Catholic Question: Can One Find Salvation Without the Sacraments?

DHK,

I feel sorry for you, that you cannot distinguish private revelation from public revelation. Does God not speak to you in your prayers? I know He speaks to me. That is private revelation, God revealing Himself to me. That in no way contradicts public revelation, which is closed. No doctrines have been promulgated from private revelation, but the ancient deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, while public revelation was still open.

Still waiting on that verse. Again, "Thus saith the Lord," does in no way prove that God's Word is limited to pen and ink.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

First, I did read it.

Second, you provided lengthy interpretations to explain what you got out of it.

Third, as you stated yourself, "I have demonstrated..." Shouldn't God's Word demonstrate itself, on a matter so large as this, that it doesn't require so much interpretation? Where is the verse that says, "God's Word is found only in Scripture," or anything of that nature? This is what you are insisting is true, and yet the best you can offer me is a complicated explanation of something that is not readily apparent, and other verses that require your added explanation.

Fourth, you were talking about the closure of revelation, not that God's Word is limited to Scripture, two completely seperate entities. How you are suddenly equating them baffles me.

God bless,

Grant

[ November 11, 2002, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

When Peter speaks that the Bible is of no "private interpretation," he is speaking primarily of a body of people. Take for example Ellen G. White, who believed that all who did not worship on the Sabbath but rather on Sunday, has the mark of the beast. That is her private interpretation. Now she is entitled to believe what she wants. That is freedom of religion. That is a freedom which we value. But when she enforces that belief system on an entire group of people--her private interpretation of Scripture that all must accept, that is what Peter is talking about. He is not talking of one man's opinion or conclusion. He is talking of one person's interpretation being forced on an entire body, such as the S.D.A.'s and almost every other cult. That is private interpretation.
DHK

 

This is a tangent, and I will not follow that trail so that you can avoid providing the Scriptures that I have asked for. We'll talk about this when the current matter is settled.

God bless,

Grant

 

First, this is a different verse than you have been talking about, so don't push it now like it's what you were talking about originally. That's deceitful. If you want to talk about it, fine, but I was stating that you were not talking about this previously. Don't try to get out of that by providing a verse that supports what I made clear you were not previously discussing.

Second: Boy, do I feel relieved that the Catholic Church hasn't done this, and that God has led me here for that very reason, that they have protected God's Word and spread the Gospel throughout the world so that all might come to have a perfect relationship with our mutual Savior.

God bless,

Grant

 

Look well into your own history. For centuries the Catholic church did not even allow the common person to possess a Bible. The Bible was kept from the common person; they could not read it lest they get the wrong idea; the wrong interpretation. Now in the last few years, the Catholic church has allowed their parishoners to read the Bible, but still the priest must interpret it for them. Only the priest can interpret the Bible for the common person. They are not permitted to think for themselves on these things. No wonder there is spiritual ignoranace in the Catholic Church.
You want Bible verses without interpretation, but you have the Catholic church to interpret it for you.
Have you ever heard of a commentary?
How about a sermon? Have you ever heard one? A sermon happens to be a commentary on Scripture, an interpretation on a certain passage of Scripture. Yet you want Scripture only without commentary, without interpretation, without explanation.

The Ethiopian eunuch said to Philip, "how can I understand unless some man show me?"
Paul said to Timothy: "The things which thou hast heard of me the same commit thou to faithful men who shall be able to teach others also." (2Tim.2:2).
We are to teach others. Explain the Scriptures to others. The commission given to Timothy was to Preach the Word--expound, proclaim. It was not without explanation. Your request is most unreasonable. You will not understand the Scriptures unless someone explains them to you.
Why did you come to this board. To learn I hope. If you want just Scriptures, stay at home and read your Bible. If you want the Scriptures explained we are here to help.
DHK

[ November 11, 2002, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

You've gone off the deep end. Exactly how was the common man going to obtain a Bible? Spend ten years hand writing one? The printing press did not exist until the late 15th century. There was no wide distribution of the Bible.

...and you're telling me I can't read the Bible...without a priest standing over my shoulder? Okay, DHK.

I'm now stopping in this thread. You have stated that your interpretation if fallible, and when I ask for a verse that needs no explanation, you cannot provide it, and instead make fun of me, acting like I'm ignorant of what a "sermon" is. You know my point, and you have ignored it, and have gone on at least five tangents in your last posts. You will not admit you have no verse that is self-evident, so you attack me personally to make up for it.

My point is made; there is no explicit Biblical proof for this doctrine. Thank you for proving my point.

God bless,

Grant

 

To reiterate: There is no new revelation of any kind given out today--public or private. God's revelation is closed. All forms of revelation have ceased. Everything that we need to know is contained within the pages of the Scripture. When you speak of "private revelation," and God speaking to you in prayer, you must define this in concrete terms. Are you just speaking of an emotional experience? Do you hear an audible voice? If so how do you know it is God?

The Holy Spirit guides and directs the believer both through the Word and as he speaks to God in prayer. He does so primarily through the Word of God. When He gives understanding to the Word of God, it is called illumination, not revelation. When he guides a person according to his will, as gave guidance to Philip, it was not revelation, it was guidance. God speaks to us today through His Word. He does promise to be with the believer.
DHK

 

15th Century?? My devout Roman Catholic family never owned a Bible. They never had to. As little as 30 to 40 years ago my parents were not allowed to have or read a Bible. What are you referring to--"spend ten years hand writing one." I may be old, but not that old.
DHK

 

(Eph 5:23 NIV) For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, HIS BODY, of which he is the Savior.

Sorry, the above quotes sound like they've come directly from a Jack Chick comic-book. I can understand disagreements with Catholic doctrine, but I cannot stomach this kind of bigotry and hate. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry you feel that way, but the above quotes are real, whether you like it or not.

