SPLIT: Once Saved Always Saved? (Revisited)

[Lisa44]

Aw, c’mon-that wasn’t a slap-you’ve been proselytizing as much as anyone else near as I can tell!

Quote me. This is news to me.

Feel free to keep insulting me as well.

 

[TinaG]

Hi, TinaG,

Now, I have a hunch your Calvinist preachers is on the side of OSAS … so, would you kindly explain how he reconciles this along with the ‘…act as if it is all up to you…’ part?

Thanks

God bless

I won’t presume to speak for him.

BUT my guess is that he would say we can only effectively act in a God-pleasing way by the power of the Holy Spirit, . It is not “all up to me” - there is a fundamental recognition that we are totally and completely dependent on God, Who is totally and completely trustworthy. We do what we see the Father doing. We do not act on our own strength or power. What we have been given we give back to God, and He in return gives us an overflowing superabundance of grace. We act out of latter, not out of ourselves.

IN CONTRAST what I hear Catholics say is that your good works are yours, not God working through you, and you are responsible for your own salvation. I hear this and think, tough on them, because the only one who could cut that mustard was Christ. IMHO that is no gospel, as that is a test we must all necessarily fail. Augustine said something along the lines that whatever we give God was His to begin with. I don’t see a recognition of that in what I am hearing from you.

-Tina “All Ears (Well, not anatomically speaking)” G

 

[fhansen]

Quote me. This is news to me.

Feel free to keep insulting me as well.

Sorry, my apologies; I’m surprised you’d take it as an insult- I didn’t know it was a secret but you’ve managed to support a decidedly non-Roman Catholic position for much of the thread. Does that offend you? Are you claiming otherwise?

 

[Lisa44]

Sorry, my apologies; I’m surprised you’d take it as an insult- I didn’t know it was a secret but you’ve managed to support a decidedly non-Roman Catholic position for much of the thread. Does that offend you? Are you claiming otherwise?

Again, quote me where I “proselytized” and where I supported a “decidedly non-Roman Catholic position for much of the thread.”

If you want to throw out wild claims about me please back them up.

 

[TinaG]

Hi, Unityof Trinity,

You know, St. Augustine believed in predestination AND FREE WILL - something that Calvin could not handle. Here are a couple of links that may be helpful:

newadvent.org/cathen/12378a.htm

romancatholicism.org/jansenism/predestination-ignorance.htm

I think the basic problem is that Calvin hijacked Augustine’s terms and then redefined them to fit with his revolt against the Catholic Church. What I think Calvin really meant was PRE-DETERMINED as opposed to predestined.

Look at what is being said. According to Calvin, from all eternity, God made souls that He would damn - no matter what they did! And, He also made souls who would be ‘The Elect’ no matter what they did. This is because they could not do anything because they simply lacked the capacity - they lacked the free will to make a choice for or against God. While Calvin (along with everyone else) can say that God can do what He wants - acting in such a manner as Calvin has described creates an arbitrary god with no sense of justice. Besides removing free will - we have this question of how Grace is to work in someone who is already pre-determined for damnation.

I think pre-determination is a more valid term and catches the sound and fury that Calvin wanted to convey.

God bless

Fallen man lacks the ability to turn to God on his own. Pelagianism, on the contrary, asserts that man has that ability. You will deduce that my first sentence is fully Catholic.

Everyone, on their own, turns from God and thus deserve the full hellfire and brimstone treatment as they incur the wrath of the righteous God.

God in His mercy select some and rescues them from the coming wrath.

We say that those God selects are the “saved”: chosen and elect, beloved, etc.

I think you are with me so far.

Now, about those He does NOT select for salvation: when they are passed over for selection, is that not a form of selection also, since there are only two classes of people, those who will wind up blessed, and those who will wind up damned? I think the CC does not go that far, but Calvin does. The logic seems to impel the assertion that those who go to hell are positively chosen for that destiny, and, thus, logically, were created to do so. Paul seems to say as much in Romans 9.14-33, which I am really curious about how you interpret it any other way. I think Augustine refused to take that logic that far.

