Purgation after final judgement

[Mannyfit75]

You are not listening. You are giving off that "faith only’’ belief.

PERFECT CHARITY BRINGS PERFECT FAITH WITH IT.

Please, stop repeating yourself. Answer me this: don’t you see that PERFECT FAITH must accompany PERFECT CHARITY?

You are putting forth Lutheran theology. No place for a Catholic.

peace

I’m not.

 

[Ginger2]

I don’t have to read it. I know the answer. An athetist, if he persists, cannot be saved.

BUT THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION.

Can PERFECT CHARITY EXIST WITHOUT PERFECT FAITH. That is the question. An undoubtedly, if our saving man has PERFECT CHARITY, he has PERFECT FAITH.

I’m going to say you continue to put forth this ‘faith only’ routine of Martin Luther.

Please answer me:

CAN PERFECT CHARITY EXIST WITHOUT PERFECT FAITH?

PEACE

Even if your equation is correct. How can you positively claim Perfect Charity without knowing the person’s heart?

Dying does not prove Perfect Charity. Wouldn’t **Perfect Charity **imply he knew he wouldn’t make it out, but went in to save the other person anyway?

 

[mgrfin]

Mannyfit75:
You are stonewalling, and refusing to answer my question.

Joy and Hope have nothing to do with the question.

Please focus on #195 and answer"

Can PERFECT CHARITY exist without PERFECT FAITH?

A simple yes or no.

BTW, forum rules forbid excerpting long quotes from encyclicals, etc. A simple reference is enough.

I look forward to your answer. else I will have to assume you do not want to grant the point, and you will stick to the “salvation by faith only” routine, which is Luther’s nonesense.

peace

peace

 

[mgrfin]

Even if your equation is correct. How can you positively claim Perfect Charity without knowing the person’s heart?

Dying does not prove Perfect Charity. Wouldn’t **Perfect Charity **imply he knew he wouldn’t make it out, but went in to save the other person anyway?

Hey Ginger,

Way back we set up an hypothetical case.

Sorry that the man isn’t saved by ‘faith only’ as your religion teaches. He is saved by a perfect GOOD WORK, for which he gains PERFECT CHARITY, PERFECT FAITH, AND PERFECT HOPE, ETC. He has cooperated with the actual grace that God sent him, and he is thereby moved to do this good work.

His good work perfects FAITH. And he is saved as a result.

Sorry, 'faith only" doesn’t do it, and he is moved to CHARITY in heaven, which is the only thing that remains of the theological virtues at that point.

peace

 

[Ginger2]

Hey Ginger,

Way back we set up an hypothetical case.

Sorry that the man isn’t saved by ‘faith only’ as your religion teaches. He is saved by a perfect GOOD WORK, for which he gains PERFECT CHARITY, PERFECT FAITH, AND PERFECT HOPE, ETC. He has cooperated with the actual grace that God sent him, and he is thereby moved to do this good work.

His good work perfects FAITH. And he is saved as a result.

Sorry, 'faith only" doesn’t do it, and he is moved to CHARITY in heaven, which is the only thing that remains of the theological virtues at that point.

peace

We are not talking about “faith only”

We are talking about whether or not an atheist can be saved by simply doing one really good deed. And if one really good deed is proof of “perfect charity”

 

[mgrfin]

We are not talking about “faith only”

We are talking about whether or not an atheist can be saved by simply doing one really good deed. And if one really good deed is proof of “perfect charity”

I am ending my discussion with you on this subject at this time.

 

[mgrfin]

I’m not.

I am ending my discussions with you on this at this time.

 

[Mannyfit75]

I am ending my discussions with you on this at this time.

Fine just consider what I posted on Asked an Apologist. Michelle Arnold gives a good testimony and admits that without God, man cannot save himself. She also added that God can move his graces of an un-believer to allow him to be saved.

Michelle wrote:
Michelle Arnold:

While you are correct that man cannot save himself, that does not mean that God cannot choose to save someone who is unable in conscience to believe God exists but lives as best he can according to the knowledge he does have.

and she quotes Gaudium et Spes which states:

*Undeniably, those who willfully shut out God from their hearts and try to dodge religious questions are not following the dictates of their consciences, and hence are not free of blame; yet believers themselves frequently bear some responsibility for this situation. For, taken as a whole, atheism is not a spontaneous development but stems from a variety of causes, including a critical reaction against religious beliefs, and in some places against the Christian religion in particular. Hence believers can have more than a little to do with the birth of atheism. To the extent that they neglect their own training in the faith, or teach erroneous doctrine, or are deficient in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion (GS 19). *

Then she gives an analysis:

This section implies that the culpability for atheism is not necessarily entirely the individual atheist’s. To the extent that belief in God has been made impossible for him by others, there may be some mitigation for his culpability for unbelief. For the atheist, ultimately we must trust that even he too is not beyond the reach of God’s mercy if he strives to live morally.

The second great commandment is love of neighbor and Christ said of those who serve others, even if they do not explicitly do it for Christ’s own sake

and concludes with a Scripture in Matt. 25:37-40.

Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?” And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me"

 

[mgrfin]

]

I repeat:

I am ending my discussions with you on this at this time

peace