The Christians "Salvation"

My response was to your statement below (#7) where you used the word "exercise". Of course salvation is not automatic or there would be no need to evangelize. There would be no passages in the bible referring to "Whosoever believes" or "call upon the name of the Lord" etc. if it were automatic. In your #7, you referred to believing as an exercise. Don't you assume that once belief has set in (in your heart) then that part is over? We do not have to re-believe each day. You may include belief as a work....I don't.


(Reference)
7.) That nothing we do (belief as a mental exercise included)can increase the grace (free gift)from God.

Singer

P.S. Yes we do record our music.

 

Ok, I think we're on the same page as far as what your beliefs are. At this point I can either ask some questions in regard to the points we've discussed or if I may ask you now to delineate in a similar fashion as I did what you think we Catholics believe in regards to Salvation. Note I haven't offered any critiques of your beliefs etc. as I am still trying to make sure we are crystal clear on these points. Let's save that for after we have asked the questions pertaining to each ones applicable points. Agreed?

Also, so you know, I'm not looking at this as a debate (eventhough it is starting to shape up as one) I really would like to know your thoughts and see how one with your beliefs or similar would answer certain questions. Now how's that for pressure! You will be held accountable for answering for all Protestant Christiandom!

 

Of course you're kidding, but if I'm to answer for all Prot. Christiandom, I should quit right now because as a non church -goer, you might expect I don't agree with everything I'm told.

That's interesting though that you say we're on the same page....that should be more evidence to you that those Protestants must not be off key at all in their beliefs. As for me to think of Cathoicism as that much closely associated with myself, I don't agree.

For me to ask your beliefs, would restart the old comparison that I've been through many times in regards to issues of baptism, Mary, eucharist, Peter, church, pillar of truth etc. I think I'll save myself the hassle of that approach again as no one convinced me of the Catholic way. I may not be as moderate as yourself in my reaction and you can look at other threads if you want some kind of an idea. Those upsetting comments by Catholic Popes and the Vatican itself do no good to unite and cause a brotherhood between Cath/Prot. The Catholic history of bloodshed even does less for the cause. The denouncements of Prot. beliefs by a few topics that this thread and the "Catholic Salvation" thread discusses will undoubtedly not be healed over by your input on this thread. Anti-Catholics are not misrepresenting to the extent you may think.

I might as you this question though.
What is the great whore that is referred to here:
....(and you can answer for all Catholics)

Rev 17:1 And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

Thanks,
Singer

 

Singer,

I wasn't saying we're on the same page, as in we are of one accord on our understanding of soteriology (the study of salvation), just on the same page as understanding YOUR concept of salvation. That's why I said I haven't offered any critique as of yet.

I'm more or less just trying to get a starting point. And I figure if we are going to do a worthwhile comparison of the two camps on the understanding of salvation, that it would be helpful if we could at least verbalize each others real beliefs. I take it as a given that neither of us have been sufficiently convinced of the others persuasions or we would be in one and the same camp.
I just think a valid starting point would be in making sure we do understand what each other would express as their belief, before we start critiqueing them. Would you agree?

I am very interested in what you would point by point (as I did,) state that a faithful Catholic believes in regards to Salvation. I don't expect you to necessarily get it right,(again that is what WE believe) but if there are some mis-perceptions, I may be able to elaborate or correct the same way you did to my understanding of your beliefs.

Try to keep it in a matter-of-fact kind of way, I'm sure we both will have ample time to express our doubts and/or critiques etc.

The whore of Babylon is most likely the system of Pagan Rome. (At least that's my limited grasp of the metaphor) But that may be somewhat of a side issue.

 

Stephen,

Maybe we're off-topic here, but it doesn't seem the issue of the whore of Babylon would be a big issue with God in the end times if it was something that was squelched 2000 years ago. This verse seems to be dealing with something that will be a present and huge issue at the time of the end.

Rev 19:2 For true and righteous [are] his judgments: for he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.

It doesn't seem that Pagan Rome corrupted the earth and drew blood from his servants. I don't even know of any news items pointing to Pagan Rome nor can I think of any influence that they might have yet today on this earth that will cause God to avenge and judge them so harshly.

AS a starting point..... we should make sure that neither of us are in the camp of whoever it is that God will destroy in the end. Rather than compare and critique two sides, shouldn't we be sure that we are both on the SAME side to begin with?

Singer

 

Singer,

You said" AS a starting point..... we should make sure that neither of us are in the camp of whoever it is that God will destroy in the end.


You're right it does seem like a sidestep of sorts. It is wrought with presumptions. We would be going from discussing the concrete teaching of what you and I believe is involved in salvation. To trying to determine definitively what John's metaphors are referencing in one book of the Bible.

If that's the way you want to go, I don't mind necessarily, but we only got half way through. It certainly is an interesting topic. One I will have to do some research in. Could we at least re-approach and finish the discussion at hand afterwards?

