Salvation

[Odell]

I have never stated that “I’ve noticed” is, could, or should, become a standard for the understanding of doctrine. If you wish, you are quite free to deny what I have noticed.

If we did would it mean our free will is less superiour than yours?

Then what specifically, do you think changed within mankind’s nature due to the fall?

Hey the crux of the problem.

By his sin Adam, as the first man, lost the original holiness and justice he had received from God, not only for himself but for all human beings.

Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called "original sin.”

As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).

The first and most serious consequence, the loss of “original holiness and justice,” is popularly called the loss of "sanctifying grace.” The Catechism teaches:

Grace is the help God gives us to respond to our vocation of becoming his adopted sons.

Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. Sanctifying grace makes us “pleasing to God.”

Sanctifying grace is a special gift, it is an “addition” to Adam as a human creature, though indispensable for Adam to act properly towards God. It would be like saying gasoline is an addition to a car, the car can exist apart from gasoline, but it cannot function according to its designed potential without gasoline. Adam started out with sanctifying grace in his soul, by this grace his soul was alive and Adam was an “adopted son” of God and capable of carrying out God’s commands to the level He requires. Through his sin he lost this grace, and as a result his soul became spiritually dead, and as long as he lacked that sanctifying grace he was no longer an adopted son of God and in this state he could not act in such a way as to please or obey God to the level He desires.

The Catholic doctrine of Original Sin is basically this: All men and women born after Adam and Eve lacked sanctifying grace in their souls, they lacked the status of sons of God and essentially orphaned. From here Catholics realize that the first and most important part of salvation is to have that sanctifying grace restored, making our souls “pleasing to God” which causes us to become adopted sons of God

If mankind is still good even AFTER the fall, then WHY do we need God’s mercy?

For when we sin

To be honest, I can’t even comprehend WHY you would need God’s mercy if you (and all mankind) is still good after the fall.

To be honest I dont see WHY you would need to repent If your predestined or forgive others or Love…

We need Gods sanctifying Grace to restore us to the way it was in the Beginning

I suspect that after reading those passages in their context, and in light of the rest of Scripture, you might perhaps find what is really taught. For example, has God provided all people in every period of time equal access to the Scriptures?

Ok with this logic for 300 years before the bible was canonized people were predestined for Hell.

Even the Indians? and that dont quite make sense takeing scripture in context in light of the rest of Scripture such as this

Heb 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

 

[guanophore]

Here once again, you seem completely focused on the sinner and his supposed goodness–the fact that he recognized he was a sinner and he humbly repented. But it never seems to enter your mind that the tax collector was brought to the realization that he is a sinner by the grace of God.

A person cannot do this without grace. There is no separation between the two. Just as the prodigal son “came to himself”, the insight into the nature and condition of the human soul cannot be achieved by any other means than grace. However, once this grace has been provided, the sinner does have a responsibility to accept his condition, and take action. God does not repent “for” the sinner. This is an action the sinner must take. We must “come to Him, to that living stone”.

No, I didn't humble myself.  By the grace of regeneration, God revealed my sinfulness to me and caused me to see myself as I really am--a horribly vile sinner in desperate need of God's mercy.  I never would have asked God for forgiveness without this supernatural gift of regeneration.  Before becoming born again I viewed myself as a good and honorable person.

You did humble yourself, just as the penitent man in the temple. You did not do so apart from grace, though, because htis is not possible. Catholics don’t consider this regeneration, though. Catholics believe that happens in baptism. What you and the penitent man received was similar to John’ s baptism, that for repentance. But after him came one mightier than he, who baptized in the HS. The choice to act on your insight into yourself (once enlightened by grace) does not make you morally superior to anyone else.

God’s grace brings specific sinners (the elect) to repentance by causing them to begin to see themselves as they really are–sinners deserving to burn in hell for all eternity. Jesus said, “you must be born again.” A person that has been born again will know that he or she is saved, and such a person will be really glad about it.

God’s grace is poured out upon all toward this end, but not all are willing to receive it, or act upon it. Some people reject the will of God for themselves. God has created us with this ability. It is part of being made in the image and likeness of God.

I have never stated that “I’ve noticed” is, could, or should, become a standard for the understanding of doctrine. If you wish, you are quite free to deny what I have noticed.

I won’t attempt to deny your observations. I too have seen many Catholics who don’t understand or practice the faith into which they were baptized. However, I do not derive what the Church teaches from watching them.