So, where am I at on this? I will admit that the logic goes there, but I am not willing to follow it, as it seems to go into human reasoning, and we should stop at the literal language of Romans 9 as the limit of what we know and do a “where the Scripture is silent, let me be silent as well” and admit that human reasoning can be flawed. We don’t know, but it is suggestive. So I will stop with what I think A of H said and neither backtrack and refuse to address whether God COULD do this or that He DID do this. I know what Scripture says and I do not want to contradict it, however tempting it is for me to force God into my image of Who He is rather than deal with Him on His sometimes frightening terms.

-Tina “And God is Awesome” G

 

[Philthy]

Being fallen, we will NEVER choose God on our own to begin with. That was what the whole Pelagian thing was about. To Protestant ears you come close to Pelagianism with this. We need prevenient grace to seek God, to ask Him for help, to be willing to change, to be willing to be sanctified. Without grace there is no movement toward God. God has to supply us with the will and the perserverance and the power to make it to heaven. We cannot do it on our own.

I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as “you come close to Pelagianism with this”. Paul said nothing to imply that we would choose God apart from grace, nor does the CC teach so, nor does he imply that our efforts ALONE can lead us to Heaven. Being able to merit Heaven based on our own efforts and nothing else is what Pelagianism was about.

So if we “make it to heaven” it is all His action.

This is simply not true and, even if it were, it would be meaningless to articulate. There is plenty of Scripture to refute the “its all God” notion. Now it is certainly true that nothing that has salvific consequence is accomplished apart from God, or to phrase it another way, that God is active in all aspects of salvation, but both of those statements are significantly different than the “its all God” mantra.

To Catholic ears I think that probably sounds like spiritual passivity: I can lie around and if God chooses to save me He will.

That would be an entirely rational conclusion based on your articulation above: it’s ALL His action.

Rather, the act of crying out to God for help and a sense of desperation of one’s own sinfulness are both the results of prevenient grace. Any cooperation we have is Him operating in us to accomplish it.

But some who receive “prevenient grace” (nowhere articulated in Scripture) will NOT cooperate, will NOT cry out. Others receiving the same grace will cry out and cooperate. And what - exactly - separates those that do and those that do not Tina? Is that something God alone or is that something involving the individual?? Catholics maintain that it is the individual who, in the mysterious place called the conscience where grace and free will meet, chooses whether to repent and cooperate or to reject God.

When one falls, in the Catholic system, one is told to get up again. Likewise in the Reformed system. You can only get up by the grace of God.

But one can also choose to not get up Tina - despite the “grace of God”, and hence the reason why both Reformed and Catholics say, “Get up!” You appear to have created a straw man of the Catholic faith: that man can repent and follow Christ apart from grace…you are mistaken. And when you realize how close your alleged “Reformed” position is to the Catholic faith you will begin to wonder why such theological reform was needed. It wasnt the reason the deform occurred is because the original “Reformed” position was different than the one you are espousing.

Blessings

 

[fhansen]

Again, quote me where I “proselytized” and where I supported a “decidedly non-Roman Catholic position for much of the thread.”

If you want to throw out wild claims about me please back them up.

No thanks, If you’re not sure what you think, let alone what you wrote, I won’t go back and do your homework for you. The OSAS position, for one, is not RC, and neither is the denial of free will in our justification, nor is the related notion that we can’t be saved and then lose salvation. You’ve been supporting your beliefs with scripture in the same vein as most Protestants do and I’m not criticizing it-everyone here is free to have and share their opinions. Anyway here’s from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52

2002 God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of “eternal life” respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:
If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed “very good” since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.52

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;620 for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:621

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

980 It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church:
Penance has rightly been called by the holy Fathers “a laborious kind of baptism.” This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn.52**5

Study.

 

[TinaG]

Let me look at these things one point at a time:

I’m not sure what you’re talking about as far as “you come close to Pelagianism with this”.

Perhaps I was unclear, or you are being charitable. Or both.

