Was Jesus a heretic for teaching works salvation?

[down_under]

realizing nerfhearder that the argument might not be tossed directly at you. When I say your point I mean anyone who happenes to be arugeing it at the moment. No offerce intended to anyone in perticular.

 

[clmowry]

And if you refuse to clean it and let it get so dirty you never set foot in it the rest of your life?

Then What?

Interesting analogy:thumbsup:
The way I look at this analogy is this.

God gave me this whirpool as a gift. He expects me to keep it clean and take care of it but if I forget to clean it for a couple of days, months, years–He is not going to take it back because it was a free gift with no strings attached.

Now–He may say to me–you know that whirpool is getting dirty you really need to clean it and nag(discipline)me until I do and I will because I want to keep my gift clean for God to please Him.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

And if you refuse to clean it and let it get so dirty you never set foot in it the rest of your life?

Then What?

Interesting analogy:thumbsup:
The way I look at this analogy is this.

God gave me this whirpool as a gift. He expects me to keep it clean and take care of it but if I forget to clean it for a couple of days, months, years–He is not going to take it back because it was a free gift with no strings attached.

Now–He may say to me–you know that whirpool is getting dirty you really need to clean it and nag(discipline)me until I do and I will because I want to keep my gift clean for God to please Him.

Well sadly for me Gos is going to make me miserable then for the rest of my life but he will not take it away.

 

[down_under]

Interesting analogy:thumbsup:
The way I look at this analogy is this.

God gave me this whirpool as a gift. He expects me to keep it clean and take care of it but if I forget to clean it for a couple of days, months, years–He is not going to take it back because it was a free gift with no strings attached.

Now–He may say to me–you know that whirpool is getting dirty you really need to clean it and nag(discipline)me until I do and I will because I want to keep my gift clean for God to please Him.

Well sadly for me Gos is going to make me miserable then for the rest of my life but he will not take it away.

who said he would take it away. Well maybe some one did, but you got it all wrong. eventually it will get so dirty as to be good for nothing. It will be a stinking syspool that will be worse than if you never had it to begin with. No you got it wrong the apostles taught that you could loose it that you could go off the rails and that when this happened it would be worse than if you never had it to begin with. They wrote all those letters to all those churches presicely because they were loosing it and the apostles did not want that to happen.

 

[guanophore]

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?

Are you under the impression that you have no obligations as a disciple of Christ? Is there no “DO” expected from you?

I don’t think cleanliness of any kind, especially spiritual, can happen apart from God’s grace. However, since Christ has passed into the heavenly realms, it will be my hands and elbow grease implementing His grace.

 

[Bishopite]

From Bishopite #211

…2

There are likely to be shifts in doctrine and dogma, ritual, practice, obedience and context, all of them linked

Actually they are NOT linked. Dogma is absolute, the others CAN change and do sometimes. The code of canon law wasn’t even part of the Catholic church until the turn of the twentieth century, so it couldn’t have been an Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.

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.

 

[guanophore]

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.

How would entering into full communion have any relevance to where he spends eternity? Do you think that HIS status will change? If he is not going to hell now, do you think he will suddenly become bound for there when you are confirmed? I don’t see that either has to do with the other.

 

[nerfherder]

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?

Several points:

(1) There are things that are true that are not in the Bible, which reports the teachings of the apostles. And I am sure that there are lots of things the apostles taught that are not in the Bible.
(2) No one in the early Christian Church had a Bible so things were passed on by word of mouth, or by letters from, say, Paul to various Christian communities. Reasoning tells me that at this point it was sola fide for the Christian communities because there was not as yet a Bible, just a few books and whatnot - and few were able to read unless they were Greek, or a Jewish rabbi.
(3) You don’t have to believe me, and I do not claim to be better than the apostles. You asked a question, and I am trying to give you my answer, my idea of the truth as a result of my Christian learning and my knowledge of history and religion. You can take it or leave it.
(4) The Old Testament was stabilised before most of the New Testament was actually written, around 150 BCE - 75 CE.
(5) You are right - few people could read in the middle ages, and even fewer could afford a hand-written Bible until the printing press was invented by Gutenburg in Germany (although the Chinese had it a long time before). BUT even if they could read, and even if they could afford a Bible, it was in Latin. The Bible used officially by Catholic Christians was in Latin until the early 1960s, at the time of Vatican II. So reading a Bible, owning a Bible did not matter: Masses were said in a language not understood by Christians, and the official Bibles and Missals were in Latin.
(6) I know that probably 70 per cent of the world’s people are illiterate: I have spent the last 40 years as an international education planner trying to reduce that by working with others to provide ‘Education for All’, a global United Nations programme started in 1989. We hope that all children will be literate by 2015, but this is probably optimistic.
But even if more people can read, they will still have to obey the teachings of the Church if they are Catholic Christians. It may be that, if they do not have or read a Bible, they will think for themselves. Just thinking.
(7) 'How do I think I have the correct interperation over the apostles and everyone else in history? you ask? I do not. I am just trying to help out by giving an answer to your question which everyone else ignored, thus making you sad and angry. I didn’t want you to feel ignored, so I answered your question as best I could, but said at the outset that I did not know everything, and that I hoped others would contribute. Why did that make you angry?

