Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

[The Biblicist]

If then you hold to these positions you stated then there is no argument as we are saying the same thing. And as far as regeneration. We are regenerated we are being regenerated and upon reciept of our glorified bodies, we are entirely regenerated.

No, we are not saying the same thing. What the Bible makes a completed action you make a incompleted progressive action (regeneration/justification) confusing progressive sanctification with regeneration/justification.

Glorification concerns the body and but regeneration concerns the spirit of man. one is a past tense non-repeatable action while the other is a future tense non-repeatable action.

Justification by faith is a past tense non-repeatable actions (Rom. 4:9-11; 5:1-2) whereas sanctification is a present tense continuation action (1 Thes. 5:1-7).

I could go on and on identify differences between Rome's soteriologiy and the Bible.

But don't be decieved believing something intellectually and having a strong feeling about it does nothing for you unless your life is changed by it. Jesus calls us to be followers not couch potatos that get choked up every time our favorite passages are read.

I say this honestly without any anger or maliciousness toward you, there is no salvation at all if one really believes in Rome's gospel - no man can possibly be saved by that gospel it is "another gospel" entirely from the true gospel of Jesus Christ as much as black is different than white.

So if you believe as you say . I have no argument. However, as I may have mischaracterized your view you certainly micharacterized the Catholic view. You miss understand that works from a catholic perspective are sanctification which is a part of salvation. Works are not the cerimonial rites and the legal wrangleings that jews got caught up in to which Jesus and Paul spoke against. Sanctification is the characteristic of a person moved by the spirit to grow in a faith they already have received. If you had read my response to Jeremiah you would see I have said that a person to do all the things (rites) the church requires but has no faith is no more saved than a man who was never in the church. And as you said faith is not alone nor can it be viewed in a vacuum.

I understand the Catholic view of receving grace for salvation perfectly. Your catechism spells it out clearly. The Church and sacraments serves as instrumental means to convey saving grace. Except for some limited very stingent exceptions there is no salvation outside the church of Rome or apart from the sacraments. This is as plain as the nose on your face in reading the Catechism. So I have not mischaracterized Roman soteriology in the least and you know it.

Where you want to haggle is EXPLAINING how salvation is thus accomplished through the church and sacraments not that it is not accomplished that way! Correct?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

This is certainly my own personal experience--the more I study Scripture/history, the more Calvinistic I have become....
Not sure we have the same understanding of Total Depravity--I copied and pasted this from a reformed website:...Now whether we want to believe all that are not, the Scriptures are certainly clear--the definition of mans Total depravity is to teach us we can't save ourselves

The problem I have with Total Depravity is not so much the teaching that we cannot save ourselves. This is a truth the Catholic Church has always taught. The problem I have I thought I was clear on was the Hyper view that man cannot in any way do any good thing of their own. I want to clarify good works do not merit salvation. The Catholic Church Also teaches Election. However the problem with the Catholic Church and Calvins point of view and I hold to the Catholic Criticism of Calvin is that in nature his view is Infralasparian.

Again this teaching [sanctifying grace as you call it] would be considered works salvation--TS

You need to explain how. I am not saying that my works merit salvation. But that in an effort to make me more Christ like I must work on my sanctification. Because the end - goal of Salvation is not just to get us into heaven but heaven into us. Remember Jeremiah the prophet Isaiah sees a wonderful vision of the heavenly court in Isaiah 6 where the angels are saying

“Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty;
the whole earth is full of his glory.”

4 At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.

What was his response? Do you think that God wants to leave us in that condition where Isaiah found himself?

“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the LORD Almighty.”

Of course not. Unlike a covering up of our nature by snow, God wants to transfigure us to sanctify us. A real regeneration which starts at our new birth and transfigures us througout our lives.

you are either saved or you aren't

I could agree with that but I know we are not saying the same thing. Yes you are saved or you are not. However, if you find a person who "backslides" and dies in that condition your response is that he was never saved to begin with which actually is beyond your knowledge therefore can only be speculative. Or you must consider the aweful and that God doesn't care about the backsliding and overlooks it eventhough that person is shaking their fist in rebelion to God saying "I will not Serve". Though Anninias and Saphirah may have something to say about that. Do you think that person can stand in the presence of God?