Paul said nothing to imply that we would choose God apart from grace, nor does the CC teach so, nor does he imply that our efforts ALONE can lead us to Heaven.

I think we are in agreement here.

Being able to merit Heaven based on our own efforts and nothing else is what Pelagianism was about.

My understanding is that Pelagianism regarded grace as unnecessary but helpful assistance. In P. you can get to heaven on your own steam.

I think you are arguing that my position is some sort of overreaction to P’ism.

This is simply not true and, even if it were, it would be meaningless to articulate. There is plenty of Scripture to refute the “its all God” notion. Now it is certainly true that nothing that has salvific consequence is accomplished apart from God, or to phrase it another way, that God is active in all aspects of salvation, but both of those statements are significantly different than the “its all God” mantra.

This may be what this thread whittles down to when the non-essential is stripped away. There is plenty of Scripture to affirm the “It’s all God” notion as well.

I would argue that the IAG notion does not exclude human cooperation or synergy - but only within an overarching monergism. God implements our ability to cooperate. There are such things as secondary agents with free will who nonetheless cooperate both freely and obediently.

That would be an entirely rational conclusion based on your articulation above: it’s ALL His action.

Ok.

But some who receive “prevenient grace” (nowhere articulated in Scripture)…

Good point. I had not thought of that and I should have.

…will NOT cooperate, will NOT cry out. Others receiving the same grace will cry out and cooperate. And what - exactly - separates those that do and those that do not Tina? Is that something God alone or is that something involving the individual?? Catholics maintain that it is the individual who, in the mysterious place called the conscience where grace and free will meet, chooses whether to repent and cooperate or to reject God.

It is something God does in the individual. Grace is only really grace if it brings the sinner all the way home. But then, I think this is what this thread is all about.

You appear to have created a straw man of the Catholic faith: that man can repent and follow Christ apart from grace.

Sorry I was reflecting back what I thought I was hearing from some of the Catholics on this thread.

deform

Cute. Or was that a typo?

the original “Reformed” position was different than the one you are espousing

I would maintain the original “Reformed” position is what Paul preached, what Peter preached, etc. We have a more profound understanding of it today than we had 500 years ago. Catholics defend doctrinal development as, well, doctrinal development. Perhaps the CC will develop its doctrine to be sophisticated enough to match MY theology.

-Tina “Going for the Gold” G

 

[fhansen]

**1993 Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight.42 **

 

[paul_c]

I think you may be selling the Catholic Church’s position on predestination short.

See
vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/

which states that “unconditional election” is a fully Catholic view.

This is elegantly stated:
stjohn17v20-21.com/predes01.htm

and then there is this:
catechism.cc/articles/predestination-salvation.htm

-Tina “Picky” G

If you read all three of these links, you would know that they describe the Catholic view exactly as did. There is “unconditional election” which means some people are destined for heaven. But there is no unconditional reprobation. ie., no one is predestined to hell and every one has a real chance at salvation. To quote Blessed John Paul II from the third of your three links above:

Salvation is universal in that it is offered to all human persons. But this offer is not merely theoretical. Salvation is concretely available to all persons. The grace of Christ in the Spirit enables each person to obtain eternal life by free cooperation with grace. For “Christ died for all men,” not only for some (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).

 

[paul_c]

Being fallen, we will NEVER choose God on our own to begin with. That was what the whole Pelagian thing was about. To Protestant ears you come close to Pelagianism with this. We need prevenient grace to seek God, to ask Him for help, to be willing to change, to be willing to be sanctified. Without grace there is no movement toward God. God has to supply us with the will and the perserverance and the power to make it to heaven. We cannot do it on our own.

So if we “make it to heaven” it is all His action. To Catholic ears I think that probably sounds like spiritual passivity: I can lie around and if God chooses to save me He will. Rather, the act of crying out to God for help and a sense of desperation of one’s own sinfulness are both the results of prevenient grace. Any cooperation we have is Him operating in us to accomplish it.

