Starting to agree with Martin Luther

[StTommyMore]

Paul did indeed “just go off on his own.” He didn’t visit the head of the church for three years. See Paul’s words below:

But when the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I could preach him among the Gentiles, I did not go to ask advice from any human being, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before me, but right away I departed to Arabia, and then returned to Damascus.

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and get information from him, and I stayed with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. I assure you that, before God, I am not lying about what I am writing to you! Afterward I went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. But I was personally unknown to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. They were only hearing, “The one who once persecuted us is now proclaiming the good news of the faith he once tried to destroy.” So they glorified God because of me.​

Actually he did not. Paul had his conversion on the road to Damascus, was catechized in Damascus, and shortly thereafter saw was approved as a minister by the Apostles in Jerusalem. It is the 9th chapter of Acts.

 

[Utmost]

Actually he did not. Paul had his conversion on the road to Damascus, was catechized in Damascus, and shortly thereafter saw was approved as a minister by the Apostles in Jerusalem. It is the 9th chapter of Acts.

I guess it is unclear the time span between verses 25 and 26 of Acts 9 as to when he went to Jerusalem. But Paul himself says in Galatians 1 that it was three years. There is nothing unclear in Galatians as to the timing.

Paul did immediately start preaching the Gospel though before going to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20).

I don’t see him being approved. Yes, there was a large credibility issue with him, because of his previous history, that was resolved.

 

[StTommyMore]

I guess it is unclear the time span between verses 25 and 26 of Acts 9 as to when he went to Jerusalem. But Paul himself says in Galatians 1 that it was three years. There is nothing unclear in Galatians as to the timing.

Paul did immediately start preaching the Gospel though before going to Jerusalem (Acts 9:20).

I don’t see him being approved. Yes, there was a large credibility issue with him, because of his previous history, that was resolved.

If is taken in the context of the whole book, it seems highly unlikely that there s a 3 year gap between those 2 verses. But at the same time, he was still catechized before any preaching was done, by the disciples in Damascus.

 

[Utmost]

Actually he did not. Paul had his conversion on the road to Damascus, was catechized in Damascus, and shortly thereafter saw was approved as a minister by the Apostles in Jerusalem. It is the 9th chapter of Acts.

It wasn’t until 14 years(!) later that James, Cephas and John recognized the grace that had been given to Paul (see Gal 2:1, 6-10).

He didn’t obtain this recognition for his own benefit but (I think) for the unity of the church. He says in Gal 2:6 that he didn’t care much about influential leaders.

 

[StTommyMore]

It wasn’t until 14 years(!) later that James, Cephas and John recognized the grace that had been given to Paul (see Gal 2:1, 6-10).

He didn’t obtain this recognition for his own benefit but (I think) for the unity of the church. He says in Gal 2:6 that he didn’t care much about influential leaders.

He was catechized immediately in Damascus. It is very clear in Acts 9. Paul did not go off half-cocked. He had the ecclesiastical approval from Ananias. He was not some kind of “lone wolf” doing as he saw fit. He also did not deny the Apostles of repute any honor.

 

[Utmost]

If is taken in the context of the whole book, it seems highly unlikely that there s a 3 year gap between those 2 verses. But at the same time, he was still catechized before any preaching was done, by the disciples in Damascus.

Do you mean baptized or catechized? I’m not sure what you mean by catechized. Do you mean instruction in principles of Christianity? Paul probably knew more about God then almost everyone (Gal 1:14). All he was missing was “the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me” (Gal 1:15).

 

[StTommyMore]

Do you mean baptized or catechized? I’m not sure what you mean by catechized. Do you mean instruction in principles of Christianity? Paul probably knew more about God then almost everyone (Gal 1:14). All he was missing was “the one who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace was pleased to reveal his Son in me” (Gal 1:15).

Catechesis is “instruction.” Paul was a humble man of God, in fact he considered himself “least among the Apostles.” He would not have gone off on his own without ecclesiastical approval. Even if he did, he was a unique case. He had a vision of the Lord. Paul had gifts non of us can claim. Paul was submissive to the Church on all accounts.

 

[Utmost]

He was catechized immediately in Damascus. It is very clear in Acts 9. Paul did not go off half-cocked. He had the ecclesiastical approval from Ananias. He was not some kind of “lone wolf” doing as he saw fit. He also did not deny the Apostles of repute any honor.

