THe proverbial Protestant "Silver Bullet"

[Lisa4Catholics]

Lisa4Catholics:

Something you said strikes me as strange,God Chooses who will be saved,yes He is the judge,but when you say people do not choose to be saved I do not understand what you are saying God’s grace is freely given,correct?If you refuse God’s grace you are choosing not to be saved,you are choosing against God.If our cooperation in God’s grace is not neccesary then why is it important to evangelise?Why worship God?What is the point?Do you believe that God predestines people to hell?I am trying to figure out where you are going with this

Please answer and clarify this stingray

 

[Stingray]

Church Militant:

Naw…as opposed to the original Christians and their 2,000 years old offspring…the Catholic Church.

Oh, I see how it works. Your opinions are those of the CC. Hmmm…

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Church_Militant]

Stingray:

Oh, I see how it works. Your opinions are those of the CC. Hmmm…

God bless,
Stingray

Naw…I just know what I believe and what the church really teaches as opposed to all the jive that some people try to perpetrate as Catholic.

I do believe that salvation and Christianity is truly more complex than any “silver bullet” sort of prayer. It works a s starting point, but as for being scriptural…I would have to say that the real scriptural “sinner’s prayer” is “Lord be merciful to me a sinner.” Wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Stingray]

JeffreyGerard:

Brother Stingray,

Thank you for responding. I have more questions if
you will indulge me.

You’re very welcome. Any time.

JeffreyGerard:

So help me understand better. Is everyone saved?

Do you really not know the answer to that question? Or, are you asking me to see if I know? Scripture teaches that not everyone will be saved.

JeffreyGerard:

If no, then God also chooses (by omission) who will
not be saved and will go to hell? If God has willed
me to go to hell, will faith keep me out of hell?
That hardy seems like the actions of a just God.

Yes, those who God has not chosen to save will go to hell. If you God given faith, you will not go to hell. God is not obligated to save anyone. The fact that He does save some demonstrates that He is merciful and just.

JeffreyGerard:

So really, who has the choice? I think God wants all of his
children with him (Brother Stingray and Jeff included).
But I think we still have to do something – read on.

As I said, God saves those He chooses to. His children are those He has chosen to save.

JeffreyGerard:

First, with all due respect, you mis-quoted yourself and Scripture.
This is unbecoming of a minister.

I fail to see how I have misquoted anything. Perhaps you could show me exactly where you think I did that. Secondly, to misquote is not unbecoming in and of itself. It is unbecoming only if it is done purposely with the intent to deceive another. Are you implying that is what I have done?

JeffreyGerard:

Second, I think you are trying to quote Eph 2:8 which states:

Keep reading through verse 9 and 10.

JeffreyGerard:

I will not try to interpret scripture as I don’t have
access to the 2000+ years of continuous study of Tradition
and drawing meaning out of the Scripture. Just because an
interpretation pops into my beady little head doesn’t
make it so. I’ll defer to a portion of Magisterium:

From catholic.com/library/pillar.asp:

So faith is a gift from God, and grace is a gift from God.
Salvation is a gift from God. We must choose to accept them.

Isn’t choosing to accept a gift an action?

In the same web page, the have a bunch more stuff about the
“w” word.

What’s the “w” word?

You’re really going way off subject here, but let me just ask you, how does one accept the gift of faith?

God bless,
Stingray

 

[Catherine_S]

michaelp:

I am a non-Roman Catholic evangelical who doesn’t hate Roman Catholics and does not think that you are all going to hell as some militant anti-Roman Catholic fundementalistic Protestants do. That is all that I was saying.

BTW: Protestant is an unfortunate term that does not characterize what Protestants truly are and truly believe since we don’t think that we broke away from the Church, but that Roman Catholics did in the 16th centrury (althought he separation began in the 12th century). A better term would be Reformer or Evangelical. Protestant carries a negative connotation and is rather pejorative. But, alas, it is what Trent labeled us with the term “Protestant”, and we have been stuck with it ever since. I would never have conceded to the label.** I would have keep the label catholic and let the followers of Trent call themselves Roman Catholic.**

Anyway, subject of another thread.

