What teachings would the Catholic Church have to drop for you to be a catholic

[The_Iambic_Pen]

Thanks for that clarifying post.

You are very welcome.

“But councils of bishops can err and be deceived. How then can one be certain that a particular gathering is truly an Ecumenical Council and therefore that its decrees are infallible?” etc.)

I think this is a case where Catholics need to trust in the teaching authority of the Church and not try to go through old councils and statements, picking and choosing which parts are infallible and picking and choosing which teachings to obey.

On a little side-note, whereas the members of the Church are fallible and sinful, the Church herself is the spotless bride of Christ, and is therefore infallible and sinless. Yet I find that a lot of people forget that last part.

Always good to give a reminder.

 

[joe370]

Joe370: The only reason I implied that you were shouting, or screaming, was because I received a warning on another thread for using all capital lettersI was told, that it was tantamount to shouting!

Hey 1beleevr…

Wow, that I did not know; gosh, I hope others haven’t been thinking the same thing!!! I’m just glad we cleared that bit of confusion up, my friend!

But let’s agree on one thing; no one can tell anyone else that they’re not saved, or their salvation isn’t secure

Agreed; only Jesus Christ!!! …Judge ye not, as per scripture!

I have not expressed that idea on this thread, or any thread for that matter. But reading some of these posts, one could get the idea, that if they didn’t follow a certain set of guidlines to the letter, that their salvation was not valid! Not pointing fingers, just making an observation!

We are a lot alike; I never point fingers either; I simply make observations based on logic and reason, and if I have question, I simply take it to the church, as per sacred scripture! Are there any guidelines that must be observed at the “Way Fellowship, a Christ-centered, non-denominational church?” Would I be allowed to bring my beliefs, as a catholic into your church…would I be embraced as another brother in Christ, even though I believe in the true presence of Christ? My sister belongs to a non-denominational church as well; I was welcomed into their assembly, until they found out that I was a fellow Christian, belonging to the C.C.; at that point I was given the boot. Almost every church has a charter…a set of guidelines, that must be followed; I don’t think there is anything intrinsically wrong with that, after all, Jesus established a body of teachers in His stead, and those teachers built universal churches that were well established, organized, with a firm structural foundation on both the apostles and prophets, and they took unresolvable issues to Jesus’ established church; that was why Jesus’ church was one and united…why they were able to avoid division and dissension. Jesus established church, in her infancy, was made up of an assembly of believers, both clergy [teachers] and laity [pupils] --and we see this in every church the world over. Jesus’ fledgling church was devoted to the promotion of a particular cause, handed down to them by Jesus’ Apostles and their disciples, and this was to be done in perpetuity, according to the Holy Bible --especially of a public, educational and charitable character!!! By definition, that is an Institution. Every church regardless of affiliation, is an Institution!
Leadership is very important for the survival of any Institution, be it a church, government, prison or school! Perhaps that is why the sinful and fallible teachers, as we all are, who wrote the books of the Bible, frowned upon private/individual interpretation?

And since you have shown where Abraham was also called the rock, along with God, and Jesus…

Actually I didn’t!!! Taking a little shot our we??? LOL… Isaiah 51:1-2

…then you must admit that someone could, and probably say that the Rock was Jesus, with Peter…

I’m afraid logic and grammatical correctness prevents me from yielding! From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause. By analogy, we can see, the proof is in the pudding:

You are are a protestant and upon this catholic…From a logical and grammatical standpoint, as opposed to the beliefs of any one church, this is really a non-issue, wouldn’t you agree? Remember, this is just my humble observation through the lens of reason!

As another analogy, consider this artificial sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it.” This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

…as the first church leader, which I believe was made up of Jews…

I would imagine that Jesus and His chosen Apostles and their first disciples, were all Jews!

…who got saved, and followed Jesus, correct!

Yeah, that seems about right!

Continued…

 

[joe370]

Who’s right, who’s wrong, who knows?

