do I have to understand your posts to be saved?
toldailytopic: The Catholic Church: God's official church? Or, theology gone astray?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
do I have to understand your posts to be saved?
Only the posts that point to faith in Christ for salvation...the rest, take em or leave em.
Sheila B
Member
I would add a final thought to that last:
-impetuous Peter the Keyholder? How perfectly absurd!.
In the absurdity of it lies it's very strength. It clearly shows it, the Church, is God's work and not man's.
And at the end of time, can she glory? Hardly! All the screw-ups just prove we cannot do it without the Master's Divine Touch.
At the final Judgement God will receive all the glory!
-impetuous Peter the Keyholder? How perfectly absurd!.
In the absurdity of it lies it's very strength. It clearly shows it, the Church, is God's work and not man's.
And at the end of time, can she glory? Hardly! All the screw-ups just prove we cannot do it without the Master's Divine Touch.
At the final Judgement God will receive all the glory!
Sheila B
Member
If you believed it was required for salvation, and you did not do it, then yes. That equals a rejection of Christ at it's core. A Hebrews 6 type warning comes in to play here: it is a denial of the sacrifice, the one true path: The Way- The Truth- The Life- His Body.
csuguy
Well-known member
LOL well he maybe calling me to do something, but I am already a Christian. While I agree with the RCC on many matters of doctrine, and I appreciate the logic behind basing beliefs/practices on tradition - I disagree with them on to many 'important' points to be a Catholic.
Not that I am unwilling to consider various Catholic views, in fact I have adopted some of their arguments on some things, but the only way I'd become Catholic is if I was convinced that their doctrines and practices were correct - all of them. Not likely to happen anytime soon
You didn't directly answer my question, but I believe you are in agreement with me that just because these people had Jesus with them - they were not infallible whether in action or doctrine. yes?
If so, then you can see where I'm coming from. It is not a matter of the RCC having Jesus or not - it is a matter of it being run by men who are imperfect. As such, their doctrines and practices are fallible.
Sheila B
Member
The dogmas are infallible. If they are not, then Jesus lied when He said The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth.
He was about to shed His Blood when He gave them all the amazing promises of John 15-17 Not likely He was not focused! He cannot decieve us, nor can even desire such an evil. No, He leads into all the truth.
My point is: He does not lead with a heavy hand. All the centuries of debate and discussion and so on, before the final declarations. Whew.
He really makes the church sweat it out to get to the bottom of it on occasion. Here I am thinking of the Theotokos and those early ones.
Usually there is only joy at a dogma, as the faithful have believed it for centuries, such as the last two.
And as to doctrine and practice, these are the best way to acheive the will of God in this life, for even tho maybe not perfect they are from Jesus' Will. And the will of God is to love Him and our neighbor as He loved us. Doctrine goes on in discussion for a very long time without an infallible decree. Such as Justification: it has not been defined to the nth degree. When the discussion gets heated, maybe there will be one. Such as the Council of Trent: infallible. The catechism: infallible.
Infallible does not even mean perfect, in the sense that no more can be known about the subject declared. Only in heaven will knowledge be perfected.
You might ask why Jesus lets sinners sit in the Chair of Peter. Ever wonder about that?
Sheila B
Member
That was my thinking.
csuguy
Well-known member
Well, you may hold that they are infallible - but I don't
And no, that doesn't mean that Jesus lied. The HS will lead you into all truth - but that doesn't mean that the RCC has all truth. Who says that the HS is done leading? Did he promise a global leading unto truth for the church? Or was it a promise for individuals who independently seek the truth?Well, I agree with the first part of this. But anything done or decided on by men is prone to error, and so I cannot blindly agree that the councils or the catechism are infallible. They maybe right on various points, maybe all - but I won't accept them simply under the guise that they are infallible.
I disagree - if a doctrine is infallible it is perfect. That's not to say that we can't go deeper, or that a fuller understanding won't be revealed to us - but a fuller understanding will only add onto an infallible doctrine.
I don't believe in the Chair of Peter, so no. Even if I did - Peter was a sinner, so there isn't any problem with sinners taking his seat.
csuguy
Well-known member
Last edited:
I do not enter into denominational debates, but I've been reading through various posts about the official, unofficial, the unofficial non-official church.