--yes Scripture teaches he that endures to the end will be saved--all this means is there are no such things as "apostates"

Of course Scriptures teach

he that endures to the end will be saved

but I disagree with your interpretation of it. It does not mean there is no such thing as apostasy. Paul is rather clear about enduring to the end.

7 I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.

and only after

Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me on that day—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing.

also Hebrews 12: 1-3

let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.

Hebrew 3:14

We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.

and Revelation 3:11

I am coming soon. Hold on to what you have, so that no one will take your crown.

And many verses besides. Formost our Lord is clear about it in his many teachings

You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

In not one of those passages does it state one cannot apostate. Indeed it warns against it. And what about James 5?

19 My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20 remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

James isn't speaking about two different groups here but one. Backsliders. Whom bringing back saves from death. I think scriptures are clear. People can apostate and need to repent to come back.

--someone who was TRULY born again and then forever turn away from the faith--I put people like that into the parable of the sower--weren't really saved and when the newness wore off, they were gone.

Exactly my point this is a caveat your faith creates and is not in scripture. Scripture doesn't make this distinction that about a Truly born again person. A person is born again or they are not. And how do you judge a person who backslides, repents, backslides, and repents? what do you do keep jumping from one conclusion to another. He wasn't really saved to he was to he wasn't really ad infinitum. This in fact is reading a perspective back into scripture.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Continued...

I asked the question because I was told the RCC's position is that ones' salvation depends upon partaking of the mass--which is how you are in "sanctifying grace" as you told me its called--again, this is a definition of works salvation which is not Biblical [Ephesians 2:8-9] --I read HA Ironsides Book on Revelation and he mentions the Catholic Service as being a mixture of Judaism, Heathenism and Christianity and your explanation seems to agree....the most important part of the OT Passover was the sign of salvation to come--the elements involved were just connected with obedience.....In the NT the key element is obedience period--we do this, as oft as we would, in remembrance of what Christ did for us at Calvary.

You should actually read stuff from the horses mouth so to speak. Ones salvation depends on faith given and living out that faith ever drawing closer to God. One of the ways to do that is participation in the Eucharist. Frankly, you shouldn't take Ironsides word for it. First of all the Mass originally is based on the jewish synagogue liturgical practice at the time of Jesus Christ and encorporates the Eucharistic meal and the reading of the NT texts. No Heathenism to it. FYI. We even take the scriptures and walk it around the church like the Jews do the Torah. However, Christianity is a fulfillment of Judaism. BTW if you believe that you should take communion "oft" why only do it once a quarter? I think the real answer is that its significance is no longer viewed appropriately. Also

This Greek word is practically untranslatable in English. “Memorial,” “commemoration,” “remembrance” all suggest a recollection of the past, whereas anamnesis means making present an object or person from the past. Sometimes the term “reactualization” has been used to indicate the force of anamnesis. (The New Dictionary of Sacramental Worship, p. 45)

Well I asked this question and I'll ask it a different way--where were you converted and how? Maybe this will shed a little light for me to understand where you are today...