Michael

Michael you need to read a little more history !!!

Roman Catholics are the only real Catholics. There are no Catholics apart from them. The word “Roman” only describes “Catholic” more fully. The universal Church founded by Christ has its center in Rome.** By their very nature or their constitution all other churches are local, racial, or national.
**
Words like “Roman,” “Romish,” “Romanist,” “Papist,” “Papistical,” “Papisher” were originally used of the old Church **by Protestants **to signify their hatred of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Nowadays “Roman” is applied to the one Catholic Church to indicate that there are other Catholics as well, who are not in union with Rome.This is a return to the trick of the fourth-century heretics who were so thoroughly castigated by Augustine.
**
The center of unity at Rome is the greatest source of strength in Christ’s Church. We are proud to be called Roman Catholics in that sense. But when those who do not acknowledge the authority of the Pope claim that they are Catholics as opposed to us who are Roman Catholics, we register the strongest possible objection.

---

Christ’s Church is Catholic, because it encircles the whole world. It is Roman because its center is in Rome, where the Bishop of that city is the successor of Peter, whom Christ made head of his Church.

---

Shalom

 

[JeffreyGerard]

Brother Stingray,

Thank you for your time.

I see we agree that there is hell and
that everyone is not saved. I also agree
that God is not obligated to save anyone.

What I don’t understand is why God would
predestine souls for hell. This defies
my limited reasoning and what little I
know about the Faith. If God did not want
us all to be with him for all eternity, then
why did He create us with an immortal soul?
So some of us could go suffer for eternity
no matter what we did on Earth, however good?
That is inherently unjust. Where is
my logic flawed?

As I said, God saves those He chooses to.
His children are those He has chosen to save

I think that we Catholics believe that we are all
God’s children. Further, according to archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/SocialJustice/SocialTeaching.html
it appears to me that the Church is definite in
stating that “all” means “members of one human
family”.

So again, God has created some of us that are
not his children? Why? How?

Based on what little I know of Calvanism, your
opinions seem to be in line wtih its teachings. I
found this on a web site,
bringyou.to/apologetics/num21.htm
so who knows how accurate
it is, but the Catholic parts mesh with my beliefs:

I fail to see how I have misquoted anything. Perhaps you could show me exactly where you think I did that. Secondly, to misquote is not unbecoming in and of itself. It is unbecoming only if it is done purposely with the intent to deceive another. Are you implying that is what I have done?

Brother, I cited your two different quotes of the passage
in the post you referred in yours, along with Eph 2:8.
None of them matched. As for your intent, only you know.
I imply nothing. For the record, I do think you are
intelluctually honest or else I’d cease this dialog.

I did read verse 9 and 10.

The “w” word is “works”.

how does one accept the gift of faith?

I am glad you asked! I’ll do my best, but I’ll warn
you an not an industrial-strength Apologist, in fact,
I’d say my knowledge of the Faith is very limited.

In my opinion,

Faith comes by hearing the Word of God. Grace is
necessary to accept Faith and to live it.

So next, I’ll have to answer the question “how does
one accpept the gift of grace?” although you
omitted this question for some reason.

We reject grace when we choose to live in mortal sin,
e.g. elect to perform evil works. If we do not live
in mortal sin, then we do not reject grace.

Again, from catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

Even though only God’s grace enables us to love others, these acts of love please him, and he promises to reward them with eternal life (Rom. 2:6–7, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus good works are meritorious. When we first come to God in faith, we have nothing in our hands to offer him. Then he gives us grace to obey his commandments in love, and he rewards us with salvation when we offer these acts of love back to him (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10, Matt. 25:34–40).

Jesus said it is not enough to have faith in him; we also must obey his commandments. “Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ but do not do the things I command?” (Luke 6:46, Matt. 7:21–23, 19:16–21).

To me, this says that good works are meritorious and He will
reward me with salvation.

