Questions about when people get "saved"

Status
Not open for further replies.
MT1926 said:
Do you not honestly see what you are claiming here? You are claiming men who wrote within the first hundred years, even before we had a complete Bible, wrote contrary to what the Apostles actually taught. Other than your current day theologians disagree with them, what evidence do you have? Other than you have chosen to believe this without asking these same questions what reason would I have to believe this. This is a valid question.
Click to expand...
MT… We are getting ready for Church now, but I have already answered this question. I don’t care as much about time-line, as I do CONTENT. if you produce a 1st. or 2nd. century theologian or believer, bishop, or whatever, … who was part of the RC church who taught and preached theology. I’m okay with that, I am NOT saying they all were bad!!! As long as what he preached and taught was in subjection to, the apostolic circle, in terms of correct doctrine, I accept them!!! I’m sure there were many great Roman Catholic theologians untainted by what we have today. I said to you that the RCC is top heavy with dogma and tradition, meaning that much of what the Church believes today, (which does contradict the teachings of the N…T in my view) were decreed centuries later in time by people far removed. So , go ahead and produce an early RC believer.

There is a circle of believers who were inside the belt of inspired scripture by the holy Spirit. These men were the ones who got to tell us what is true and what is not. If you produce a person outside that belt, I will gladly take a look at what they have to say, but then I will compare what they say with what the N.T. writers and apostles have said. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

M.T. have a great day in Church. May you be blessed upon measure in all you do.
 
Last edited:
MT1926 said:
And neither were you or your so called experts. So what’s your point? What does this prove? You honestly don’t see the claims you are making?
Click to expand...
What does it all mean?. … are you kidding?. You seem to treat the RC hierarchy with more weight of seriousness and legitimacy than it’s founders. When I say you, I mean the RCC.
And their doctrine replaces that of the founders.

For example:
  1. Your Catechism teaches, no one can know if he will attain to eternal life (catechism # 1036,
    2005) yet the founders of Christianity said, the believer CAN KNOW that he has eternal life by
    the word of God, 1st. John 5:13
  2. Your Catechism teaches Eternal life is a merited reward, (#1821, 2010) the founders taught
    Eternal life is the free gift of God, Rom. 6:1234:
  3. Your Catechism teaches the Roman Catholic Church is necessary for salvation, (#846) The
    apostolic Church taught that salvation is in no other than the Lord Jesus Christ, Acts 4:12.
  4. Your Catechism teaches Venial sins do not incur eternal punishment (#1855, 1863) The Apostle
    Paul taught that every sin is punishable by eternal death, Rom. 6:23.
  5. Your Catechism teaches that Purgatory is necessary to atone for sin and cleanse the soul,
    (#1030, 1031) The founders never taught purgatory but instead taught that Jesus made
    purification for sins on the cross, Heb. 1;3.
  6. Your Catechism teaches Mary was preserved from all stain of original sin from the first instant of
    her conception, (the doctrine of the immaculate conception) (#490-492.) The founders of
    Christianity taught that Mary was a descendant of Adam, was born in sin, (Ps.51:5; Romans
    5:12.)
This list could go on for twenty minutes.
 
MT1926 said:
Why would you think we would see this fact established within the Apostolic circle? Wasn’t their mission teaching about Jesus?
Click to expand...
There mission was to preach the kingdom of God, which is God’s way of doing things.
 
I don’t have much time but I have been wanting to address your RCC. My Church is the Catholic Church and I belong to the Latin rite. I am not a Roman.
 
Last edited:
I was hoping you might be able to answer a question for me. Are you taught to start bashing the Catholic Church when you are no longer able to respond?

This is the third time now that all I did was ask for evidence why your experts are better than mine. You don’t seem to understand, I’m not saying you are wrong I’m asking you to prove you are right. Instead of showing reasoning why we should believe your interpretation you go off on an anti-Catholic rant.

I’m not saying mine are better than yours. All I’m asking is why should I believe your experts? Anti-Catholic rants, even if they were true, still don’t prove your side of the argument.

If what you say is God’s truth it should be able to stand up to every question I ask.
 
MT… why are you sounding so upset? I answered your questions. But I never said my experts were better than yours. You projected that on me. I don’t know what your experts have to say on these issues. I don’t know what the RCC has to say about Ps. 119:160.

You brought this thing up because YOU don’t like my interpretation of it. I can’t help that. And as far as rants are concerned, the totality of this web site is a giant rant against anyone who is not RC. You, yourself have resorted to personal name calling, on several post, something I would get suspended for on this site.

But, again, so what. You don’t have to believe anything I say. I am only giving a side of the story not told by Rome.

So, what do your experts have to say about these things? How do you interpret Ps. 119:160?
Do you have any rules of interpretation, or do you just take a verse and call it how you see it?

I don’t know.
 
My Church is not called RCC. I find it insulting for you to refer to it as RCC. I thought I was clear about that in my post. I am Catholic of the Latin rite not Roman.
 
tgGodsway said:
I agree that on many issues there are various interpretations within the Evangelical world, at least on most non-essential doctrine.
Click to expand...
Once again, I’m not here to bash you for not being Catholic. I just want to understand were you get your thought process. I’ve talked with many reformed and they are more than willing to give there interpretation and tell me mine is wrong. Basically, the way this entire conversation started, you said Paul didn’t mean that why would you think of making that distinction. Not how did you arrive their, not could you elaborate. Just outright you are wrong.

Well I have no problem with someone telling me I am wrong. However, if they want to have a shred of credibility they best be willing to elaborate and not just throw out opinions. Kind of like this one here.

Now based on your rules can you please show me the 2 or 3 times the Bible lists what is essential vs what is non-essential?

I’m not bashing you hear. I honestly want to know, how do we know what is and isn’t essentials? Who gets to decide?
 
Okay hope. I am not responsible for the name of the Roman Catholic Church. What is your point? or what do you want me to do about it?
 
Last edited:
Okay MT. I get that. I am not one to explain things perfectly. Neither do I pretend to know all there is to know. Essential doctrine, from what I’ve been taught, can be summed up into a few short statements, at least according to reformed standards. I’m sure some people have their own personal standards. Just off the top of my head, an essential doctrine is to believe that Jesus is the Christ. He is divine. He is 100 percent God and 100 percent man. An essential is to believe what Jesus’ taught on the Trinity. That God is three persons, distinct from each other, yet share one nature and substance. An essential doctrine would be that you must be born again to have eternal life.
Who decided these were essential? Originally the 1st. and 2nd. century Church, I suppose, but even then, what was essential begged the question: essential for what? essential to be called a Christian? essential to be accepted into fellowship?

For me, I can only find one essential condition in order to be in fellowship with other Christians. That essential condition is to believe that Jesus is the Christ. He is the essential revelation.

I can fellowship with a Roman Catholic, a Protestant Reformed, a fundamentalist, an Evangelical, a Charismatic. Why? because all of these groups believe the exact same thing about the person of Christ. But I cannot enjoy fellowship with a Jehovah’s witness or a Mormon. Why? They do not share this fundamental truth.

Did I answer what you wanted?
 
Last edited:
Not really. I accept your answers and don’t say you are wrong. What i was asking though was I would think knowing what is and isn’t essential would be truth that God would want us to know. Since Psalm 119 tells us we can find this truth by summing up God’s Word. Shouldn’t the bible and not the 1st and 2nd century church tell us what is essential.
tgGodsway said:
Who decided these were essential? Originally the 1st. and 2nd. century Church, I suppose, but even then, what was essential begged the question: essential for what? essential to be called a Christian? essential to be accepted into fellowship?
Click to expand...
Yes exactly, this is my question. Shouldn’t the Bible in 2 or 3 different places and not man differentiate all if these?
 
Yes I believe it does. The first-hand believers of the 1st. and 2nd. Century patterned after the apostles. But eventually they patterned after what the Apostles left them in their writings. I’m sure you know that second hand, third hand, fourth hand believers had to learn on a learning curve. This is why the inspired writings of the Apostles was so necessary. The further away you get in terms of eye witnesses and then, to understand what the Apostles understood, cannot be duplicated so easily. The inspired writings capsulated the thoughts of the founding fathers. It is up to us to find the intentions to go along with that. So that we too can enjoy the truths they knew.
 
but again, yes, The sum of thy word leads us to believe that the person of Christ is the ultimate essential doctrine. I know some people would argue that, but I can see it is scripture. To believe Jesus is the Christ is the ultimate essential doctrine.

If we cannot agree to his personhood, we cannot have fellowship whatsoever. I can disagree with you about the doctrine of Mary, yet still fellowship with you because of Christ.

You can disagree with me about who’s Church is the true Church, yet still fellowship with me because we both believe Jesus is the Christ. He becomes the centerpiece to everything.

But on both sides, not everyone agrees.
 
Last edited:
But That is just the point the Church’s Name is Catholic without the pejorative Roman attached to it. You are responsible for using a wrong name. What I want you to do about it is stop calling the Church Roman Catholic as that is not the name of the Church. The Church’s name is Catholic.
 
Since much of what is discussed in terms of one’s theology comes from the Vatican in Rome over many centuries, to make this distinction as to the origin of such doctrine is important. I was raised Roman Catholic and never once was I offended by such terms.
One more thing, since the word Catholic means universal, in order to differentiate between Catholics like myself, and those who answer to their Bishop in Rome, the term Roman is appropriate. But if you take such offence, I will try to use another word instead. Blessings to you Hope.
 
Last edited:
By the way Hope, the abbreviations of RCC is something I picked up by Catholics on this sight. I hope you will expressed your hurts to them as well so they too can change this for you.
 
Thanks for the response but you still aren’t answering the question. On the topic of essential doctrine vs non essential where does the bible differentiate which is which in 2 or 3 places?

You listed a whole bunch of essentials. If the bible doesn’t outright say these are the essentials and these are the non-essentials how can any one Christian say to another, nope not essential, not necessary for salvation.
 
tgGodsway said:
I’m sure you know that second hand, third hand, fourth hand believers had to learn on a learning curve. This is why the inspired writings of the Apostles was so necessary.
Click to expand...
Actually, I didn’t know this. To be honest it kind of sounds like a strange claim to make. Jews taught the Old Testament daily in the synagogues. Why would Christians all of the sudden quit handing down their faith and people had to start figuring it out for themselves on a learning curve.

doesn’t St. Paul tell Timothy to entrust what he was taught to faithful men who could teach others? Why would Timothy not teach this exact thing he learned to the men he was teaching?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top