I went to RVA as I explained earlier. I didn't have faith and treated religion like a superstition. I went, as I was required to convocation week, in which we heard evangelist guest speakers proclaim the gospel. One speaker got to my heart when he said. "There is nothing you can do of your own accord to change from your tattered sin nature. You can dress up, say the right things, look good to other people. However, no matter how much you try you are still your sinful self guilty before God and there is only one way to be freed from your sin and be made right with God. To be empowered to leave your sins behind and be the person Jesus wants you to be and that is to believe That Jesus came and died for your sins. That his blood washes away your offenses to God and you will become a new creation in Christ a new person, born again! And you will be saved and enter into Gods Kingdom!" Oh boy, I wanted that! I wanted to be changed into his image and to be friends with God and be considered righteous. The evangelist asked us to bow our heads and he asked that any one who wanted to ask Jesus into our lives should raise our hand as he lead us in a sinners prayer of repentance. After the prayer and all our heads were raised again he called those forward who prayed the prayer to an alter call to show our faith and be prayed over. Which I did. I was the very last one to walk foreward. My life significantly changed after that. I got an NIV bible studied through it. A lot of the MK's began to dislike me at that point because every conversation had to be about Jesus and what I was learning from scriptures. I guess they had heard it all before and several were in rebellion to their parents. I loved sunday school, required bibles study class during the week and attending, an AIC church where we sang a lot of old hymns. Every morning was like a new creation and I snuck out of my room to sing praise to God. I have great memories of that time. And I learned alot. Unfortunately, one of the first things I learned was there were many forms of Christianity, disagreements about everything from Alchohol, mixed bathing (swimming), music in services, baptism required or not, tongues only for a sign to the Jews or good for today, etc... RVA represented a lot of missionaries from differing groups. And I heard about each one from all the kids I went to school with. Always like the baptist the best but even among these there were differences. There were the KJO group and legalistic dressing fundalmentalist crowd, and there were the more progressive Southern Baptist.

Ok I'll agree with you here except I'll say, they won't go to Heaven if they don't have Christ

No argument from me.

.....Now my question--you said "more often they tell them...." Who does that?

This is from my experience. I'm certain others have other experiences. But this seems to be more the norm.

I knew a young man who went to Catholic School for 13 yrs, went to mass every Sat night [so he could party and sleep in Sunday btw ]

Sounds like my family. Sin like the devil Monday through Friday, confess on saturday so you can go to mass on sunday and start the process over again. This is not faith and is no more Catholic that those baptist guys standing outside the church during services smoking ciggarettes and later going home and drinking more than they should but are saved because they had an experience when they were 12 went to an alter call and they are "assured" of their salvation after all once saved always saved, are baptist.

and I asked him a simple question, cause with his education he should know--I asked, if you died tonight, would you go to Heaven?--His first response was--well, which level?

Funny! I find that I'm spending more time trying to bring Catholics to the Lord than those outside the faith into it. The problem is many Catholics don't know their own faith. Which level? He must have read Dante. The Jews believed in Levels too.

I told him I was kind of new at this so start me off at level 1.....well he hem hawed around about 10 seconds and then said, well if I live a good life, when I die everything will be ok

See what I mean?

......Now I thought to myself, if he REALLY believed that, he should be scared to death!

Most non converted people believe that whether they are (let me bring up a good ole protestant phrase) "Churched" or not.

He was living like a HEATHEN!!

I know!!! I spend some time trying to get these Churched Catholic to be converted to Christ by showing them the actual faith. What it really means.

But the lack of any ability to explain his spiritual condition was amazing considering his "education"

Not suprising as many parochial schools teach the same stuff as the public schools and only minorly hit on faith. And the US has a problem with Liberal nuns and priest who really shouldn't be in those positions. Teaching them falsehoods. Not getting to the nitty gritty of the faith. However, not all parishes or Diocese are like that. However, I know the further West you go the worse it is. Also way up in the North East. One Bishop is about to find himself in serious problems for support the gay agenda and doing things like having gay masses against the teachings of the Catholic faith.

....this is why I would find it hard to believe the RCC would tell anyone of their members they were going to hell as long as they were taking mass and giving, etc.....

Depends on what diocese and bishops you're talking about. I just heard a great Homilie on hell two weeks ago.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No, we are not saying the same thing. What the Bible makes a completed action you make a incompleted progressive action (regeneration/justification) confusing progressive sanctification with regeneration/justification.

Then it seems you are confused.