The second quote further drives the point home about faith alone
not being enough. We must do what is commanded. To me, this
means:

1. Do what the 10 Commandments command. To me, these are actions.
2. Love God above all else. Acts of love mentioned above.
3. Love my neighbor as my self. Again, actions.
4. Do the Corporal Works of Mercy (feed the hungry, etc.)
5. Do the Spiritual Works of Mercy (convert the sinner, bear
   wrongs patiently, forgive injuries, pray for the living and
   the dead, etc.) - actions
6. Prayer, Fasting and Works of Charity (again, works)

There are more, but you’re a smart guy and see where I’m
going (even if you think I’m mistaken). I respect your
intellect Brother, but I just can’t square your ideas
with my perception of the Faith.

I am very grateful to you, however, for coming here.
In the course of researching the Faith to answer you,
I have gained a new depth of understanding of the Faith
and a deeper appreciation for the Church. Thanks be to
the Holy Spirit.

I wish you all the best.

God Bless You,

Jeff

 

[Ozzie]

Pnewton:

So do you not believe repentance is necessary along with faith?

The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, and means an inward change of mind. In Acts 2:38, after Peter told his Jewish brethren about the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ he told them to “repent.” In other words, they were to have a “change of mind” about Jesus. They were to change from unbelief to belief in Him - “repentance” and “faith” go together. You cannot have one without the other. Repentance is Biblical. However, what is not Biblical is the RC doctrine of "penance."

Even in the very conversation with Nicodemus you quoted Jesus said in verse 5 that one must be born of water and the spirit. That’s two things. I suggested you look at all that Jesus taught on salvation, not just your favorite, “ye must be born again” passage.

I think you should study that passage very carefully, my friend. Jesus Himself explains to Nicodemus what He means by “being born of water and the Spirit” in verse six. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (vs. 6). “Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born again” (vs. 7). Jesus is saying that those who are born physically must also be “born again” spiritually." The passage, in context, has nothing to do with water baptism. One is “born again” by the Spirit when he puts his faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ (see 1 Pet. 1:1-5).

John 6:54 " whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life." No word about belief here.

No, you’re right. However, look at Jn. 5:24, 38, 44, 46, 47; 6:29, 35, 36, 40, 47. The context of 6:54 is “believing.” As the life of the “manna” was transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness and thereby sustained their lives temporarily, even more, the LIFE of the resurrected Christ, the “true Bread that comes down out of Heaven” is transferred to the believer at the time of personal faith. After eating the manna in the wilderness those Israelites still died in the wilderness, but the LIFE Christ gives to the believer is ETERNAL. This has nothing to do with Communion or the RCC Mass.

Matthew 25:31-46 “…depart from me into everlasting fire prepered for the devil and his angels, for I was hungry and you gave me no food…” No wonder James was so adament that faith (belief) without works is dead.

It’s the “goats” that are cast off. Not the “sheep.” The “sheep” are believers and the works of kindness shown toward Christ’s Jewish brethren at that time in history (the 2nd Advent of Christ) are the fruit (manifestation) of who they are. But It won’t be their works that get them into the Kingdom to come. It’s what they ARE (sheep), not what they did, that is the determining factor for entrance into Kingdom.Remember, Jesus separates the sheep from the goats.

In answer to your first question, I do not have proof that the delegation of authority to Peter occurred at Caesarea Philipi, that is just the traditional, most logical and most grammatically correct interpretation of the the passage. Obviously many do not hold to this, but then they would be Catholic if they did.

I asked for proof of your assertion that Jesus “delegated” to others the propagation of the extra-biblical Marian doctrines. Jesus never taught them, nor did His Apostles. So what do you have to prove the Divine origin of these extra-biblical, Marian doctrines?

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

The Greek word for repentance is metanoia, and means an inward change of mind. In Acts 2:38, after Peter told his Jewish brethren about the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ he told them to “repent.” In other words, they were to have a “change of mind” about Jesus. They were to change from unbelief to belief in Him - “repentance” and “faith” go together. You cannot have one without the other. Repentance is Biblical. However, what is not Biblical is the RC doctrine of "penance.“I think you should study that passage very carefully, my friend. Jesus Himself explains to Nicodemus what He means by “being born of water and the Spirit” in verse six. *“That which is born of the flesh *is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (vs. 6). “Do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born again” (vs. 7). Jesus is saying that those who are born physically must also be “born again” spiritually.” The passage, in context, has nothing to do with water baptism.

