Salvation requirements

[mikeledes]

Michael,

“Then shall He answer them, saying, verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment; but the righteous into life eternal.”

Entire nations will enter the millennial kingdom. Out of these will will be some who will reject Christ. But the judgement of the nations at the second coming of Christ is to determine what nations are to enter the millennial kingdom. This judgment is seperate and distinct from all other judgements.

God Bless,
Robert

I would also like to add that he is not separating one nation from the other, but the righteous from the unrighteous. The kingdom referred to in Matthew 25 is not a millenial kingdom, but the eternal kingdom of God.

2 Peter 1:11

11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Robert902]

I would also like to add that he is not separating one nation from the other, but the righteous from the unrighteous. The kingdom referred to in Matthew 25 is not a millenial kingdom, but the eternal kingdom of God.

2 Peter 1:11

11For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

God Bless,
Michael

Michael,

When Jesus returns to earth in glory to establish His kingdom upon earth, the first order of business at His return will be the judgement of the nations (Matt. 25:34-46), in which it will be determined which of those people who have survived the Great Tribulation will be allowed to enter into the Kingdom Age.
All of the people of the nations will be gathered before Christ for this period of judgement. It is possible that a person could survive the Great Tribulation and see the Lord when He comes again, and still not be able to enter into the Kingdom Age. There will be a definite division at that point, as He separates the people, the nations, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Rev20:11 is The Great White Throne Judgement. All the lost of all ages are raised to be judged here. All who are saved have been raised in the first resurrection.
I hope this helps.

God Bless,
Robert

 

[jandlwitt]

I’m very confused. I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school 7 out of 12 years, married Catholic. -still married 20+ years. My husband and I have left the Catholic church almost 20 years ago. We were not growing there. we tried faithfully, but no luck. we have found great growth, comfort etc in the Missouri Syndod Lutheran church. I have grown leaps and bounds. my question and confusion is in the Salvation issue. I know enough about the Catholic faith to know there is no salvation outside the church. But after reading the postings here and falling on Act 2:21 “and everyone who calls on the name of the Lorid will be saved”, so am I going to hell because I have left he Catholic church?

Thanks

 

[kaycee]

I’m very confused. I was raised Catholic, attended a Catholic school 7 out of 12 years, married Catholic. -still married 20+ years. My husband and I have left the Catholic church almost 20 years ago. We were not growing there. we tried faithfully, but no luck. we have found great growth, comfort etc in the Missouri Syndod Lutheran church. I have grown leaps and bounds. my question and confusion is in the Salvation issue. I know enough about the Catholic faith to know there is no salvation outside the church. But after reading the postings here and falling on Act 2:21 “and everyone who calls on the name of the Lorid will be saved”, so am I going to hell because I have left he Catholic church?

Thanks

I believe the official Catholic answer is yes, you are in grave danger.

I have also left the Catholic Church for salvation by Faith in the sufficient sacrafice of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection. The logic escapes me as to why I must kneel and kiss the popes ring when I have already bowed before the loving Savior for the gift of salvation.

 

[mikeledes]

Michael,

When Jesus returns to earth in glory to establish His kingdom upon earth, the first order of business at His return will be the judgement of the nations (Matt. 25:34-46), in which it will be determined which of those people who have survived the Great Tribulation will be allowed to enter into the Kingdom Age.
All of the people of the nations will be gathered before Christ for this period of judgement. It is possible that a person could survive the Great Tribulation and see the Lord when He comes again, and still not be able to enter into the Kingdom Age. There will be a definite division at that point, as He separates the people, the nations, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Rev20:11 is The Great White Throne Judgement. All the lost of all ages are raised to be judged here. All who are saved have been raised in the first resurrection.
I hope this helps.

God Bless,
Robert

So according to you, there are three judgments:

1)The one before the “kingdom age”
2)The “bema” judgement
3) The “Great White Throne” judgement.