Then what specifically, do you think changed within mankind’s nature due to the fall?

This is a massive theological question, but suffice to say that mankind is deprived of the grace necessary to be in communion with his creator. This is the effect of sin, which separates us from God. As you have previously noted, the sinful mind is hostile to God. Hostility and separation, however, does not undo the image in which we are created, as the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable. He created man, and called him “good”. Though the image is wounded, healing and restoration is possible again by grace.

If mankind is still good even AFTER the fall, then WHY do we need God’s mercy?

We are incapable in ourselves of restoring ourselves to a state of grace.

To be honest, I can’t even comprehend WHY you would need God’s mercy if you (and all mankind) is still good after the fall.

I believe your thinking is just too black and white. Was the prodigal son any less a son, even though he ended up in the pig stye? His abandonment of his fathers house did not change the person who he was created to be. He was wounded by his own pride, and unable to restore himself to right relationship with his father. Only the grace of the father could do that.

It is true that before the fall, Adam and Eve, being truly good, had a natural yearning for God. But as a result of the fall, unregenerate man is hostile to God.

I agree, but hostility also implies relationship. You cannot be hostile toward someone with whom you are not in relationship. The relationship is wounded, but it can be healed and restored. The hostility does not undo what God has done creating man in His image and likeness. The image is marred, and cannot properly reflect the intention of the Creator. Somewhat like those circus mirrors that distort the image. This is one reason why looking into the mirror of the Word our perceptions are healed.

I suspect that after reading those passages in their context, and in light of the rest of Scripture, you might perhaps find what is really taught. For example, has God provided all people in every period of time equal access to the Scriptures?

I am not asking about all people of all time. I am asking YOU, how does Nick Jones dispense with the scriptures that indicate that God wants all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth?

 

[guanophore]

Why the Catholic Church? Are you trusting in your church because of how long your church has been around?

I have come to believe that the Catholic Church is that founded by Christ, and built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. I believe that the Apostolic Succession is valid, yes, back to the original 12.

I guess I don’t really understand what you’re saying here, regarding BEFORE Christ.

This is my beef about the misuse of Rom. 3:23. The quote is taken from Psalm 14, which is describing “the fool says in his heart, there is no God.” Paul is using this passage to demonstrate that faithless people exist among both Jews and Gentiles. The Jews are not in any better position than the Gentiles if they do not exercise their faith. There were many righteous people before Christ. Not “all” were sinners.

Mark 6:20
20 for Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and kept him safe.

You can’t be righteous and holy, and be a sinner at the same time!

Matt 27:52-54
2 the tombs also were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, 53 and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

How did these people become saints? If they are dead in their sins, and hostile to God, then how is it they are called “saints”?

Can you explain what you mean by “Sacred Works”?

Sacred Works are the works that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. They are based in faith, through grace, and not of ourselves, lest any can boast. They are deeds befitting repentance. They are the actions of a person who is working out his salvation in fear and trembling. They are not rooted in the flesh or the will of man, but proceed from God working within a person to will and to do His good pleasure.

Can you tell me what Pentecost has to do with the parents of John the Baptist? All of this is rather hard for me to follow.

You are saying that the unregenerate man cannot seek God. However, we believe that regeneration is done by the HS. Since the HS was not poured out until Pentecost, how did people seek God and become righteous before then?

You seem to be equating “very religious” with an innate desire to “feel after God and find Him”. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you are assuming that religion is primarily about the human hunger for that which is good (God) then how do you explain the ugly fruits of religion throughout history? Isn’t it possible that “very religious” often means, “very violent” and “very intolerant”? If “very religious” is a good thing, can you explain why you think so?

Yes, I do equate religion with the desire to feel after God and to find Him. And this is exactly what Paul is doing also in that passage. Religion is man’s attempt to find God. Human beings have an innate, created desire to walk in communion with their Creator. This is how He made us. I would not characterize this desire for the transcendent as either good or evil. It is part of human nature, just like our emotions, intellect, hands, feet, etc. One can certainly apply ones “members” toward good or evil, but of itself, the desire for the transcendent is neutral. Unfortunately, having the desire is insufficient, becuase the unregenerate mind is hostile to God. Therefore, our inner desire for the transcendant results in a twisted outcome. It is only by grace, connecting to it, that we are able to be reuinited with our Creator.