 

[The Biblicist]

Quote:
Again this teaching [sanctifying grace as you call it] would be considered works salvation--TS

You need to explain how. I am not saying that my works merit salvation. But that in an effort to make me more Christ like I must work on my sanctification. Because the end - goal of Salvation is not just to get us into heaven but heaven into us.

Here is the crux of the whole issue between Rome and the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a question if works justify us but a question concerning whose works justify us and how?

We are justified by works but we are not justified by our works. We are justified by Christ's works that consist of his own personal life or what the Bible calls "his blood."

In a sacrifice the blood must be shed. Not just a drop of blood, but until the life is given. Hence, "the blood of Christ" represents HIS RIGHTEOUS LIFE in total given to satisfy both demands of God's law against us.

1. First demand - don't sin - don't come short of God's glory (moral rightousness) - to sin is to fail in but one point

2. Second demand - wages of sin - death - spiritual, physical, eternal.

The "blood" of Christ represents both paid in full - both satisfied completely.

Our justification is by faith "IN his blood" or "in him" as our complete "propitiation" and it is "freely by grace" - Rom. 3:24-26.

THIS GETS US INTO HEAVEN.


Now, what gets heaven into us? Thanks for asking.

Getting heaven into us has nothing to do with justification by faith but with regeneration and the progressive transformation of our life by being renewed according to this inward man.

This is a process that is NEVER complete in this life and NEVER will be until glorification.

How far you proceed in this process in life is called MATURITY. There are three basic stages in maturity - (1) little children - immature; (2) young men; (3) fathers - 1 Jn. 2. The vast differences can be as far apart as the revealed life of Lot to that of Abraham and everything in between.

How far you progess is determined by the MEASURE of faith and grace given you by God and worked in and out of you by God (Philip. 2:12-13; Rom. 12:3,6; Eph. 2:10b).

The design of this progressive process is not getting into heaven but EXPERIENCING salvation here and now (joy, blessings, usefulness, fellowship, discernment, wisdom, etc.) and "rewards" and ultimate positions in heaven to come.

Here is where instrumental means of the Word, church, ordinances, fellowship aid in our Christian growth.

Where there is justification by faith (ticket to heaven) there is also regeneration and its fruits and where there is no manifest fruits of any kind or "without works" entirety there is no basis to believe such a person has been either justified or regenerated.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Here is the crux of the whole issue between Rome and the gospel of Jesus Christ. It is not a question if works justify us but a question concerning whose works justify us and how?

I don't want to go tit for tat with you because you don't seem to be an honest broker for discussion. I will say this however and leave it at an end. There is no crux or issue between the Catholic Church (not Rome as that is a city apart from the Vatican) and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You would sell me a wares of cheap grace which Bonhoffer warned the American and English churches against. It seems you have bought it whole sale. Faith is more than intellectual assent and great feeling.

 

[The Biblicist]

you don't seem to be an honest broker for discussion.

Why reduce this discussion to personal attacks? I have made no personal attack upon you? I never attacked your personal character and making this charge is a personal attack upon my character "an honest broker"???

This seems to the the modus operandi of all who can deal with issues, they resort to personal attacks upon the character of their opponent.

What you are evading by personal attack is my summation in the following post which challenged you in these words:

Where you want to haggle is EXPLAINING how salvation is thus accomplished through the church and sacraments not that it is not accomplished that way! Correct?

In my next post I simply provided a reasonable bible based explanation of where Rome and the Bible differ. I never attacked your person or character in either post or any previous post. I simply provided data from a different perspective and you respond by ignoring the data and confrontation that Rome denies salvation to all (with few exceptions) apart from membership in its denomination and apart from its sacraments.

I will say this however and leave it at an end. There is no crux or issue between the Catholic Church (not Rome as that is a city apart from the Vatican) and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You would sell me a wares of cheap grace which Bonhoffer warned the American and English churches against. It seems you have bought it whole sale. Faith is more than intellectual assent and great feeling.

Again you purposely pervert what I explicitly denied. I denied that justificaiton by faith is without life changing regeneration manifested by works. Yet you continue to charge me falsely.