I agree on the definition of metanoia, meaning to change one’s mind, I just think it involves more than just a change of belief. Rather I see a change of attitude toward sin. Penance is an entirely different issue and has no bearing on this passage, but did you know that for the Sacrament of Reconcilliation to be valid one must also repent, in regard to the confessed sin? Resolution to avoid sin is critical.

Furthermore, Christians can repent of sin they have fallen into (I am sure you agree with me here) even though they have not lost their faith. I think a broader definition is allowed.

I am familiar with the passage and your interpretation of it. The idea that “born of water” meaning physical birth has never struck me as credible. Isn’t everyone physically born? To make be alive a condition of salvation seems a little silly. I have to say, even as a Baptist, it was, “buried with Christ in baptism, raised to walk in newness of life.” Born of water makes more sense to me as baptism could easily refer to only the “born again” part.

As in:

One must be born again. Once physically. Once of water and the spirit. (Sacramental baptism)

I know you do not agree, but the text does support this possibility.

 

[Ozzie]

Mickey:

Thank you for the correction Ozzie. (We are saved **by Grace **through faith) and our good works are the fruit of that Faith. Please don’t put words in my mouth Ozzie, that is not charitable.

What? I didn’t put words in your mouth. I didn’t say good works are the fruit of our faith. In reference to Eph. 2:10 “good works” are the product of the believer’s being newly “created in Christ Jesus.” They are the fruit of his being regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Salvation is the result of one’s faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ. And I emphasize the work of Christ. It’s one thing to believe in the historical existence of Jesus, but still another to believe (personally accept) what He accomplished, forever, on the cross FOR HIM.

I believe we are saying the same thing. Good works are the fruit of our faith in Christ. Grace, Faith and works are interwined. It is by Grace that we have been saved through Faith. Notice it does not say “you are saved by Faith alone.”

We are not saying the same thing. Salvation is all of grace, through faith, period. Actually Eph. 2:8 says "by grace through faith" and nothing more. It doesn’t have to say *“alone.” *

He who endures to the end will be saved.

This is taken completely out of context. Jesus is speaking of events that will take placed at the end of the age. “Saved” in this context is not talking about eternal redemption, but one being spared from physical death at that time. Those believers who endure to the end of the age will enter the Kingdom at Christ’s 2nd Advent. This verse is prophetic, not soteriological in nature. There will be those who endure to the end of the age who will not enter the Kingdom (“goats,” Matt. 25:31ff).

And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

This actually is an assurance verse. It is God who starts and completes His good work in the believer.

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Phil 2:12

Paul is saying work “outwardly,” with fear and trembling, the salvation that took place within. To work “out” one’s salvation is not the same as working “for” one’s salvation. Paul is not expressing the latter. Otherwise he would be contradicting himself.

May you come to understand His GRACE toward you in Christ Jesus.

 

[Genesis315]

Ozzie,

This may be straying from the thread a little (sorry!), but why would Jesus use the phrase “eats my flesh” to mean believe in him? This shocked many people and He lost disciples over this. Why would He say it this way if He knew people would leave Him over it? The disciples who left Him already believed in Him, yet they left and stopped believing when He said to eat His flesh. Why would He not say something like, “just as eating manna gave you life, receiving me will give you eternal life (or having faith in me will…; or believing in me will…, etc.).”

So why would Jesus phrase believing in Him as eating His flesh? Do you think those disciples that left Him did so for another reason besides thinking He was speaking literally? If Jesus did let them leave while thinking He was speaking literally, when He was not (according to you), was He deceiving them by letting them go?