 

[nerfherder]

How would entering into full communion have any relevance to where he spends eternity? Do you think that HIS status will change? If he is not going to hell now, do you think he will suddenly become bound for there when you are confirmed? I don’t see that either has to do with the other.

I understand what you are saying Guan.

However, if I join the Catholic Church I am required to believe with my whole heart and mind and soul that this generous, honourable and respected person will go to hell (along with a lot of other things that I am required to believe: although God does not intervene in our free will, the Catholic Church sure does). It was bad enough working that out (No man cometh unto the Father but by me) as a Baptist! As a Catholic, no choice. In effect I am saying therefore, to the father of my beautiful sons, I don’t give a stuff that you are going to hell. This is what I will do: you go your way, and I go mine. That is a terrible commitment to have to make. And a terrible statement to make to one’s life partner.

There are others on the Forum in the same boat. They have chosen to remain outside the Catholic Church.

Part of the problem is that there is such confusion in the minds of Catholic Christians about who goes to hell and who does not - regardless of the Vatican’s position on this. Dogmatic Constitution Vatican II says one thing; posters say another. What about people of other faiths? other cultures? other belief systems? Those who are ignorant of the Christian God go to heaven; those who know about the Catholic Christian God but turn away in favour of life as a moral non-Christian or a Buddhist have explicitly rejected the Catholic God, and are therefore doomed to hell, separation from God for all time. This is a bit rich.

What about Catholics like Bede Griffiths, who spent his religious life combining the textures of Catholicism with those of Hinduism. Where does he fit into this schema?

Or does one give up trying to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on this - with regard to hell-goers - and assume that our God of Love will ensure that His children will, in the majority, be with Him in heaven? For God so loved the world…

It also has a lot to do with who owns Absolute Truth, if there is one, but I shall leave that for now!

 

[nerfherder]

241​

Thank you for your helpful insights. I would like to make a few brief comments.

Dogma is essentially doctrine but a greater level. The concept of ‘limbo’ is what is called "speculative theology”

So to doctrine and dogma, ritual, practice, obedience and context, I should add speculative theology and Canon Law (as of this century). Anything else I should be aware of?

we still have indulgences.

Why? Are they still in use, and for what purpose?

Canon law is the law of the church or the rules of the church which CAN change. Disciplines, canon law and other rules of the church can change, that’s far different from dogmatic teaching changing.

Is there somewhere that all the core doctrines/dogmas of the Catholic Church are spelled out so one can get a handle on them fairly readily? It is going to take me ages to read and understand the implications of all of CCC,

From Carol Coombe: Speculation is allowed (CCC) but in the end we are expected to reach a conclusion identical with that of the Magisterium

From Bishopite: Actually, that’s not the case. You have the freedom to speculate within certain boundaries.

Vatican has specifically stated (either in CCC or in statement on how to read the Bible – late at night now here in SA) that one can speculate, but must defer ultimately to official doctrine.

Everyone can choose to follow Christ who is the head of His church or not to follow, to what degree they know they are doing something gravely immoral is God’s job. …HIV is unfortunate but two wrongs don’t make a right.

So despite Christ dying that we might live, it is wrong to save life because one doctrine conflicts with another? I do find this hard.

Many forum posters read the Bible as a twenty first century document and far remove themselves from the genre or context of the scriptures or the intent of the message of the author; what did the author intend to convey to those whom he/she wrote?

There is the original intent, yes, and that is the task of the Magisterium, influenced by divine guidance, to interpret. I have been officially taught however that we must also understand the scriptures within our own context, if they are to truly live. This is not relativism: it is reality.

 

[clmowry]

Isn’t truth what it al comes down to?

When it comes to our salvation in Christ Jesus, either the Catholic Church has handed down and teaches that truth, or there is no truth and it pretty much doesn’t matter what we believe and do.

If it is the truth then accepting that truth and leading every soul to do the same is the single most important thing we can do.

