Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[PRmerger]

If I believed the bible I’d be protestant in a heart beat (to spite my Catholic upbringing).

That is quite revealing, humble. To spite your family, huh. Believe in something because it’s true. Not out of spite.

Now, if that was a typo and you meant to say “in spite of” my Catholic upbringing, that’s still the same story. Freudian slip right there!

 

[Mikejw]

The CC does not teach that only Catholics are saved. Everyone is called to enter the kingdom (CCC543).

Who, then, are saved? We don’t know who or how many. Luke 13:23

Everyone ?

 

[moondweller]

exactly … this illustrates my point. Hope is used interchangeably with faith. But you’re basic point is exactly right. The Christian, according to the bible, either knows he or she is saved … or they’re not saved. Salvation is a certitude … not something you wish might come true (how is wishing it might be true any different than the average guy like me?).

Exactly! So you might ask how are you any different now than your average Catholic?

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly! So you might ask how are you any different now than your average Catholic?

Hmmmmmm … An atheist and a Catholic … how are they different … um … how are they different … boy this is a tough one!

 

[moondweller]

The problem is most certainly more in the definition of “believe”. We don’t have issue with the Object of belief, md.

Oh but you do.

Ours is centered on our Savior, Jesus Christ…but it’s centered on EVERYTHING about Him and His teachings. That includes His Church.

The object of your faith IS your church and its sacraments - which you believe are means of your salvation.

But our belief in His Church in no way diminishes our belief and focus on Christ…it amplifies it.

You cannot amplify that which is Perfect. Nor can you amplify the Perfect by the imperfect. Through the cross Christ accomplished a perfect salvation and the Apostolic message that went out was to believe in HIM to enter it (Acts 16:30-31). “Focus on” is not the same as “belief in.”

Much of this is the same with Mary, btw.

The writers of the N.T. would not recognize the exalted Mary of Catholicism. They knew nothing of a co-redeemer or a Queen in heaven.

None of it diminishes, but rather, builds and lifts up Christ in our lives. It’s ALL about HIM, trust me.

Actually, my friend, what you need to do is trust HIM.

So, back to my request. Define “believe” please.

Biblical belief is defined by the Object of it.

 

[moondweller]

Hmmmmmm … An atheist and a Catholic … how are they different … um … how are they different … boy this is a tough one!

The question was asked in the context of a “hope so” salvation.

 

[moondweller]

Probably not explicitly, as you and your ilk always demand (it’s a wonder you believe in the sole authority of Scripture or the Trinity based on this demand, btw)…but I can show you where whole households were baptized, and where baptism brings upon the Spirit of God into a person. And if everyone in an entire household is baptized, and every one of them receives the Spirit, then most assuredly, they are Christ’s.

In both of those instances it says all those in the household believed. Catholicism simply asserts that every household has infants.

He is a son His baptism made him an adoptive son of God.

That’s a Catholic doctrine, not a Biblical one. In Scripture those who believed were subsequently baptized. Baptizing an infant doesn’t make it a believer.

He doesn’t believe in his Father anymore, but that doesn’t mean he still isn’t His son.

Gal 3:26 "For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus."Scripture does not recognize your “production line” sonship.

Salvation (in the sense of eternal life) is also not something that happens, nor is known, before judgment day.

Yes, that is the Catholic stance, but not a Biblical one (Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 5:9-15). In Jn. 5:24 Jesus says concerning the believer that he does not come into judgment and has passed out of death into life. In 1 Jn. 5:9-15 John is writing so that they might know that they have eternal life; the LIFE the true believer has passed into through faith in Christ - His resurrected life, which is eternal.

Regardless, I didn’t say a return to salvation. The return I’m referring to is a return to a right relationship with God.

He never had either through baptism. Both are entered into through personal faith in the once crucified, now resurrected and glorified Christ - not water.

HID believes the whole idea of salvation is foolishness - a non-reality.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

The question was asked in the context of a “hope so” salvation.

