Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, popery entered the Church bit by bit, from good men straying from the Word.
[/COLOR]

Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

-- Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Could you explain what you mean with that phrase?

I meant that Paul methodically unpacks Jesus concentrated statements. The example used had Jesus saying:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

We might conclude the saved are those who are "poor in spirit". But what does that mean? Paul expounding on the problem of man's sin and how its burden is utilised to lead men to Christ unpacks Christ's statement. The impoverished of spirit are those who collapse under the weight of the law .. and their failure to keep the law.

The reality is that salvation can be lost.

"Are you saved?" asks the Fundamentalist. The Catholic should reply: "As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

It would serve you well to deal with comments on the last tranch of bible verses dumped here. The problems therein won't be solved by mere repetition.

Then again, dealing with objections to your position isn't exactly your thing. Is it?

Lab_Mouse

a bit off topic but do catholics and other denominations read the same version of the bible?Are all the arguments based on the way one takes the message contained in the bible?

santing

Donatello wrote: »

Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:

Ignatius is an interesting source to quote from - he has been a topic of dispute during the ages. But even his epistles conflict with each other - and with others from his time, enclosed a quote in which the Eucharist is taken more symbolic (esp. if you look at the "long version"!)

Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
From the long Version:
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.
Ignatius Epsitle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 6

So as always, the Fathers don't prove anything since you can prove everything by quoting the Fathers

lmaopml

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hi L
I'm afraid it's not entirely different at all

That one can fall from grace Antiskeptic?


I believe you can fall from grace? Do you believe that once filled with the Holy spirit and you accept Christ as your lord and saviour that you take no part thereafter in your lifetime? I'm trying to understand the doctrine, and believe me, I don't think it's as far away from many other christians than some may...

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this somehow at times, but we'll persist..lol.... it seems to be mixed up in 'terminology' at times? I seem to understand your stance, but mine is consistently misrepresented - or at least it kind of feels that way, even though there are other non Catholic christians that I would understand better both in scriptural interpretation and when discussing this matter in isolation.

I've only - since browsing this forum got used to the terminology that other Christian denominations use, and I try to use them in order to express myself and be understood.

For instance, in the Catholic church we would never really speak of being 'saved' for all time, being 'saved' is not arbitrary, but it is not something that we say always occurs at the beginning of a journey - from a point in this 'linear' time as such, when we profess faith, we're cautious - because we believe that it isn't over until judgement day, that being 'saved' and self assessment is par for the course - given we still have 'free will' if you know what I mean until the end.

It seems to me that so do other Christian denominations, in fact perhaps the vast majority believe we are a 'work in progress' that we should 'persevere' till the end...?

As a Catholic, and I should know, I am one..and can only explain that we DO NOT teach a works based salvation. Nobody ever gets saved by 'works' without faith.

...and nobody gets saved by faith without works either - This is the Catholic churches teachings and this is 'cemented' in scripture. It's responsible teaching. Even if the teaching tends to lean more towards the good or bad news too much at times in our past, it's finding an equilibruim and encompasses the entire message of scripture.

I understand fully what PDN says about the bias against the osas doctrine - I don't understand 'why' there is a problem in the first place though, because it seems to me, unless I'm really waiting for the punch line, we are all saying pretty much the same thing, I actually don't see the differences 'magnified' when this topic is discussed in 'isolation' aside from perhaps the way the Orthodox and Catholic churches would view sacraments as an 'aid' to enduring and persevering in that faith till judgement and encourage being part of that communion..

You believe it happens as a once off thing in time, we believe we are a work in progress till we expire? Is that the ultimate difference?

....Tis mad! But it's good to talk.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

fall from grace

I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth?
(Gal 5:3-7 ESV)

Fallen from Grace seems to mean something different than what you use it for. Fallen from grace means trying to be saved by our own efforts..

lmaopml

How so Santing? Do you believe you can fall from grace?

Yes/No.

lmaopml

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really, with 'some' doctrines - I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this?

Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

How so Santing? Do you believe you can fall from grace?

Yes/No.

Falling from grace has nothing to do with being lost as the quote from Galatians shows. The Galatians had lost the fact that they were saved by grace alone through faith alone, and thought they needed to work for it. That's why they had fallen from grace

So I may be a work in progress, but "yet I am not ashamed, because I know Whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day (2 Tim 1:12)"
and "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy He has given us new birth into a living hope ..., and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade--kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time." 1Pet 1:3-5

So the answer to your question - as I want to read your question "yes", but as you asked your question "no"

PARKHEAD67

PDN wrote: »

OK. A number of posters are becoming frustrated at how multiple threads are being dragged into squabbles about whether Catholicism or Protestantism is right or wrong. Some of the sectarianism on display has, in my own opinion, been an awful advert for Christianity.