Certainly I agree that Paul did not go off half-cocked and that he was not some kind of “lone wolf”. And also I agree that he did not deny the Apostles any honor. But it is not the Church that made it that way.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is Jesus Christ and God the Father and not men, nor human agency (Gal 1:1). That is what makes one a child of God (and in Paul’s case, an apostle).

That I think was the point that the OP was questioning about.

… Does one really need “the church” to have a relationship with almighty God? Does Jesus Christ not speak to the individual as well? Does he not comfort and support and did he die for the sins of all people? Lately I feel the Catholic hands out memberships to whom they see fit to be a believer. If you are baptized, are you not a believer? If you confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior, does he not become your personal savior and reside in your heart forever? I love God and I love the CHurch but the fact that I cannot be a member until other men say it is my time…I don’t think that is what Jesus wanted. He wants men to come to him as they are when they are ready to receive him. Or Is it when other men have decided you are ready to receive him, then you are ready? …

 

[StTommyMore]

Certainly I agree that Paul did not go off half-cocked and that he was not some kind of “lone wolf”. And also I agree that he did not deny the Apostles any honor. But it is not the Church that made it that way.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that it is Jesus Christ and God the Father and not men, nor human agency (Gal 1:1). That is what makes one a child of God (and in Paul’s case, an apostle).

That I think was the point that the OP was questioning about.

The Church is not a human agency.

 

[Utmost]

Catechesis is “instruction.” Paul was a humble man of God, in fact he considered himself “least among the Apostles.” He would not have gone off on his own without ecclesiastical approval. Even if he did, he was a unique case. He had a vision of the Lord. Paul had gifts non of us can claim. Paul was submissive to the Church on all accounts.

Paul was submissive to *God *on all accounts, not to the Church. I think there is a difference between these two. Paul makes it clear that did not need approval from any human being (Gal 1:16). I agree that he is unique (since he was one of the apostles) and a special case.

Question: If Paul was submissive to the Church, would he have rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11)? Is one allowed (or is there a process) where one can address issues where Church leadership is doing things outside the will of God?

 

[StTommyMore]

Paul was submissive to *God *on all accounts, not to the Church. I think there is a difference between these two. Paul makes it clear that did not need approval from any human being (Gal 1:16). I agree that he is unique (since he was one of the apostles) and a special case.

Question: If Paul was submissive to the Church, would he have rebuked Peter (Gal 2:11)? Is one allowed (or is there a process) where one can address issues where Church leadership is doing things outside the will of God?

One cannot be submissive to God without being submissive to the Church. The Pope (which Peter was) is not without sin, or incapable of sin. As a layman, it is not my place to rebuke anyone. St. Paul was an Apostle, and only the Apostles and their successors have that kind of authority.

 

[Utmost]

The Church is not a human agency.

Who then is Paul writing about in Gal 1:1 and Gal 2:6?

Who was Ananias? Was he Church leadership? Or was Ananias just a servant of God?

Why (14 years later) does Paul get approval from James, Cephas, and John (Gal 2:9) if he already had the Church’s approval from Ananias?

I think Paul is making the case for *God *and not Church.

Paul is laying out all this out in Galatians because he is proving that he is one of the apostles and does not need the approval of the Church.

Getting back to the OP’s questions. One does not need the Church to be saved, but one does need the Church to live your life here on earth.

 

[Utmost]

… St. Paul was an Apostle, and only the Apostles and their successors have that kind of authority.

Why does Paul go through such lengths to show that he is one of the Apostles appointed by God? He could easily have just been appointed as a successor of the Apostles. (I guess this is really another big topic for another day. But your post got me thinking about this topic again.)

One cannot be submissive to God without being submissive to the Church. The Pope (which Peter was) is not without sin, or incapable of sin. As a layman, it is not my place to rebuke anyone. …

Anyone? Matt 18:15-17 Maybe you mean rebuking anyone in the Church hierarchy? A guess discussion also bears on what one means by Church.

Back to the original question (or related). Can one be saved outside of the Church? I believe it is God who saves and not the Church.

 

[StTommyMore]

Why does Paul go through such lengths to show that he is one of the Apostles appointed by God? He could easily have just been appointed as a successor of the Apostles. (I guess this is really another big topic for another day. But your post got me thinking about this topic again.)

Anyone? Matt 18:15-17 Maybe you mean rebuking anyone in the Church hierarchy? A guess discussion also bears on what one means by Church.

Back to the original question (or related). Can one be saved outside of the Church? I believe it is God who saves and not the Church.