 

[guanophore]

Correct – specifically, instructing them in all the things that Christ commanded them. So, where did Christ command that they confess their sins to priests (for example)? Or are we assuming that Christ communicated that to them outside of what is recorded in the gospels?

John 20:23
23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

How did you imagine they were going to decide, if they had not heard? Did you think Christ wanted them to read minds? Confession for repentance and forgiveness of sins was practiced since the time of John the Baptist.

This I could accept…however it would also require accepting that each generation of successors to the apostles (were there such individuals persay) would have to infallibly understand and communicate all those truths to the next generation. It would seem then that, like Jewish oral tradition, it would be written down at some point almost verbatim to what the apostles spoke to their original descendants.

Yes. Is your God so small you cannot believe He could preserve His word in this way? How do you think Moses found out what happened to Abraham?

Why? Why is authority from Christ required? They were commissioned, and I suppose thereby “given authority” to teach – but is that specifically limited to the apostles? Where does it expressly speak of apostolic succession?

Because all authority is from God. Authority is integrally connected with Teaching right doctrine. The two cannot be separated.

2 Tim 2:1-3
2 and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

This is apostolic succession. The Apostle ordains Timothy, who entrusts the message to faithful men, and they teach others.

Where does Christ say “and those you teach shall be taught without error, and they will perfectly understand my truth and pass it to the next generation”?

He promised to send HIs Spirit, to guide them into all truth, and promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail. One enters through the gates of hell when one begins to teach error.

Did they? Even if so, where’s the record of there being a pope at the top of this pyramid? Where’s the record of them appointing replacements for the hierarchy? If all they did was appoint pastors over churches (which is what’s recorded in scripture), to replace them as they moved on to other churches and/or died, where is that a hierarchy? It’s simply a continuation of ministry and ordinary office.

I agree it is a continuation of ministry and office, but it is inseparably tied to the Apostolic succession. Did you know that records really were kept? Of course, not of every bishop in every city, and some have been lost forever. However I think that you are imposing a secular view of leadership onto the Church, and this is not appropriate. Jesus was quite clear that the leader was to wash the feet of the others. This idea of “supremacy” is nowhere present in Jesus appointment of Peter. The Petrine ministry to 'strengthen the brethren" is not one of being at the “top of the pyramid”.

I agree, on the grounds that he would have necessarily reasoned from his understanding of salvation (as taught by Christ) that salvation comes by faith, and not by observance of the law. But that decision need not have been made by him at all, or by anyone else – the truth – salvation by faith – is contained clearly in scripture, such that anyone seeking the truth can clearly understand and reason it.

AT the time, all they had was the OT Scripture. I agree, this can be seen there, but was not seen apart from the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles. Could you possibly derive Christianity from the OT?

So they understood, even though they never wrote it down, that you must confess to a priest your mortal sins? (That’s just one example among many.)

There are writings. We even see this in the Gospel of John, though it is the last one written.

I’m left with scripture and the holy spirit. Christ claimed to be “God the father”. Thus, that would seemingly defeat arianism without any hassle, as it regards Christ as a separate person created by God.

And how would you have known this before the NT was written? The Truth was whole and entire before a word of it was written.

You’re sure, because you believe that all those “developments” are indeed the necessary result of the faith being confronted with heresies, right? But if your belief is wrong, and the RCC erred in its decisions, would Peter agree? Probably not.

I trust in Jesus’ promises that the Spirit would lead into all Truth. Your problem is not with the RCC, but you lack faith in the promises of Jesus. He is too weak, in your mind, to keep his word?

 

[Nick_Jones]

But you see that even the sinful mind is aware of God, and capable of being convicted of sin because it is not submitted.

Hostility toward God requires that one be aware of God and His call. You cannot be hostile toward someone you don’t know exists.

Which is it? Does the sinful mind know that God exists or doesn’t it?

 

[Nick_Jones]

Catholics believe that there is a drawing grace that courts people, and desires that all be saved. Those who respond and are baptized are regenerated, and capable of cooperating with God.

Why do some people use their “free” will to make GOOD choices (to accept God and to cooperate with God) while others don’t? Are you saying that some people–the morally good ones, are just created morally superior to those who use their “free” will to make BAD choices?

 

[Nick_Jones]

The Scriptures dont’ “teach”. People teach. This notion, concocted by Calvin, is a frequently taught error.

