From Bishopite #209
Thank you for this. I may take time to respond, and I probably don’t have thoughts on all your comments and questions, but I shall try.
I’m not sure what you mean that you are moving between Canadian Baptist and Catholic.
So then, when it says “the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife” you take that to mean that he is “blessed” because of your faith? What is this status “consecrated” (blessed?)..
Hi,
My husband will not be saved until he understands he is a sinner in need of a savior and repent. He has not done that yet. Yes he is blessed because of me but he cannot be saved by me. He has a better chance of becoming saved because I am trying to be a Godly example–same with my kids. My family sees how I act and notice a difference and when asked I say it is because of God. My husband has recently started calling me a christian woman(if you knew us you would know how funny that sounds)
Anyway, I may be able to lead my husband to the Lord but ultimately it is between him and God.He does not become saved by default because I am–nor do my children.
Hope that helps.
You are right, of course, it would have been more correct to say evangelical protestants. Thanks!!
Do you mean to say that you don’t agree with the evangelical formulation of “saved” I described?
I learned that in a Baptist congregation, but I do understand it was a rather unusual Baptist community, because they believed in the Pentecostal gifts. After I moved, they split from the Southern Baptists for that reason.I have to be honest–Im not sure what you mean by consecrated
) that it may bring him to the Lord. That is my hope.
Don’t you think it is well within the realm of our nature as sinners to reject God? To reject the authority of His law over us?
It is clear that you don’t understand Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that salvation is a free gift that we receive through God’s grace. It is not possible to “earn” it.
I think the way you phrase this is misleading. One must cooperate with GRACE rather, by taking actions to remain in God’s grace that was given as a free gift. If I get a free whirlpool (I saw one on freecycle the other day, but I could not round up enough help to get it). The gift is free, but for it to be of use to me I must keep it clean and do maintenance on it regularly. THe fact that I maintain it in a working state (which may cost me money and labor) does not take away from the fact that it was a free gift.
No, on the contrary, this IS the definition of the Catholic church, who wrote the bible, and teaches grace. Clearly you have been wrongly taught about Catholisicm.
This does not make any sense. How can you “maintain” currency?
Are you saying that you cannot see in the scriptures where sin separates people from God?
This is a misunderstanding of the teaching on the sacraments. Confession is necessary for cleansing.
This is not entirely accurate either. It is true that Catholics to not have the presumption that is taught in OSAS circles. However, there are many signs by which we can see that we are either walking in grace, or not.
Certainly your erroneous understanding of Catholic teaching is not about grace. Nore is it graceful, because you have been told these things many times here on this board, and you continue to persist in recalcitrance.
The fallen nature will never choose God. God chose us we did’nt chose Him.
This has been fought out on another thread (CC is just another denomination) and differing views offered.
CC is Very Big Business, given its budget, staff, properties and materiel. Even this morning, my parish priest complained about the difference between administering a church, and leading a congregation – they require different skills, and they require big budgets. He has just returned from Belgium to raise funds for the huge new church.
There are likely to be shifts in doctrine and dogma, ritual, practice, obedience and context, all of them linked. There is also a problem in defining ‘dogmatic teaching’. Dogma seems to mean the same as doctrine. The recent statement by the Vatican on ‘limbo’ (doctrine? belief? other?) is an example. I assume the practice (doctrine?) of indulgences in the middle ages, has changed. Certainly practice on annulment has changed in the past 30 years; this must be supported either by Canon Law or the way CL is effected. There continue to be theological debates about the veneration and assumption of Mary (latterly between JP II and Cardinal Ratzinger) and other scriptural issues. The number of miracles required to verify a saint has recently been reduced from two to one. I know this is not all dogmatic change (I’m too new), but reflects a degree of flexibility wrt doctrine and practice. (See earlier on this thread for example.)
Perhaps there are several things to note here. First, to know all CC teachings is impossible for anyone save a special few. Second, we can only do the best we can with what we know, as conscientiously as possible. Third, speculation is allowed (CCC) but in the end we are expected to reach a conclusion identical with that of the Magisterium. Fourth, absolute dogmatic teachings, to be effective, must be followed. We are aware that for a variety of reasons – including the deadly HIV plague – otherwise committed Catholics are choosing not to observe certain doctrinal teachings.