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to rile up Catholics or Protestants in other threads will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

So how does this work? It will still be in order, if a poster asks a question, to say, "This is my belief as a Catholic/Methodist/Anglican etc.". It is OK to ask posters to clarify their beliefs, so as to avoid misunderstanding. The mods will be the judge of whether that crosses the line into a squabble.

Protestants made up their own religion because a certain King of England couldnt keep his penis in his pants.:)This is a fact.

LordSutch

Can I just put an end to the use of this term 'non catholic', when refering to other Christian traditions. As a Protestant I am a catholic & I believe in the catholic Church, but I am not a Roman Catholic. That 'non catholic' term in relation to Anglicans (C of I for example) is wrong. Please note.

lmaopml

Santing perhaps the Galations were given as an example in the bible to people to appreciate the 'grace' they were given in the first place, from the very inkling of first faith? ...and a warning against taking either grace or works in the spirit for granted?

I don't really understand the yes and no answer though? What is yes and what is no?

Is this a case of 'no' you cannot fall from true grace, but 'yes' you can fall from the beginnings of grace or something?

Some clarity is necessary. and when does one reach being 'saved'? Is it in this life time or the next?

antiskeptic

Lab_Mouse wrote: »

a bit off topic but do catholics and other denominations read the same version of the bible?Are all the arguments based on the way one takes the message contained in the bible?

No and no.

philologos

PARKHEAD67 wrote: »

Protestants made up their own religion because a certain King of England couldnt keep his penis in his pants.:)This is a fact.

Please go read some history. The Reformation started before Henry VIII. Henry VIII although for wrong reasons was simply the power figure that gave the cause traction. Here's another post I did on it here.

Besides even if that were true (and it isn't) it would only affect Anglicanism rather than those with German or French roots such as Lutheranism or Calvinism, or even those English denominations outside of Anglicanism.

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

Santing perhaps the Galations were given as an example in the bible to people to appreciate the 'grace' they were given in the first place, from the very inkling of first faith? ...and a warning against taking either grace or works in the spirit for granted?

I don't really understand the yes and no answer though? What is yes and what is no?

Is this a case of 'no' you cannot fall from true grace, but 'yes' you can fall from the beginnings of grace or something?

Some clarity is necessary. and when does one reach being 'saved'? Is it in this life time or the next?

My answer might not be clear because I think your question is wrong. You ask the question "Can you fall from grace" meaning "Can you loose your (eternal) salvation." When Paul uses the expression fallen from grace he wasn't thinking of their eternal salvation.
So yes, I can fall from grace - out of the position of being blessed by God daily - when I would seek to save myself (add to my salvation / keep my salvation) through works. So theoretically, any none OSAS Christian cannot fall from grace as he/she is not in it.

And - in case it isn't obvious - no, I cannot fall from grace if you mean "loose my salvation."

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really,

Are you mad!! The book of Romans sees Paul spend the first half constructing the very doctrine you find a 'bugbear' ... and the second half elaborating on how it is the Christian is to live in the light of what has occurred to him. Crikey! (oh how my expletives have altered o'er the years!), the epistles are chock full of 'emphasis' on how it is the Christian is to live.

Perhaps you mean OSAS-ers emphasising OSAS and not how it is we live in the light of our salvation? What about this - in response to Donatellos bewilderment as to why it is someone who knows they are irrevocably saved would bother to refrain from sin.

antiskeptic to Donatello wrote:

Love? At the same time as being saved, I am exposed to the most lovable being in existance. AbE to lmaopml:. Are you seriously suggesting I should have no issue with spitting in the face of someone who has shown me more love than anyone ever has?

Life is better? Sin might well satisfy the flesh in the instant but it brings trouble and strife in the not very long run. It's a no brainer that I would seek to avoid sin (sinful flesh struggles notwithstanding)

Avoiding God's discipline. It might be necessary for him to do it but why put yourself through the pain of it if you don't have to?

Congruency? Paul, after painstakingly presenting the mechanics of the the gospel of grace only (Romans 3:21 - 5:20) pauses to insert a parentheses in his argument before continuing at the start of Romans 8. In that parentheses he deals with two objections to that gospel. And the very first objection he answers is the very one you yourself make. First, because it's the automatic objection anyone who ever hears the gospel of grace will make.