If the Scriptures don’t teach us, then what is the purpose of Scripture?

2 Tim. 3:15-17
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

 

[Nick_Jones]

No, this is some sort of imposition you are making onto Catholics, I am not sure why, or where it comes from. I don’t think that people that choose life and not death have any “great moral reasoning”. On the contrary, I agree with what you have said in your posts about becoming aware of oneself having so great a need for a saviour.

Do you remember me telling you HOW I became aware that I’m a horrible sinner in need of the Savior? Did I say that it was because of something supernatural from God?

Do you believe that you are morally superior, because you could see the great depth of your need for a saviour?

Nope. I would have remained convinced that I never needed Jesus if not for the wonderful grace of God. I would have remained confident in my own flesh–in my own ability to know what is good, love what is good, and be good.

Frankly, I am mystified about how or why you can level this charge against Catholics.

It is not necessary to be Catholic to be focused on your own supposed moral goodness. See Luke 18:9-14 about the Pharisee and the tax collector.

This is very Catholic, except that we don’t consider ourselves "saved"until death, because we believe in free will, we believe that one can walk away from the grace of God at anytime.

I agree. The RCC teaches a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. According to Rome, Jesus doesn’t actually save anyone. He makes salvation POSSIBLE for everyone, but ultimately a person is only saved by using his or her “free” will to make the GOOD choice of accepting Jesus and by their GOOD cooperation with God. And since, according to Rome, we reject God by every mortal sin we commit, we come into grace or walk away from grace by our own goodness or evilness. It is a complete nullification of the biblical conception of FREE GRACE saving sinful mankind. If salvation is granted on the basis of our own worthiness it is certainly NOT FREE.

 

[bookgirl32]

Which is it? Does the sinful mind know that God exists or doesn’t it?

He was saying that it DOES know God exists in both quotes, go back and read them again.

 

[bookgirl32]

Why do some people use their “free” will to make GOOD choices (to accept God and to cooperate with God) while others don’t? Are you saying that some people–the morally good ones, are just created morally superior to those who use their “free” will to make BAD choices?

No, he’s simply saying they have free will, which you don’t seem to believe in.

He’s also saying that GOD can and does give them the tools for them to be morally superior. Anyone could be, if they choose to cooperate with God. But, again, you don’t believe in free will apparently so it wouldn’t make sense.

 

[bookgirl32]

If the Scriptures don’t teach us, then what is the purpose of Scripture?

2 Tim. 3:15-17
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The scriptures do all these things, but this passage does not say they are all of these things BY THEMSELVES.

AND, why are they thoroughly equipt for every good work if there is no need for good works?

 

[bookgirl32]

I agree. The RCC teaches a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. According to Rome, Jesus doesn’t actually save anyone. He makes salvation POSSIBLE for everyone, but ultimately a person is only saved by using his or her “free” will to make the GOOD choice of accepting Jesus and by their GOOD cooperation with God. And since, according to Rome, we reject God by every mortal sin we commit, we come into grace or walk away from grace by our own goodness or evilness. It is a complete nullification of the biblical conception of FREE GRACE saving sinful mankind. If salvation is granted on the basis of our own worthiness it is certainly NOT FREE.

You actually sum things up okay here until the end. Your problem is thinking that in order to confirm “free” grace as free, we HAVE to accept it. How in the world does acceptance become the definition for free? It is NOT forced upon us, it is OFFERED FREELY to us. If someone wants to give me something for nothing, and I don’t take it from them, it’s still free isn’t it? Even if I didn’t take it?

Also, again, you want to force upon us this “by our OWN goodness or evilness”, even though we never said that.

 

[bookgirl32]

Another note: I’d say that giving God the credit for our salvation would definitely NOT be a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. And this is exactly what we do. Why is it so hard for you to accept that when we talk about all these good works, we’re talking about GOD GIVING US THE POWER TO DO THEM, not us doing them of our own strength?

AND – I’d still like to see your scriptural basis for predestination, the elect, etc. You’re pretty good at giving us scripture for why we’re wrong, but I have yet to see you give me scripture for why you’re right.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

AND – I’d still like to see your scriptural basis for predestination, the elect, etc. You’re pretty good at giving us scripture for why we’re wrong, but I have yet to see you give me scripture for why you’re right.

