The sufficiency of Christ

[benidict]

Well, it is your thread, so I guess you can make up whatever rules you want. However, you are in NC religions, so Zerinius can expect to share her faith and the support for it as she pleases. If you want to confine sources and participants, then your thread needs to be in Apologetics.

but we both know brother guanophore, that he wont. will he? you already soundly beat him here. every time. and it would just get worse for him in apologetics. lol! God bless you and yours.

 

[guanophore]

Your view is simply an opinion unsupported by the Magisterium.

Actually, it is your view that is unsupported, 2nd.

Please show me that the Catholic Church receives Mormons as your brothers and sisters in Christ through an official document such as the Catholic Catechism. Until you are able to do that, your are posting personal subjective views outside the Catholic Faith and the historic Christian Faith.

no, 2nd. It means you have misunderstood the claim. The claim that all Mormons are in Christ was not made. What the Magesterium teaches is that none of us can know or judge the heart of a person except God alone.

Your basis of unity based on a moral agenda is not a union based on Christ.

Yes, it is. He who is not against us is for us. He is Truth, therefore, all Truth comes from Him, through Him, and by Him.

Muslims would also support the same moral views that you share with Mormons.

Sometimes they do. And at those times, we can have unity of mission.

Truth divides my friend and brother. You cannot just throw out the word brother in Christ without historic Christian doctrine which can be defined by historic creeds.

I agree with this, as I agree that the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus that was known and preached by the Apostles.

The Trinity, and the co-eternity of Christ cannot be thrown out as being non-essential because you agree with Mormon morality.

No, but no one claimed that agreement on certain moral values was equivalent to agreement on doctrine.

Do you have a basic understanding of the Mormon gospel?

Yes, and I am not sure that it departs any less than the “gospel” that you have been given to believe. I know many Mormons that are more “Christian” in their faith and practice than those who claim to be Trinitiarian.

God had to restore the apostate church... You are an apostate Christian

The Reformed christians believe this also, they just frame it differently. No other excuse can suffice for abandoning the One faith that was given to the Church.

Judgment on False Teachers

Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. - Jude 1:3

It is interesting that you would use this passage, since you have embraced a faith that is different from the one described here.

 

[benidict]

Actually, it is your view that is unsupported, 2nd.

no, 2nd. It means you have misunderstood the claim. The claim that all Mormons are in Christ was not made. What the Magesterium teaches is that none of us can know or judge the heart of a person except God alone.

Yes, it is. He who is not against us is for us. He is Truth, therefore, all Truth comes from Him, through Him, and by Him.

Sometimes they do. And at those times, we can have unity of mission.

I agree with this, as I agree that the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus that was known and preached by the Apostles.

No, but no one claimed that agreement on certain moral values was equivalent to agreement on doctrine.

Yes, and I am not sure that it departs any less than the “gospel” that you have been given to believe. I know many Mormons that are more “Christian” in their faith and practice than those who claim to be Trinitiarian.

The Reformed christians believe this also, they just frame it differently. No other excuse can suffice for abandoning the One faith that was given to the Church.

It is interesting that you would use this passage, since you have embraced a faith that is different from the one described here.

thank you brother guanaphore. exactly what ive been trying to explain to him for days. you just put it alot more eloquintly than i could ever do. Peace be with you.

 

[guanophore]

I’ve already seen a thread about Muslims and Jews too which appeared to cause mass confusion between Catholics.

It was not the thread that caused the confusion. It was the lack of understanding among the participants about the Teaching of the Apostles.

Are Muslims, Jews, and Mormons the mission field, or are they your brothers and sisters in Christ.

The mission field is unbelievers, which, as you have noted, are found in every ecclesial community.

Let’s see if other Catholics agree with your interpretation of the Catholic Catechism… that the Church receives Mormons as Christian siblings. Sacred Tradition just like Sacred Scripture does not allow for private interpertation.

This is your perception, 2nd. no one here has claimed this.

Maybe we need another thread about the necessity of the historic Jesus Christ revealed in Sacred Scripture as the only means for reconciliation to God?

I guess if you feel you need it, then knock yourself out. Catholics believe that no one comes to God except by Christ. Even those who do not know Him still only come to God through Him.

Do you believe the Muslim Jesus and the Mormon Jesus saves sinners from their sins?

No, but that does not mean that the Jesus of the Apostles does not save them anyway.

 Can Jews reject Jesus as the Christ and still be saved? If so, on what basis are their sins atoned for?

Most Jews have never met Christ. They are defrayed from belief because those who claim to believe in Him are unchristian.

there is no other basis for atonment except the blood of the Lamb. People are saved by it alone, whether they know it, or not.