His response is that sin is incongruent for the children of God. For that is what a God-defined Christian is (according to the 'Protestants'). I am a child of the living God. A God to whom I have access and whose holiness is sheer attraction to me. How could I cheerfully sin as if it didn't matter knowing what an offence it is to him. Knowing what it was he had to put himself through in order for it to be dealt with?

I'd be like an Allied soldier fighting on the side of the Nazi's for heavens sake!

Utter incongruency...says Paul

- I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this? Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

There is more to eternal life than salvation. Just as there is more to life than being born.

Whether they are born or born again (there is no accident in God's choice of language), a person stands at the beginning of something. Birth is not an end in itself. We are called to persevere, but it's perserverance in the task set us that commences on being born again. It's about growing in relationship, it's about bringing the kingdom of God to a needy world, it's about growing in holiness and conquering evil. It's about demonstrating God's manifest wisdom to the heavening powers, it's about living the life we were designed for. It's about all sorts. Is perserverance.


Because your salvation isn't sure in Roman Catholicism you are not entirely free to focus on the purposes that lie beyond. It is simply impossible to act of freedom when there is a potential gun held to your head. The human psyche simply isn't set up so. Only with sure salvation is there complete freedom to serve with fullness of heart.

Which is why by grace alone can but be the only way. And why every version of satans lie will have to find some way to deny that it is by grace alone. Satan simply cannot help it.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

That one can fall from grace Antiskeptic?

I believe you can fall from grace? Do you believe that once filled with the Holy spirit and you accept Christ as your lord and saviour that you take no part thereafter in your lifetime? I'm trying to understand the doctrine, and believe me, I don't think it's as far away from many other christians than some may...

Could you explain why you think falling from grace means loss of salvation? Without using the Cathecism that is

I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this somehow at times, but we'll persist..lol.... it seems to be mixed up in 'terminology' at times? I seem to understand your stance, but mine is consistently misrepresented - or at least it kind of feels that way, even though there are other non Catholic christians that I would understand better both in scriptural interpretation and when discussing this matter in isolation.

I agree it cannot be easy. Which is why we must use the only common ground we have. The Bible. I gather Catholics believe too that scripture interprets scripture. If so, then there will be scripture that tells us that falling from grace means loss of salvation.

For instance, in the Catholic church we would never really speak of being 'saved' for all time, being 'saved' is not arbitrary, but it is not something that we say always occurs at the beginning of a journey - from a point in this 'linear' time as such, when we profess faith, we're cautious - because we believe that it isn't over until judgement day, that being 'saved' and self assessment is par for the course - given we still have 'free will' if you know what I mean until the end.

You've indeed highlighted a number of core differences. Which is why perhaps it's difficult to communicate.

- saved is an irrevocable point in time. It's the point where the RNLI helicopter winchman attaches the line to me. The being saved process might continue for a time after that (I am still being saved) but I've passed the point of no return when the winchline is attached.

- I don't have freewill unto loss of salvation post my being saved. I am a slave to Christ. Purchased for a price (the meaning of "redeemed"). I am not my own. Etc.

- There is no Judgement Day for me.

It seems to me that so do other Christian denominations, in fact perhaps the vast majority believe we are a 'work in progress' that we should 'persevere' till the end...?

Indeed, but just not unto salvation. I gather those Protestant denominations who think you can loose your salvation only think you can under extraordinary circumstances. It is not the commoner garden situation that a person reliles on their performance to gain entry to heaven.

As a Catholic, and I should know, I am one..and can only explain that we DO NOT teach a works based salvation. Nobody ever gets saved by 'works' without faith.

...and nobody gets saved by faith without works either - This is the Catholic churches teachings and this is 'cemented' in scripture. It's responsible teaching. Even if the teaching tends to lean more towards the good or bad news too much at times in our past, it's finding an equilibruim and encompasses the entire message of scripture.

Let me define what I mean by a works religion. A works religion is a religion wherein your salvation (or any other favorable afterlife outcome) is in anyway dependent on your performance.

Let me define what I mean by performance. Performance is any thought or deed you have to do or any thought or deed you have to avoid doing - whilst knowing such things could have an impact on your obtaining a favorable result.

Is Roman Catholicism a works religion according to those definitions?

I understand fully what PDN says about the bias against the osas doctrine - I don't understand 'why' there is a problem in the first place though, because it seems to me, unless I'm really waiting for the punch line, we are all saying pretty much the same thing,

Does the above clarify the essential difference?

I actually don't see the differences 'magnified' when this topic is discussed in 'isolation' aside from perhaps the way the Orthodox and Catholic churches would view sacraments as an 'aid' to enduring and persevering in that faith till judgement and encourage being part of that communion..