Refusing to accept it does no good for the ones we love. In fact it may make us cupable for a greater sin.

By accepting and living the Way of Truth we can be used by God to lead others to that truth. Delay only leaves those we love in more danger. It does’t shield them from it.

Chuck

I understand what you are saying Guan.

However, if I join the Catholic Church I am required to believe with my whole heart and mind and soul that this generous, honourable and respected person will go to hell (along with a lot of other things that I am required to believe: although God does not intervene in our free will, the Catholic Church sure does). It was bad enough working that out (No man cometh unto the Father but by me) as a Baptist! As a Catholic, no choice. In effect I am saying therefore, to the father of my beautiful sons, I don’t give a stuff that you are going to hell. This is what I will do: you go your way, and I go mine. That is a terrible commitment to have to make. And a terrible statement to make to one’s life partner.

There are others on the Forum in the same boat. They have chosen to remain outside the Catholic Church.

Part of the problem is that there is such confusion in the minds of Catholic Christians about who goes to hell and who does not - regardless of the Vatican’s position on this. Dogmatic Constitution Vatican II says one thing; posters say another. What about people of other faiths? other cultures? other belief systems? Those who are ignorant of the Christian God go to heaven; those who know about the Catholic Christian God but turn away in favour of life as a moral non-Christian or a Buddhist have explicitly rejected the Catholic God, and are therefore doomed to hell, separation from God for all time. This is a bit rich.

What about Catholics like Bede Griffiths, who spent his religious life combining the textures of Catholicism with those of Hinduism. Where does he fit into this schema?

Or does one give up trying to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on this - with regard to hell-goers - and assume that our God of Love will ensure that His children will, in the majority, be with Him in heaven? For God so loved the world…

It also has a lot to do with who owns Absolute Truth, if there is one, but I shall leave that for now!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What’s so hard to understand about who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell?

Jesus judges each of us on what we know. That means that yes people who have never even heard of him can go to Heaven–but it also means that they can go to Hell!

Why? Because they’re judged on what they know. Of course if they’re trying to live the best they can knowing what they know they will go to Heaven.

If anyone anywhere regardless of any knowledge resists the Holy Spirit influencing them to do what is right they will go to Hell!

Why? Because resistasnce of the Holy Spirit is Blashpemy of the Holy Spirit and Jesus said that Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in this world or the next!

Can non Catholics committ mortal sin? Yes! How are they reconciled to God after committing mortal sin–other than by perfect contrition we do not know how they can be reconciled!

So do some Protestants committ mortal sin? Yes! Is it possible that some do not? Yes!

Do we know which ones do and which ones don’t and which ones have perfect contrition and which ones do not? No! Only God knows!

Bottom line: is there a great chance of going to Hell if you’re not Catholic?

Yes! That’s the truth! Many will refuse to hear it!

Just remember Jesus said “The road to eternal life is narrow and Few there are that find it”.

Jesus didn’t say many–Jesus said few!

Which just backs up the fact that yes–there’s a great chance of going to Hell if you’re not Catholic because you have much less avenues and chances of receiving God’s grace!

That doesn’t mean it is impossible–it does though mean that it is extremely more difficult than for one who is Catholic and it is Hard even for a Catholic so just think how hard it is if you’re not Catholic!

 

[Bishopite]

So to doctrine and dogma, ritual, practice, obedience and context, I should add speculative theology and Canon Law (as of this century). Anything else I should be aware of?

 

[down_under]

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?

I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of christ. What was he talking about if you dont have to do anything to go to heaven. How come every time christ talks about you being judged he talks about what you did in this life. I was hungry you fed me nacked and you clothed me. I was hungry and you did not feed me. naked and you did not cloth me. And we see that he does to very different things based on this formula. Seems like what you do is pretty important to me.

I make up in my body what is lacking in the sufferings of christ. Tell me kaycee if you dont have to do anything to go to heaven then what does paul mean when he says this. If you are not required to partisipate in christs salvific mission, then what does he mean. Holding my breath. I will probably pass out before you respond, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[mikeledes]

Interesting analogy:thumbsup:
The way I look at this analogy is this.

God gave me this whirpool as a gift. He expects me to keep it clean and take care of it but if I forget to clean it for a couple of days, months, years–He is not going to take it back because it was a free gift with no strings attached.

Now–He may say to me–you know that whirpool is getting dirty you really need to clean it and nag(discipline)me until I do and I will because I want to keep my gift clean for God to please Him.

Well sadly for me Gos is going to make me miserable then for the rest of my life but he will not take it away.