There are likely to be shifts in doctrine and dogma, ritual, practice, obedience and context, all of them linked. There is also a problem in defining ‘dogmatic teaching’. Dogma seems to mean the same as doctrine. The recent statement by the Vatican on ‘limbo’ (doctrine? belief? other?) is an example. I assume the practice (doctrine?) of indulgences in the middle ages, has changed. Certainly practice on annulment has changed in the past 30 years; this must be supported either by Canon Law or the way CL is effected. There continue to be theological debates about the veneration and assumption of Mary (latterly between JP II and Cardinal Ratzinger) and other scriptural issues. The number of miracles required to verify a saint has recently been reduced from two to one. I know this is not all dogmatic change (I’m too new), but reflects a degree of flexibility wrt doctrine and practice. (See earlier on this thread for example.)
Perhaps there are several things to note here. First, to know all CC teachings is impossible for anyone save a special few. Second, we can only do the best we can with what we know, as conscientiously as possible. Third, speculation is allowed (CCC) but in the end we are expected to reach a conclusion identical with that of the Magisterium. Fourth, absolute dogmatic teachings, to be effective, must be followed. We are aware that for a variety of reasons – including the deadly HIV plague – otherwise committed Catholics are choosing not to observe certain doctrinal teachings.
If one is scholarly, one might be able to generalize. But you and I are regular lay persons, and so might hesitate to make this statement. There do seem to be unusual myths abounding, but whether they have basis in scripture or not is hard to determine.
Perhaps because people read the evidence differently, according to their life experience primarily, or their cultural context, or their socio-political status. White South Africans read what they wanted into the scriptures and created a nation divided on the basis of race (apartheid). Sometimes evidence is not the only thing that convinces people what to believe, no?
I think, more and more, that you are right when you say that there are lot of uninformed tenets set out on this Forum perhaps from young congregants of various denominations, or those questing and trying to learn, or from those seeking to provoke, or from those who simply have the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps that is why it is valuable to go back to the written sources: the differences in understanding how we read the Bible, between Forum posters and the Vatican, are huge for example.
Why then would I join the Catholic Church on the understanding that my beloved husband will go straight to hell? This is one I have to get around, with help from my spiritual advisor. And I hope there will be a thread on moral non-Christians soon.
Oh my you are rightAll for Him,
While I somewhat agree with the spirit of your post I have a teeny problem with you neglecting to mention that its the Holy Spirit, and no one else no matter how great the example that will make your husband open to the grace of faith.
In the meantime, I hope your example is helping him see the fruits of the Christian faith, as it sounds as if it is.
It will be easier for your kids if he climbs on board of course.
I guess I just assumed people would realize it is the Holy Spirit that works on people.No problem!Oh my you are right
My bad
I am thank you and same to you.No problem!
Hope you are having a good day today All for Him!
Oh well, at least my kids are old enough to help me:thumbsup:Let it go. Even if you are having guests, dont go crazy or anything. Know what? If you cant rest a bit on that day, what day can you? Birthdays only happen once a year. And who ends up tossing out all the wrapping paper ect, afterward?I am thank you and same to you.
Although I do have to clean for Mothers day at my house.
LOL LOLLet it go. Even if you are having guests, dont go crazy or anything. Know what? If you cant rest a bit on that day, what day can you? Birthdays only happen once a year. And who ends up tossing out all the wrapping paper ect, afterward?
I say boycott your chores.
OOOPS, my bad, I forgot we have a real legit reason to avoid extra work, mothers day is on the LORDS day and we are to refrain from spending too much time away from him!!!LOL LOL
I wish I could but Im too anal retentative about the house being clean even though we will be outside.
Your right though, I think Im not going to go crazy and just bare minimums.
Thanks:thumbsup:
I certainly understand the “claims” that it is free, but in actual practice the catholic must DO(cooporate) many things to maintain the “state of grace”. Again I understand the RCC says Baptism = Being born again = free gift. Baptismal regeneration of babies without Faith is another topic.
So God give us salvation (whirlpool), then decides our eternal fate based on how clean I kept the whirlpool?
Interesting analogy:thumbsup:
Okay like I said how can sola fita be true if the apostles never taught it. If the people who were directly taught by the apostles never taught it. If for 1500 this interperation was never droped onto the bible. Why should I believe you? Are you better than the apostles? And no actually the NT was nailed down in 325 AD. but the old testament was argued about for another half century or more. On top of that there was a high level of written illiteracy. People sometimes other wise really smart people simply could not read the written word. Lets say they could, before the printing press the bible cost a years wages They still COULD NOT HAVE IT. In all of history your point was not taught by anyone until 1500 AD. And the vast majority of people could not go to the bible. Half the world is STILL does not read. So if this was never taught before and few could have read it for the first 1500 years, and they did not teach it either. How do you think you have the correct interperation over the apostles and everyone else in history?