According to Jesus Christ, Who established His One Church, His One Body, circa 33 AD, on the apostles, to which He is the King, Cornerstone, Head and Savior…where the pillar and foundation of truth can be found, where the House of the Living God can be found, again, as per Sacred Scripture - His Apostolic Church…His Body of teachers, can decide who’s right and who’s wrong, thanks to the perpetual “guidance” and “teaching” of the Holy Spirit:

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother.
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:17

Shouldn’t all churches, regardless of denomination or non-denomination, adhere to this simple command???

When we meet our Saviour on that glorious day, will any of this matter?:thumbsup:May the Lord of Heaven’s Armies richly bless you, my brother in Christ!

I’d have to humbly and respectfully say, yes! If Jesus tells us to do something, perhaps we should probably do it! Not one word uttered by God, in the Holy Bible, IMHO, should be ignored, but that’s just me, my friend and brother in Christ!!!

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Hi, Craig,

Looks like you two have joined some kind of mutual admiration society. Sharme it is based on such mis-reading of Scripture and delusional thinking as expressed in OSAS. Oneway to stop listening is to keep on humming that tune about already having your pass…and failing to listen to the part about having that pass stamped.

Actually, if you really want that ‘pass’ stamped, just go to your Bible and read Matt 25:31-46. None of those guys are humming the OSAS tune… all those going to be with God have DONE things for the Body of Christ … and all those who were humming OSAS and managed to sit on their hands while others were hungry, naked and isolated are marching off to ‘warmer’ quarters with the devils in Hell.

Christ has paid the full price for the salvation of all mankind. None of us get to heaven by our efforts- but, by cooperating with the Grace of God and DOING what Christ said to DO. And that means you have to WORK for this eternal treasure. And, that is the name of that tune.

God bless,

Hi Tom,

In your post you make this statement:

“Christ has paid the full price for the salvation of all mankind. None of us get to heaven by our efforts- but, by cooperating with the Grace of God and DOING what Christ said to DO. And that means you have to WORK for this eternal treasure…”

Herein, lies the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION of your position. On the one hand you assert - correctly - that no one gets to heaven by their own efforts; on the other hand, you assert that a person has to WORK for the eternal treasure of salvation and eternal life.

I say humbly, I disagree with you. I can understand what you are saying and how you arrive at your conclusion. However, I do not believe this is the position of scripture. In saying this, I do not doubt your love for God or your sincerity. I, myself, am only a humble SEEKER AFTER TRUTH WITH CHARITY.

As I see it, a repentant sinner is saved by GOD’S GRACE ALONE based on the OBJECTIVE/FINISHED WORK OF CHRIST ON THE CROSS. When a person is genuinely saved, the work of the Holy Spirit in REGENERATION is permanent and irreversible! However, this true believer will manifest GOOD WORKS in an overall lifestyle sense through the remainder of their lives. True believers will never be cast out by Christ; false professors of Christ, in contradistinction, wherever they are found will be cast out by Christ since He never “knew them.”

I hope that this explanation proves helpful.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Help me to see this CERTAINTY in scripture that CLEARLY AFFIRMs this.

Your checklist of what to DO to have a certainty of salvation is:
1 - genuinely come to Christ
2 - repent of sins
3 - trust deeply in the finished work of Christ on the Cross

Catholics absolutely believe all of these are necessary … but we don’t stop there.
We listen to ALL that Jesus said that we must DO to be saved.

As a Catholic, I believe what the ***Bible ***says in terms of what one must do in order to get to Heaven …
Have faith (Rom 3:28, John 3:16, 1 John 4:15)
forgive the sins of others (Matt 6:14-15)
care for one’s family (1 Tim 5:8)
feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned (Matt 25:31-46)
keep the Commandments (Matt 19:17 and 1 John 2:3-4)
love my brother (1 John 2:10)
deny ourselves and pick up our cross daily (Luke 9:23)
do the will of the Father (Matt 7:21)
eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man (John 6:51-58)
give a return for the talents the Master has given us (Matt 25:14-30)
be baptized (John 3:3-5, 1 Ptr 3:20-21)
confess our sins (1 John 1:9)…
all by the grace of God.