Yes it is God who saves through the Church. The circumstances upon which one can or cannot be saved is wholly dependent on the knowledge they have been given. The more you know, the more you are responsible for.

 

[guanophore]

I was a Catholic for the first 25 years of my life.

Clearly not a very well educated Catholic.

If you are not born Catholic you must go through training to be accepted as an adult in order to become a member. It is similar to the Episcopal Church. You cant be an official member unless you learn the rules. The difference between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches (like the Episcopal Church… which I use only as one example), as far as I can figure, is that Catholics sincerely believe that salvation can only be attained through membership in the Catholic Church … In most other Churches it is accepted a person can be a Christian that is already saved (who has personally asked Jesus to be the Savior and Lord of their life) … The Catholic Church believes you cant have salvation without membership in the church… except under very rare circumstances.

It seems clear that you have a misunderstanding about the Catholic understanding of Church and salvation.

Catholics believe that we can only be saved by Christ - that there is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. Therefore, all who are saved are saved by His blood, shed upon the cross for our sins.

Those who are “in Christ” are automatically made members of His One Body, the Church. Jesus does not separate Himself from His Church, therefore, salvation cannot be separated from Him, and His Holy Bride.

There are distinct differences between the salvation as described in the Bible and the Catholic concept of salvation.

No. The Bible is a Catholic book. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. There is no contradiction between the Teaching of the Church, and the writings produced by that Church (the New Testament).

The only “difference” lies in your perceptions.

Peter, in the book of Acts, tells 3000 people the way to become a Christian on Pentecost ... Peter simply said from the moment you repent and give your heart to Jesus you have the assurance of salvation ... (repentance is a determined decision to turn from sin and follow Jesus' teachings ... and then following through) ... the follow through is crucial .. salvation is **now** in Peter's message.

There is nothing in this passage at all about “assurance of salvation”. He instructs them on how to embrace the hope and promise of salvation.

Catholics believe that there is no real way to know for sure if you are really saved even if you are a good Catholic… you just have to keep striving and hoping that your good deeds outweigh the bad deeds and you have enough indulgences in your favor so you dont have to spend too much time in purgaatory … or better yet, none at all … and most Catholics are very uncomfortable with the concept of salvation as understood by non Catholics…

This proves my case that you were not well catechized in your faith.

The Apostles taught that salvation is not attained in this life, but as long as we are in the flesh, we can fall from grace.

The Catholic Church DOES NOT TEACH that we can be saved by works, or that salvation has anything to do with good works outweighing the bad. I am sorry you were misinformed about the Catholic faith, but please don’t compound the problem by spreading these kinds of lies.

I don’t think there is any way you can support your last statement at all. In fact, I think that most Catholics don’t even know about the heresies of Calvin and the other Reformers, to be “uncomfortable” about them.

they think that the concept of ‘knowing in your heart that you are saved by the blood of Jesus’ … is a sin of presumption.

No, 1voice. This is another falsehood. The verses that are written about this in scripture were written by, for, and about Catholics.

I am glad you believe them, though.

Catholics dont believe in the concept of salvation in the same way as other Christians.

This is an awfully blanket statement. There are many aspects of salvation that we share in common with our separated brethren.

They believe that membership as well as following Catholic teachings are what can lead to salvation

I am not sure what you mean by “membership” here, but Scripture is clear that those who have been baptized into Christ are members of Him, and of one another in His One Body, the Church.

Catholic teachings come from Jesus, through the Apostles. Why would such teachings not lead to Life?

… but they give no guarantee such as this statement in the Bible … ‘If you confess with your mouth and believe in your heart that Jesus Christ is Lord you will be saved’

LOL. Again, written by a Catholic, for Catholics.

I guess they did not explain to you in CCD where your bible came from, did they? I am sorry. I hope that you will be able to learn the truth of your faith.

You are not alone, a great many of us were poorly catechized. I have learned more about my faith since I came to CAF than I learned in all the decades previous.

 

[guanophore]

If a Catholic leaves the Catholic Church for another Christian church … can he take his salvation with him?

An interesting question, based upon a false premise. You are misinformed about the nature of salvation.

So ex Catholics who choose another expression of their Christian faith can only be immoral or seduced … and lose their salvation?

He just said he has never met any other kind. That does not mean they don’t exist.

In your case, it seems to have started with poor catechesis?

It is not possible to lose something that one does not yet posess. Since we are not united with our heavenly inheritance until the end of this life, it is not really possible to “lose” it. It is possible, of course, to fall from grace through immorality and seduction, but as long as we are still in this flesh, we can return to His grace.