Then I thought about this . . . Though the Presbyterian Church is dated in the 1700's, this diagram shows the changes they have gone through.
Side bar: As to RCC, I had a very close friend in Denver who a Catholic priest who I respected and loved as a brother in Christ. We haqd several lively conversations over noon time coffee and sandwiches, it was the late C. B. "Woody" Woodrich, I called him Pastor Woody and he didn't mind, I still miss the noon time fellowship we had.
Then I thought about this . . . Though the Presbyterian Church is dated in the 1700's, this diagram shows the changes they have gone through.
Last edited:
csuguy
Well-known member
:thumb:
It is not a matter of whether I believe something or not, but whether it is true, biblical, salvific. Faith in Christ is biblical. Catholic sacramentalism is not salvific nor biblical.
So, spit it out. Either I can or cannot be saved without/with Catholic sacraments.
Heb. 6 is about Jewish Christians who revert back to Judaism (apostasy). It has nothing to do with a Protestant evangelical rejecting Catholic error.
The Spirit does lead into all truth, but it begs the question to think that Catholicism is this truth. Any group can use the same logic without it being true.
This balanced, biblical post gets me a negative rep from Butterfly as an ecumenical pile of garbage. Well, there is a new name I have never been called before.
Since Catholics affirm a correct doctrine of God/Christology, it is possible for individual Catholics to know and love Jesus, the risen Savior, born of a virgin, God of gods, Lord of lords, Savior of all men. Theological perfection is not a prerequisite to eternal life (Rom. 10:9-10; Jn. 3:16; Jn. 1:12; I Jn. 5:11-13).
Notice I am not condoning unbiblical aspects of Catholicism at all (nor am I Catholic).
In BF's view, it seems only accepting MAD and his understanding of the gospel counts. As an evangelical, I am not even good enough for God and His shed blood is insufficient because I will not call his sect/cult (that is what it is if you equate it with the gospel that no one else has) the truth. We agree on the essentials of the faith and use the same verses to support salvation through Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone. The accuser of the brethren lacks credibility and integrity, one of the easier posters to refute.
Zeke
Well-known member
Acts 21, shows the Jews at Jerusalem "that believed" were zealous of the law, and taught to walk orderly in it by James, who still preached merit in temple rituals like purification and shaved heads, its a falsh assumption to state that the hebrews were returning back to judaism, they never left it.
The NT promised to the house of Israel, and Judah wasn't void of the law covenant they failed to keep by their own efforts, God inables them to keep it by His Spirit, the sacrifical part was done away with, as was other parts of it, the Gentiles reaped the spiritual blessing of that covenant, the things pertainning to the flesh applied to the circumcision.
And James made that point in Acts 21, the partaking Gentiles within that body, and national NT hope, that was blessing them, weren't expected to keep the law like the covenant people were, not for salvation but for covenant reasons between them and God..
All Jewish pentacostal pretenders have a common denominator with the RRC , even acts two dispensationalist have a measure of the same bad practice, its called replacement theology, and some like you share elements of the same gospel, which has the taint of the security of the saint being left up to them, and reject the sacrifice made once and for all as a complete substitutionary work, the saint isn't secure by the Spirits seal, its still under the OT probational system of enduring to the end, which is of coarse denigned, grace is shouted from their temples but the doctrine speaks other wise.
Plus we all know there are seven christian churches, thats what I heard some Pastors, and teachers state so its has to be right, anyone who questions their lack of divisional skills is wisked of to the ultra cleaners..
Sheila B
Member
Well, I would say No to that. The faith "once for all delivered to the saints" is still unfolding in understanding of it. Going deeper, but not a wholly new train of thought. Each rung of the ladder stands on the rungs below, each in ascending order.
This is how we now what is validly passed on.
The breaking of bread and feeding the 4,000 and the 5,000 show a definite heirarchy. Jesus was teaching Apostolic church governance those days and others I am sure. He fed the Apostles always first: not globally. Globally leads to divisions. Unity is fostered by visible Church Authority.