You speak about a certainty of salvation that Paul never spoke of.
Help me to see this CERTAINTY in scripture that CLEARLY AFFIRMs this.
Please provide the scripture.

Cheers!

michel

Hi michel,

Scripture does speak of the CERTAINTY of salvation. It is based on the ACCOMPLISHED REDEMPTION WROUGHT BY CHRIST ON THE CROSS.

In John 5:24 Jesus says these astonishing words, which speak of salvation as a final, irreversible work:

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has ETERNAL LIFE and will not be judged but has CROSSED OVER FROM DEATH TO LIFE.” (Today’s New International Version).

The true believer has been ADOPTED into God’s family.

The great Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, also attests to this CERTAINTY of salvation in Romans 8:28-39. This, in my opinion, is one of the most majestic and marvellous passages in all of scripture. I read it every night, before I go to bed and find encouragement, hope and peace in it.

I do not doubt, for a moment, the necessity of GOOD WORKS and I think the list you presented was well put together. These good works, however, are the SPIRITUAL EVIDENCE that God gives to mark out true believers from the false believers. Only true believers can manifest TRUE GOOD WORKS that flow from the work of REGENERATION.

May God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[joe370]

If the C.C. taught that unbaptized babies went to hell, that would be the teaching that they would have to drop, however, that is not the case!!!

Anyone, regardless of church affiliation, as per the teachings of the C.C., can baptize another, as long as it is done in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So, If one is concerned, upon having a baby, vis-a-vis baptism, simply baptize your beautiful new born baby. Nobody in their right mind would believe that unbaptized babies go to hell. Jesus didn’t mention anything about the necessity for babies to be baptized; it just makes good sense to do so; we are born into this temporal world and upon baptism, we are baptized into His death; we are buried with Him by baptism into death, so that, as Jesus was raised from the dead by His Father, we too are raised from the dead, into Jesus’ heavenly world. It’s our introduction into Jesus’ Family…His Kingdom, where God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother and His“blessed” Mother Mary is our Mother! He did instruct, through the agency of His established church, the following:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12

The C.C. does not believe/teach that unbaptized babies go to hell; if she, as the bride of Christ did, I wouldn’t belong to Jesus’ established church, circa 33 AD. According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism, into the existing communion [church] --of brothers and sisters in Christ. When we are born, sadly we are born with the stain of original sin, but the potential to enact said sin can’t take place until we reach an age of accountability. My niece just had a beautiful baby boy, and as I held him, clearly, beyond on all doubt, little Joey cannot commit a sin, and that is cut and dried!!! If you can’t knowingly commit a sin, then you are immaculately conceived, with sadly, the eventual certainty, once we reach an age of accountability, that that sin, lying dormant, will rear its ugly head, thanks to Satan and his legion of evil minions, and the onslaught of every day worries.

The Apostles never mention when this initiation into Jesus’ Spiritual Family, should take place, but there does seem to be a sense of urgency, and logically speaking, I would want this inclusion into Jesus’ Family, as soon as possible, for my child…for any child! Jesus said a child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that applies to all unbaptized babies:

Jesus said:

*“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come… See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.

Mark - “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

Matthew - “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”*

So, to capsulize, unless we turn and become like children, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles her/himself like a child will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

I would add another point.
You believe that a Christian, once performing the functions you list, are saved … and assured of that salvation which cannot be lost.

Why then, did Paul write all those letters that are in the bible in which he answered questions and gave instruction?
He was writing to Christians.
I’m sure you think these Christians were saved … and assured of their salvation.

If this assurance were true, then Paul’s letters would have been much shorter … along the lines of …

“No worries. Y’all are good”

michel

Hi michel.

