You caught us Catholics!!! It is repitition!!!

[NonCatholic]

I’ll work it out with fear and trembling. You’re wrong about grace. Grace is a free gift from God. Nothing we can do will merit us that grace. You just can’t separate salvation from justification. Justification is not forensic. It does not happen instantly.

Works righteousness? You go!!

If we are not free to reject His call, then why worry about it? We are either elect or “unelect” right?

As I said…free will is a great paradox…God made both the elect and non-elect, vessels of honor and vessels of wrath; yet someone goes to hell for rejecting…as I said we won’t FULLY understand “free will” as God does because His mind is infinite and we are finite.

There is the elect and the non-elect, why bother what? We would only preach to the elect if we knew exactly who they were, no “E” stamped on anyone…maybe a tattoo or two…LOL

You know that wasn’t the original topic. Why would you just tack on a statement like that? Poor form.

We are off topic.

 

[Walden]

I mistakenly used “grace plus works”, when I meant “faith plus works”.
I hold to Faith Alone in what Jesus did for us as the basis of Salvation.
There are works in God’s power that we do after that gift of saving Faith, but those works are what increase our Faith and give evidence that our Faith is real to ourselves and others.
We can never do anything to justify ourselves before God by our works. That is what all false religions believe. The Jews were stumbled by that idea presented by Jesus. They were caught in the works trap of what they had to do to save themselves. The Pharisee praying to himself about all that he did for God, as opposed to what the publican prayed to God seeking mercy is the best example of the stumbling stone (Jesus Alone). It is completely what God does that saves us. There is responsibility on our part afterwards, but that is not what saves or justifies us.

But what is that responsibility you speak of? If we do not cooperate with God to effect our justification, then we have no responsibility. Nothing we can do will hinder or help us. This is the logical outcome of your line of reasoning.

We believe, at Baptism, the taint of Original Sin is removed. At that point in time we are justified, saved, born again…all of those things. Sin and Grace cannot exist together in a person’s soul. When we turn from God of our own free will, we must repent of our own free will to restore sanctifying Grace to our soul. God does the work, but we have to make the choice.

 

[elvisman]

What is so difficult about that verse? It is just saying that all men, including the Jews, are on the same equal ground (in need of salvation), when it comes to receiving God’s mercy.

I’m surprised that you would use Romans as a place to defend RCC doctrine. It is full of scripture that contradicts the “grace plus works” doctrine that the RCC holds to.

Romans - like every other book in the New Testament is a Catholic book written by a Catholic.

We can use all of the books in the Bible to defend Catholicism. It’s only when people like Luther insert phrases like “faith alone” that it is twisted to his own destruction.

Anyway - we have gone far off topic. If you with to continue a discussion about other matters, you should start a new thread.

Oh if you do start another thread - don’t forget to answer the rock solid evidence that I gave you regarding the fact that you can, indeed lose your salvation and fall from God’s grace - according to Scripture.

 

[Walden]

Works righteousness? You go!!

Well, it’s certainly not Faith alone. I’m sure you know the verse in the book of James that I’m referring to.

As I said…free will is a great paradox…God made both the elect and non-elect, vessels of honor and vessels of wrath; yet someone goes to hell for rejecting…as I said we won’t FULLY understand “free will” as God does because His mind is infinite and we are finite.

Elect = vessels of honor
Non-elect = vessels of wrath
Mysterious third category whom God favors with free will??

There is the elect and the non-elect, why bother what? We would only preach to the elect if we knew exactly who they were, no “E” stamped on anyone…maybe a tattoo or two…LOL

I’m just playing this out to its conclusion. If Grace is irresistible and the Elect have no choice in the matter, then why preach at all? It would be a dirty trick for someone to be preached to, “get saved”, then die and figure out that they weren’t Elect.

 

[elvisman]

I’m just playing this out to its conclusion. If Grace is irresistible and the Elect have no choice in the matter, then why preach at all? It would be a dirty trick for someone to be preached to, “get saved”, then die and figure out that they weren’t Elect.