I guess one difference is I don’t place any hope in what I view to be ancient mythology with no factual basis; whereas Catholics do.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

In both of those instances it says all those in the household believed.

yeah but this argument depends on the level of merit you ascribe to Christian tradition. It seems odd to me that protestants are so willing to believe the bible (which was compiled by the church); yet protest so sharply when it comes to accepting Christian traditions that have been longstanding in the church for centuries. Baptists and other similar groups built a denomination over their disagreements regarding a single ritual in the Christian religion, baptism.

There’s a variety of theories out there … including the idea that baptism was meant to replace circumcision as a seal of covenant membership. In the same way circumcision couldn’t save anyone, baptism also cannot save anyone (at least according to my reading of the bible), without accompanying faith. It seems to me under this dichotomy the mode of baptism is probably pretty insignificant (indeed on this issue I think Baptists and other similar groups are the ones who have become overly legalistic, since you ascribe so much importance to the physical method and ritualistic integrity of baptism).

That being said there are some areas where Catholics have it wrong & some protestant groups have it right. However, it usually isn’t because Catholic tradition abrogates proper doctrine; rather it’s usually because the contemporary church has walked away from its tradition (for instance in the area of predestination and grace).

 

[josie_L]

yeah but this argument depends on the level of merit you ascribe to Christian tradition. It seems odd to me that protestants are so willing to believe the bible (which was compiled by the church); yet protest so sharply when it comes to accepting Christian traditions that have been longstanding in the church for centuries. Baptists and other similar groups built a denomination over their disagreements regarding a single ritual in the Christian religion, baptism.

There’s a variety of theories out there … including the idea that baptism was meant to replace circumcision as a seal of covenant membership. In the same way circumcision couldn’t save anyone, baptism also cannot save anyone (at least according to my reading of the bible), without accompanying faith. It seems to me under this dichotomy the mode of baptism is probably pretty insignificant (indeed on this issue I think Baptists and other similar groups are the ones who have become overly legalistic, since you ascribe so much importance to the physical method and ritualistic integrity of baptism).

That being said there are some areas where Catholics have it wrong & some protestant groups have it right. However, it usually isn’t because Catholic tradition abrogates proper doctrine; rather it’s usually because the contemporary church has walked away from its tradition (for instance in the area of predestination and grace).

Can you back up what you say concerning the Church and tradition? I know very well that Blessed Cardinal Newman an Anglican who in his attempt to disprove the CC ended up converting due to the doctrinal congruency with the early Church. We did not walk away from tradition we enhanced it over time (delineated it further).

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Can you back up what you say concerning the Church and tradition? I know very well that Blessed Cardinal Newman an Anglican who in his attempt to disprove the CC ended up converting due to the doctrinal congruency with the early Church. We did not walk away from tradition we enhanced it over time (delineated it further).

Good for Cardinal Newman … but anyways yes I think I can show this (although I’m not sure why you think I’m trying to discredit the church, since this is NOT a statement pertaining to infallibility). I simply think the church has abandoned Augustinian soteriology (at least to a large degree).

As far as I know soteriology is an area where the church allows a certain degree of intellectual freedom; so again this is not an infallibility issue (it’s more of a commentary on popular contemporary Catholic thought). As far as the premise you think I’m operating from, I’m actually not even saying that there’s been a doctrinal shift from early Christian thought.

The fact is early Christian’s never developed soteriology to the extent later theologians like Augustine or Pelagius did. We can look to the letters of early Christians like Justin Martyr and argue that Augustine himself deviated from early Christian soteriology – but I wouldn’t even say that’s entirely accurate (although it is arguable).

I have a question … have you ever studied Augustine, have you ever read the letters of Justin Martyr (the most notable apologist in Christian history), have you ever read the letters of Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp, have you ever read any work from St. Ireneaus? If not why don’t you since you’re so devout? I know Augustine is an entire subject unto itself (even the more condensed versions of City of God I’ve seen are like 7 or 800 pages long); but his book Confessions is a short read (and you can study his basic theories without reading those books, although I highly recommend reading his books, so you get your information from the horses mouth … since Augustine is perhaps the most misconstrued theologian in Christian history).