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

No, you’re right. However, look at Jn. 5:24, 38, 44, 46, 47; 6:29, 35, 36, 40, 47. The context of 6:54 is “believing.” As the life of the “manna” was transferred to those who ate it in the wilderness and thereby sustained their lives temporarily, even more, the LIFE of the resurrected Christ, the “true Bread that comes down out of Heaven” is transferred to the believer at the time of personal faith. After eating the manna in the wilderness those Israelites still died in the wilderness, but the LIFE Christ gives to the believer is ETERNAL. This has nothing to do with Communion or the RCC Mass

The context was the the miracle of the loaves an fishes and what ensued. If it was just about believing, then why did so many followers find this a hard teaching? There was an exodus of disciples who left unhindered by Jesus. What kind of teacher would allow such a misunderstanding to undermine the faith of His followers?

One of the impressive things about this passage is the graphic nature of it. Jesus did not refer to his body, but his flesh.

Do you remember what the Romans accused the NT church of? Cannibalism. The NT church and those that followed had no problem taking this passage literally. I know you do not accept the early church fathers, but they do represent apostolic thinking. Today we have 20th (or 21st) century sensibilities that hinder our faith.

I know that there are liberals in all churches that look at all everything in the Bible as symbolic, but this goes counter to centuries of belief.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

It’s the “goats” that are cast off. Not the “sheep.” The “sheep” are believers and the works of kindness shown toward … But It won’t be their works that get them into the Kingdom to come. It’s what they ARE (sheep), not what they did, that is the determining factor for entrance into Kingdom…

Let us be clear that we are talking about people. Sheep and goats are just analogies that need not be pressed too far. Goats can become sheep (lost can be saved) we all agree on. Sheep can become goats. Catholics and a lot of Protestants agree on.

As far as the determining factor, I can only say that what you said is not what Jesus said. In fact, very little of your post on this is in the passage, but demonstrates an eisegisis (reading into) of the plain text. Jesus says why they are separated. There is no need for conjecture.

 

[pnewton]

Ozzie:

I asked for proof of your assertion that Jesus “delegated” to others the propagation of the extra-biblical Marian doctrines. Jesus never taught them, nor did His Apostles. So what do you have to prove the Divine origin of these extra-biblical, Marian doctrines?

I appreciate the term extra-biblical, (as opposed to non-Biblical) and freely admit it. I know Jesus did not delegate specifics to anyone like said. I was speaking a little to cheeky and forgot that I was on a more serious thread.

The point behind the levity is that I, as a Catholic, am not bound to the Bible, but I guess you know that. In fact, some of the Marian doctrine I had a lot of trouble with when I converted to Catholicism.

What I did believe was the Biblical and historical evidence that Jesus delegated leadership to Peter, both before and after the resurection. This occured at Caeseria Philipi and also in the John 21 by the Sea of Galilee.

I know you are not going to agree with the Catholic interpretation of these verses. However in my belief, I stand in good company alongside 2000 years of Christians, including the early church, many of whom bore witness to the faith in blood.

BTW - I did not come to this position easily or lightly. I was raised and ordained Southern Baptist. It was that darn study of history of the early church that did it. That a solid determination not to read my upbringing into scripture.

 

[Ignatius]

Ozzie:

It’s the “goats” that are cast off. Not the “sheep.” QUOTE]

What have the “goats” in that passage done?
What have the “sheep” done?

Hint: “For I was”. . . .

God bless.

 

[Mickey]

Ozzie:

Salvation is all of grace, through faith, period. Actually Eph. 2:8 says "by grace through faith"

That’s what I said. You said we are “saved by faith alone”. I’m glad you changed your mind. You are Cathloic and you don’t even know it!

Ozzie:

It is God who starts and completes His good work in the believer.Paul is saying work “outwardly,” with fear and trembling, the salvation that took place within. To work “out” one’s salvation is not the same as working “for” one’s salvation.

There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. I never said we work for our salvation. I said that the fruit of our faith, a faith we receive by God 's Grace, is our good works for the Kingdom of Heaven. Where is our disagreement my Christian brother?