When one falls, in the Catholic system, one is told to get up again. Likewise in the Reformed system. You can only get up by the grace of God.

-Tina “Musing” G

In the Catholic view, God continually calls to all men. To go to heaven, man must answer yes by partaking of the sacraments and doing God’s will. It is all made possible by God, but when man answers affirmatively, there is merit in that as well.

 

[paul_c]

I won’t presume to speak for him.

BUT my guess is that he would say we can only effectively act in a God-pleasing way by the power of the Holy Spirit, . It is not “all up to me” - there is a fundamental recognition that we are totally and completely dependent on God, Who is totally and completely trustworthy. We do what we see the Father doing. We do not act on our own strength or power. What we have been given we give back to God, and He in return gives us an overflowing superabundance of grace. We act out of latter, not out of ourselves.

IN CONTRAST what I hear Catholics say is that your good works are yours, not God working through you, and you are responsible for your own salvation. I hear this and think, tough on them, because the only one who could cut that mustard was Christ. IMHO that is no gospel, as that is a test we must all necessarily fail. Augustine said something along the lines that whatever we give God was His to begin with. I don’t see a recognition of that in what I am hearing from you.

-Tina “All Ears (Well, not anatomically speaking)” G

Unfortunately, you are not understanding the Catholic view properly. Our good works are given to us by Jesus to do. They are His works but we are called to do them. If we answer the call and cooperate with his grace, there IS merit. When we fail there is demerit. Remember, when you cooperate, both parties get credit…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

I only got to one of the links (the 3rd one) you provided - and it was excellent!

Since some may have trouble getting to it … I copied and pasted a small section for consideration. Again, thank you for the link:

It is a heresy against the justice of God to imply that some persons cannot possibly avoid the sin of final impenitence, and yet are condemned to eternal punishment for that sin. And this heretical claim is also contrary to the teaching of our Lord, who explained that those who are justly sent to Hell are being punished for their own free choices in life:

[Matthew]
{25:41} Then he shall also say, to those who will be on his left: ‘Depart from me, you accursed ones, into the eternal fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels.
{25:42} For I was hungry, and you did not give me to eat; I was thirsty, and you did not give me to drink;
{25:43} I was a stranger and you did not take me in; naked, and you did not cover me; sick and in prison, and you did not visit me.’
{25:44} Then they will also answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
{25:45} Then he shall respond to them by saying: ‘Amen I say to you, whenever you did not do it to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.’
{25:46} And these shall go into eternal punishment, but the just shall go into eternal life."

They were able to choose to act with love of God and neighbor; therefore, their condemnation is just. Jesus taught that condemnation in Hell is a result of the life that you choose to live, not a result of some kind of mysterious inexplicable passive omission from predestination to Hell.

catechism.cc/articles/predestination-salvation.htm

God bless

I think you may be selling the Catholic Church’s position on predestination short.

See
vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/

which states that “unconditional election” is a fully Catholic view.

This is elegantly stated:
stjohn17v20-21.com/predes01.htm

and then there is this:
catechism.cc/articles/predestination-salvation.htm

-Tina “Picky” G

 

[Philthy]

Everyone, on their own, turns from God and thus deserve the full hellfire and brimstone treatment as they incur the wrath of the righteous God. God in His mercy selects some and rescues them from the coming wrath. We say that those God selects are the “saved”
I think you are with me so far.

Not really. You imply there are those who God does not “select” to receive prevenient grace. I don’t believe in that - I believe God, through Christ, has selected all men to receive His grace.

Now, about those He does NOT select for salvation: when they are passed over for selection, is that not a form of selection also, since there are only two classes of people, those who will wind up blessed, and those who will wind up damned? I think the CC does not go that far, but Calvin does. The logic seems to impel the assertion that those who go to hell are positively chosen for that destiny, and, thus, logically, were created to do so.

It is a conclusion that is not definitively established from Scripture, but which is easily refuted by much of Scripture - like all of it. There is no need for Scripture if some are randomly “elected” and who will be saved based upon nothing but God’s whim.

