting up his hands, he blessed them.

[49] The promise of my Father: that is, the Holy Ghost, whom Christ had promised that his Father and he would send, John 14. 26, and 17. 7. [51] And it came to pass, whilst he blessed them, he departed from them, and was carried up to heaven. [52] And they adoring went back into Jerusalem with great joy. [53] And they were always in the temple, praising and blessing God. Amen.
 
The Greek word in between penance. And remission of sins is not ‘‘and’’ Kai but ‘‘for’’ which is for.

If that doesn’t help acts 3 peter says repent and be converted so that your sins may be blotted out
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
The Greek word in between penance. And remission of sins is not ‘‘and’’ Kai but ‘‘for’’ which is for.

If that doesn’t help acts 3 peter says repent and be converted so that your sins may be blotted out
Click to expand...
Sorry, I trust the Douay Rheims interpretation.

Acts 3
But those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled. [19] Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. %between%

Yes, so? Be penitent, yes, indeed. . .

But again, you do not know the heart of an individual. Suppose he never ‘appears’ penitent to you, but repents in his last moment on earth? You never ‘heard’ him, you never ‘saw’ him do it, but he did, and God knows it and saved him. . .

Now IF you were to say, “Any person who knows the truth of who Jesus is, and knows it is truth, and who rejects it and dies without repenting, will be eternally condemned”, you know, I would agree with you. I really would.

But if you say, “The Catholic Church teaches that even nonChristians MAY be saved through the grace of God, but since I never ‘saw’ the person repent and choose Christ before death, I want the Church to publish a decree that states flat out that no person who rejects Christ and follows false gods COULD be saved”. . .I disagree. Yes, non Christians MAY be saved through Christ because they might have believed in Him if they had been told the truth about Him (but they were not told the truth and never had a chance to know Him even if they heard the words “Jesus Christ”), or they might believe at death, through God’s grace, and be saved.

Because you simply cannot know that such a person truly knew Christ (he might have rejected a ‘false Christ’ because he was taught that Christ was a fraud, and people usually do not believe in those they have been assured are frauds!), or that the person did not repent at the moment of death, and thus been saved.
 
That a man can be saved without no one ever knowing? Absolutely.

But we are not here concerned about that. The subject at hand is if a man can be saved ultimatley at all without believing and confessing Jesus the christ, I say no. And so does the council of Florence. The modern catholic view is not orthodox or apostllic
 
Right I forgot. Gar is in acts 2:38. Eis means into, therefore repentance into forgiveness. But kai does not ttake away the basic meaning the forgiveness is conditional upon repentance
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
That a man can be saved without no one ever knowing? Absolutely.

But we are not here concerned about that. The subject at hand is if a man can be saved ultimatley at all without believing and confessing Jesus the christ, I say no. And so does the council of Florence. The modern catholic view is not orthodox or apostllic
Click to expand...
And again I say, that 'believing and confessing in Jesus as the Christ is exactly what happens to any saved person. . .but it may be only at the moment of death, even if said person spent his life supposedly ‘rejecting’ Christ and worshipping other gods.

You do NOT see the Catholic Church saying that any person who is a nonChristian and might be saved is NOT saved through Jesus. And obviously that would be through believing and confessing in Jesus. A person would not be saved through Christ while simultaneously rejecting HIM!!!
 
I am not sure that you are understanding what the discussion is all about.

The Priest on Larry King said that Jesus will save good muslims, those who deny Jesus is Lord, even if they do not believe in Jesus, because they live good lives.

The Catholic Catechism also teaches that islamic people are saved because they adore and embrace the God of Abraham.

Islam is a production in Arabia of Christian heretics, Judaism, and paganism. This is not Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top