An aid to what, if not the work being done to try to ensure your salvation. Donatello's a Catholic too and his query was truly revealing of the (potential) difference in heart between the two denominations.

He just couldn't see the reasons (and I could go on and on) why someone would want to avoid sin if they knew they had an irrevocible salvation. It reveals much about the motive behind the work. It is, as I have said, simply unavoidable that your heart be polluted by a motivation to avoid a negative afterlife outcome.

Jeepers! You've Hell and Purgo to try to avoid. Talk about sticks..

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

I think it is more that we have to ask ourselves that when difficulties arise are we going to sell our faith down the swally, or are we going to hold fast to our faith in God. There have been a number of decisions in my life that have required to me to make this decision. Temptation can lead us away from faithfulness in God. I don't believe it is work to keep being a Christian, I do think that there are things that can challenge us along the way.

Sorry to press bro' but it wouldn't be fair to press our Catholic friends then take the foot off the accelorator with the home team.

At the root of man lies the will. His thoughts (or rather, where he let's his thoughts rest) are a function of that will. So are his actions. Work then, is sourced in the will.

If your salvation depends on an expression of your will in a particular direction during these times of trial then what substantial difference between you and anyone who follows any of the recognised works religions? We would agree that they try to establish their own righteousness through their own effort. But if you lost salvation you would be deemed unrighteous - rendering a direct connection between your performance and your righteousness.

N'est ce pas?

wolfsbane

santing said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Donatello
Talking about straying from the word, I'm interested in your personal take on this, from St. Ignatius, a student of St. John the Evangelist:
Ignatius is an interesting source to quote from - he has been a topic of dispute during the ages. But even his epistles conflict with each other - and with others from his time, enclosed a quote in which the Eucharist is taken more symbolic (esp. if you look at the "long version"!)
Quote:
Take ye heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to [the will of] God.
From the long Version:
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants.
Ignatius Epsitle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 6
So as always, the Fathers don't prove anything since you can prove everything by quoting the Fathers

Good point.

We also must remember that all the errors of Rome did not come at once, but little by little - as good men speculated beyond the word and added 2+2 and got 5. Then too bad men entered the Church and brought wilful error - some of these were swallowed, some were not.

Tertullian, that great Father, wandered off into Montanism. Had it gone differently, Montanism would today be just another of Rome's errors.

*************************************************************************
2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness. 17 And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, 18 who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the solid foundation of God stands, having this seal: “The Lord knows those who are His,” and, “Let everyone who names the name of Christ depart from iniquity.”

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

I think my 'bugbear' with this is perhaps the idea that one can be 'saved' by faith alone and nothing follows that....there is nothing else emphasised ever really, with 'some' doctrines - I 'personally' find this irresponsible teaching - you are 'holy' then and you are acting entirely in the 'spirit'....because circularly you were 'saved' a month or twelve months or whatever ago...so now you are not yourself anymore, you are fully in tune with God's will because you left yours behind, and are pretty much a saint.

I'm not trying to be mean or a party pooper, but what about? what about 'perseverence' where does that fit in to this?

Is perseverence not a biblical notion too? How do you balance that?

Our conversion is the beginning of our new life in Christ. We have been given a new heart - our will and affections are now for God, where before they were against God. Just as we were slaves to sin, but still aware of conscience condemning our sin, so now we are slaves to righteousness, but in a struggle with the old nature. That old nature has to be crucified daily. Only when we go to be with Christ are we perfect.

Calvinism teaches that all who have genuine faith will produce good works. They may fall into sin from time to time, but will be recovered - God will bring them back in true repentance. Sin shall not have dominion over them. This is called by Calvinism the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints, # 5 in the acrostic TULIP.

Some true Christians may be taken from this life because of their sin, as a discipline on them (as at Corinth). They have not been lost, but taken from their sin. They did not desert the faith.

******************************************************************************
1 Corinthians 11:30 For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

PDN

It's rather funny that the Protestant/Catholic debate thread seems to be developing into a debate on a subject (OSAS) that isn't really a Protestant/Catholic thing at all.

Modding this forum is like herding cats.

antiskeptic

PDN wrote: »

It's rather funny that the Protestant/Catholic debate thread seems to be developing into a debate on a subject (OSAS) that isn't really a Protestant/Catholic thing at all.

No. But it does touch on the works vs. grace debate - on the former side of which One Church steers most certainly True.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

I agree it cannot be easy. Which is why we must use the only common ground we have. The Bible. I gather Catholics believe too that scripture interprets scripture. If so, then there will be scripture that tells us that falling from grace means loss of salvation.