My position on the PERMANENCY OF THE WORK OF REGENERATION, does not for a moment deny the doctrine of human responsibility.

All true believers live under THE LAW OF CHRIST and are not permitted to ‘live as they please’. True believers are SAVED UNTO GOOD WORKS and show to the world the authenticity of their SAVING FAITH through these Good Works.

True believers are never ANTINOMIAN in their Christian life and walk.

God bless you, In Christ Craig

 

[Cinette]

If the C.C. taught that unbaptized babies went to hell, that would be the teaching that they would have to drop, however, that is not the case!!!

Anyone, regardless of church affiliation, as per the teachings of the C.C., can baptize another, as long as it is done in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. So, If one is concerned, upon having a baby, vis-a-vis baptism, simply baptize your beautiful new born baby. Nobody in their right mind would believe that unbaptized babies go to hell. Jesus didn’t mention anything about the necessity for babies to be baptized; it just makes good sense to do so; we are born into this temporal world and upon baptism, we are baptized into His death; we are buried with Him by baptism into death, so that, as Jesus was raised from the dead by His Father, we too are raised from the dead, into Jesus’ heavenly world. It’s our introduction into Jesus’ Family…His Kingdom, where God is our Father, Jesus is our Brother and His“blessed” Mother Mary is our Mother! He did instruct, through the agency of His established church, the following:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. Rom 6:3-4; Col 2:12

The C.C. does not believe/teach that unbaptized babies go to hell; if she, as the bride of Christ did, I wouldn’t belong to Jesus’ established church, circa 33 AD. According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism, into the existing communion [church] --of brothers and sisters in Christ. When we are born, sadly we are born with the stain of original sin, but the potential to enact said sin can’t take place until we reach an age of accountability. My niece just had a beautiful baby boy, and as I held him, clearly, beyond on all doubt, little Joey cannot commit a sin, and that is cut and dried!!! If you can’t knowingly commit a sin, then you are immaculately conceived, with sadly, the eventual certainty, once we reach an age of accountability, that that sin, lying dormant, will rear its ugly head, thanks to Satan and his legion of evil minions, and the onslaught of every day worries.

The Apostles never mention when this initiation into Jesus’ Spiritual Family, should take place, but there does seem to be a sense of urgency, and logically speaking, I would want this inclusion into Jesus’ Family, as soon as possible, for my child…for any child! Jesus said a child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, and that applies to all unbaptized babies:

Jesus said:

*“Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

At that time the disciples approached Jesus and said, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” He called a child over, placed it in their midst, and said, "Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me. "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come… See that you do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven always look upon the face of my heavenly Father.

Mark - “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”

Matthew - “Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”*

So, to capsulize, unless we turn and become like children, we will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles her/himself like a child will be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Joe, in those days baby boys were circumcised a few days after birth. Baptism replaced circumcision. I think even Luther had no objection to infant baptism. Baptism is very thoroughly explained in the Catechism.

Unbaptised babies going to hell? Where did that come from?? I am Catholic and have never heard of such a thing.

 

[bobzills]

Unbaptised babies going to hell? Where did that come from?? I am Catholic and have never heard of such a thing.

It is true that the teaching has been changed and that unbaptised babies no longer go to hell. But that’s not what the previous teaching was. For example: the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

It is true that the teaching has been changed and that unbaptised babies no longer go to hell. But that’s not what the previous teaching was. For example: the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

I appreciate the HONESTY of this post in affirming that, indeed, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church - on this issue - has been changed.

It does “beg” the question, though, that in the future what other “official teachings” will be changed or revised?

In Christ, Craig

 

[joe370]

Originally Posted by benedictus2 :

If the Church were to teach even one single error then yes the gates of hell has prevailed because IT IS CHRIST’S CHURCH. If Christ’s church can be overtaken by the father of lies then there will be nothing here on earth to point us towards truth. Right now she is the one and only bastion of truth.