 

[rturner76]

Ephesians 1 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace

Ephesians 2: 4 But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5 made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

Ephesians 2:8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

Hebrews 2:9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

**James **4:7 Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

Everyone knows the Bible quotes can go on and on and on. The point I’m trying to make is that in all these and many many many more passages, we look to God, we look to Jeses, to the cross. Not to the Priest, or the Bishop for our actual salvation. I believe they are here to teach us the true way of God and give sacraments. I don’t think it is for them to decide who should receive them and who should not, when, and how. When I come, I am asking the Lord Jesus for HIS body and HIS blood. Who is “The Church”, to keep it from me until whomever feels I am educated enough to receive it (or maybe if I put forth my tithe early this season). I know what Holy Communion is and what it means and I deserve it like any other sinner looking for redemption. That is how I feel when time and time again, I go to Mass and I must watch others receive the sacrament and because classes are not being offered right now, I am not allowed even to confess my sins and be forgiven. If the case is I am not allowd until I finish class then class should be all the time or they turn away the very souls they are supposed to be bringing to Christ. Remember seek and you will find ask and you will receive knock and the door will be opened unto you (after RCIA and me and the Priest and teachers decide you have learned enough out of the book that is NOT the Bible). It makes me feel like Luther. Keep your stuff that you save only for certain people, I’ll go to God myself like it says in the Bible. I can go to God as soon as I am baptized with all my prayers. I love the Catholic Church but they need to bring the people in that want to be in. Why is the Church Dying? Why are there no priests? I wonder…

 

[guanophore]

I know this is off subject but we have a few catholic’s coming to our church.We are a small church in the country (300-400) that is loving/caring and a close family…One is a man
who befriended our pastor and came to visit…We have ministry time during the service andnHe went up for prayer and God did some miraculous work in His life…The man was lit on fire for the Lord, so much so that it affected his whole catholic family…The all work together running a grocery store…The whole family has visited the church twice now…

Glory to God. :extrahappy::dancing::clapping:

 

[guanophore]

There is no other reasion that a Catholci would leave. People seeking Truth enter the Catholic Church…they never leave.

I was poorly catechized just like 1voice. I was spiritually starving, and went in search of Truth. I fell in with Baptists, who taught me to read scripture. Long story short, I sojourned among our separated brethren for over 20 years before I was able to study my way back.

I guess you could say I was "seduced’, but it was a desire for a pure faith - one that was lived by those who claimed to espouse it. I did not see that when I was growing up, nor was I well taught through CCD.

Are the Eastern Orthodox Christians immoral or seduced?

No, they have retained the vast majority of Catholicity, have valid Sacraments, and valid Holy Orders.

Have you considered becoming Orthodox?

 

[guanophore]

… So, Jesus promised to be in the midst of those two or three that gather in his name only if they are Roman Catholics?

Catholicism is not “Roman”, 1voice.

Yes, He was speaking to His disciples at that point. Not just any 2 or 3, but members of His One Body, the Church.

Those who are not Catholic have rejected part of the Apostolic faith. Each denomination is defined by how much, and which, of the Apostolic doctrines they reject.

My family had a similar experience many years ago now… My Dad (he will be 90 this year), had been a Catholic all his life. He caught the fire of the Holy Spirit in his mid forties. He was invited to an Episcopal conference by one of my brothers and he said afterward … that he had never been taught that it was possible to have a personal relationship with Jesus and really expect the Holy Spirit to come alive inside. He said that he knew for the first time that Jesus’ love is real and he is a real, live Savior that loved him dearly and personally. He was deeply and dramatically touched by God . From that day on he began to change into a new man with a ravenous hunger for God’s word… and the entire family was affected and blessed. Even my large clan of (Catholic) cousins who had known him all their lives and openly disliked him in the past were startled at the changes that they saw in him. It was literally like the change that happened to Scrooge at the end of the Christmas story. He became very active in a little Pentecostal church. After retiring he went to Bible school and then went on multiple mission trips to Peru… traveling up the Amazon to the villages and helping to establish a school for Pastors in the city of Iquitos. He is still vibrant and loves the word of God and his relationship with his Father in Heaven through Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Having known my Dad before and after … I witnessed an absolute miracle.

What an awesome story! I had a similar experience in the Pentecostal circles and later came back to the Catholic Church through the Charismatic Renewal. If not for that, I am not sure I would have made it back. Sometimes I really wonder how people stay Catholic without this Holy Fire.