The Catholic "Salvation"

That is what we call hearsay.

Like the Gospels?

My source is reliable.

 

Hi Singer and DHK,

I'm glad to see you've been having fun together in my absence. I've got to get some work done this a.m. If I have any free time this afternoon, I'll look back in and see how you're getting along.

(The curse of having a job -- I don't see how some of the "frequent posters" around here do it!)

Mark H.

 

Mark,

Rule #1 is to be self employed.

You've got the heart for debate though; that's obvious. And of course we're both doing the Lord's work; are we not? You're programming people toward Catholicism and others here are pulling them the other way.

But with my new insight and understanding that Catholicism only applies to Catholics, then I'm off the hook. I guess it would be hard to be excommunicated from an institution that I didn't belong to anyhow..........and it isn't God who is giving up on me; it's just some Catholics who don't think my head is screwed on right.

As for Mel Gibson, you see there are also many Catholics who feel that there is no salvation for non-Catholics. You've got a huge program to undertake if you're hoping to change the minds of those multi-millions(?) of Catholics who are of like mind. It might be a complex thing to justify the excommunication of all those Catholics who think they're saved because they belong to the one true church when it is actually the rest of you who are telling them that in the first place. Why was it said that "to those who know the truth (Catholics) and stray from it...it is a mortal sin" (as Carson said) when you're telling us that it isn't the truth that salvation is only available in the Catholic Church anyhow.

Hope that makes sense.

Did you see my input at the top of this page, Mark? It included this statement by t2u, Hey, I'll come right out and say it. Salvation is through the Church.

I'm skittish now as I'm sure there must be another explanation for that. He couldn't have possibly meant that salvation is through the CATHOLIC church....COULD HE?

Maybe you can explain the double meaning of that statement. All these years I've believed that no man can come to the Father but "by ME" as Jesus said. Now I see it claimed that it is "through" the Catholic Church instead.

Do you know if there is a book available that deciphers these double meanings in a simple format that non-Catholics could refer to. It would save us both that needed time that could be spent elsewhere. It would be a good move by the Vatican to put it all in print if they haven't already and would be a good tool to save you guys time. There must be hordes of people out there who read your catechisms and take it for face value. I see that was a wrong assumption.

Hope you find time to respond.

God loves you (anyway).
Singer

 

Singer,

People who read the Catechism at face value do not come to the conclusion that you have.

 

Grace,
Mel Gibson is one example of a Catholic who understood it the way I do and if I were to pose the question to most Catholics, I'd expect them to support my views. Afterall, if they DID think there was salvation outside of the Catholic Church, there would be no reason for them to stay and obey all the goings - on. I have a close Catholic friend who won't miss mass for his life.
He plans his weekends around what he sees as a need to be near a Catholic Church so he can attend mass. This is giving him a problem with his girlfriend, scheduling, business etc.
He must think it's a mortal sin to miss mass.
And for me to miss (I've never attended) it isn't a mortal sin because I'm not a Catholic?????

That's odd that he has been told he'll go to Hell for missing mass and I can enjoy a lifetime of never even attending one time and go to heaven as an imperfectly united christian.

(That's the outcome of our "Is there salvation outside of the Catholic Church "debate.

It simply doesn't apply to me I'm told, but yet my friend will burn in Hell forever and ever for committing the mortal sin of missing mass (if he doesn't repent) ???

Something stinks with this theory, Grace.

Singer

 

Yes it does matter. You are right. But not in respect to salvation. Our works cannot get us to heaven, and that is the point that most of the non-Catholics on this board try to make to the Catholics who seem to be hard of hearing. When the woman who "had an issue" was healed by simply touching the garment of Jesus, Jesus turned to her and said: "They faith hath made thee whole." Over and over again, he spoke of the faith of individuals that brought them: healing, salvation, forgiveness of sins (see Mark 2). It was faith and faith alone that brought healing and salvation to these people, not works.

Then Jesus said such things (some of which you have referred to) as:
"No man having putting his hand to the plow and looking back is fit for the kingdom of God."
--This statement, and those like Mark 8:34-38, are directed to those who have already "accepted Christ as their Saviour," and are talking about "discipleship." Jesus is speaking of discipleship, not salvation. Christ has much to say on the topic of discipleship. These are the verses that you have mostly referenced in the first part of your post. They have nothing to do with salvation. Our salvation is by faith alone.