If you cannot ratinally discuss honest differences without stooping to personal attacks then we should drop this discussion. However, such tactics does not make your position look very Christian like.

 

[The Biblicist]

Originally Posted by Thinkingstuff
But don't be decieved believing something intellectually and having a strong feeling about it does nothing for you unless your life is changed by it. Jesus calls us to be followers not couch potatos that get choked up every time our favorite passages are read.

The above statement was a clear inference that the gospel you perceived that I embrace cannot save and therefore those who embrace it should question if they are really saved or not.

When I responded to that inference, I introduced my response in bold letters to make sure that you realized I was not making any attack upon your own person but then stated honestly and clearly how I perceived the gospel preached by Rome and the gospel preached by Paul. I said:

I say this honestly without any anger or maliciousness toward you, there is no salvation at all if one really believes in Rome's gospel - no man can possibly be saved by that gospel it is "another gospel" entirely from the true gospel of Jesus Christ as much as black is different than white.

However, you come back and chage me personally to be a dishonest person. I could not have been more honest and more careful in avoiding any idea that I was making a personal attack upon your own person. I made it clear I was attacking Rome's GOSPEL not the person of any Roman Catholic. Are you not attacking the very gospel I believe? Did I take that as a personal attack on me? No! So why make a personal attack on me? Why not simply deal with the issues I presented?

 

[The Biblicist]

Then it seems you are confused.

I am certainly not confused about what I beleive the Bible is clearly teaching?

Are you going to tell me that Roman Catholicism does not spell out clearly that there is no salvation apart from the Roman Catholic Church and its sacraments, apart from some specific limited qualifications???

Are you going to tell me that I am confused about the Catholic Catechism clearly teaching that salvation is inseparable from membership in the Roman Catholic Church and continuances in the Roman Catholic sacraments apart from some specific qualfified exceptions?

If not, then tell me where you think I am confused? Is it not more like you think I am confused in not accepting the Catholic EXPLANATION to defend salvation through the church and its sacraments???? Isn't that really what you mean?

 

[The Biblicist]

you don't seem to be an honest broker for discussion.

If we want to talk about being an honest broker for discussion then give me an honest yes or no answer to the following question. I don't want a defense or an explanation but a simple honest yes or no?

Do you beleive that according to the Roman Catholic Catechism there is no salvation outside the membership of the Roman Catholic Church in connection with its sacraments as a faithful Catholic, apart from very limited and specific exceptions?

Will you be an honest broker with me and simply answer yes or no to this question?



Lakeside, you are a professing Roman Catholic are you not? Will you give me an honest yes or no to this question as well?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

If we want to talk about being an honest broker for discussion then give me an honest yes or no answer to the following question. I don't want a defense or an explanation but a simple honest yes or no?

Do you beleive that according to the Roman Catholic Catechism there is no salvation outside the membership of the Roman Catholic Church in connection with its sacraments as a faithful Catholic, apart from very limited and specific exceptions?

Will you be an honest broker with me and simply answer yes or no to this question?

See this shows that you are not a honest broker for discussion here. You changed the subject. Not only that you keep defining and redefining terms already expressed. However, to show your lack of understanding of Catholic Church doctrine and indeed a common lack which commonly pervades non catholics; I will answer your question in full by quoting the Catholic Church herself. If you remain confused that is your issue.

From the Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, I.3

Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments wich together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith; hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elemnts too...it follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

You cannot get clearer than that.

 

[The Biblicist]

From the Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, I.3 You cannot get clearer than that.

Well, I believe I asked you to give a simple yes or no to what you believed the Roman Catholic "CATECHISM" taught in this regard not something from the Second Vatican? So you still have not given me a straight answer to the question I asked.

I have not changed any definitions. I have not changed the subject - the subject has been and is salvation. You are still attacking me personally when I never made any attack on your person. You are still charging me with dishonesty, when you will not answer my question concerning the Catholic CATECHISM?