Paul seems to say as much in Romans 9.14-33, which I am really curious about how you interpret it any other way. I think Augustine refused to take that logic that far.

I refuse to take it that far as well. Paul does not actually say that God created anyone for an “ignoble purpose”, but he is making the point, Who are WE to question God?
I think that is his main point. God is Sovereign and we don’t have all the information or wisdom that He has. And so Paul is saying, Who are we to question God’s ways?
v14 What then are we to say? Is there injustice on the part of God? Of course not!
God is perfectly just
v15 For he says to Moses: “I will show mercy to whom I will,
I will take pity on whom I will.” v16 So it depends not upon a person’s will or exertion, but upon God, who shows mercy.
Please note that this does not state that God does not have mercy on everyone ( especially everyone born after the Resurrection). It simply says that it is His Will, and not their exertion, which determines whether someone is shown mercy. Agreed?
v 17 For the scripture says to Pharaoh, “This is why I have raised you up, to show my power through you that my name may be proclaimed throughout the earth. Consequently, he has mercy upon whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills.
Does this verse speak of salvation at all? If it does, is it meant to be extrapolated to lots of different people or is Pharaoh a relatively unique individual among mankind that God used? We really don’t know. All we can say is that apart from God’s Will to show mercy, there will be no mercy.
v 19-21You will say to me then, “Why (then) does he still find fault? For who can oppose his will?” But who indeed are you, a human being, to talk back to God?r Will what is made say to its maker, “Why have you created me so?” Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for a noble purpose and another for an ignoble one?
Again, Paul has not said that anyone has actually been mad for an ignoble purpose, and certainly doesnt say anyone has been made for damnation, he is saying that we - mere humans - have no right to question God’s Sovereignty in deciding whom God shows mercy to.
What if God, wishing to show his wrath and make known his power, has endured with much patience the vessels of wrath made for destruction?s 23This was to make known the riches of his glory to the vessels of mercy, which he has prepared previously for glory, 24namely, us whom he has called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles.
And it is this series of verses which prompted me to include the concept above that everyone after the Resurrection has been “chosen” by God to be a vessel of mercy - we all have that available to us. It also seems to really be a return to his larger message in Romans: salvation is for Jews and non-Jews (Greeks, pagans, etc). The fact that he concludes this section with a return to that main idea gives a hint that that is really where he was going with all this section more than addressing the issue, “Does God create some people for eternal damnation?”
Ultimately it’s unclear from these verses alone. Certainly the fact that the same author of this letter speaks to the Ephesians, Galatians and Corinthians about the gifts of the holy spirit they have received and then later about behaviour that they can choose to participate with that jeopardizes their salvation is a strong indication that Paul didn’t believe that some were simply chosen while others were not in the sense that Reformed theologians suggest.

So, where am I at on this? I will admit that the logic goes there, but I am not willing to follow it, as it seems to go into human reasoning, and we should stop at the literal language of Romans 9 as the limit of what we know and do a “where the Scripture is silent, let me be silent as well” and admit that human reasoning can be flawed. We don’t know, but it is suggestive. So I will stop with what I think A of H said and neither backtrack and refuse to address whether God COULD do this or that He DID do this. I know what Scripture says and I do not want to contradict it, however tempting it is for me to force God into my image of Who He is rather than deal with Him on His sometimes frightening terms.

I think this is a wise choice on your part, and unfortunately one Calvin apparently didn’t share.

 

[paul_c]

Fallen man lacks the ability to turn to God on his own. Pelagianism, on the contrary, asserts that man has that ability. You will deduce that my first sentence is fully Catholic.

Everyone, on their own, turns from God and thus deserve the full hellfire and brimstone treatment as they incur the wrath of the righteous God.

God in His mercy select some and rescues them from the coming wrath.

We say that those God selects are the “saved”: chosen and elect, beloved, etc.

I think you are with me so far.