St. Augustine is one of the most preeminent theologians in Catholic history; and Pope Benedict is a huge fan of his work. So he remains important. In short Augustine did not believe predestination of the individual is determined by foreseen faith. While Augustine did incorporate the idea of divine prescience and human free will into his soteriology; he ultimately came to the conclusion that election is god’s sovereign choice (and is not determined by foreseen merit in man). Conflict arose because the resurgence of Augustinian soteriology was driven by the first protestant reformers.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

That is quite revealing, humble. To spite your family, huh. Believe in something because it’s true. Not out of spite.

Now, if that was a typo and you meant to say “in spite of” my Catholic upbringing, that’s still the same story. Freudian slip right there!

where do you get this stuff from? How old are you?

 

[josie_L]

Good for Cardinal Newman … but anyways yes I think I can show this (although I’m not sure why you think I’m trying to discredit the church, since this is NOT a statement pertaining to infallibility). I simply think the church has abandoned Augustinian soteriology (at least to a large degree).

As far as I know soteriology is an area where the church allows a certain degree of intellectual freedom; so again this is not an infallibility issue (it’s more of a commentary on popular contemporary Catholic thought). As far as the premise you think I’m operating from, I’m actually not even saying that there’s been a doctrinal shift from early Christian thought.

The fact is early Christian’s never developed soteriology to the extent later theologians like Augustine or Pelagius did. We can look to the letters of early Christians like Justin Martyr and argue that Augustine himself deviated from early Christian soteriology – but I wouldn’t even say that’s entirely accurate (although it is arguable).

I have a question … have you ever studied Augustine, have you ever read the letters of Justin Martyr (the most notable apologist in Christian history), have you ever read the letters of Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp, have you ever read any work from St. Ireneaus? If not why don’t you since you’re so devout? I know Augustine is an entire subject unto itself (even the more condensed versions of City of God I’ve seen are like 7 or 800 pages long); but his book Confessions is a short read (and you can study his basic theories without reading those books, although I highly recommend reading his books, so you get your information from the horses mouth … since Augustine is perhaps the most misconstrued theologian in Christian history).

St. Augustine is one of the most preeminent theologians in Catholic history; and Pope Benedict is a huge fan of his work. So he remains important. In short Augustine did not believe predestination of the individual is determined by foreseen faith. While Augustine did incorporate the idea of divine prescience and human free will into his soteriology; he ultimately came to the conclusion that election is god’s sovereign choice (and is not determined by foreseen merit in man). Conflict arose because the resurgence of Augustinian soteriology was driven by the first protestant reformers.

No, conflict arose due to a misrepresentation of Augustinian soteriology (from what I read and I admit it isn’t much, Calvin only believed we had the free will to do evil but not good).

Here’s what I found:

**The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.

Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.**

catholicsource.net/Predestination.html

I do plan to read up on many of the Church fathers but I’m currently reading other books that I think are just as vital to my understanding of the faith.

 

[josie_L]

where do you get this stuff from? How old are you?

Well, you keep saying “to spite” when it should be “inspite”. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

Well, you keep saying “to spite” when it should be “inspite”. I think that is where the confusion is coming from.

the terms are synonymous depending on the context; and my intended meaning was obvious. Seriously … how delusional does one have to be for the idea light to spark in that thing they call a brain because someone uses the term to spite rather than in spite?

 

[humble_in_doubt]

No, conflict arose due to a misrepresentation of Augustinian soteriology (from what I read and I admit it isn’t much, Calvin only believed we had the free will to do evil but not good).

Here’s what I found:

**The Catholic Church, following St. Augustine (e.g., Grace and Free Will, 1,1; Sermon 169, 11,13), accepts predestination of the elect to heaven, but also affirms the freedom of the human will, thus staking out a position distinct from Calvinism. Predestination to hell, in Catholicism, always involves man’s free will, and foreseen sins, so that man is ultimately responsible for his own damnation, not God (double predestination is rejected).