 

[guanophore]

I will hug Z when… and believes in the historic gospel.

So much for unconditional love.

Good thing that Jesus did not have this attitude. While we were yet sinners, He died for us.

The circle of life is reserved for Christians who hold to the historic Christian Faith.

It is a good thing this is not true as well. Such a position would robs God of his omnipotence. It means that He is not allowed to save whoever He wants, however He likes.

Christian unity is centered around essential Christian Truth.

Yes, this is true. This is why our efforts to create unity are ineffectual. Unity is brought about by the HS when people embrace truth.

Z is the mission field and not part of the circle of life found in Christ!

Well, everyone is entitle to their opinion, especially here. I, for one, am relieved that it is not your place to determine who belongs to Life, and who does not.

 

[guanophore]

Does God love the unbeilever (those still united to Adam)? Or does God’s wrath hang over their heads for their cosmic rebellion, and distorting the gospel of God?

You are confusing things, 2nd. God loves the whole world. He loved the world so much, He gave His only begotten Son to save them from their sins. After He created man, He looked upon him and called it “good”. God’s justice is part of His love, not opposed to it. When you say “love or wrath”, it seems that you see these as being opposed but they are not. God loves all those He creates. Love should not be equated with salvation, either.

 

[guanophore]

  The thread is about the sufficiency of Jesus Christ for sinners. Do we as Christians need more than the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to save us from our sins, and secure our eternal adoption?

Yes. We can see that, though Jesus’ sacrificed Himself for all, not all are saved. This is because we must add ourselves to Him, or we do not benefit from His sacrifice.

Can we call God our Heavenly Father as our eternal Heavenly Father today, or can God revoke His adoption and sonship from you based on something that you do or don't do?

Yes, we can call God our father from the moment we are adopted.

Yes, he can “revoke” his adoption, but He chooses to make it eternal.

Look at earthly adoptions, and how earthly parents adopt orphans unconditionally.

I wish this were true. I was standing in the lobby of a State facility when some parents brought all of their adopted son’s belongings, dropped them off, and said “we got him from the State, and we are giving him back”.

Moses was adopted by Pharoah’s daughter, yet he was disinherited.

The conditions of God, though, do not relate to being "unadopted’ but they relate to the failure to inherit the promises that come with the adoption.

 Do earthly parents adopt infants who they later abandon in life? If they do, then do we consider this abandonment as an ungodly,  unloving act, or even a criminal act?

Yes, and yes.

Christ is sufficient for you in your sonship. We are in the kingdom of God eternally based on the perfection of our elder brother.

This is a false conclusion, 2nd. Yes, Christ is sufficient, but being adopted as a son does not mean one is eternally in the Kingdom. Look at the story of the prodigal son. What if he had not “come to himself” and returned? Do you think, had he remained in the pigstye he would have benefitted from his status as a son?

God in Christ is sufficient for me and you, even though you don't believe it.

I find this accusation insulting.

Please please mediate on my two Catholic links on my signature.

The documents referenced by your links do not support OSAS.

Adoption through Propitiation... is it true?  B]God's Everlasting Love

Yes, but adoption does not equate to salvation, and his love does not mean we will be united with our inheritance, either.

What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? - Rom 8

This is one of the main scriptures taken out of context by my TULIP brethren. They don’t seem to understand that Jesus will love us even as we are walking thru the gates of hell. It is God’s love that enables us the freedom to do this.

 

[guanophore]

We can only choose what we find desirable.

This may be one of the biggest foundation stones made of paper mache in the whole system. Such a premise denies the cross, which Jesus took “despising it’s shame”.

It precludes anyone who was a martyr, implying that they desired to die. And those who laid down their lives for others, implying they desired to be dead. It assumes that soldiers that go to war find potential death “desireable”.

or about parents, sacrificing for their children. I just had someone tell me the other day the parents went without food, so the children could eat. It makes a mockery of the whole notion of sacrifice. The whole basis of sacrifice is that one gives up ones desires to choose a greater good - even one against their desires, such as death on a cross.

 We cannot choose Christ in our fallen nature because we cannot see Jesus as being desirable or we are unable to even see the kingdom of God without being born from above.

This is a blatant falsehood, and entirely unscriptural.

Freedom to choose our own fate is a humanistic concept which is a hangover from Pelagius, one of the first humanists to attack the church.

I think you probably have a different definition of “free will” than the Apostles used.

Since we are all born into this world in enmity with God, it is natural for us to rebel against Him.

Yes, but that rebellion does not mean we do not also desire Him, or are not drawn to Him. On the contrary, our hearts are restless until they rest in Him.