This is perhaps the best argument against the total predestination crowd. I’ve asked this many times only to hear an answer of total silence.

 

[Walden]

**This is perhaps the best **argument against the total predestination crowd. I’ve asked this many times only to hear an answer of total silence.

You’re right. This needs to be another thread. I’m surprised it hasn’t been closed already. Maybe you get more latitude in NCR?

 

[brkn1]

But what is that responsibility you speak of? If we do not cooperate with God to effect our justification, then we have no responsibility. Nothing we can do will hinder or help us. This is the logical outcome of your line of reasoning.

We believe, at Baptism, the taint of Original Sin is removed. At that point in time we are justified, saved, born again…all of those things. Sin and Grace cannot exist together in a person’s soul. When we turn from God of our own free will, we must repent of our own free will to restore sanctifying Grace to our soul. God does the work, but we have to make the choice.

God does not violate our free will when He saves us. It is at the Holy Spirit’s timing that the elect (called ones) chosen by the Father are persuaded of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus. They are drawn by the Spirit’s enlightenment to the truth. The elect no longer are blinded by Satan and they will naturally then choose to have a personal and saving faith in Christ. No longer does their carnal mind have full control of them. They have become born again. Their heart and mind turns from being spiritually dead and at emnity with God, to a heart and mind that can now have true faith in God as a result of now being spiritually alive (quickened).

Salvation is that change in a man’s heart and mind, which allows him to become a servant of God after he could only be a servant of Satan before. Our free will does not prevent us from being a servant or slave of one or the other (God vs. Satan). A person is either unsaved or saved, in that order. One can not go backwards after being born again, just as the physical birth cannot be reversed. There are many who assume that they are saved, which are not so saved at all. (Lord, Lord etc.)

The carnal nature and the new nature given by the indwelling Holy Spirit can exist side by side, but they will always be at war. The Holy Spirit could not be said to be grieved if that were not true. Paul often talks about that war within the saved person.

To say that a born again person can lose his salvation later is the same as saying that God can not finish what He started. Jesus spoke of this about the builder who could not finish, after starting the foundation. God always finishes what He starts. When a person is given the gift of being born again (awakened to the Truth), there is no such thing as reversing that birth. Only the chosen of the Father are given that gift.

 

[Walden]

brnk1, I know where you’re coming from. I appreciate you indulging me in this thread. There are alot more able people than me that could do a better job than the one I’m doing. I’m sorry if I’ve been uncharitable in any way. Anyway, all that to say I’m in law school and I’ll be returning to my lurking…

BTW, I wish I was in Hawaii right now!

 

[brkn1]

brnk1, I know where you’re coming from. I appreciate you indulging me in this thread. There are alot more able people than me that could do a better job than the one I’m doing. I’m sorry if I’ve been uncharitable in any way. Anyway, all that to say I’m in law school and I’ll be returning to my lurking…

BTW, I wish I was in Hawaii right now!

I enjoyed discussing this off-the-track subject with you and Elvisman and others. You will make a good lawyer someday. I have really not taken any offense by anyone. I understand when our flesh nature creeps in there at times. I admit to my share of not being charitable when I should have been and I also apologize for doing so.

 

[RobHom]

Ask yourself was this line necessary.

Sorry, but I generally do as I have encountered these kinds of things many times…I’m just playing by their rules…

 

[RobHom]

Well, when you wake up, give me Scripture that teaches what a saint is. There are a bunch of them in the NT. It just might change your life. I’m not trying to harm you, I’m trying to help you. Hope you slept well.

There are 50 in the NT… drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=2&q=saint+saints&b=drb So you are trying to what…make the point that “anyone” who believes is a “saint”…?

If you think you are trying to “help” someone…you might want to tread likely…you could be well down the path of violating site rules.

Have you read them?

 

[RobHom]

I tried to add this…but I ran out of time.

To put it simply, the word “Saint” is of 13th century etymology, thus it did not appear in the original texts. The Douay-Rheims shows the word in current versions, however, this even presents a difficulty, because it is not probably an accurate translation…of what the original word was. Saint in Latin = Sacred,= Latin : Sanctus, Sacer, Divinus…and all usages in Latin are dependent on contexts, ergo, they are in English vernacular which is probably not actually appropriate and leaves far too much open for the misappropriation of “literary license”.