The Catholic Church affirms predestination as a de fide dogma (the highest level of binding theological certainty), while at the same time affirming free will and the possibility of falling away from the faith.

But, there is no official teaching on how exactly this comes into play. There are numerous theological schools of thought on the matter, the two major ones being the Thomists and the Molinists. I tend to subscribe to the former. The latter is closer to the Arminian position.

Any theological position on election, however, must conform with the Church’s soteriological teachings. Molinism, Thomism, and Arminianism all conform, Calvinism does not. To conform, your theology must accept the following:

1. Free will; that is, God allows people to choose him, and allows them to reject them. People always have the option. Thus election, if you believe it, must be an act of persuasion and not compulsion.
2. Co-operation; it is necessary for salvation for a man to cooperate with God’s grace. Man must continuously allow God’s grace to work in him. If at any point a man prevents this, he falls from grace.
3. Jesus died for all men, and his sacrifice has the potential of saving all, but his act did not automatically save anyone, only those who choose to accept him.
4. Man is born in a state of sin, and must be called by God in order to accept Him and thus receive the merits of Christ’s sacrifice.
5. God predestines no one to Hell. i.e. you can only believe in negative reprobation, not positive.

There are, of course, many other teachings on salvation, but these are the main ones. Thomism, unlike Calvinism, accepts all of them. The main difference between the various schools of thought is how the calling grace of point 4 get dispensed, and its effects. Thomists maintain that God does not bestow it on everyone, while Molinists maintain that he does.**

catholicsource.net/Predestination.html

I do plan to read up on many of the Church fathers but I’m currently reading other books that I think are just as vital to my understanding of the faith.

I would say this is accurate, except for its description of Calvinism.

John Calvin did not believe there was any divine action involved in reprobation; this is a “hyper-Calvinist” view (which has little in common with the theology of their namesake). Indeed mainstream Presbyterian and reformed churches forcefully reject the idea that god is actively involved in the reprobation of anyone.

Calvin did believe reprobation was passive (in other words he affirmed the words of St. James, who said god does not tempt anyone). Thomists will say god does not impart grace sufficient to draw one to Christ to everyone (and according to the biblical framework, rightly so). However, they seem silent on the logical implication of this assertion. Calvin simply followed the rabbit trail to its logical end. In other words he was able to synthesize the words of James with other passages, such as:

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for (1 Peter 2:8).

 

[josie_L]

yeah but this argument depends on the level of merit you ascribe to Christian tradition. It seems odd to me that protestants are so willing to believe the bible (which was compiled by the church); yet protest so sharply when it comes to accepting Christian traditions that have been longstanding in the church for centuries. Baptists and other similar groups built a denomination over their disagreements regarding a single ritual in the Christian religion, baptism.

There’s a variety of theories out there … including the idea that baptism was meant to replace circumcision as a seal of covenant membership. In the same way circumcision couldn’t save anyone, baptism also cannot save anyone (at least according to my reading of the bible), without accompanying faith. It seems to me under this dichotomy the mode of baptism is probably pretty insignificant (indeed on this issue I think Baptists and other similar groups are the ones who have become overly legalistic, since you ascribe so much importance to the physical method and ritualistic integrity of baptism).

That being said there are some areas where Catholics have it wrong & some protestant groups have it right. However, it usually isn’t because Catholic tradition abrogates proper doctrine; rather it’s usually because the contemporary church has walked away from its tradition (for instance in the area of predestination and grace).