However, in Matthew 25, Jesus is not separting the nations that will enter the kingdom age from those that will not. He is separating those who will enter eternal life from those who enter eternal damnation. Please note that those to his left are cast into the eternal fire immediately after they’re judged:

41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
46And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

According to the chronology you’ve provided, the casting into the eternal fire is supposed to happen after the Great White Throne Judgement.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[jmcrae]

… so am I going to hell because I have left he Catholic church?

Because the Catholic Church is the New Testament’s “Noah’s Ark” - you remember what happened to the people who didn’t get on to the original Noah’s Ark, right?

To put it as simply as possible:

The same thing happens to those who don’t get on board the Catholic Church, and also to those who leap off of it after they have had the good fortune to have been born on it, or gotten on to it through conversion.

Of course there are those who are spiritually united to the Catholic Church without being visible members, due to their lack of knowledge that they need to be visible members, and the fact that they are doing the best they can with what they have to follow Christ - but it’s difficult to imagine that someone who knowingly left the Catholic Church, and threw away Christ’s actions in the graces of the Sacraments, could be among that number.

 

[kaycee]

Because the Catholic Church is the New Testament’s “Noah’s Ark” - you remember what happened to the people who didn’t get on to the original Noah’s Ark, right?

The assumption is wrong. Catholic Church yes, RCC, hmmmm.

 

[jmcrae]

The assumption is wrong. Catholic Church yes, RCC, hmmmm.

The RCC is the Catholic Church, because it is the only one that Christ Himself started. The rest of them came much, much, later on, and were founded by human beings.

 

[jmcrae]

The logic escapes me as to why I must kneel and kiss the popes ring when I have already bowed before the loving Savior for the gift of salvation.

When has anyone ever asked you to kneel and kiss the Pope’s ring?

On the other hand, the Bible itself is full of advice to listen to those that God has place in authority over us, and that no man has authority without God first giving it to him.

The Pope is the lawful successor of St. Peter. We can read about how Jesus elected St. Peter to the Papacy in John 21:15-19.

 

[mikeledes]

Michael,

When Jesus returns to earth in glory to establish His kingdom upon earth, the first order of business at His return will be the judgement of the nations (Matt. 25:34-46), in which it will be determined which of those people who have survived the Great Tribulation will be allowed to enter into the Kingdom Age.
All of the people of the nations will be gathered before Christ for this period of judgement. It is possible that a person could survive the Great Tribulation and see the Lord when He comes again, and still not be able to enter into the Kingdom Age. There will be a definite division at that point, as He separates the people, the nations, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
Rev20:11 is The Great White Throne Judgement. All the lost of all ages are raised to be judged here. All who are saved have been raised in the first resurrection.
I hope this helps.

God Bless,
Robert

Also, I would like to add, that you argue that there will be three judgements, but the Bible speaks of only one day of judgement:

Acts 17:31

31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

John 5:28 speaks of an hour - not hours - in which all those in the graves - righteous and unrighteous - will hear His voice at His coming and shall resurrect (i.e. “come forth”):

28Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

All of this happens at the same time and there will be one Last Judgment. Like most Calvinists (i.e. Reformed Churches, Presbyterians, etc.) and Lutherans, Catholics are amillenialists. We do not believe Jesus will establish a literal 1000 year kingdom on earth. The Book of Revelation expresses literal truths using figurative language. It is full of symbolic numbers (i.e. 144, 000, 24, 3, 7, etc.) We believe the 1000 year reign symbolizes Christ’s reign through His Church. Satan was bound when Christ died on the Cross, thus allowing the Gospel to spread throughout the world. However, Satan will be loosed toward the end of the age and there will be perscution. Here are some interesting links on this topic:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillennialism

The following links are a Reformed (Calvinists) defense of amillenialism:

prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html

monergismbooks.com/amillennial435x.html

members.aol.com/twarren13/amillennial.html

Since millenialism is beyond the purvue of this thread, i don’t want to go too far off topic discussing this issue.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[kaycee]

When has anyone ever asked you to kneel and kiss the Pope’s ring?

