What must I do to be saved?

[Tomster]

Leadee:
Leadee,

The name Catholic as a name is not applied to the Catholic Church in the Bible, although the idea of the Church, the pillar and ground of truth, in the mind of Christ and the Apostles is clearly set forth by this Greek word, which means “universal.”

St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna about the year 110 A.D., is the first to use the name “The Catholic Church.”

St. Ignatius writes: "Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.

Many other early Church Fathers used the term Catholic.

Two questions you might want to ask yourself are do you assemble for worship where the Bishop is?

Can your pastor trace his lineage directly back to the Apostles? Catholics can!

 

[pablope]

There is no book of the bible that mentions it’s human author in it that I know of. We know who wrote them because of the scrolls we have based the bible on. Some of the OT books we don’t even know for sure who wrote them. Johm Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. That’s why it’s called the Gospel “of” Mark.

There are books that mention their human authors. Gospel of Luke, John, Matthew…The Revelation, the Epistles of Paul…but where does Mark claim the authorship of the Gospel of Mark in the Bible?

How do you know it was written by Mark?

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding what point you are trying to prove.

 

[Tomster]

There are books that mention their human authors. Gospel of Luke, John, Matthew…The Revelation, the Epistles of Paul…but where does Mark claim the authorship of the Gospel of Mark in the Bible?

 

[davidmlamb]

There is no book of the bible that mentions it’s human author in it that I know of. We know who wrote them because of the scrolls we have based the bible on. Some of the OT books we don’t even know for sure who wrote them. Johm Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. That’s why it’s called the Gospel “of” Mark. .

Saint Paul identifies himself as the author as does Luke mentions he is the author in both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Saint John also identifies himself as the writer in the Gospel of John, 1st John and the book of Revelation. We know who wrote most of the new testament because we have ecclesiastical writings from the fathers of the Church who have told us so. That is how we know for instance that Peter was crucified upside down at his own request and Paul was beheaded.

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding what point you are trying to prove. Who wrote the book or who inspired the book? God divinely inspired the writers of the bible and here’s the verses: 2 Tim 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. .

Ive been reading your responces and I think you are engaging in rhetoric so you do not have to admit who decided which books of ther bible were conanical. These were decided at Church councils starting with the Council of Rome in 382AD and then ratified and affirmed at the Council of Hippo in 392 AD and the Council of Carthage in 397 AD. Over the next few centuries the Bishops of the Church got together at other various councils to affirm the canon of scripture and you can read the rulings of these councils because they have been published and preserved. The bottom line is that the Church decided which written traditions were canonical. How do I know this? Because the Bible tells me so:

His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms, Ephesians 3:10

2 Peter 1:21 says - For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

There are othe verses that talk about how we understand it which is through the Holy Spirit. And every believe has the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them. (1Cor 2:9-13, John 16:13, 1 John 2:20 & 27).

I don’t really want to debate whether the bible is the Word of God or not. You can decide for yourself. It is very clear to me that it is, I’m convinced that it is “Living”(Heb 4:12) as well. I came here to try to understand where the catholic church builds it’s theology of salvation on and I see now. Thank you.

Your not answering the question. We Catholics know the bible is the Word of God and we know who descerned which written traditions were canonical and compiled the 73 books as being inspired and called it “the Bible.” We no the dates this happened and who was present to decide. But we are challenging you to tell us how do you know the books in the bible are inspired. For instance, how do you know the book of Jude or James is inspired? Masrtin Luther rejected the book of James calling it an “epistle full of straws.” How do you know Martin Luther wasn’t right and that some how the book of James was mistakenly added to the bible? How do you know? If I write an epistle an claim it to be inspired by God would you accept that claim at face value? If not then why do you claim at face value the book of Jude or James is inspired? Can you answer that question?

Dave

 

[Tomster]

Well, I believe I am beginning to see your point. You are making a distinction between works of the law and good works. You are separating the two. Okay, can you please give me where your definition of good works and works of the law comes from?

fpesce,

It is perfectly true that we are justified by faith, but not by faith alone. We are justified by a faith that works by charity (Gal. 5:6).

St. Paul contends against the Jews of his time, who obstinately defended the eternal duration of the Mosaic law, and asserted that, not needing a Redeemer from sin, they became righteous and acceptable before God by that law alone. In opposition to this opinion, St. Paul lays down the maxim, that it is not by the deeds of the law, that is, not by a life regulated by the Mosaic precepts, is man able to obtain the favor of heaven; but only through faith in Christ, which has been imparted to us by God for wisdom, for sanctification, for righteousness, and for redemption. Unbelief in the Redeemer, and confidence in the fulfillment of the law performed through natural power on the one hand, and faith in the Redeemer and the justice to be conferred by God on the other (Rom. 1:17; Rom. 10:3; Phil. 3:9) - these, and not faith in the Redeemer, and the good works emanating from His power, constitute the two points of opposition contemplated by the Apostle.

 

[Tomster]

Well, I believe I am beginning to see your point. You are making a distinction between works of the law and good works. You are separating the two. Okay, can you please give me where your definition of good works and works of the law comes from?

fpesce,

The grace of God, a supernatural gift bestowed upon us through the merits of Christ’s Passion and Death, is absolutely necessary for us to attain eternal life. Grace is necesary for the beginning of faith; it is necessary for the just man to persevere in the grace he has already received; it is necesary for him to avoid all venial sins. St. Paul teaches the necessity of grace for salutary thoughts, resolves and actions. All right thinking is from God: “Not that we are sufficient to think anything of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God” (2 Cor. 3:5). The righteous “will” must rest on the Divine Mercy: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy” (Rom. 9:16). The righteous “action” is from beginning to end from God: “It is God who worketh in you both to will and to accomplish” (Phil. 2:13). He ascribes all his virtue, and the wonderful results of his missions to the grace of God: “By the grace of God I am what I am; and His grace in me hath not been void, but I have labored more abundantly than all they, yet not I, but the grace of God with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).

 

[Julia_Mae]

I don’t see what we disagree on?

God Bless

We don’t. I was agreeing with you, but adding that we don’t have to depend on Tradition to know to whom Paul was addressing his remarks as he made it clear himself in his letter…

 

[Julia_Mae]

Saint John also identifies himself as the writer in the Gospel of John, 1st John and the book of Revelation.

This is not exactly correct. In the Gospel of John it seems as if the beloved disciple must be John, although he is then referring to himself in the text as if he were someone else. The author of the three epistles in the NT doesn’t use a name, the last two are thought by scholars not to be by the same hand as the first. .As for Revelations, this is from the NAB Introduction:

The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4-3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.

I haven’t heard of any Catholic scholars who would attribute Revelations to Saint John the Apostle. I believe the only Gospel with an identified writer is Luke, and that’s only by inference.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

.

There are othe verses that talk about how we understand it which is through the Holy Spirit. And every believe has the Holy Spirit to guide and teach them. (1Cor 2:9-13, John 16:13, 1 John 2:20 & 27).

I don’t really want to debate whether the bible is the Word of God or not. You can decide for yourself. It is very clear to me that it is, I’m convinced that it is “Living”(Heb 4:12) as well. I came here to try to understand where the catholic church builds it’s theology of salvation on and I see now. Thank you.

No, Leadee, you don’t see. The Catholic Church builds its theology on her first-hand, personal knowledge of the teaching of Christ and His Apostles. The Apostles were her leaders and teachers. The Church was teaching long before she wrote the first word of what eventually became the New Testament. The New Testament consists of 27 of the Catholic Church’s own writings.

If all Protestants were guided and taught by the Holy Spirit as you claim, they would all believe the same doctrines. They don’t. Inescapable conclusion: they’re not guided and taught by the Spirit. They only think they are.

The Holy Spirit was sent to remain with the Church always, to guide her to all truth. You (and others) claim promises for yourselves that were made to the Catholic Church. This is another of many examples of wrong interpretation.

Jim Dandy

 

[PRmerger]

There is no book of the bible that mentions it’s human author in it that I know of. We know who wrote them because of the scrolls we have based the bible on. Some of the OT books we don’t even know for sure who wrote them. Johm Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark. That’s why it’s called the Gospel “of” Mark.

I’m sorry, I’m not understanding what point you are trying to prove. Who wrote the book or who inspired the book?

The point being made is this: if you don’t know who actually wrote the inspired text, how do you know it’s inspired?

Who decided that the Gospel of Mark is inspired and the Gospel of Thomas is not inspired?

Well, it was…

the Catholic Church!

God divinely inspired the writers of the bible and here’s the verses: 2 Tim 3:16-17 - All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Amen!

But the question is, what is “Scripture”?

Is this Scripture: “My breath is offensive to my wife.”

What about this: “Thou causest to err thereby whomever Thou pleasest and guidest whomever Thou pleasest…”

And how do you know? Just by reading it?

Or did someone else–some infallible men, inspired by the Holy Spirit–discern which is inspired (the answer: the first is from the book of Job, and is thus inspired, the second is from the Koran, and thus is not inspired).?

 

[ddarko]

We don’t. I was agreeing with you, but adding that we don’t have to depend on Tradition to know to whom Paul was addressing his remarks as he made it clear himself in his letter…

Oh ok, I am not actually arguing that someone needs Tradition to KNOW who St. Paul was talking to. The reason I used the words from ‘Tradition we know’ is to highlight the importance of the teaching authority.

Because even though St. Paul writes that he says x,y,z to certain group of people, one can interpret it as applying universally to all works etc. So a logically consistent interpretation is possible with such an error. But it is obviously false. Therefore, if one started correctly with a rational foundation, then one would KNOW that they have to interpret Scripture and Tradition together under the GUIDANCE of the Church (i.e. Apostles). That is the only rational position.

Scripture alone is therefore just a speculation. It lacks any rational foundation but ironically insists that the interpretations themselves must follow rules of reason.

God Bless

 

[Julia_Mae]

Because even though St. Paul writes that he says x,y,z to certain group of people, one can interpret it as applying universally to all works etc. So a logically consistent interpretation is possible with such an error. But it is obviously false.

I agree. The other issue is that the passage is pulled completely out of context.

Therefore, if one started correctly with a rational foundation, then one would KNOW that they have to interpret Scripture and Tradition together under the GUIDANCE of the Church (i.e. Apostles). That is the only rational position.

Well, if you want to try and sell Catholicism to people it is. Or, we can see that the real issue isn’t the Church, because they are always going to interpret “Church” as RCC. The real issue is Christian historicity.

They don’t need to agree with or submit to claimed Church authority to restore the Canonical Scriptures and avail themselves of the teaching and Tradition of the Fathers of Christianity. It isn’t like that information isn’t available these days all over the internet. The American “Christians” need their own Reformation, IMO.

Scripture alone is therefore just a speculationIt lacks any rational foundation but ironically insists that the interpretations themselves must follow rules of reason…

Well, no, that’s a bit too extreme. Scripture has historicity if nothing else and Scripture study is always accompanied by the Holy Spirit if done in humility and prayer.

But that leaves it up to each individual to reinvent the theological wheel, and that a really big darned wheel of a million spokes.

 

[David_Castlen]

This has been a great discussion. I am amazed at how most everyone has been civil; OK, close to civil. I must tell you in my long journey back to the faith this after the subject of Authority was not that big on my mlnd because I felt there wasn’t that much of a difference in Catholic salvation and Protestant. Obviously, what a Protestant means is always up in the air. I know some who say that no matter what if at one time in a person’s life they accepted Christ as their Lord and savior, that person would be saved.

Anyway, one of the last books before I “came home” was Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity. Here is (in my opinion) an excellent summary of what we have all been reading (or writing) about here. I require all to read this book, Catholic Christianity or they will go to hell. I KNOW you will appreciate this:

**Faith and Works
(From Peter Kreeft’s Catholic Christianity page 25, #15)

Most Protestants, following Luther, believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. The Catholic Church, following the New Testament (Mt. 25; Jas 2), teaches that good works are also required. This was the single most important issue of the Protestant Reformation, the single most tragic division in the history of the Church.

But both Protestants and Catholics are beginning to see that their two apparently contradictory positions may have been saying the same essential thing in different words, words that seemed contradictory but perhaps were not. Returning to the common data – Scripture- reveals that both key words, “faith” and “salvation”. Are used in two senses: sometimes more narrowly and sometimes more broadly:

a. In Romans and Galatians, for example, St Paul uses “faith” broadly, to mean acceptance of God and His offer of salvation in Christ. This is the free choice of the will that saves us. But in I Corinthians 13, St. Paul uses “faith” in a narrower sense in distinguishing faith from hope and love, and he says love is greater. And St. James uses faith in a when he says that faith alone does not save us. That is, intellectual belief alone does not save us. That is, intellectual belief alone does not save us.
b. Scripture also uses “salvation” in two senses, broad and narrow. Salvation is the broad sense includes sanctification, being-made-saintly, being-made-holy; and is a process that requires not faith alone but also good works. Salvation in the narrower sense means just being accepted by God, or justified, forgiven for sin, being in a state of grace. Catholics agree with Protestants that in this narrower sense of salvation we can be saved by faith alone – that is, by faith in the broader sense, faith as a choice of the will, not just a belief of the intellect. Faith is what lets the life of God into our souls. The thief on the cross (Lk. 23:33-43) had no time for good works, but he was saved by his faith.

To summarized, the,

a. we are neither justified (forgiven) nor sanctified (made holy) by intellectual faith alone (belief);
b. we are justified by will-faith, or heart-faith alone;
c. but this faith will necessarily produce good works,
d. and we are not sanctified (made holy) by faith alone, in either sense, but only by faith plus good works.

An analogy: a woman is made pregnant by her faith in a man, by letting him impregnate her. She is not made pregnant merely by right intellectual beliefs about him. This faith, or trust, is sufficient to begin her pregnancy, but she must choose to do the deeds that nourish and complete it (for example, eating the right foods.)
The Protestant doctrine of justification by faith alone contradicts Scripture. St Paul never says we are justified by faith alone, and St. James explicitly says we are not justified by faith alone (Jas 2:24).

But Protestants can remind us of an infinitely important truth that we often forget: that we are not saved by good works alone; that we cannot buy our way into heaven with “enough” good deeds; that none of us can deserve heaven; and therefore if we were to die tonight and meet God, and God were to ask us why he should let us into heaven, if we are Christians our answer should not begin with the word “I” but with the word “Christ”.**

 

[Leadee]

Well said David and thank you!

Thank you for taking the time to lay things out so well I understand and agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I think the different understanding we have lies in where works fit in the picture. The difference is, do our works justify us (make us right with God) or not. My understanding of scripture is that they cannot justify us in any way because in the flesh our works are filthy. The only works that are counted righteous are those done in the spirit and if we are not first justified by grace we cannot be born again in the spirit, thus our works are of the flesh. It seems utterly futile to me to continue to try to earn salvation when it’s already been impuned to those who believe, through the work of Jesus Christ (the Savior).

If we believe that we have to keep working out our salvation and sin is constantly in the way until the moment we are in heaven, I don’t see how anyone would even make it to heaven (actually I think we go to paradise and heaven after the judgement but let’s not go there). Naturally, even after we are born again, saved, redeemed from the curse or which ever one chooses to call it, we are still subject to sinning and that is why Jesus came, to do away with the punishment for the sin, not to immediately transform us into perfect beings. It’s a process that he works in and through us. He uses the word “born” when you are born into this world you are not born a man, you are born an infant. So it is with spiritual birth. There is much growing to do if that spirit is to mature.

The difference I see in the two theologies is:

A. You are justified by Jesus’ work on the cross and sactification is a process of walking in that salvation (new born spirit man) and working it out by perservering in your new faith and growing in that faith by growing stronger in the spirit man with good works being the fruit of that.

or

B. You are justified of your sin that you were born with only. You are born again but only until you sin again. Then you must start over and be justified again, every time you sin so you must continue in your own efforts so that you do not sin, in hopes that when you die, you will be sinless so that you may enter Heaven.

A, you are justified by Jesus merit (no other religion has such belief). Which is what seperate christianity from all other religions.
B. you are ultimately saved by your own efforts (all other religions have this belief).

Another thing I think we see differently is repentence. I always hear about repentence (CC and Prot alike) being for the forgiveness of sins. My understanding is that is only a part of true repentence. It’s more then just seeing your sin and feeling convicted and sorry, it’s having a complete change of mind. It’s more then just realizing you’re a sinner, it’s realizing that you are not capable of saving yourself and are in need of the Savior to do it.

There’s a bit more I’d like to respond to but I am probably running out of space so I’ll continue it.

 

[PRmerger]

Leadee!

I’m dying to know: did the wedding you attended of a divorced Catholic take place in a Catholic church with a priest officiating???

(Of course I understand this thread is moving quickly and it’s difficult to answer all posts, but I am quite curious about your comment that a Catholic was re-married at a wedding you attended!)

 

[Leadee]

There’s a bit more I’d like to respond to but I am probably running out of space so I’ll continue it.

UGH! I just wrote a long reply but accidently deleted it. I can’t do it all over. I wrote about my understanding of the old and new covenant. Some of my points were:
God laid the covenant (not man and God together). Promised the Messiah to save the world from sin and death. While waiting for Him man was given the law so they could understand sin and understand their need for a savior. Blood sacrifices temporarily covered man’s sin and by faith man hoped for the Savior to come.
Jesus came, died for the sins of the world as promised. Old covenant fulfilled. New covenant promise, Jesus will come again in judgement. Beleivers sins have been taken care of. You must repent and believe and become a “living” sacrifice, die with Christ (baptism represents this sacrifice).

A person can believe they are “saved” by just saying a prayer of faith but unless there is change and evidence of spiritual fruit they ar deceived. It’s not true repentence.

I could sit here and engaged all day back and forth if I had the time but alas, I don’t. I’t’s great being challanged though. I believe being challanged is what helps our faith grow

 

[Leadee]

Leadee!

I’m dying to know: did the wedding you attended of a divorced Catholic take place in a Catholic church with a priest officiating???

Yes it did, mass and all.

(Of course I understand this thread is moving quickly and it’s difficult to answer all posts, but I am quite curious about your comment that a Catholic was re-married at a wedding you attended!)

 

[PRmerger]

,

Please do not nest your quotes, Leadee.

Whatever is between this

and / QUOTE] will appear nested.

So this was a Catholic who was divorced and married someone else?

Then, if it was a Catholic Mass you must assume that this Catholic had a previous “marriage” declared “null” i.e. had an annulment.

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Please get back on topic or this thread will be closed.

 

[ddarko]

Thank you for taking the time to lay things out so well I understand and agree with a lot of what you are saying.

I think the different understanding we have lies in where works fit in the picture. The difference is, do our works justify us (make us right with God) or not. My understanding of scripture is that they cannot justify us in any way because in the flesh our works are filthy. The only works that are counted righteous are those done in the spirit and if we are not first justified by grace we cannot be born again in the spirit, thus our works are of the flesh. It seems utterly futile to me to continue to try to earn salvation when it’s already been impuned to those who believe, through the work of Jesus Christ (the Savior).

If we believe that we have to keep working out our salvation and sin is constantly in the way until the moment we are in heaven, I don’t see how anyone would even make it to heaven (actually I think we go to paradise and heaven after the judgement but let’s not go there). Naturally, even after we are born again, saved, redeemed from the curse or which ever one chooses to call it, we are still subject to sinning and that is why Jesus came, to do away with the punishment for the sin, not to immediately transform us into perfect beings. It’s a process that he works in and through us. He uses the word “born” when you are born into this world you are not born a man, you are born an infant. So it is with spiritual birth. There is much growing to do if that spirit is to mature.

The difference I see in the two theologies is:

A. You are justified by Jesus’ work on the cross and sactification is a process of walking in that salvation (new born spirit man) and working it out by perservering in your new faith and growing in that faith by growing stronger in the spirit man with good works being the fruit of that.

or

B. You are justified of your sin that you were born with only. You are born again but only until you sin again. Then you must start over and be justified again, every time you sin so you must continue in your own efforts so that you do not sin, in hopes that when you die, you will be sinless so that you may enter Heaven.

A, you are justified by Jesus merit (no other religion has such belief). Which is what seperate christianity from all other religions.
B. you are ultimately saved by your own efforts (all other religions have this belief).

Another thing I think we see differently is repentence. I always hear about repentence (CC and Prot alike) being for the forgiveness of sins. My understanding is that is only a part of true repentence. It’s more then just seeing your sin and feeling convicted and sorry, it’s having a complete change of mind. It’s more then just realizing you’re a sinner, it’s realizing that you are not capable of saving yourself and are in need of the Savior to do it.

There’s a bit more I’d like to respond to but I am probably running out of space so I’ll continue it.

Sigh. You tell us all about your views. But what is it worth if its not the truth? What is it worth if its just your speculation? For all you know, we Roman Catholics are right and you are wrong.

So Leadee, I am going to bow out of this conversation by making a plea to you.

PLEASE find out how you go from Resurrection of Christ TO whatever religion you hold as Christianity RATIONALLY.

Now if you are saying “I pray about it and then Jesus leads me to the Bible” then you still have to back it up RATIONALLY. With just the resurrection of Christ, you can’t BACK IT UP. Because someone might say I pray to Jesus and I get the urge to have pre-marital sex etc.

So right now, before you discuss logical consistency of interpreting Scripture etc, you need to check your foundations. There is something terribly wrong. It makes little sense for a Protestant theologian to talk about use of reason in Scripture and to even say “My view CONTRADICTS the Catholic view” if he/she has already discarded REASON to arrive at Christianity.

God didn’t just leave a book behind for people to speculate on how to be saved. Therefore, first establish how you arrive at Christianity through REASON. Ask yourself, how you would arrive at it if you were living right after the resurrection. Who do you listen to. Why do you listen to them etc. Then all will be clear. You will find out WHO you should listen to.

Also, don’t get bogged down in this ‘personal experience of Christ’ business. I know the protestants tend to be very fond of it and seem to wave it at everything but all it tells you is that Jesus is REAL. So the experiences are important for what they are. But those experiences don’t tell you WHAT or WHO to believe regarding the teachings of Jesus.

God Bless