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

1. When John the Baptist baptised Jesus, a beautiful thing happened. God showed to everyone who were present that ‘Jesus’ was ‘the One Who is anointed by God’. That means that Jesus was God the Father’s Chosen One, the One Who God had promised to send to save the people He loved. When Jesus was anointed, He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and the power of God. This anointing proved that Jesus was God! [Mt. 3:16-7; Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69; Acts 3:14] (C.C.C. # 438)
2. The public life of Jesus began with His Baptism on the shore of the Jordan River. It ended with Jesus commanding the Apostles to “go and make disciples of all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that He had commanded them.” [Mt. 28:19-20] (C.C.C. # 1223) These Words of Jesus from the Holy Bible teach the Christians the great importance of the Sacrament of Baptism.

THE NEW CREATURE

1. The gifts received from God during the Sacrament of Baptism are the most wonderful gifts that a person can receive during his life. The person who is baptised receives a new heart and a new spirit (spiritual inclination). The old heart of stone and spirit die during the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, God places His Holy Spirit within the person to help the new heart and the new spirit to remain righteous, obeying His Holy ways. [Ezek. 36:26] This is the most beautiful thing that happens to a person during the Sacrament of Baptism, something that most Christians do not even realize.
2. This transformation is what it means to be reborn. God actually creates a new heart and a new spirit within the convert who is being baptized. [Jn. 3:3, 5, 7; 1 Jn. 4:7, 5:1, 4] The person is truly not the same anymore, part of his creation having been changed.

BAPTISM, FAITH AND THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN

1. When Jesus commanded the Apostles to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, that those who believe be baptised and saved, Jesus made faith an important part of the Sacrament of Baptism (C.C.C. # 1226) along with the forgiveness of sin. [Mk. 16:15-6] (C.C.C. # 985)

“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.’” [Mk. 16:15-5] (C.C.C. # 977)

1. A person cannot be baptised unless he sincerely repents of his sinful nature and has faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour, the Giver of the Holy Spirit and the new birth.

CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST

1. Before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, the old self, the heart and human spirit, were stained by the original sin and all the other sins that the person had committed before being baptized. During the Sacrament of Baptism, all of this was crucified with Jesus so that the sinful body may be destroyed, the person no longer being a slave to sin. [Rom. 6:6]

“We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.” [Rom. 6:6]

BURIED WITH CHRIST

1. When a person is baptised, the old inclination of his heart and spirit die and are buried with Christ. [Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12]

“Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” [Rom. 6:4]

RESURRECTING WITH CHRIST

1. And, just as Jesus was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, within the one who is baptized, a new creation is raised from death to walk the new life that has received through Christ. [Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12] (C.C.C. # 628)

“When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” [Col. 2:12]

DEATH TO SIN

1. Because the old heart and spirit were united in the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ (C.C.C. 1227), they are dead to sin. A new heart and spirit were created within the convert who has now been reborn. This rebirth takes place so that the new Christian can now answer his call to live his faith in Christ.

catholicdoors.com/courses/baptism.htm

BAPTISM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OUR SALVATION.

 

[humble_in_doubt]

THE BAPTISM OF JESUS

1. When John the Baptist baptised Jesus, a beautiful thing happened. God showed to everyone who were present that ‘Jesus’ was ‘the One Who is anointed by God’. That means that Jesus was God the Father’s Chosen One, the One Who God had promised to send to save the people He loved. When Jesus was anointed, He was anointed with the Holy Spirit and the power of God. This anointing proved that Jesus was God! [Mt. 3:16-7; Mk. 1:24; Jn. 6:69; Acts 3:14] (C.C.C. # 438)
2. The public life of Jesus began with His Baptism on the shore of the Jordan River. It ended with Jesus commanding the Apostles to “go and make disciples of all, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that He had commanded them.” [Mt. 28:19-20] (C.C.C. # 1223) These Words of Jesus from the Holy Bible teach the Christians the great importance of the Sacrament of Baptism.