There is no scriptural evidence for this. Try as he might, he’ll never be able to produce one.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
I agree. The RCC teaches a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. According to Rome, Jesus doesn’t actually save anyone.
{snip}

This is a boldfaced lie and I ask that you stop spreading it.

 

[guanophore]

"guanophore:

But you see that even the sinful mind is aware of God, and capable of being convicted of sin because it is not submitted.

guanophore:

Hostility toward God requires that one be aware of God and His call. You cannot be hostile toward someone you don’t know exists.

Which is it? Does the sinful mind know that God exists or doesn’t it?

I don’t see that these things are incompatible. You will have to help me out.

God has made himself known in His creation, as it says in Romans, His divinity is clearly evident in the things that have been made, yet some did not honor HIm as God. Knowing that God exists is one thing, being able to regain a state of grace is another entirely.

Why do some people use their “free” will to make GOOD choices (to accept God and to cooperate with God) while others don’t? Are you saying that some people–the morally good ones, are just created morally superior to those who use their “free” will to make BAD choices?

This is an error in logic. Why did you choose to accept God, when others do not? ARe you “morally good”? No, in fact, you have testifed to the opposite. You chose to cooperate with God because you saw how morally “bad” you were! You perceived yourself in need of a saviour. How does that make you somehow superior? Your decision to throw yourself on the mercy of God doesn’t make you any better than the next person.

If the Scriptures don’t teach us, then what is the purpose of Scripture?

2 Tim. 3:15-17
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Scripture is profitable and useful for teaching, but teachers teach. The book does not teach. God appointed apostles, prophets, teachers, etc. for the building up of the Body.

Do you remember me telling you HOW I became aware that I’m a horrible sinner in need of the Savior? Did I say that it was because of something supernatural from God?

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but that is how I took it, yes. It seems to be that you believe you became aware of your need for a saviour because you were regenerated by the HS, and this allowed you to see yourself as you really are. I consider that “supernatural”. It did not come from yourself, but by the grace of God.

Nope. I would have remained convinced that I never needed Jesus if not for the wonderful grace of God. I would have remained confident in my own flesh–in my own ability to know what is good, love what is good, and be good.

So then it was something outside your natural self (supernatural intervention) that made this change occur?

It is not necessary to be Catholic to be focused on your own supposed moral goodness. See Luke 18:9-14 about the Pharisee and the tax collector.

You have misunderstood Catholicism if you think that salvation has anything to do with one’s moral goodness. I am sorry that you have been misinformed about the Catholic faith. Catholics believe that we are saved by grace, through faith, so that no man can boast.

I agree. The RCC teaches a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. According to Rome, Jesus doesn’t actually save anyone. He makes salvation POSSIBLE for everyone, but ultimately a person is only saved by using his or her “free” will to make the GOOD choice of accepting Jesus and by their GOOD cooperation with God.

I see that you have been wrongly educated about Catholic soteriology. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Jesus bore our sins on the cross, and opened the gates of heaven. Had He not done so, there would be no entry at all for anyone.

Yes, Catholics believe that the Holy Word of God is inspired-inerrant. When it is written that God desires all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the Truth, we believe that 100%.

And we believe that God created man in His own image and likeness, in that we have free choice. He allows people to choose not to be with him for eternity. The elect are those that choose to answer His call, and enter into relationship with Him.They are those who are eager to lay hold of that which has laid hold of them.

And since, according to Rome, we reject God by every mortal sin we commit, we come into grace or walk away from grace by our own goodness or evilness.

There is a flaw in this reasoning too. Our ability to commit sin does not nullify the grace of God. Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? BY NO MEANS!

It is a complete nullification of the biblical conception of FREE GRACE saving sinful mankind. If salvation is granted on the basis of our own worthiness it is certainly NOT FREE.

I agree. I wonder what it would take to make you understand that this is not the case? It seems that you have so much entrenched prejudice that I cannot imagine what would make you reliquish your wrong ideas about Catholicism. Perhaps, when you get to heaven, and you find out that everyone there is Catholic?

 

[guanophore]

You actually sum things up okay here until the end. Your problem is thinking that in order to confirm “free” grace as free, we HAVE to accept it. How in the world does acceptance become the definition for free? It is NOT forced upon us, it is OFFERED FREELY to us. If someone wants to give me something for nothing, and I don’t take it from them, it’s still free isn’t it? Even if I didn’t take it?