To simply say that someone who “believes” is a “saint” is to say that “someone who owns a car is a driver”…doesn’t work because the car owner could be blind, or physically incapable of driving. Believing does not confer “saintliness”.

 

[RobHom]

You’re beating your head against the wall.

Yes he is, and painfully so, and going nowhere fast.

These guys don’t believe a person is truly born again until they get to heaven. They deny all the past tense references to people being ‘saved’ in the NT. The reason? IT DOESN’T FIT THEIR EXPERIENCE NOR THE EXPERIENCE OF THEIR TEACHERS!

No, we understand it…its you who does not understand, and do not wish to understand the Catholic viewpoint. We are not so arrogant as to believe in OSAS or any number of other “salvation schemes”. We do not worship the bible, not do we worship Paul, and we don’t oversimplify things to fit our desired ends.

Do I detect a note of superiority and arrogance in your comment about our teachers? Seems a bit brash that a member of a “johnnie-come-lately” venue presumes to criticize those of a 2000 year old religion based on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles…doesn’t it?

They won’t even answer my request to define a New Testament saint. They don’t want to touch that, because again it doesn’t fit their experience or dogma. What do these things tell you about their condition? Just a thought.

I have answered that question thoroughly…just look a post or two or three above, and spend some time defeating it if you can.

You claim alot about the word saint…which has a 13th century AD origin…so show me how it works for you vis a vis the NT.

Use actual real sources…OK…skip the blather and show concrete and irrefutable proof that will stand up to nuclear weaponry.

Oh, my “condition”…its just fine…and just because my “experience and the dogmas of the Catholic Church” are not approved by you …well thats just fine too… You are not in a position to judge either me, my fellow Catholics, or the Church and to even begin to presume so is the epitome of pride and arrogance.

 

[RobHom]

So, if you commit a “mortal” sin, do you somehow get “unborn”?
Do you have to get reborn-again?

Are you really “confused” about this? Would you like it explained once more so you can save it as a PDF on your hard drive so you can review it whenever “confusion” sets in again?

You see, its not difficult to be snide, cynical, or anything else, so there is little need of it.

 

[brkn1]

Are you really “confused” about this? Would you like it explained once more so you can save it as a PDF on your hard drive so you can review it whenever “confusion” sets in again?

You see, its not difficult to be snide, cynical, or anything else, so there is little need of it.

So you do believe that we can get “unborn” after first being born again.
Why not just give a straight answer, unless you have something to hide?

 

[RobHom]

So you do believe that we can get “unborn” after first being born again.
Why not just give a straight answer, unless you have something to hide?

1st…I have absolutely nothing to hide… Do you? Everything I believe is out in the open, on the web, in bookstores, there is absolutely nothing that can be “hidden”…

2d…If you don’t already know the answer to the question there is something very wrong with your base of knowledge, or you are trying to play games… Are you…?? I can play them too…

3d…As a Catholic I do not embrace your notion of being “born again”. That you should already know. I was baptized just after my birth. I became not only a Christian, but a member of the Church. I have grown up as a Catholic and I accept that Christ is my Savior, but the viewpoint between your view and mine are very different. I did not need a big emotional epiphany or emotional altar call or anything else to arrive at that point.

4th…Just because you are “saved”, “born again”, or been a Catholic who has received the sacraments…is absolutely no guarantee that you will enter heaven. The notion of OSAS is little more than hogwash created 1500 + years after Christ’s crucifixion by an errant theologian who rebelled against a bunch of others.

5th…If you commit a mortal sin, you do not condemn your soul, however you are in danger of condemnation. Failure to repent of that sin places you there. It is not necessary to do anything but confess your sin and acknowledge that you have sinned badly against God and you will receive His forgiveness.