On the other hand, the Bible itself is full of advice to listen to those that God has place in authority over us, and that no man has authority without God first giving it to him.

The Pope is the lawful successor of St. Peter. We can read about how Jesus elected St. Peter to the Papacy in John 21:15-19.

That of course is not how the church viewed that verse historically, considering the bishop of Rome did not have authority over all untill 400 or so years after the resurrection. That is exactly why Cardinal Newman had to come up with his theory of development. History does not bear out an early papacy and that is why Newman’s theory was necessary.

 

[jmcrae]

That of course is not how the church viewed that verse historically, considering the bishop of Rome did not have authority over all until 400 or so years after the resurrection.

How do you figure that? (Why not 1054 AD, or 1850 AD?)

That is exactly why Cardinal Newman had to come up with his theory of development. History does not bear out an early papacy and that is why Newman’s theory was necessary.

In 80 AD, he (Pope Clement) was throwing his weight around in Corinth, which is quite a distance from Rome - it seems as though he himself didn’t realize he didn’t have authority over the whole Church.

 

[kaycee]

How do you figure that? (Why not 1054 AD, or 1850 AD?)

In 80 AD, he (Pope Clement) was throwing his weight around in Corinth, which is quite a distance from Rome - it seems as though he himself didn’t realize he didn’t have authority over the whole Church.

A guesstimate, more likely between 400-600 AD.

Roman Catholic historian, Yves Congar, points out that the Eastern Church never acknowledged the primacy of Rome in a jurisdictional sense but was willing to accord this see a primacy of honor:

The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West…In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century (Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), pp. 26-27).

 

[jmcrae]

A guesstimate, more likely between 400-600 AD.

Roman Catholic historian, Yves Congar, points out that the Eastern Church never acknowledged the primacy of Rome in a jurisdictional sense but was willing to accord this see a primacy of honor:

To their downfall, as we see, since they schismated from the Church in 1054 AD.

But if the Pope was wielding some kind of inappropriate authority in 400-600 AD, or if he was doing something noticeably different at that time than what he was doing in 80-180 AD, then why didn’t the schism happen then?

Why wait another 400 to 600 years?

The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good.

There were plenty of Eastern Bishops in the early church who had no trouble submitting to the authority of Rome - St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example, who (while being carried off to the Colloseum to be martyred by the lions) exhorted his followers in Antioch to submit to the rulings of the Bishop of Rome, in 110 AD.

St. Irenaeus, in his book Against the Heresies, (written in about 180 AD) is even more clear about the authority of the Pope, and the absolute necessity of union with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[kaycee]

To their downfall, as we see, since they schismated from the Church in 1054 AD.

But if the Pope was wielding some kind of inappropriate authority in 400-600 AD, or if he was doing something noticeably different at that time than what he was doing in 80-180 AD, then why didn’t the schism happen then?

Why wait another 400 to 600 years?

Cause there was no papacy to cause a schism until hundreds of years later.

There were plenty of Eastern Bishops in the early church who had no trouble submitting to the authority of Rome - St. Ignatius of Antioch, for example, who (while being carried off to the Colloseum to be martyred by the lions) exhorted his followers in Antioch to submit to the rulings of the Bishop of Rome, in 110 AD.

St. Irenaeus, in his book Against the Heresies, (written in about 180 AD) is even more clear about the authority of the Pope, and the absolute necessity of union with the Bishop of Rome.

They say a primacy of honor, not authority. Cyprian at the council of Carthage made clear that "For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there (Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, p. 565)."

 

[jmcrae]

Cause there was no papacy to cause a schism until hundreds of years later.

You just finished saying that the modern papacy got its start in 400 AD. Which is it?

They say a primacy of honor, not authority.

Yet the Pope was wielding disciplinary authority from as early as 80 AD, without opposition.

Cyprian at the council of Carthage made clear that “For neither does any one of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let all of us wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there (Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian, p. 565).”