In no way does this deter personal seeking, far from it! Each one must feed himself. But Jesus set up the Divine Example, if you will: Jesus, Apostles, Laity.
Paul's conversion shows us the steps: he was baptised by a Christian, and later was ordained an Apostle by the elders of Antioch who prayed, fasted, and layed hands on him (and Barnabas), then sent him (them).
Well, they are guaranteed against error. That is, they are maybe imperfectly expressed, yet they are not erroneous. In other words, they lead us in the correct direction in which to go deeper. It is not a chaotic free-for-all. Basics can be known wth clarity and precision.
We actually agree here. Rather than imperfect, I should have said: incomplete.
You do not make the mistake some do in thinking infallible is impeccable. You are correct here.
Sheila B
Member
I see sacramentality in His every fibre. From Old Testament Priesthood and holiness to Jesus fulfilling the ability to become sons of God in flesh and blood, not in name (spiritualized) only.
We each read the text according to our understandaing and say "I read it the right way."
Text alone Christianity does not work, or Jesus would have insisted on a fullscript before ascending, wouldn't He?
What did Jesus say? Unless you eat My flesh and drink My blood you have no life in you.So, what is it to have "life" according to Jesus?
That is between you and Him.
True. So do not ask outside your chosen group as to whether you can be saved or not, especially according to the other group's understanding! Your conscience is clear, so that is your answer. If it is not, then I would tell someone to keep searching.
Sheila B
Member
Sacramentalism is expressed in the flesh and blood of the person's being. From the dead man put into Elisha's grave, and when the dead corpse touched the saints' dead corpse, it came to life. Handkercheives and shadows of the Apostle's bodies healed people when brought into contact with the relic. We are walking, talking, breathing: christs!
That is Biblical from A to Z.
The one thing Justin the Apostate hated most about Christians (he tried to kill the church everywhere he could) is the way Believers carried about the bones of Christians. The pagan world hated this about Christianity, because they seaparated the dead in cemetaries away from the towns. Christians revered them as what they really are: Christ embodied. And these had the power to heal the sick and raise the dead.
The Incorruptibles is a catholic phenomenon that Jesus uses to point to a reality designed by Him: holiness within the human person's very body!
And he who eats my flesh and drinks My Blood, I will raise him up on the last day. Thus He connected the Body of life with the body resurrected- because of the body and blood consumed.
...discern the Body...
...we have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat...
That is Biblical from A to Z.
The one thing Justin the Apostate hated most about Christians (he tried to kill the church everywhere he could) is the way Believers carried about the bones of Christians. The pagan world hated this about Christianity, because they seaparated the dead in cemetaries away from the towns. Christians revered them as what they really are: Christ embodied. And these had the power to heal the sick and raise the dead.
The Incorruptibles is a catholic phenomenon that Jesus uses to point to a reality designed by Him: holiness within the human person's very body!
And he who eats my flesh and drinks My Blood, I will raise him up on the last day. Thus He connected the Body of life with the body resurrected- because of the body and blood consumed.
...discern the Body...
...we have an altar from which those who serve the Tabernacle have no right to eat...
Adoration
New member
You know better than that.
What do you claim happened that changed the promise of Jesus?
Dark Radiance
New member
Sacramentalism is an affirmation of the Incarnation and emphasizes the immanent nature of the Godhead. When you dismiss that you are left with a rather remote and purely transcendent Creator. And that brings along a whole set of issues, such as factionalism.
God is transcendent and immanent. He indwells the believer by the Spirit. We have the Holy Spirit and the Word and relationship with Christ. Outward symbols do not convey, but illustrate, spiritual reality. We do not need Mass, sacrament of infant baptism, last rites, etc. We need the Spirit of the Living God, His Word, and a vital connection to Christ. Evangelicals know God intimately and do not find Him transcendent because we do not attend Catholic rote rituals week in a week out. We value the ordinances of the Lord's Supper (memorial) and believer's baptism (symbolic), but our joy comes from the immediate presence of God and His self-revelation in the Word. Prayer and worship is the key, not outward rituals that many people observe and yet remain far from knowing God. Knowing 'about' God also falls short.
- Status