THE NEW CREATURE

1. The gifts received from God during the Sacrament of Baptism are the most wonderful gifts that a person can receive during his life. The person who is baptised receives a new heart and a new spirit (spiritual inclination). The old heart of stone and spirit die during the Sacrament of Baptism. Also, God places His Holy Spirit within the person to help the new heart and the new spirit to remain righteous, obeying His Holy ways. [Ezek. 36:26] This is the most beautiful thing that happens to a person during the Sacrament of Baptism, something that most Christians do not even realize.
2. This transformation is what it means to be reborn. God actually creates a new heart and a new spirit within the convert who is being baptized. [Jn. 3:3, 5, 7; 1 Jn. 4:7, 5:1, 4] The person is truly not the same anymore, part of his creation having been changed.

BAPTISM, FAITH AND THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN

1. When Jesus commanded the Apostles to go into all the world and to preach the Gospel to the whole creation, that those who believe be baptised and saved, Jesus made faith an important part of the Sacrament of Baptism (C.C.C. # 1226) along with the forgiveness of sin. [Mk. 16:15-6] (C.C.C. # 985)

“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and proclaim the good news to the whole creation. The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.’” [Mk. 16:15-5] (C.C.C. # 977)

1. A person cannot be baptised unless he sincerely repents of his sinful nature and has faith in Jesus Christ as Saviour, the Giver of the Holy Spirit and the new birth.

CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST

1. Before receiving the Sacrament of Baptism, the old self, the heart and human spirit, were stained by the original sin and all the other sins that the person had committed before being baptized. During the Sacrament of Baptism, all of this was crucified with Jesus so that the sinful body may be destroyed, the person no longer being a slave to sin. [Rom. 6:6]

“We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin.” [Rom. 6:6]

BURIED WITH CHRIST

1. When a person is baptised, the old inclination of his heart and spirit die and are buried with Christ. [Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12]

“Therefore we have been buried with him by baptism into death, so that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” [Rom. 6:4]

RESURRECTING WITH CHRIST

1. And, just as Jesus was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, within the one who is baptized, a new creation is raised from death to walk the new life that has received through Christ. [Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12] (C.C.C. # 628)

“When you were buried with him in baptism, you were also raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.” [Col. 2:12]

DEATH TO SIN

1. Because the old heart and spirit were united in the crucifixion, death, burial and resurrection of Christ (C.C.C. 1227), they are dead to sin. A new heart and spirit were created within the convert who has now been reborn. This rebirth takes place so that the new Christian can now answer his call to live his faith in Christ.

catholicdoors.com/courses/baptism.htm

BAPTISM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO OUR SALVATION.

do you get any of your information from self-study? In other words it seems that rather than knowing scripture you always have to Google your answers?

Moreover, you’ve ignored everything I said (and posted a summary of the Catholic view of Christianity that’s not even relevant to what we were talking about). Why should I believe you’re a serious student of theology?

I’ll ask again … how do you understand verses like 1 Peter 2:8 (I’ll wait until you Google the Catholic position ).

 

[Peter_J]

the terms are synonymous depending on the context; and my intended meaning was obvious. Seriously … how delusional does one have to be for the idea light to spark in that thing they call a brain because someone uses the term to spite rather than in spite?

I’m reluctant to “butt in” when you too are talking, but the phrase “in spite of my family” is totally different from the phrase “to spite my family”.

 

[josie_L]

I would say this is accurate, except for its description of Calvinism.

John Calvin did not believe there was any divine action involved in reprobation; this is a “hyper-Calvinist” view (which has little in common with the theology of their namesake). Indeed mainstream Presbyterian and reformed churches forcefully reject the idea that god is actively involved in the reprobation of anyone.

Calvin did believe reprobation was passive (in other words he affirmed the words of St. James, who said god does not tempt anyone). Thomists will say god does not impart grace sufficient to draw one to Christ to everyone (and according to the biblical framework, rightly so). However, they seem silent on the logical implication of this assertion. Calvin simply followed the rabbit trail to its logical end. In other words he was able to synthesize the words of James with other passages, such as:

They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for (1 Peter 2:8).

"As the Catholic Catechism says so aptly, “To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of ‘predestination,’ he includes in it each person’s free response to his grace." (Para 600).”