Perhaps he simply meant that the Pope does not wield authority by tyranny - he is “the servant of the servants of God,” and he appeals to our consciences and to our love for Jesus Christ and His Church. (I don’t know anything about any Council of Carthage that St. Cyprian could have attended - the only one I know of took place in 397 AD, almost a century and a half after his death.)

His essay on The Unity of the Catholic Church seems to contradict the idea that there is no Pope, or that there is no primary Bishop in the Church - he begins the essay with the words of Matthew 16:18-19, to show that St. Peter was the first Pope. Then he moves on to an analysis of John 21:15-19, where St. Peter is being placed in charge of the whole Church, and at the end of this analysis, he says, “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, by William Jurgens, page 221.)

 

[Angainor]

He knows who is predestined, but we don’t. Looking back after the fact, we know that Little Therese was predestined, but she didn’t know that, and there is no way that her friends and relatives could have known, while she was still alive.

Interesting you should bring up Thérèse in a discussion about salvation requirements.
“I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, ‘I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,’ I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake”.

“In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works. All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes. Therefore I want to wrap myself up again in Thy justice, and to receive from Thy love the eternal possession of Thee Thyself.”

Just sayin’.

 

[jmcrae]

Interesting you should bring up Thérèse in a discussion about salvation requirements.
“I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, ‘I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,’ I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake”.

“In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works. All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes. Therefore I want to wrap myself up again in Thy justice, and to receive from Thy love the eternal possession of Thee Thyself.”

Just sayin’.

Sure. She also had no sins, of course. But you knew that.

 

[RobNY]

Interesting you should bring up Thérèse in a discussion about salvation requirements.“I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, ‘I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,’ I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake”.

“In the evening of this life I shall appear before Thee with empty hands because I do not ask Thee, Lord, to count my works. All our just acts have blemishes in Thine eyes. Therefore I want to wrap myself up again in Thy justice, and to receive from Thy love the eternal possession of Thee Thyself.”

Just sayin’.

Funny thing, I was just reflecting earlier how everything God gives us is such a free gift. Here’s another scandalous passage from St. Therese’s autobiography:

Two months after my entry Father Pichon was surprised at the
workings of grace in my soul; he thought my piety childlike and my
path an easy one. My conversation with this good Father would have
brought me great comfort, had it not been for the extreme
difficulty I found in opening my heart. Nevertheless I made a
general confession, and after it he said to me: “Before God, the
Blessed Virgin, and Angels, and all the Saints, I declare that you
have never committed a mortal sin. Thank God for the favours He
has so freely bestowed on you without any merit on your part.”

Without any merit on my part! That was not difficult to believe.
Fully conscious of my weakness and imperfection, my heart
overflowed with gratitude. I had distressed myself, fearing I
might have stained my baptismal robe, and this assurance, coming
as it did from the lips of a director, a man of wisdom and
holiness, such as our Mother St. Teresa desired, seemed to come
from God Himself.

Personally, I think this just shows how we’re really much closer than we think on the issue of works and salvation.

It’s a very Catholic doctrine which she espouses.

-Rob

 

[Angainor]

Funny thing, I was just reflecting earlier how everything God gives us is such a free gift. Here’s another scandalous passage from St. Therese’s autobiography:

Two months after my entry Father Pichon was surprised at the
workings of grace in my soul; he thought my piety childlike and my
path an easy one. My conversation with this good Father would have
brought me great comfort, had it not been for the extreme
difficulty I found in opening my heart. Nevertheless I made a
general confession, and after it he said to me: “Before God, the
Blessed Virgin, and Angels, and all the Saints, I declare that you
have never committed a mortal sin. Thank God for the favours He
has so freely bestowed on you without any merit on your part.”

Scandalous? You will have to explain that. I sense you were being sarcastic somehow.

Personally, I think this just shows how we’re really much closer than we think on the issue of works and salvation.

It’s a very Catholic doctrine which she espouses.

-Rob

Most agreed (about the Catholic part)! It is pure gospel! The priest should have left out the word “mortal” however. It a wholly unnecessary addition.

“I declare that you have never committed a -]mortal/-] sin.”