Will someone please respond to Benedictus2’s very sound reasoning. As a former Lutheran, I could not escape the honesty and simplicity of this clear logic. Either Jesus’ church can’t fail, thanks to the guidance of the H.S…thanks to the fact that Jesus, Who is the church, to which He is the Head and Savior, or she can fail, making Jesus…the Holy Spirit fallible! To all my brothers and sisters in Christ, did Jesus’ established Church, circa 33 AD, again, to which Jesus is the Head and Savior - fail, at some point in history??? If Jesus’ bride did in fact fail, then Jesus failed to save His established church; if she didn’t fail, then why would I want to belong to any other church? Am I missing something here??? Is that a fair assessment?

Since I’ve been here at CAF, no one has answered that question!!! Why do you think that is???

 

[joe370]

It is true that the teaching has been changed and that unbaptised babies no longer go to hell. But that’s not what the previous teaching was. For example: the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Through the centuries, the church councils NEVER defined limbo as a doctrine of the faith; they simply left the question open. If the church didn’t define it as a doctrine, and she didn’t, then why all the calumny???

 

[The_Iambic_Pen]

I appreciate the HONESTY of this post in affirming that, indeed, the official teaching of the Roman Catholic church - on this issue - has been changed.

It does “beg” the question, though, that in the future what other “official teachings” will be changed or revised?

In Christ, Craig

I mean no offense to anyone, but I am reminded of something Peter J once said about Protestants and Traditionalist Catholics joining forces to teach everyone about the “real” Catholicism…

 

[bobzills]

**Through the centuries, the church councils NEVER defined limbo as a doctrine of the faith; **they simply left the question open. If the church didn’t define it as a doctrine, and she didn’t, then why all the calumny???

Because limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism. And the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.” And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

 

[benedictus2]

Perhaps. The Orthodox, however, do not believe in certain doctrines which Catholics are required to believe. I believe the Catholic Church would say that a Catholic who did not believe in papal infallibility and the immaculate conception would be in error in matters of doctrine. Thus, an Orthodox Christian who does not believe in these things (and it would be difficult to find one who does) would also be in error.

Yes that is true. If a Catholic or Orthodox does not believe in either of these doctrines they are in error. But that is okay because as individuals we can be in error. A lot of Catholics will struggle to understand the rationale and support behind this doctrine and most of them will give assent to the doctrine if they comprehend it. In effect these people set themselves up as their own magisterium which reallyall boils down to pride.

When you come to think of it they are saying that their piddly little brains are more capable of comprehending these thing than the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.

From a Catholic perspective, I believe this is a logical thing to say.

Not necessarily just from a Catholic perspective. Reason demands it too.

 

[joe370]

bobzills - Because limbo was taught in the Baltimore catechism.

If limbo was/is taught by the C.C. -TO BE HELL, THEN I’LL HAVE TO LEAVE THE CHURCH! WAS IT?

And the Church stated in the 2nd Council of Lyons in 1274 that souls who die in the state of mortal sin or with original sin only immediately descend into hell, yet to be punished with different punishments.”

Where does it officially state that “unbaptized babies” go to hell?

And before that, according to the Council of Florence, “Letentur coeli,” Sess. 6, July 6, 1439: “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Same question??? A baby is born into this world with the stain of original sin, but that baby must reach an age where he or she can knowingly and willfully put into action, that original sin, in the form of a mortal sin, or venial sin! Where does the C.C. state that “unbaptized babies” go to hell? If you can prove that the C.C. believes that unbaptized babies go to hell, you can rejoice in knowing, that I have left that church!

Remember, the words: unbaptized babies cannot be found in this quote! “We define also that… the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go straightaway to hell, but to undergo punishments of different kinds.”

Original sin is a sin said to be inherited by all descendants of Adam; "Adam and Eve committed the original sin when they disobeyed God. A mortal sin is an unpardonable sin entailing a total loss of grace. Again, if you can find the official canon that declares all unbaptized babies go to hell, then I will denounce catholicism!!!