The only way you guys will be able to see these glorious things of God is to be disciplined, staying within the Scriptures for truth.

Are you ready to beat us with a cane?

I agree, you are correct. the only way that one could possibly embrace such grievious errors is to depart from the Apostolic Teaching, and “stay within the Scriptures for Truth”. In doing this, each reader makes himself his own God, or teaching authority. One does not have to reconcile himself with what God has already revealed to the Church.

 

[guanophore]

Regeneration comes before faith.

This statement also represents a significant departure frmo the apostolic faith. I have been wanting to ask you, 2nd, at what point was Cornelius “regenerated”?

Our faith is from God. We are called to repent and to believe and trust God, to have faith in His promises.  However, after you look through the Scirptures closer, then you will see what God calls for us to do, He also provides. Faith and repentance are required but also granted to God to His chosen ones.

Yes, this is consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[izoid]

That’s your view brother, but we see things quite differently… don’t we? :hug1: However, we are still in the same family of God in Christ. :grouphug:

No, that is what scripture teaches.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Well, it is your thread, so I guess you can make up whatever rules you want. However, you are in NC religions, so Zerinius can expect to share her faith and the support for it as she pleases. If you want to confine sources and participants, then your thread needs to be in Apologetics.

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
Mormon sources such as the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are not accepted by the Magisterium as being part of the Word of God (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition). Therefore, they should not be used on this thread within our discussion

Hey Guanophore,

Are you saying the Word of God is

Sacred Scripture + Scared Tradition + Book of Mormon + Doctrine and Covenants + Pearl of Grace Price + The Quran?

I’ve never prohibited Zee the Mormon from posting. Who am I to allow or disallow someone from freely posting? However, I can exercise my free will choice to ignore whom I want to. IMO… some Catholics like to use the smoke screen diversion of Mormonism to avoid the thread topic.

:knight1::grouphug::harp: - The sufficiency of Christ is an in-house debate within the family of God in Christ which consists of historic orthodox Christianity as defined within the historic creeds.

If you see Mormons to be in Christ like Catholics and Protestants, then you are welcome to make that call. Since I do not accept Mormonism to be within the family of God in Christ, I will ignore Zee on this topic.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
I’ve already seen a thread about Muslims and Jews too which appeared to cause mass confusion between Catholics.

It was not the thread that caused the confusion. It was the lack of understanding among the participants about the Teaching of the Apostles. - guanophore

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
Are Muslims, Jews, and Mormons the mission field, or are they your brothers and sisters in Christ.

The mission field is unbelievers, which, as you have noted, are found in every ecclesial community. - guanophore

I’ve seen an obvious pattern with you brother. You like to claim that when you post a position that is opposite than mine, you claim it to be what the Apostles taught. Well, you can claim whatever you want, but that claim does not make it true. We both know what the Apostles truly taught is recorded in Sacred Scripture. We don’t live in the dark ages and the Holy Scriptures is available for all to read for themselves. That’s is the reason for the Protestant Reformation, returning to the truths of the Scriptures. If you don’t think Muslim, Jews, and Mormons are the mission field, please read the book of Acts, Romans, and Galatians to see what the Apostles truly believed. Jesus clearly called the physical seed of Abraham to Himself for life, for those Jews who do not have Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus said that Satan is their Father. Now, let’s see if we can get back to the thread topic in regards to the sufficiency of Christ for me and you.
:knight1::slapfight: :blackeye::hug1::harp:

 

[zerinus]

By the time Mormonism came around, splitting off new churches had been going on for several hundred years and so was a common enough practice. But, if you think about it, this is an extremely radical thing to do, and, while there were schisms and heresies in the past, nothing like what happened from the time of the Reformation on had ever taken place. And while the Church may’ve benefited in many ways by the wake-up call that the Reformation presented to her, as she’s benefited by other challenges throughout her history including the difficult road of having the sins of her people brought out in public, one still has to ask themselves the serious question of whether or not new churches, often with major disagreements between each other, let alone with the CC, were ever called for and were truly Gods’ will.

We obviously believe that one (and only one) “new Church” was called for—i.e. a Restoration not a Reformation—which is what the LDS Church is.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by 2nd Adam
That’s your view brother, but we see things quite differently… don’t we? However, we are still in the same family of God in Christ.

No, that is what scripture teaches.

If you claim that is what Scripture teaches, then maybe you should post your Scripture proofs to support your claim? I clearly believe that Scripture supports the historic confessional Protestatnt position of justification. I believe a Catholic view of justification cannot be supported by Scripture alone, but rather the Catholic view of justification requires Sacred Tradition.