- There is no Judgement Day for me.

The Church interprets Scripture authoritatively. Scripture found its origin within the Church, Who then discerned which books conveyed the faith of the Church. The believer alone with his Bible, interpreting privately, is a novel idea that has no basis in the origin of the Church.

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

As Fulton Sheen might say, ''You'll believe it when you see it.''

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

santing

Donatello wrote: »

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

You are right, we don't want to do any work, to be part of God's family. But those who know God's family know that it is a hard working family

Donatello wrote: »

As Fulton Sheen might say, ''You'll believe it when you see it.''

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

"Truly , truly , I say to you, he who hears My word , and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life , and does not come into judgment , but has passed out of death into life ." John 5:24 NASB

Donatello

santing wrote: »

You are right, we don't want to do any work, to be part of God's family. But those who know God's family know that it is a hard working family

The 'work' I'm talking about (not 'work' as far as I'm concerned, or any Catholic, for that matter) is avoiding sin. We must do what Christ said so that our baptismal garments may be kept clean and our lanterns lit - using the Sacraments of the Church and prayer, and the oil of good works, so that the Holy Spirit may dwell in us, His temples.

Quo Vadis

PDN wrote: »

Modding this forum is like herding cats.

lol

lmaopml

Thanks a million for explaining the osas doctrine guys. I never actually realised that part of that is that you don't attend judgement, but go straight to heaven like the saints.

I understand how the doctrine could develop looking at the bible and various scriptural passages, particularly Romans and I think I understand more fully your position.

Also, from a Catholic perspective I would agree with everything the bible says about a person who is 'saved' of course..... and that we can never be lost once we have been saved etc.

However, we would distinguish that from your position - as we believe that we aren't actually saved till we expire and are judged, that we persevere in grace and repent of any sins that would offend God, that this is important right up to the end, keeping our souls clean for God is important and my feeling is that this 'effort' is seen as some kind of bad thing from your perspective, however from ours it is all part of growing in grace and accepting with honour the tremendous gift we have been given in Jesus Christ. As a Catholic we wouldn't judge ourselves saved, but would say we are in the process of being saved.

From a personal perspective I think the Catholic position fully marries all scripture, and is balanced and feels right (for me), but I understand we are all different in this Christianity.

Thanks for explaining your perspective more fully, it's an education as always.

Donatello

lmaopml wrote: »

From a personal perspective I think the Catholic position fully marries all scripture, and is balanced and feels right (for me), but I understand we are all different in this Christianity.

Thanks for explaining your perspective more fully, it's an education as always.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to authority: who has the divine authority to interpret Scripture correctly?

Is it, as the CC holds, that the Lord has promised the Holy Spirit to keep the successors of Peter and the Apostles without error in the realm of faith and morals in their shepherding of God's people, or is it the case that the Lord has promised the Holy Spirit to guide each and every believer infallibly in his reading of the Scriptures? That would be grand, if not for the 30,000+ interpretations from everything to salvation theory to homosexuality, to sacraments, etc... And these, not fringe issues, but core doctrinal areas. And that's only denominations.

At the end of the day, we can sling verses at each other all day, but in the final analysis, it comes down to authority.

Quo Vadis

santing wrote: »

"Truly , truly , I say to you, he who hears My word , and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life , and does not come into judgment , but has passed out of death into life ." John 5:24 NASB

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life." John 5:24 KJV

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

The Church interprets Scripture authoritatively.

Says the Church. How delightfully circular

Scripture found its origin within the Church, Who then discerned which books conveyed the faith of the Church. The believer alone with his Bible, interpreting privately, is a novel idea that has no basis in the origin of the Church.

It is your private interpretation that concludes Rome correct in what it claims. There is no substantive difference between you and me.

I'm a diy-er. You call in the tradesmen trusting somehow that he isn't a cowboy.

It seems to me that you just don't want to do any work and will search the Scriptures for any excuse. Why, I'm not sure, but I have some ideas. And no, I won't be sharing them.

I've no objection to work. I just don't think it's rewards get deposited in the same account that you reckon your's get deposited in.

We shall all be judged, whether we want it or not. You're as slippery as an eel, but all your arguing won't do you any good with Christ when you met Him.

At least I argue. You post links and won't defend enquiry into what they say (remember Catholic answers??). You post reams of scripture references as if sheer weight of numbers makes the case for you - but don't respond to rebuttals.

You ain't nuttin but a drive-by apologist, Donny-boy.