I guess in a way we are acknowledging certain things about the final outcome of those who are against God. I wonder if you would put as much emphasis on Jesus' direct and unequivical words as you do your interpretation of John's metaphors.

I have read it (from an ex-evangelical Catholic convert) that Evangelicals actually emphasize the Letters of Paul (for example) over the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, and dismiss Christ's parables and teachings with comments to the effect that they did not apply to Christians today because Christ was speaking to an age under the law and we are in the "church age" and live under grace, rather than the law.

Would you AS A STARTING POINT for example put more or less emphasis on the words of Jesus as portrayed in the story of the seperating of the sheep and the goats, (those that "do" things and those that "did not") or Jesus' words at the Sermon on the Mount, or His words about His vomiting out of the "lukewarm".

I certainly hope we can decide if we are in one of the same camp or in the opposing camp. I don't necessarily agree that trying to interpret John's metaphors is the best way, when we have many more ample (and more clear ) examples of how the two camps are described throughout the whole of the Gospels.

But if that's the way you want to go, I'll try to do what research I can, if you would at least try formulating (even in your head) what YOU think Catholics believe in regards to Salvation (the same as I did for you). So that when we return to the topic we can take up where we left off.

Blessings

Steve

 

(Steve)
You're right it does seem like a sidestep of sorts. It is wrought with presumptions. We would be going from discussing the concrete teaching of what you and I believe is involved in salvation. To trying to determine definitively what John's
metaphors are referencing in one book of the Bible.

(Singer)
Concrete teachings and intentions can only be fulfilled from reading to the end of the book. I remember a sheet handed to each of us Army Privates a few years ago....we were told to READ it and follow the instructions. It was a full page of about 30 some directions and the first few all included 1) Yelling your name 2) Yelling your serial number 3) Yelling your mother's name etc. After about 4 or 5 lines, everyone was yelling and screaming to the top of their lungs; but there were three or four who were sitting quietly and not reading at all. I was one who was yelling and when the Sarge stopped us, he directed us to the last line that said "Dont do any of the above".

So why would we want to compare notes that set Catholics against Protestants when neither one existed in the beginning nor will be represented by our peers in Eternity. Let's read to the end of the book, eliminate the opposition and then consider what side we're on for a start.


(Steve)
If that's the way you want to go, I don't mind necessarily, but we only got half way through. It certainly is an interesting topic. One I will have to do some research in. Could we at least re-approach and finish the discussion at
hand afterwards?

(Singer)
No, that's the wrong approach. That's getting the cart before the horse.

(Steve)
I guess in a way we are acknowledging certain things about the final outcome of those who are against God. I wonder if you would put as much emphasis on Jesus' direct and unequivical words as you do your interpretation of John's metaphors.

(Singer)
We haven't established what John's metaphors and insights are yet, have we ? How can we continue until we know?

(Steve)
I have read it (from an ex-evangelical Catholic convert) that Evangelicals actually emphasize the Letters of Paul (for example) over the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels, and dismiss Christ's parables and teachings with comments to the effect that they did not apply to Christians today because Christ was speaking to an age under the law and we are in the "church age" and live under grace, rather than the law.

(Singer)
And you don't agree that we are in the church age?

(Steve)
Would you AS A STARTING POINT for example put more or less emphasis on the words of Jesus as portrayed in the story of the seperating of the sheep and the goats, (those that "do" things and those that "did not") or Jesus' words at the Sermon on the Mount, or His words about His vomiting out of the "lukewarm".

(Singer)
Again, who's the lukewarm one or are either of us?

(Steve)
I certainly hope we can decide if we are in one of the same camp or in the opposing camp. I don't necessarily agree that trying to interpret John's metaphors is the best way, when we have many more ample (and more clear ) examples of how the two camps are described throughout the whole of the Gospels.

(Singer)
Would you put the emphasis on goat's and sheep over "having the Son" or not "having the Son".?

(Steve)
But if that's the way you want to go, I'll try to do what research I can, if you would at least try formulating (even in your head) what YOU think Catholics believe in regards to Salvation (the same as I did for you). So that when we
return to the topic we can take up where we left off.

(Singer)
I didn't know we were vieing Catholics against Protestants here. I assert that neither existed when Jesus was walking the earth. So who was he talking to and how did we become involved in the year 2004?

So we need to identify the enemy that John spoke of and go backwards until we find where we became involved as individual souls.

Okay?

Singer

 

Singer,

Either way, I've got to head out to New York on a non-emergency short notice basis. I'll have to take this up when I return (next Weds.) sorry,
Steve

 

There may be some truth to this. I know that this is the line of reasoning of many who are in the Dispensationalist camp. Also, it seems that in most Baptist sermons I've heard these "hard" parables of Christ seem to be interpreted in the light of "Pauline (as read by the Reformers) theology".