6th…To presume on any level that you can declare yourself to be “born again” “saved” or whatever, and simultaneously commit a grievous sin or a myriad of sins before God, and yet still enter into Heaven is not only foolish, but pridefully arrogant, presumptuous, and without any basis whatsoever.

 

[jmcrae]

So you do believe that we can get “unborn” after first being born again.
Why not just give a straight answer, unless you have something to hide?

What we believe is that the born child can disown his father and run away from home (Luke 15:11-32) - the child then has a choice.

He is not obligated to return home to the Father. If he chooses not to return to the Father, do you think that the Father will welcome him home? Is it because the Father does not want to do this, or because the child has not given him the opportunity to do this? We know that during the child’s self-imposed exile, the Father watches constantly to see whether the child is coming home - but if the child is not coming home, the Father is not able to run down the road and welcome him.

Baptism is the spiritual birth into God’s family. When we sin, we “leave home,” so to speak - we are away from God and doing everything our own way. When we want to be reunited with our spiritual family, we take part in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[RobHom]

One can not go backwards after being born again,

Paul often talks about that war within the saved person.

To say that a born again person can lose his salvation later is the same as saying that God can not finish what He started. Jesus spoke of this about the builder who could not finish, after starting the foundation. God always finishes what He starts. When a person is given the gift of being born again (awakened to the Truth), there is no such thing as reversing that birth. Only the chosen of the Father are given that gift.

1st… You are comparing a natural birth to a spiritual birth. Your first error is in trying to compare a “fully involuntary act” with one that is “fully voluntary”… It makes as much sense as comparing a kumquat to an elephant.

2d… But even though Paul talks about a war within the saved person…why is there a war in that person? Are they not saved?

3d…A man is born and raised a Christian, accepts Christ as his Savior…lives a good Christian life for many years, lets say 50 years, then one day…something tragic happens in his life, something that is inexplicable, and he goes nuts and walks into a Burger King full of moms and dads and kids on a Sunday afternoon with an AK-47 and kills 40 or 50 innocent people. He is captured and examined by no less than five Psychatrists and certified fully sane…just angry. Understands right and wrong, is mentally competent, and has proven it.

So, according to “your theology”:

He’s still “saved”, he is “guaranteed” salvation??

Unless of course what all the blather and bluster about the “elect vs the non-elect” is really little more than a religious ponzi scheme with a built in cop out to account for failures by declaring someone as having “never been saved” anyway?

 

[nbtb1348]

I think this is a clear-cut case of an absence of thought because it is a complete lie.

---

You have been told and shown several times on this thread that we believe that we are born again at** baptism**** as Jesus told Nicodemus – but you**** refuse**** to acknowledge that this is our belief. Instead, you post curt little hit-and-run retorts.**
Saints are holy ones of God – set apart to be a servant of Christ. That is the literal meaning of what a saint is.

---

Your** problem is that you ****don’t **believe that it is possible to fall from grace – even though scripture shows that it is.
As for the references about those being saved (Acts 2:47), we not only don’t deny that – it is our fervent hope – just as yours is to mock God’s Church.

What I am saying is that Scripture clearly teaches that a momentous thing happens at the moment of salvation–the new birth. It was planned in eternity past, and EVERYTHING changes. But I don’t think the RCC sees that. Forget about the debate of OSAS, you need to discuss OS. What do you think must accompany baptism to experience the new birth, and what do you think happens to a man at that point?

 

[brkn1]

What we believe is that the born child can disown his father and run away from home (Luke 15:11-32) - the child then has a choice.

He is not obligated to return home to the Father. If he chooses not to return to the Father, do you think that the Father will welcome him home? Is it because the Father does not want to do this, or because the child has not given him the opportunity to do this? We know that during the child’s self-imposed exile, the Father watches constantly to see whether the child is coming home - but if the child is not coming home, the Father is not able to run down the road and welcome him.

Baptism is the spiritual birth into God’s family. When we sin, we “leave home,” so to speak - we are away from God and doing everything our own way. When we want to be reunited with our spiritual family, we take part in the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

So Jesus can lose His sheep and the Father is helpless “to run down the road and welcome him”?