Now, about those He does NOT select for salvation: when they are passed over for selection, is that not a form of selection also, since there are only two classes of people, those who will wind up blessed, and those who will wind up damned? I think the CC does not go that far, but Calvin does. The logic seems to impel the assertion that those who go to hell are positively chosen for that destiny, and, thus, logically, were created to do so. Paul seems to say as much in Romans 9.14-33, which I am really curious about how you interpret it any other way. I think Augustine refused to take that logic that far.

So, where am I at on this? I will admit that the logic goes there, but I am not willing to follow it, as it seems to go into human reasoning, and we should stop at the literal language of Romans 9 as the limit of what we know and do a “where the Scripture is silent, let me be silent as well” and admit that human reasoning can be flawed. We don’t know, but it is suggestive. So I will stop with what I think A of H said and neither backtrack and refuse to address whether God COULD do this or that He DID do this. I know what Scripture says and I do not want to contradict it, however tempting it is for me to force God into my image of Who He is rather than deal with Him on His sometimes frightening terms.

-Tina “And God is Awesome” G

God selects some specifically for salvation and lets the rest decide for themselves. All have the opportunity for salvation…

Pelagius said that people could attain to heaven without God. Catholics don’t say that. We need God to open the door for us, which he does. and then we have to decide to enter through that narrow gate rather than take the wide, easy road that leads to condemnation.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

Would you kindly clarify this idea with some actual reference links?

Thanks.

God bless

I would maintain the original “Reformed” position is what Paul preached, what Peter preached, etc. We have a more profound understanding of it today than we had 500 years ago. Catholics defend doctrinal development as, well, doctrinal development. Perhaps the CC will develop its doctrine to be sophisticated enough to match MY theology.

-Tina “Going for the Gold” G

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

You are correct. John Calvin went to his eternal reward… So, talking about him (like he is still around) is a bit problematic if we want to be pracical about this.

But your request creates its own problems, too. Calvin is singular in the sense that he is one man with a set of published works that can be read and discussed. With over 40,000+ Protestant denominations - I do not have a clue on who is doing what with any of Calvin’s published works.

While sounding reasonable to talk about what is going on today - Protestantism is really all over the place when it comes to doctrine - and I would simply not know where to begin. Additionally, how could someone with any knowledge of any theological topic comment on one of the 40,000+ groups. In my judgment, this is an impossible task.

God bless

Hi!

I’m thinking about rejoining this debate, but with certain understandings.

For one thing, John Calvin is not here. You are not debating with John Calvin but with people now alive. I, for one, do not regard that theologian as some sort of pope. I get the idea that people think that if you attack him, you will somehow convert us to Catholicism. It just does not work that way.

For another, one can believe in free will AND predestination. The “Calvinists” I know affirm both, as a mystery. They reject roboticism as hyperCalvinism. See monergism.com/directory/link_category/Bad-Theology/HyperCalvinism/. for your information, education and inspiration.

You are spending a lot of time attacking hyperCalvinism, not the real deal.

-Tina “Also Somewhat Mysterious” G"

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

Did you think that maybe … you were actually in agreement with them!

God bless

Extreme patience is called for in just hearing out the other side. I have been surprised that Catholics, once you get past the language barrier, are in agreement with me on a number of issues. But at first glance things are not so.

-Tina “Gotta Go!”

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TinaG,

If this is the case … then, I would say you have been listening to Catholics who have drifted from the teachings of the Catholic Church. There are many individuals - with thoroughly investigated lives - who lived to fulfill the Love of Chrsit to others - and gave all credit to God. Here is an interesting link about St. John of the Cross, whose feast day was just a few days ago: doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/JC.html

God bless

IN CONTRAST what I hear Catholics say is that your good works are yours, not God working through you, and you are responsible for your own salvation. I hear this and think, tough on them, because the only one who could cut that mustard was Christ. IMHO that is no gospel, as that is a test we must all necessarily fail. Augustine said something along the lines that whatever we give God was His to begin with. I don’t see a recognition of that in what I am hearing from you.

-Tina “All Ears (Well, not anatomically speaking)” G

 

[Michael_Francis]

Discuss/debate the topic…not each other.npatrol: