Questions about when people get "saved"

[tgGodsway]

If you think there are no Apostolic decrees in the NT, you seem to be reading with one eye blind!

I am not against apostolic decrees. I am for them. But the key word here is apostolic.

 

[guanophore]

If it weren’t for the fact that many of the decisions made in these Church councils were not simply tweaking what already is, but revoking the very foundational doctrinal stances (at the Apostolic level) that have always been.

I think I am missing your point here. What very foundational doctrinal standards were revoked by the Apostles?

In other words, they weren’t building upon the foundation found in scripture, but they, in many cases were rebuilding the foundation itself.

I fear you will have to help me here. It seems to me that Scripture was foundational to all they did and taught. Peter even quoted Scripture at the choosing of Matthias.

For example, it wasn’t until 1953 when the CC decided to decree that Mary was “… preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God.” (from the papal bull, Ineffabilus Deus, quoted in the Tablet, Dec. 12, 1953.)

I think I am still missing the point. The word Trinity, also not found in Scripture, did not become dogma until 325. Do you think that means the Church did not believe in a Trinity before that?

The Canon was not closed until 382. Do you think that means the church did not recognize scripture?

This was not a “building upon” what already is, kind of decision. It was a re-construction of what already is. By deciding Mary was sinless from conception, this collective decision brought Romans 3:23 into question. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It now should read, “For most have sinned and come short…”

Paul’s point of view (which actually was the Holy’s Spirit’s teaching) has been undermine despite the fact that his view has many O.T. witnesses in support.

From your point of view it may not be “building upon” (Catholics call this development of doctrine. Our understanding and application of it develops over time), but for members of Apostolic faiths(Catholic & Orthodox) this position has been held from the beginning. In the East, Mary is called the Theotokos (God bearer) and “all holy”.

And it does not change the Scriptures, also part of the once for all divine deposit of faith. Mary had to be saved from original sin, just as we all have. Mary rejoiced in “God my savior”.

You seem to reject things that you don’t understand.

But let’s say that you do reject this decree about Mary’s state of all holiness. How then do you determine which Apostolic councils, supposedly guided by the Holy Spirit, are in the “no way” category. Have you applied your criteria to the first 7 councils?

 

[guanophore]

This understanding, in my view is preposterous. This whole idea of “sacred tradition” is also a product of a council decree which came centuries later.

Which “council” was that, tgG?

Sacred Tradition is the perspective of Jesus, given to His Apostles, then given to the Church. It is the lens through which we interpret -a perspective.

We are not instructed to gain our faith by receiving it from the Apostles.

Perhaps you were not, but everyone prior to the Reformation was.

They passed away in the first and second century. But they left us inspired scripture which answers the “faith” issue. “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” Rom. 10:17

What you seem to be saying is that Jesus was unable to establish a Church and keep his promises to guide her into all Truth.

Yes, we have inspired Scripture, and we have Sacred Tradition to help us understand it from the perspective which produced it.

The scripture you quoted was written before most of the New Testament existed. What "hearing the Word " was there? Kerygma - Apostolic preaching which is contained in Sacred Tradition. The Apostles worked from the Septuagint primarily, and the Teachings of Jesus.

The word of God, the scriptures, is a very distinct and supernatural venue by which we learn doctrine and practice. It is profitable for correction, see. 2nd. Tim. 3:16.

Absolutely! The Word of God is present in both the Scripture and the Sacred Tradition. But the PEOPLE to whom the task of correction, practice, etc. are given are those called by God, and with the Apostolic succession.

Any and all tradition handed down by the Apostles should be understood in light of holy scripture and in subjection to it.

This is also a popular Reformation idea. It really is more related to political and economic pressure and complaints than theological. Many of the driving forces at the Reformation to throw off the influence of the Catholic Church were more related to secular issues. The Church had inflitrated secular government to a degree that people felt constrained and abused. They wanted to get back the land and money that was being controlled by Rome.

Scripture does have primacy, it is equal with the Teaching of the Apostles (which is the source from which it comes).

 

[guanophore]

Tradition in general was spoken of in a negative light by our Lord and savior because of it’s potential abuse. So that a careful approach should always be considered.

Indeed, whenever human traditions are referenced this is certainly true. But they are in a different category than the teachings of Christ.

he idea that tradition holds the same weight of authority as scripture is actually a violation of scripture.

From a Reformation point of view, of course, since the doctrine of Sola Scriptura was created. Sacred Tradition produced, promulgated and canonized the Scriptures,and is the custodian of their content and meaning.

If this is true then you must produce the apostolic evidence that tradition was to be considered sacred and hold the same weight of authority as scripture.

“So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” 2Thess.2;15

What you seem to be saying is 1) The Apostolic command was not important enough for the disciples to oby and 2) The Holy Spirit was too weak or disinterested to make sure the teachings were preserved infallibly.

At best tradition compliments sacred scripture. And at no time should it ever contradict scripture. But that is not the case with many of the decrees that have emerged over the centuries.

It is a very Catholic view that Scripture and Sacred Tradition complement one another. Of course they cannot contradict, because they come from the same Source, which is God.

They seem to contradict from your perspective, since it is such a gross departure from the Apostolic faith.

Tradition and scripture should be one and the same

They are. They are two strands of the once for all divine deposit of faith that the Holy Spirit has preserved in the Church infallibly.

 

[guanophore]

Tradition and scripture should be one and the same. , but they are not.

It seems like this to all who have departed from the Apostolic faith. Once Sacred Tradition was jettisoned, and replaced with the Traditions of men, continual fragmentation has occurred. Everyone interprets the scriptures according to his own mindset, so we have a great variety of ecclesial communites who cannot agree on the meaning of it. None of them are able to see it through the eyes of the faith that produced it, since they have become separated from this Source.

This is where the CC needs to become honest with herself instead of posturing a superiority over the rest of the body of Christ. In actuality they become the weakest link in the chain.

I am not sure what this means. What is “posturing superiority”? The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. Should not the Church have some sense of ownership of her own documents? If you wrote letters ane memoirs and other people took them and misinterpreted them, do you think it would not bother you?

 

[MT1926]

For example, it wasn’t until 1953 when the CC decided to decree that Mary was “… preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, by the singular grace and privilege of the Omnipotent God.” (from the papal bull, Ineffabilus Deus, quoted in the Tablet, Dec. 12, 1953.)

This was not a “building upon” what already is, kind of decision. It was a re-construction of what already is. By deciding Mary was sinless from conception, this collective decision brought Romans 3:23 into question. “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” It now should read, “For most have sinned and come short…”
Paul’s point of view (which actually was the Holy’s Spirit’s teaching) has been undermine despite the fact that his view has many O.T. witnesses in support.

I just first wanted to point out that this decision doesn’t bring Romans 3:23 into question. Paul is speaking of personal sin here not original sin. So in no way does Mary being immaculately conceived contradict the Bible.

Secondly, the Pope didn’t just say hey this sounds like a good idea. The Church fathers called a Mary the new Eve from the beginning. Eve was created without original sin. Genesis tells us that God will place enmity between the Woman (Mary) and Satan. If Mary was created in sin then this enmity would not exist between her and Satan. So if you think about it, believing Mary is a sinner is contradicting the Bible and undermining the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, the point everyone seems to ignore is the fact that the Church often does not decree anything until people start objecting to what was taught from the beginning. Like I already mentioned, many of the early reformers believed in the immaculate conception and Mary ever virgin. It wasn’t until the “truly reformed” came along and started questioning everything, that the Church deemed in necessary to make this decree binding on all Catholics. This way Catholics would know what was taught for the past 1900 years. The Church does this to bring to light what she has taught from the beginning, so the reformers won’t confuse uninformed Catholics.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

And at no time should it ever contradict scripture. But that is not the case with many of the decrees that have emerged over the centuries.

Do you mean at no time should it ever contradict YOUR INTERPRETATION of scripture? Because I don’t know of any decrees that contradict my interpretation of scripture.

For example Baptism. I’m sure you believe we are contradicting scripture, but I gave you a valid explanation from scripture. So wouldn’t logic dictate that for you to claim I am contracting scripture, wouldn’t you have to first prove you were given the authority to interpret scripture and I was not?

 

[MT1926]

Now, I know Catholics say that there are sponsors who are supposed to ensure that the child is brought up in faith, but the sacrament, according to Catholic theology, is effective right then and there (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Regardless of what may or may not happen to the child as they develop later in life (they may repent of sins or not, which to me seems to go against the letter and the spirit of Acts 2:38), at the moment they were baptized they were also regenerated and washed of original sin. Therefore, according to Catholics, they were raised with Christ not through their own faith but because of parental faith.

I was just curious why this goes against the spirit of Acts 2:38? Especially in light of the fact that Peter continues in verse 39 …
39 For the promise is made to you and to your children and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

It doesn’t stipulate, nor can we assume, the children need to repent or even believe. The father was the head of the house, his word was binding. As long as he said this house will be Christian no one else in the house had any say in the matter. This is the culture Peter was speaking to I don’t believe anyone would have questioned Peter at what age is the promise made to the children?

Your thoughts?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

We are justified by faith, and in baptism we by faith put on Christ–meaning we clothe ourselves in him, hide ourselves in him. His death becomes our death. His life becomes our life. His righteousness, perfection and holiness becomes ours. It is faith in Christ that accomplishes this, not the act of washing itself. Baptism is only effective through the faith of the one being baptized.

I have no objections to the first four sentences. However, if Baptism is only effective through our faith then not only would this mean we have just given ourselves credit for something the Holy Spirit did but it would also mean we would never ever be able to have assurance that we had enough faith, at the time of our baptism, to make it effective. What I mean by this is, my faith has grown a hundred fold since I’ve been chatting on this forum. From my point of view now, I didn’t have the greatest of faiths 20years ago, that I do now. What keeps me from questioning whether or not I had enough faith back then to make my Baptism effective? Hopefully, if I keep learning my faith will grow exponentially over the next 40years. Which will make me question wether or not today’s faith was really effective.

Basically, what I am getting at is Baptism is the work of the Holy Spirit if you think he can’t do this work on a baby or a mentally handicapped person then you aren’t giving him enough credit.

Your thoughts?

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

Regardless of what may or may not happen to the child as they develop later in life (they may repent of sins or not, which to me seems to go against the letter and the spirit of Acts 2:38), at the moment they were baptized they were also regenerated and washed of original sin. Therefore, according to Catholics, they were raised with Christ not through their own faith but because of parental faith.

I guess you are trying to support the point that baptism is not regenerative?

Yes, Catholics believe that the spirit of Acts 2;38 they are regnerated and washed of original sin.

Yes, infants are baptized on the basis of the faith of the adults who bring them for the sacrament. Yes, those persons make promises to raise them in the faith. Yes, children raised in the faith sometimes abandon it and throw away their birthright.

We are justified by faith, and in baptism we by faith put on Christ–meaning we clothe ourselves in him, hide ourselves in him. His death becomes our death. His life becomes our life. His righteousness, perfection and holiness becomes ours. It is faith in Christ that accomplishes this, not the act of washing itself. Baptism is only effective through the faith of the one being baptized.

Yes and no. Jesus will do what He promised for the children of believers. The graces imparted through baptism will only be lived out in the life of the recipient when one does live out the reality that we have died and our lives are hidden with Christ, in God. A person can walk away from this birthright, whether they received it as an infant, or an adult.

 

[tgGodsway]

Everyone interprets the scriptures according to his own mindset, so we have a great variety of ecclesial communites who cannot agree on the meaning of it. None of them are able to see it through the eyes of the faith that produced it, since they have become separated from this Source.

This is a huge assumption on your part guanophore. I agree that interpreting scripture does require a level of skill, but more importantly a common sense approach as well. I believe in a face-value interpretation works best. But as far as none of them able to see it through the eyes of the faith that produces it, because they have become separated from the source, is pure conjecture on your part.

 

[tgGodsway]

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics. Should not the Church have some sense of ownership of her own documents?

I think you guys have repeated this line so much that it has become like a knee jerk reaction for you. Since when was the N.T. written by Catholics?.. Most of the N.T. writers were Jewish converts in Israel. The gospel was born in Israel. The epistles originated from Israel by Jewish converts to Christianity. The first Church meeting was in Israel. The first converts to Christianity were from Israel. The command to go into all the world originated in Israel, Judea, and Samaria and outward from there.

For Catholics?.. how so… the Church at Rome was one of many Churches who received the gospel. No Church had dominance over another at that time and would not until the 4 century when the RCC began to flex it’s dominance over others.

You said, “Should not the Church have some sense of ownership of her own documents?” Of course, but this all depends on what you mean by “church.” If by that, you mean the apostolic circle and New Testament writers who were mostly Jewish and who’s origin was from Israel, then yes…

The word Catholic, from what I understand suggest a universal body. The first Century Church had not yet been planted around the world, and would not for quite some time.

 

[tgGodsway]

think I am still missing the point. The word Trinity, also not found in Scripture, did not become dogma until 325. Do you think that means the Church did not believe in a Trinity before that?

This is an old and tired argument guanophore. Of course the apostles believed in the trinity, Christ taught it to them and the evidence is found in N.T. scripture. But this argument is not apples to apples.

The apostles and New Testament writers show resounding evidence that they believed that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” All of humanity with the exclusion of Christ, are sinners. Why are we? because we were born into a family of sinners. This includes Mary. Paul wrote and said, "there is none righteous, no, not one! Ro.3:10. Was Mary righteous?.. in order to be righteous, she would have to be sinless. If she was sinless then she was also righteous. Yes Paul said there is not even one righteous person in all the world, (that is, righteous on their own merit.)

So the CC came up with a solution to the problem. They say a miracle took place causing Mary to be born without original sin. After all, how could a sinless baby boy be born through a sinner like Mary?.. A council got together and eventually the decision was made that a miracle took place in Mary. It was then believed that she was conceived and born sinless. This view was finalized in 1953.

The Jews on the other hand believed that the sin nature of man originated with Adam and passed from Adam (not Eve) to all generations of people. Thus Paul wrote and said, "For as in ADAM all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1st. Cor.15:22.) The CC said, no… sin also passes through the women, and thus if Christ came through Mary a sinner, He would become a sinner too.
Really? … What a mess…

The overlying problem here is that even if we bought-in to the idea that the fallen nature of man is passed through the women, we need to see it taught, validated and confirmed, by the framers and founders of Christianity in the first century. It needed to be cemented into the foundation of apostolic doctrine. It never was, to the contrary.

Only the opposite was taught by the Apostles under the inspiration of the holy Spirit. This should mean something to any un-bias student of scripture.

 

[MT1926]

Those aren’t my posts. Those were the posts from Itwin that si responded to. Not sure why they are tagged to me?

 

[guanophore]

This is a huge assumption on your part guanophore. I agree that interpreting scripture does require a level of skill, but more importantly a common sense approach as well.

Actually, no, it is not an assumption. I spent 20 years sojourning among my separated brethren, three years of those in a Protestant Seminary. You will find few Catholics that have a better grasp of various hermeneutics than I do. It turns out that 'common sense" is not very common. We all approach the Scriptures within the confines of our experiences and education.

I have chose to use the lens of Sacred Tradition as a more authentic lens than the one I was taught in seminary, which was designed 1500 years later.

I believe in a face-value interpretation works best. But as far as none of them able to see it through the eyes of the faith that produces it, because they have become separated from the source, is pure conjecture on your part.

I agree, but I notice that a face-value interpretation is only used unless it sounds to Catholic, then such an approach is rejected.

I am not conjecturing the separation from the Sacred Tradition. I have recently been working on my ancestry, and come from a long line of virulent anti-Catholics that migrated to the US with the pilgrims. I can assure you that these people worked hard to separate themselves from their Catholic roots.

Since when was the N.T. written by Catholics?

Since all the authors were Catholic? There was only one Church founded by Christ, and all who were baptized into it became Catholic.

Most of the N.T. writers were Jewish converts in Israel. The gospel was born in Israel. The epistles originated from Israel by Jewish converts to Christianity. The first converts to Christianity were from Israel.

Yes. Converts to the Church founded by Christ. Of course they were converts in Palestine! This is where Jesus founded His One Church. Do you think that the fact that all the first disciples were Jews makes them less Christian? Of course the Catholic Church spread from Judea, into the whole world. This is EXACTLY why the Church founded by Christ is called Catholic!

‘Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace and was strengthened. Living in the fear of the Lord and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.’ Acts 8;31

The Greek in this passage “kath holos” meaning “the church throughout all” is the first reference to what, by 107 AD, was a formal reference to the Church founded by Christ.

 

[guanophore]

For Catholics?.. how so… the Church at Rome was one of many Churches who received the gospel

You seem to be confused about the history of the Church, tgG. Yes, the gospel came to Rome, and because of the ministry of Peter and Paul in Rome, it did become the center of solid doctrine, but the Church began in Palestine, and the New Testament was written for those who became converts in Palestine, as well as all those who converted due to the evangelism of the Apostles. Did you not know that the Apostle Paul was Catholic? When he wrote all those letters, they were addresed to people who were baptized into the Catholic Church!

No Church had dominance over another at that time and would not until the 4 century when the RCC began to flex it’s dominance over others.

There were several strong early communities that were the seat of reliable doctrine. Rome was one, and came to have the primacy.

I will agree that Rome did begin to “flex” but it was involving itself into the secular matters of Europe that sowed the seeds for the Reformation. When the secular power of Rome fell, the empire abandoned the city. The Bishop of Rome was the only person left with sufficient organization and authority to maintain secular order, so he was given the title of Pontifex Maximus, and left with the crumbling shards of the city and starving citizens. This seed of secular responsibility spread throughout Europe, until the conflagration of Church and State was inseparable. I think this was the greatest seed of the “dominence over others” to which you refer.

Theologically, Rome was respected as a pillar and bulwark for the Truth of the Christian faith because of the substantial deposit faith left there by both Peter and Paul. But you would have to read some history to know these things, and not be spoon fed falsehoods from Reformation sources. Beleive me, I have read them, been examined on them, wrote essays and research papers. I graduated my three years in Protestant Seminary with a very high GPA, and more Catholic than I had ever been. This happened when I chose to take an elective class called “Historical Theology”, in which I read, for the first time, the early fathers of the Church. When I did that, I realized that the early Church was Catholic, and that the same faith is taught today as it was then.

 

[MT1926]

The apostles and New Testament writers show resounding evidence that they believed that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” All of humanity with the exclusion of Christ, are sinners. Why are we? because we were born into a family of sinners. This includes Mary. Paul wrote and said, "there is none righteous, no, not one! Ro.3:10. Was Mary righteous?.. in order to be righteous, she would have to be sinless. If she was sinless then she was also righteous. Yes Paul said there is not even one righteous person in all the world, (that is, righteous on their own merit.)

Not sure if you realize this, but in your attempt to discredit Mary you just proved the Catholic teaching on prayers to Mary and the saints.

If your interpretation of Paul is correct and we are told that not even one righteous person is in the world. That would mean the only righteous are in heaven. Well James tells us…

James 5:15-17

15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth.

… to ask others to pray for you. He also tells us that we will see the most effect if we get a righteous person to pray for us. Since you believe Paul definitely teaches no one on earth is righteous the only conclusion must be that James is telling us to ask Mary and the Saints in heaven to pray for us.

That is very Catholic

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

This is an old and tired argument guanophore. Of course the apostles believed in the trinity, Christ taught it to them and the evidence is found in N.T. scripture. But this argument is not apples to apples.

I don’t find any support for the doctrines of the faith “old and tired”. My point is that the term “Trinity” is not found in Scripture. Neither is the term “Theotokos”, or the table of contents for the Scripture. All of these were implemented through the practice of Sacred Tradition.

The apostles and New Testament writers show resounding evidence that they believed that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” All of humanity with the exclusion of Christ, are sinners.

Yes. That is why Mary is such an exception. She is the new Eve, who was also created without original sin. Jesus physical body was taken from her flesh, which was preserved from sin, so that He might develop in her womb in a pure tabernacle.

As far as Paul’s use of this passage, he is trying to make a point about humanity. But if you look at the source of his quote in Psalm 14, you can read the following passage in Psalm 15:

"Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?

2 He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart."

Do you think that Paul did not believe there were “righteous” persons? The nature of salvation has not changed, tgG. Human beings have always been saved by grace, through faith. By grace we can walk uprightly, and work righteousness.

Paul is saying that the Jews don’t have any special status over the Romans/Pagans just because they are the Chosen People.

But you are right, the Church teaches that Mary was born free from original sin, but that she still had the free will to sin, and chose not to do so. I expect that any of us who spent 30 years in daily intimate contact with the Son of God might have an advantage in that area.

 

[guanophore]

So the CC came up with a solution to the problem. They say a miracle took place causing Mary to be born without original sin. After all, how could a sinless baby boy be born through a sinner like Mary?.. A council got together and eventually the decision was made that a miracle took place in Mary. It was then believed that she was conceived and born sinless. This view was finalized in 1953.

Actually, tgG, for Catholics, there never was a problem. When the Apostles taught that Mary was the new Eve, we believed it.

I agree with you, tho, Jesus could have come in any way He chose. He could have developed sinlessly taking from sinful flesh. The dogma was developed to reflect the complete humanity of Jesus, it was not about Mary.

I agree with you also that “a council got together”. This has been the Catholic practice since the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts. But contrary to your belief about them, councils to not meet to create doctrine, but to decide how the Teachings of Christ should be applied to the current problems facing the Church.

and thus if Christ came through Mary a sinner, He would become a sinner too.
Really? … What a mess…

Well, it is not a “mess” for us, since we believe that Jesus’ flesh was taken from the body of Mary, and for that reason, he is fully human. We also believe that the flesh that was given to him was “all holy”, as the Church always believed.

I understand you have some trouble trusting the Catholic Church. This is not uncommon. A lot of misrepresentations are made.

 

[MT1926]

But you are right, the Church teaches that Mary was born free from original sin, but that she still had the free will to sin, and chose not to do so. I expect that any of us who spent 30 years in daily intimate contact with the Son of God might have an advantage in that area.

This made me remember a scientific study I read about. They discover that the cells from the fetus cross the placenta barrier and take up residence in the tissue of the mother’s heart, liver, lungs, and even the brain. Further studies showed that these cells actually remain in the mother’s tissues and aid the mother by having a broad range of impacts, from tissue repair and cancer prevention to preventing immune disorders.

It blew my mind. Could you even imagine the benefits Mary probably received by have the cells of our Lord and Savior protecting her from the inside.

Amazing to think about.