Also, again, you want to force upon us this “by our OWN goodness or evilness”, even though we never said that.

This is very true. At the community college near here they are giving away free hygiene kits. They come with a bunch of coupons and travel sizes of products. Some people walk by and don’t take one. They are still free.

 

[bookgirl32]

I agree. The RCC teaches a humanistic man-centered view of salvation. According to Rome, Jesus doesn’t actually save anyone. He makes salvation POSSIBLE for everyone, but ultimately a person is only saved by using his or her “free” will to make the GOOD choice of accepting Jesus and by their GOOD cooperation with God. And since, according to Rome, we reject God by every mortal sin we commit, we come into grace or walk away from grace by our own goodness or evilness. It is a complete nullification of the biblical conception of FREE GRACE saving sinful mankind. If salvation is granted on the basis of our own worthiness it is certainly NOT FREE

I want to clarify something here. I did not, in my post above, mean to imply that Nick had a good understanding of how the Church teaches salvation, or that what he said was correct in anyway. I was just speaking of the part in the middle about us using our free will. Hope I didn’t offend anyone.

 

[ChrisWRIT]

Why the Catholic Church? Are you trusting in your church because of how long your church has been around?

Well, the fact the Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ is a bit more important than when he instituted it, but yes, that is a small part of it. But there are more reasons I trust it to help me understand the truth.

**1) **The Bible, supported by several outside sources (ECF’s, historians, etc.) shows that the Catholic Church is the one instituted by Christ.

**2) **Not only that, but the Catholic Church existed before the Bible did (specifically, the NT scriptures, if you want to pick nits.) Yes, the books of the NT were written between about 50-110 AD, but they were hardly universally available. (The Galations didn’t exactly fax St. Paul’s epistle to everyone in the vicinity to “spread the word”.) - No sarcasm intended!

**3) **The complete Bible (the entire canon) was revealed to the world by the Catholic Church in the 4th & 5th centuries. Yes, specific works were viewed as scripture by other parts of scripture, like some of Paul’s writings being held as authoritative by Peter, but this is of little wonder given that Peter knew Paul was an apostle who was preaching the same gospel. Not only were there inspired books that were universally thought to be inspired like Hebrews & Revelations), but several non-inspired works were thought to be so (like Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, the Apocalypse of Paul, & the Apocalypse of Peter.) It took the Catholic Church to reveal scripture in its entirety – not only what was to be included, but what was not to be.)

**4) **There is a great amount of scriptural evidence that there cannot be some vague, invisible church that can hold contradictory doctrines. I recommend you take 45 minutes to download & listen to a free mp3 talk on the subject of “One Church”, by by John Martignoni of the Bible Christian Society. biblechristiansociety.com/download/mp3/one_church.mp3

**5) **The teaching of the Catholic Church is not only the most consistent with scripture, but it is the most logical, coherent & complete body of doctrine that exists. The Protestant belief in private interpretation has only served to create endless division, which has resulted in the “merely” thousands of denominations (conservatively speaking) which claim different, contradictory & often mutually exclusive doctrines, all from “the Bible alone.”

The final point is the fact that the doctrine of “Scripture Alone” is self-refuting. What scripture is truly inspired of God cannot be found in the Bible.

Chris

 

[ChrisWRIT]

By Sean Boyle

By bookgirl32

AND – I’d still like to see your scriptural basis for predestination, the elect, etc.

There is no scriptural evidence for this. Try as he might, he’ll never be able to produce one.

This is incorrect. Predestination/election is supported by both Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition.

I understand how anyone, either Catholic or not, can fail to realize that the Catholic Church believes in predestination, it is a complex subject.

Predestination is mentioned in the Catechism in paragraphs (sometimes only implicitly) 257, 600, 1007, 2012, 2782, & 2823, although it is easier to understand when reading the writings on the subject by St. Augustine. (all of his writings can be obtained at newadvent.org/fathers/)).

Catholics are free to believe either the Thomistic or Molinistic theories about predestination, but NOT “double-predestination”, which claims that God actively destines anyone to hell.

I recommend anyone interested in learning about the Catholic perspective begin by reading the articles provided by Dave Armstrong at socrates58.blogspot.com/2008/03/catholic-predestination-molinism-and.html

Additionally, the Catholic Encyclopedia has an entry on predestination, but the site above provides a simpler presentation of the subject. newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

Chris