I have a feeling that if I ever attacked you personally as you have done me, that you would be claiming I was unchristlike, uncharitable and a host of other rebukes. However, I will simply forgive your personal accusation and deal only with the facts. I am not your enemy just a poster that is digging deeper into what I see as misinterpretations by Rome.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, I believe I asked you to give a simple yes or no to what you believed the Roman Catholic "CATECHISM" taught in this regard not something from the Second Vatican? So you still have not given me a straight answer to the question I asked.

I have not changed any definitions. I have not changed the subject - the subject has been and is salvation. You are still attacking me personally when I never made any attack on your person. You are still charging me with dishonesty, when you will not answer my question concerning the Catholic CATECHISM?

And this is why you are not honest. I explain things clearly and you want then to define things under your terms after I explain clearly what it is I believe. And you did change the subject as anyone can see. You went from salvation to what My church believe about protestant salvation. So I give you the answer despite the fact it has no relevance to previous discussion regarding aspects TULIP and the Catholic view.
Is not my explinataion enough? Is not the church explination enough? you are like the lawyer who insist on yes or no to the question do you still beat your wife. and does not accept I never beat my wife because it is neither yes nor no. Its an attempt to trap the person being questioned. If they answer Yes then its obvious the person beats his wife. If he says no then the argument was then at what point did you stop beating your wife. Its irrelative to the truth. The fact is I answered you. You are not satisfied with the answer. Thats on you just because I don't submit myself to your inappropriate limitations to what I can or cannot answer. Sometimes answers go beyond just yes or no. What does the quote say?

For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Ie. You can still receive Grace from the Church in order to be saved and not be a visible member of it. And that is what the catachism teaches.

 

[The Biblicist]

And this is why you are not honest. I explain things clearly and you want then to define things under your terms after I explain clearly what it is I believe. And you did change the subject as anyone can see. You went from salvation to what My church believe about protestant salvation.

I did no such thing! I have simply followed YOUR LEAD in this matter and responded to YOUR STATEMENTS in regard to the very same things you have charged me with believing. I have never even used the word "Protestant" as that was your expression in a post I responded to. Go back and look, I quoted you every time and simply responded to what you said.

So how do you figure I have changed the subject since I have been following your line of thinking and simply responding to it?

Again, you falsely accuse me of being dishonest. I forgave you for the past but you keep on falsely accusing me and keep on adding more falsehoods.

The next time you falsely accuse me, I will go back and get every quote you made and show that I simply responded to your lead, I followed YOUR LINE OF THINKING and YOUR ACCUSATONS.

So I give you the answer despite the fact it has no relevance to previous discussion regarding aspects TULIP and the Catholic view.

I have been responding to YOUR LEAD and YOUR ACCUSATIONS just go back and look as they are enclosed in every post I made.

You have yet to answer the question I asked. I didn't ask what some counsel in the past said but I asked about your believe in the Catholic Catechism's expression of the church and sacaments role in salvation.

Look, I have dealt with religious people long enough to know they can be so slippery like a Politician and their choice of terms that you must nail them down or else you go in circles or worse yet you accept their carefully worded foundations without challenging what those terms mean.

You can still receive Grace from the Church in order to be saved and not be a visible member of it. And that is what the catachism teaches.

So you are saying that grace must be received from the Roman Catholic Church regardless if you are a member or not in order to be saved and that is what the catechism teaches? In other words, without grace received from the Roman Catholic Church you cannot be saved whether you are a member or not a member? Is that right? That is exactly how I read the Catechism.

 

[The Biblicist]

From the Second Vatican Council, Unitatis Redintegratio, I.3

Quote:
Moreover, some and even very many of the significant elements and endowments wich together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church: the written word of God; the life of grace; faith; hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, and visible elemnts too...it follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as a means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

Isn't this statement clearly saying that all external grace for salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church derives its efficacy for salvation from the "fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."?

Hence, the Catholic Church is what gives efficacy to the "written word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity" and other gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements for salvation of all mankind whether inside or outside the "visible boundaries" of the Roman Catholic Church????