 

[mtr01]

Ozzie:

We are not saying the same thing. Salvation is all of grace, through faith, period. Actually Eph. 2:8 says "by grace through faith" and nothing more. It doesn’t have to say *“alone.” *

In fact it’s faith working in charity as described in Gal 5:6. Also don’t forget St. Pauls first letter to the Corinthians: “And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (13:2)” or “And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” Or perhaps, as he told the Ephesians (3:17-19):

That Christ may dwell by faith in your hearts: that, being rooted and founded in charity, You may be able to comprehend, with all the saints, what is the breadth and length and height and depth, To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth all knowledge: that you may be filled unto all the fulness of God.

It cannot be faith alone.

 

[Darrel]

Yes, those who God has not chosen to save will go to hell. If you God given faith, you will not go to hell. God is not obligated to save anyone. The fact that He does save some demonstrates that He is merciful and just.

Stingray,

Free will can exist simultaneously with the fact that God has all knowledge. In John 3:16 the word whosoever is used. I don’t think he said … hey God will save some of you and the rest are going to burn, but hey, he is a God of love for saving some. God loves all people and wants salvation for all. The above quote seems to paint a cold picture of the Lord when in fact he is love. All people have free will and can choose to follow Christs and I think God would prefer to save every last one.

Can you clarify for me what Jesus was saying to Peter when he said what you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven? Please clarify the entire verse for me from the protestant standpoint. I used to try to ignore this and it is so clear that he said Peter was the foundation of the single church.

-D

 

[Ozzie]

mtr01:
In fact it’s faith working in charity as described in Gal 5:6. Also don’t forget St. Pauls first letter to the Corinthians: “And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. (13:2)” or “And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity.” Or perhaps, as he told the Ephesians (3:17-19): It cannot be faith alone. Yes, it is faith alone - because the content of salvation faith is the Person and* finished* work of Jesus Christ on the cross. Love (or charity) is describing the actions and attitude of one who is saved, i.e., “I am nothing,” but has nothing to do with one getting saved. Salvation is rooted in the Person and work of Jesus Christ on our behalf, and His work is applied, in full, to the one who turns to Him by faith alone (see Jn. 3:14-18). Your works cannot save you, even works of love, only HIS can (read again Eph. 2:8-10).

 

[Ozzie]

Ignatius:

Ozzie:

It’s the “goats”

that are cast off. Not the “sheep.” QUOTE]

What have the “goats” in that passage done?
What have the “sheep” done?

Hint: “For I was”. . . .

God bless.Nevertheless, they enter the Kingdom (earthly, Millennial) BECAUSE they’re sheep: JOH 10:27 *“My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.” *He doesn’t separate them by their works.

 

[Ozzie]

pnewton:

I appreciate the term extra-biblical, (as opposed to non-Biblical) and freely admit it. I know Jesus did not delegate specifics to anyone like said. I was speaking a little to cheeky and forgot that I was on a more serious thread.

The point behind the levity is that I, as a Catholic, am not bound to the Bible, but I guess you know that. In fact, some of the Marian doctrine I had a lot of trouble with when I converted to Catholicism.

What I did believe was the Biblical and historical evidence that Jesus delegated leadership to Peter, both before and after the resurection. This occured at Caeseria Philipi and also in the John 21 by the Sea of Galilee.

I know you are not going to agree with the Catholic interpretation of these verses. However in my belief, I stand in good company alongside 2000 years of Christians, including the early church, many of whom bore witness to the faith in blood.

BTW - I did not come to this position easily or lightly. I was raised and ordained Southern Baptist. It was that darn study of history of the early church that did it. That a solid determination not to read my upbringing into scripture.

The Roman Catholic interpretation of those verses regarding Peter and the Roman Episcopate was a later development. And it is that self-serving development that you opted to read into Scripture. To say you’re “not bound to the Bible” is to say you’re not bound to God’s Word. Such rebellion is what put humanity into the mess it’s in today, and required God the Son to become a Man and a substitutionary sin-sacrifice for man’s redemption. It’s God’s revelatory Word that separates true Christianity from all man-made religions on this earth.