Free gift, no stongs attached? Not take away?

Revelation 22:19

**19and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. **

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Galatians 6:7-9

7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.

1 Timothy 6:18-19

18Instruct them to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share,
19storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.

John 5:28-29

28"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice,
29and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

Matthew 25:34-36, 46

**34"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. **

WHY?

** 35’FOR** I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;
36naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’
46"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Romans 2:6-7

**6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good **seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

John 8:51 (NASB)

51"Truly, truly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he will never see death."

1 John 2:17 (NASB)

17The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever.

Revelation 2:26

**26’He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds **until the end, TO HIM I WILL GIVE AUTHORITY OVER THE NATIONS;

2 Peter 1:5-11

5Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,
6and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,
7and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.
8For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they render you neither useless nor unfruitful in the true (X)knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9For he who lacks these qualities is blind or short-sighted, having forgotten his purification from his former sins.
10Therefore, brethren, be all the more diligent to make certain about His calling and choosing you; for as long as you practice these things, you will never stumble;
11FOR IN THIS WAY the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you.

And yet these verses still stand. Paul may have been more detailed in his teachings on salvation, but he did not override, change, or invalidate the statements Jesus made on salvation. The above verses from some of his epistles prove that. I would like to add one more verse:

Revelation 2:10

…Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life

God Bless,
Michael

And yet these verses still stand. These verses stand in stark contrast to the Gospel of Salvation as taught by the Sola Fide OSAS crowd. No wonder they have been ignored.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[down_under]

Several points:

(1) There are things that are true that are not in the Bible, which reports the teachings of the apostles. And I am sure that there are lots of things the apostles taught that are not in the Bible.
(2) No one in the early Christian Church had a Bible so things were passed on by word of mouth, or by letters from, say, Paul to various Christian communities. Reasoning tells me that at this point it was sola fide for the Christian communities because there was not as yet a Bible, just a few books and whatnot - and few were able to read unless they were Greek, or a Jewish rabbi.
(3) You don’t have to believe me, and I do not claim to be better than the apostles. You asked a question, and I am trying to give you my answer, my idea of the truth as a result of my Christian learning and my knowledge of history and religion. You can take it or leave it.
(4) The Old Testament was stabilised before most of the New Testament was actually written, around 150 BCE - 75 CE.
(5) You are right - few people could read in the middle ages, and even fewer could afford a hand-written Bible until the printing press was invented by Gutenburg in Germany (although the Chinese had it a long time before). BUT even if they could read, and even if they could afford a Bible, it was in Latin. The Bible used officially by Catholic Christians was in Latin until the early 1960s, at the time of Vatican II. So reading a Bible, owning a Bible did not matter: Masses were said in a language not understood by Christians, and the official Bibles and Missals were in Latin.
(6) I know that probably 70 per cent of the world’s people are illiterate: I have spent the last 40 years as an international education planner trying to reduce that by working with others to provide ‘Education for All’, a global United Nations programme started in 1989. We hope that all children will be literate by 2015, but this is probably optimistic.
But even if more people can read, they will still have to obey the teachings of the Church if they are Catholic Christians. It may be that, if they do not have or read a Bible, they will think for themselves. Just thinking.
(7) 'How do I think I have the correct interperation over the apostles and everyone else in history? you ask? I do not. I am just trying to help out by giving an answer to your question which everyone else ignored, thus making you sad and angry. I didn’t want you to feel ignored, so I answered your question as best I could, but said at the outset that I did not know everything, and that I hoped others would contribute. Why did that make you angry?

-interesting I was always under the impression that the old testamtent was argued much longer do to the jews making some changes to shall we say down play christs role in things. Do you have a sorce I would like to read about that.
-A side not I dont under stand the whole necessity to switch to “common era” and “before common era” there is nothing common about most of what is now refered to as the common era by whatever set of history buffs came up with this idea. Not only that it is totally hipacritical. You still wrap time around the birth of God, you just refuse to give him credit for this particular marker. What do you think is up with that.
-about the reading thing that is a sticky point because if you cant read the bible and you are an ss adhearent then you are stuck. Although I agree that ignorace of scripture is ignorance of christ. If you cant be saved because you dont know how to read. it is difficult to go any further. As for the middle ages, Latin was a somewhat universal language. If not in common usage then in the fact that it was a language that you learned before you learned other languages because many were based on latin. They were still doing this in public schools up till about 15 years ago for the same reason.
-I was not really angry just annoied that the other post I have made several time got really ignored by the protesters who seemed to be taking up the most type space.
I make up in my body what is lacking in the suffering of christ.
I would like to hear what someone who truly believes in sola fita thinks he is saying here. I am really interested to know.