Am I reading and understanding this correctly as you perceive it as a Roman Catholic?

 

[The Biblicist]

Isn't this statement clearly saying that all external grace for salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church derives its efficacy for salvation from the "fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."?

Hence, the Catholic Church is what gives efficacy to the "written word of God, the life of grace, faith, hope and charity" and other gifts of the Holy Spirit and visible elements for salvation of all mankind whether inside or outside the "visible boundaries" of the Roman Catholic Church????

Am I reading and understanding this correctly as you perceive it as a Roman Catholic?

The church had no prior existence to the New Testament as the apostles were "first" set in the church. However, the doctrine of justification by faith and salvation by the faith in the gospel preceded the church (Heb. 4:2; Acts 10:43; 26:22-23) and the absolute proof is that Abraham is presented as proof that justification by faith (Rom. 4:1-25) preceded Moses and the first coming of Christ and there is but ONE gospel way (Jn. 14:6; Gal. 1:8-9) and it is the same gospel way preached to Abraham (Gal. 3:5-17).

Rome has added the church to the gospel making the church instead of the Holy Spirit the source of the efficacy of the Word of God for salvation and thus preach "another Gospel" than what Paul preached as Paul preached a gospel "according to the scriptures" (1 Cor. 15:4-5; Acts 26:22-23) which was according to a Pre-church and a Pre-Mosaic gospel found in Abraham which efficacy was found in God alone (Rom. 4:16-22) and no church of any kind.

Rome could not possibly be the Apostolic church as there is no STATE CHURCH in the New Testament or in the first three centuries that follow.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, An explanation to your misinformation can be found here --This article is featured in This Rock Magazine Volume 20 Number 8.
Will get back with part of the article, if I'm able to find it again.

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, An explanation to your misinformation can be found here --This article is featured in This Rock Magazine Volume 20 Number 8.
Will get back with part of the article, if I'm able to find it again.

THIS IS ONLY PART OF THE ARTICLE
4. Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?
Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was "infected" by Emperor Constantine’s conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model was adopted from the court of the emperor and the Church changed from independent, local, and congregational to a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.

Again, this theory has no relation to reality. As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the great scion of David the King, with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus’ own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the Church, as Christ’s kingdom, is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian Church was modeled) was similarly hierarchical, with its orders of rabbis, priests, and elders.

Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:

All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

The hierarchical nature of the Church is confirmed and sealed through apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and its ministry. So Ireneaeus writes:

It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)

The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes:

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

THIS IS ONLY PART OF THE ARTICLE
4. Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?
Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was "infected" by Emperor Constantine’s conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model was adopted from the court of the emperor and the Church changed from independent, local, and congregational to a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.

Again, this theory has no relation to reality. As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the great scion of David the King, with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus’ own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the Church, as Christ’s kingdom, is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian Church was modeled) was similarly hierarchical, with its orders of rabbis, priests, and elders.

Obedience to the bishop as the head of the Church was crucial. Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns congregationalism using language that is clearly hierarchical:

All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

The hierarchical nature of the Church is confirmed and sealed through apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and its ministry. So Ireneaeus writes:

It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)

The New Testament and the writings of the apostolic Fathers portray the Church as centralized, hierarchical, and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Allegiance to the hierarchical chain of command guarantees unity: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the apostles. The apostles appointed their successors. The bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes:

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

GE:

Yes, but mark,

Ignatius,
“The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)”;

Irenaeus,
“It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the apostles. . . the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics . . . all have fallen away from the truth. (Against Heresies, 4:26)” …

Both, STOP, ‘divine succession’ with “THOSE presbyters who ARE in the Church who have their succession FROM THE APOSTLES”; Ignatius even BEFORE “those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession FROM the apostles”, WITH, “THE APOSTLES”.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Really worth while listening and watching ...


http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-207-max-keiser/


http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-210-max-keiser/


and more ...