 

"1129. "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.[Cf. Council of Trent (1547)...."

The RCC does not allow for non-Catholics to be saved under the New Covenant - since the New Covenant is defined by the RCC to BE the Catholic Mass.

So - all non-Catholics are saved apart from the RCC priests who "have the power" to administer the sacraments of the New Covenant.

So the good news after Vatican II is that YES you are saved outside of the RCC, but the answer is still "NO" to the question - are you saved via the biblical model of the Gospel - the New Covenant.

So you are "IN" but only by a fictional door that the RCC herself opens for the non-Catholics - not documented in scripture.

A backhanded kind of "good news".

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi BobRyan,

I've been reading several of your posts on this board, and I notice a continual mispresentation of the Catholic Faith on your part. I always assume good intentions, so I would merely like to comment on what you have said.

The RCC does not allow for non-Catholics to be saved under the New Covenant

You are incorrect. Those who are not visibly practicing Catholics on a parish roster may be saved through an imperfect communion with the Church by baptism of water, desire, or blood.

since the New Covenant is defined by the RCC to BE the Catholic Mass.

The Divine Liturgy is not equated with the New Covenant in Catholic Theology. It is the representation of the Paschal Mystery in the life of the Church so that the Christ event may be forever present to the life of the Church in her worship by means of sacrament. In this way, the Passover is fulfilled.

God bless you,

Carson

[ November 12, 2002, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

"if revelation is an on-going process"

"It isn't. It ended with the death of the last apostle; this is a truth that both Protestants and Catholic agree upon, but it is a truth that can't be found in the Bible."

Carson, the above is a quote from the thread on Scripture. If you take the time to read from page 5 to 7 on this thread you will find pertinent information to the discussion on revelation between Grant and myself. Look at my post on the bottom of page 5, 4:49 p.m.

I believe that the truth that revelation is closedd and has ceased can be found in the Bible, and is found in 1Cor.13:8-13. As Grant pointed out that even if one accepts that interpretation it only shows that Revelation ceased. That is all that it needs to show. If one will accept that much, then one should accept Rev.22:18,19, and not add to the Word of God. If the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible, the last book to be canonized as Scripture, which I believe to be true, then that verse applies to the entire canon of Scripture and not just to the Book of Revelation. Revelation has ceased.
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

You wrote, "I believe that the truth that revelation is closedd and has ceased can be found in the Bible, and is found in 1Cor.13:8-13."

This is a massive misreading of 1 Corinthians 13. Verses 8 through 13 read,

"Love never ends; as for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For our knowledge is imperfect and our prophecy is imperfect; but when the perfect comes, the imperfect will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood. So faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

Paul is speaking of the end times. When Christ comes again and the New Creation is ushered in, we will see God face to face and understand his plan fully. At the present, we need faith, hope, and love. Faith and hope will eventually pass away, and all that will remain is the charity of heaven.

You also make a mistake by equating Prophecy, tongues, and knowledge to public revelation, which they are not.

You wrote, "Rev.22:18,19, and not add to the Word of God."

Two points:

(1) Even though I strongly resist your spiritualizing of this passage in Revelation, I would like to point out that the Protestant "Reformers" removed 7 books of Scripture at the Reformation.

On February 5, 1442, the Protestant Reformation hadn't happened yet, and wouldn't for another 75 years. Martin Luther won’t be born for another 41 years. The decree that was promulgated on February 4th, by the Council of Florence, the 17th ecumenical council states,

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today]."

It seems that before the Protestant Revolt ever came about, the Deuterocanonicals were considered Scripture for Christianity by a solemn decree of an ecumenical council. And, someone came along with some scissors 75 years later..

(2) "I warn every one who hears the words of the prophecy of this book". This passage speaks specifically of the Book of Revelation. To impute this passage to the rest of Scripture runs contrary to the literal sense of the passage.

You wrote, "the Book of Revelation is the last book of the Bible"

The last book of the Bible in the chronological order of the traditional canon; nobody knows whether it was the last book to be written. Simply because it is placed at the end of the list does not entail chronological authorship in time.

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson posted:

Examine the context Carson. The three chapters (12, 13, 14) in First Corinthians are speaking of spiritual gifts. The spiritual gifts spoken of in 1Cor.13:8 to the end of chapter 14 all deal with God's revelation. No where in those three chapters does it refer to the Coming of Christ, the end of the Age, or seeing God face to face. That just isn't there. It isn't in the context. It isn't being spoken of. The subject is God's revelation to mankind. God revealed His truth through prophecy, through tongues, through revelatory knowledge. Paul spends an entire chapter (14) comparing tongues to prophecy, and showing the Corinthians why the gift of prophecy was the better gift. They were different gifts, but all used in relation to God's revelation. The gift of tongues was used to impart knowledge in a foreign language when needed. The gift of prophecy was used to instruct and edify the church. The gift of knowledge was receiving divine revelation from God. All the gifts were receiving in some way revelation from God. When the revelation was "complete," then that which was "in part" was done away. That is the spiritual gifts ceased as is evidenced by both the Bible and by history. The modern day tongues movement is relatively new, beginning only at the start of the twentieth century. What do the Charismatics say about the 1900 years that intervened before then and the cross? Was not the Holy Spirit present then?? Of course it was. But not through the Charismatic movement. Any such movement before 1900 was considered heretical. It is interesting to note that both Hindus and Mormons have spoken in tongues.
Biblical tongues, along with the other gifts, ceased when the canon of Scripture was complete. "When that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part (spiritual gifts) shall be done away."
DHK

 

Tradition and conservative scholars put the date of the Book of Revelation at ca. 98 A.D., thus making it the last book chronologically to be written. John's other works were believed to have been written before this time.
DHK