 

[guanophore]

nerfherder:

if I join the Catholic Church I am required to believe with my whole heart and mind and soul that this generous, honourable and respected person will go to hell (along with a lot of other things that I am required to believe: although God does not intervene in our free will, the Catholic Church sure does).

This probably belongs on another thread. I am not sure that it is possible to “believe with the whole heart, mind and soul”. I say that because human beings are made with a large unconscious element which generaly runs counter to the conscious mind. To “love” God in these areas is a decision of the will. One can choose Christ, and choose the church, doubts and disagreements notwithstanding. One can agree to comply even if one does not understand or cannot reconcile a teaching in the mind or heart.

nerfherder:

It was bad enough working that out (No man cometh unto the Father but by me) as a Baptist! As a Catholic, no choice.

I guess I don’t understand this at all. If Jesus says “no man comes to the Father but by me” how does that eliminate choice? You still have a choice about whether or not to come to the father, do you not? This quote, by the way, is the basis for the Church’s teaching that it is the one, true church. Jesus established His one church as the means by which He would reveal Himself to the world and through which the world would come to Him. The apostles understood this as the teaching of Jesus Christ, and not some formula of their own making. Nothing has changed this understanding of Catholics in the last 2000 years.

nerfherder:

In effect I am saying therefore, to the father of my beautiful sons, I don’t give a stuff that you are going to hell. This is what I will do: you go your way, and I go mine. That is a terrible commitment to have to make. And a terrible statement to make to one’s life partner.

I think this is erroneous. It is wrong for one person to judge the heart of another. Only God is able to judge whether your husband has lived in accordance of the light he has received. It is improper for you to make that condemnation of any human being, but most especially your spouse.

It is also unbiblical “for the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but as it is they are holy. 15 But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace. 16 Wife, how do you know whether you will save your husband? Husband, how do you know whether you will save your wife?” 1 Cor 7:14-16

 

[guanophore]

nerfherder:

There are others on the Forum in the same boat. They have chosen to remain outside the Catholic Church.

It seems to me that most of the people here that have done so have made a decision based on rejection of the teaching authority of the church.

Or do you think it is because, as the title of the thread states, the Church teaches that obedience, in addition to faith, is essential to salvation?

nerfherder:

Part of the problem is that there is such confusion in the minds of Catholic Christians about who goes to hell and who does not - regardless of the Vatican’s position on this. Dogmatic Constitution Vatican II says one thing; posters say another. What about people of other faiths? other cultures? other belief systems? Those who are ignorant of the Christian God go to heaven; those who know about the Catholic Christian God but turn away in favour of life as a moral non-Christian or a Buddhist have explicitly rejected the Catholic God, and are therefore doomed to hell, separation from God for all time. This is a bit rich.

It is, and for the most part, pointless speculation. Jesus came that we have life, and have it more abundantly. Why not focus on that?

nerfherder:

What about Catholics like Bede Griffiths, who spent his religious life combining the textures of Catholicism with those of Hinduism. Where does he fit into this schema?

I have to confess that I have my hands full just fitting myself into Jesus’ schema, and I don’t have the wherewithall to judge the spiritual status of others.

nerfherder:

Or does one give up trying to understand the Catholic Church’s teaching on this - with regard to hell-goers - and assume that our God of Love will ensure that His children will, in the majority, be with Him in heaven? For God so loved the world…

You accurately pointed out elsewhere that it is impossible to master all the church teachings on everything. There are too many! However, I think a person must research those issues that have the potential to block one from fullness in Christ. For some, these are the teachings on contraception. For others, it is the teachings on salvation. Whatever it is, our call is to be “reconciled with God”, so whatever is preventing that is the hurdle that needs to be surmounted.

nerfherder:

It also has a lot to do with who owns Absolute Truth, if there is one, but I shall leave that for now!

Does that mean you have not yet accepted Jesus’ claim that "I am the Way, the “Truth, and the Life”?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

And yet these verses still stand. These verses stand in stark contrast to the Gospel of Salvation as taught by the Sola Fide OSAS crowd. No wonder they have been ignored.

God Bless,
Michael

Hi Mike,
I really like you so please dont take this as being too hostile

Your doing the very same thing you accuse us of doing Cherry picking verses to fit your theology.
That is all I can say really . Im one of those people who knows what I believe but it is difficult for me to put it into writing–which is why I put forth articles from gotquestions.org. They do a great job tieing it all together in a way that is comprehendable.

My explanation would just be babble