 

[fhansen]

We obviously believe that one (and only one) “new Church” was called for—i.e. a Restoration not a Reformation—which is what the LDS Church is.

Obviously

 

[fhansen]

The sufficiency of Christ is an in-house debate within the family of God in Christ which consists of historic orthodox Christianity as defined within the historic creeds.

The debate isn’t going on within the CC. Which historic creeds are you referring to?

 

[2nd_Adam]

You are confusing things, 2nd. God loves the whole world. He loved the world so much, He gave His only begotten Son to save them from their sins. After He created man, He looked upon him and called it “good”. God’s justice is part of His love, not opposed to it. When you say “love or wrath”, it seems that you see these as being opposed but they are not. God loves all those He creates. Love should not be equated with salvation, either.

Of course what God created before the fall was good. However, we were not made in the image of God just like Adam. Scripture reveals that we were made in the image of fallen Adam. After the fall, sin became the norm and a cosmic rebellion against God was in the heart of mankind. So, do you believe in a literal world wide flood in which all mankind was destroyed with the exception of the remnant chosen by grace? I believe the world wide flood which destroyed mankind was a true literal account. So, what’s your view and what is the official Catholic view in regards to the Noah account?

• God’s wrath, holiness, justice and love are manifested in perfect harmony at Calvary to His glory and our praise of Him for what He has done for believing sinners in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

** What was actually accomplished at the cross, full atonement and complete propitiation, or did Christ die to give all mankind only an opportunity to be saved? Back to the thread topic… Christ is sufficient for you (Adoption through Propitiation). The love of God is manifested in the doctrine of adoption and propitiation.

 

[Dancelittleewok]

I’ve seen an obvious pattern with you brother. You like to claim that when you post a position that is opposite than mine, you claim it to be what the Apostles taught. Well, you can claim whatever you want, but that claim does not make it true. We both know what the Apostles truly taught is recorded in Sacred Scripture. We don’t live in the dark ages and the Holy Scriptures is available for all to read for themselves. That’s is the reason for the Protestant Reformation, returning to the truths of the Scriptures. If you don’t think Muslim, Jews, and Mormons are the mission field, please read the book of Acts, Romans, and Galatians to see what the Apostles truly believed. Jesus clearly called the physical seed of Abraham to Himself for life, for those Jews who do not have Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus said that Satan is their Father. Now, let’s see if we can get back to the thread topic in regards to the sufficiency of Christ for me and you.
:knight1::slapfight: :blackeye::hug1::harp:

2ndAdam, this butchers what guanaphore has said and you know it. I will not stand by while you bear false witness against me and my Catholic friends. As I’ve said before, treating Zee or any other non-Catholic here with dignity as a human being is NOT equatable for choosing “another gospel” or not thinking that non-Christian faiths aren’t the mission field; A simple cursory view in any Mormon themed thread would show you that, but you’d rather present a straw men against a non-issue rather than answer the real questions given to you by Catholics about your view of sufficiency of Christ.

Guanaphore said:

I agree that the Mormon Jesus is not the Jesus that was known and preached by the Apostles.

He said again:

It means you have misunderstood the claim. The claim that all Mormons are in Christ was not made. What the Magesterium teaches is that none of us can know or judge the heart of a person except God alone

Gee said in yet another example:

He is Truth, therefore, all Truth comes from Him, through Him, and by Him.

I find izoid’s words directed to you, found in the “Calvinism for my Catholic siblings” which earned him a dog house medal from you, are especially poignant:

I am beginning to question your true intentions. You seem to attempt to confuse and misdirect the real issues and questions. I will assure you that I am all too familiar with these tactics, I even taught them for many years. Please stay on track, answer the questions and don’t misdirect.

In my previous posts, I said that I understood the Calvinism view of justification but I don’t believe it. Please don’t use my words as understanding to mean “Credo…Calvinism.” If you use my post against my Catholic faith, against my Catholic brothers and sisters, you will be called on it. I’ve seen it done before and am merely giving you a cautionary note.

Please answer post 220 and Shannon’s question about the sufficiency of Scripture. Latter is especially relevant because you take this as a given but it is still unproven.

 

[tweetymom]

I wonder why it is, when we do the same with Tweety, you don’t see that as loving?

Maybe because it’s not you think?

 

[tweetymom]

I think it would be wise to take anything Tweety claims to believe as “Catholic” with caution. She has made it clear that her faith is not Catholic.

However, she is correct in this case. The Catholic Church can only recognize those who are validly baptized (Triune) as separated brothers and sisters.

Once again thank you!