 

[benedictus2]

So why do so many non-catholics believe that saints in heaven are dead, when the bible clearly states that God is God of the living, and as you state, salvation is passing from death unto life?

This is a point I have often brought up myself whenever the subject of purgatory and praying to saints come up.

I mean, so many are convinced of OSAS and yet they deny that there is any merit in praying to the dead.

Those who believe in OSAS must surely know people who have died who they are convinced are saved (for that is what OSAS is all about.)

If they are convinced that these people are saved, how come they can’t ask these “saved dead” people to pray for them when they themselves pray for each other.

Makes no sense at all.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Tom,

In your post you make this statement:

“Christ has paid the full price for the salvation of all mankind. None of us get to heaven by our efforts- but, by cooperating with the Grace of God and DOING what Christ said to DO. And that means you have to WORK for this eternal treasure…”

Herein, lies the MASSIVE CONTRADICTION of your position. On the one hand you assert - correctly - that no one gets to heaven by their own efforts; on the other hand, you assert that a person has to WORK for the eternal treasure of salvation and eternal life.

Hi Craig,

The seeming contradiction only exists when we fail to understand the interplay between grace and faith.

I think I have said this before but all that salvation by grace means is that it is free. We did not merit it. It is purely as John wrote : because God so loved the world.

But the question is how does God effect salvation? Okay so it is free, so Christ died on the cross once to save us. But have you ever asked yourself how his dying brought on salvation?

The protestant understanding of salvation is like this:
God imputes on us Christ’s righteousness so even though deep inside we are still the same miserable, wretched creatures that we are, His righteousness covers all that muck within so when God sees us, He sees that outer covering that is Christ. In short we are a garbage pit that’s be covered with white turf so it looks pleasing to the eye.

If all that is needed is for us to be imputed with Christ’s righteousness why go to the extent of being human? Furthermore, why the need to suffer and die on the cross?

The Catholic understanding is this: The suffering death and resurrection of Christ opened up heaven so to speak so that the graces are made available to us. Justificatiion is not a mere DECLARATION by God that we are righteous but rather that we are actually MADE rigteous.

I think I said in a reply in “To live by faith” that in saving us from the pit Christ requires us to put our hand in His. He could have very well yanked us out but no, He wants us to grab His hand.

This action of grace on our soul makes us righteous.

But what does it mean to actually be righteous?

It means following God’s commandments which in a nutshell boils down to love of God and love of neighbour. LOVE is WORK.

We do not truly love unless we prove it by our deeds. You can tell your wife till you are blue in the face that you love her but that will mean zilch if you do not bring her a rose every now and again, help her with the chores, look after the children, provide for her, take the time to listen to her, etc., etc.

That is why in one of Paul’s most moving letters he says the greatest is LOVE because to love is to participate in Divine life.

When we get to heaven, faith and hope will cease, but love will still be there and love manifestests itself in WORK so long as we are on this side eternity. That is why we have the phrase “labour of love”.

James is so right when he says “I will show you my faith by my works”.

Christ said follow me. The following of Christ involves a dying to self. A carrying of our crosses. All these involve WORK.

Another reason for the seeming contradiction in your mind is I believe due to a lack of a fully developed understanding of every aspect of salvation.

But that requires another post and I am sleepy so I am off to bed.

 

[w_stewart]

the pillar and foundation of truth??? Gosh, you guys need a new slogan

Soory to disappoint you but we are not authorized to change the Gospel. St. Paul says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. You better read the Bible.

The Presbyterian and Reformed churches are the pillar and foundation of truth, every other church is built on sophistic babble (they delude themselves into thinking constitutes sound theology).

 

[w_stewart]

yeah … but the pope isn’t the shepherd Christ was referring to

Why not? Because the word “pope” was not spelled out in the Bible?