When one is saved by faith, Christ by His Spirit comes and takes up residence within the believer and begins to change him from within. If there is no change we may doubt if there was any salvation. Salvation always produces change. It produces works. It produces the fruit of the Spirit spoken of in Galatians 5. Eph.2:8,9 speaks of salvation, how we are saved by grace through faith. But verse 10 says that the purpose we are saved is for good works. The good works are not part of the salvation, but are the result of the salvation.
DHK

 

Singer,

Too whom much has been given, much is expected.

Do you have trouble accepting that?

 

DHK,

Absolutely, we are saved at our Baptism, and those graces are earned by no human merit, but freely given by God, where we are washed of our sins and brought into the family of God.

In the same way, the "prodigal son" was the rightful son and inheritor of his father. He was given much, but being free, he took his rightful inheritence and squandered it. The inheritence was his, a free gift, and his father gave it to him, without question, when he asked for it. But he blew it all on frivolous things. He was left with nothing.

This son, however, returned to his father. When this happened, there was MUCH REJOICING! The father welcomed him back into his home and the ineritence was his once again. He was fully restored.

Now, when he left home with his fortune, he did not cease to be the son of the father. He would always be his father's son. But did the father ever chase after him? Did the father ever seek him out and bring him back home? No, the son had the choice to return home, and had to humble himself to be restored. Had he not come home to his father, he would have eventually died without being restored. Still a son of the father, but without the inheritence.

It is only when we humble ourselves and return to the father that we are once again entitled to the inheritance that is given to sons. All sons are initially given the inheritence, but only sons who stay with the father always have it.

EDIT: I just thought I'd add, at least in my translation (NAB), this son of the father, before returning home, is both referred to as "dead" and "lost."

[ February 13, 2004, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: GraceSaves ]

 

Not at all, Grace, I'm willing to witness for the Lord in light of my own salvation that I received freely by His grace through the exercising of my faith. It has become a natural desire that wasn't there before His Spirit dwelt in me.

Unbaptized and Unchurched,
Singer

 

Singer,

Curious as to why you remain unbaptised. Could you fill me in?

 

What? Without any heart's intent, Christmindedness or forethought??

If I'm not saved, do you wish to tell me that I could go to a Catholic Church tomorrow and "get saved" by getting wet in their baptismal?

Singer

 

Singer, so basically, you won't tell me why you aren't Baptised?

 

Water baptism; you mean?

I much rather prefer the baptism of the Holy Ghost that was dealt to me over getting wet, but in effect, my unbaptised (with water) state of affairs has more or less become an example to those who observe me that God can work within a vessel whom He has given his Holy Spirit.........regardless of baptism by water !

Besides, after 28 years as a believer, I've missed the point of showing through water baptism that I am now a new believer. Those who know me; know that; those who don't; can't tell the difference.

Also, it proves to me that we are not saved by baptism and that baptism is not the mechanism whereby the Holy Spirit indwells a person.

Thanks for asking,
Singer

 

By virtue of baptism, the "grace" is earned. Baptism is man's work, not God's work. Salvation is all of the grace of God; not of man. Water of any kind (even of baptism) can never wash away sin.

I wouldn't say nothing. It is true he had nothing of the world's goods. But he had everything (in application) spiritually. In other words, he was still his father's son. He still had the name. He was still part of the family, as we the family of God (after we are saved by faith and not by works).

He was restored to fellowship within the family. He had never left or been kicked out of the family in the first place. A child of God will never lose his salvation; will never be disinherited, but he can lose his fellowship with God, by sin. That is why in 1John 1:9 we are urged to come on a daily basis to confess our sins and ask forgiveness--not for our salvation, but to maintain fellowship with God.

Exactly my point all along.

And as the Bible teaches all throughout--there is a consequence for sin.

Not so, we are never disinherited, and therefore never will lose our inheritance. In disobedience it is possible that we may lose some reward at the judgement seat of Christ, but not our inheritance. There is a difference.

Sin stands between the believer and God, and counts us dead spiritually, and yet not unsaved. Dead because our fellowship with God is broken, and only can be made alive again through confession of sin. The son/Father relationship is always there.
DHK

 

DHK,

Wow, you managed to derive meaning that is not even possible from the parable.

You are telling me that the man who literally LOST HIS INHERITANCE by WASTING IT, still actually had it? Could you show me where that is in the parable?

I'm in complete agreement that he remains a child of the father, and we remain children of God. We all are ENTITLED to the inheritence, but that does not mean we will receive it if we are not there when the father gives it. If the son had not returned, pray tell, how would he receive the inheritence again?

And lastly, please tell me how, since we are made spiritually alive by our confession to the Father, how the man who is spiritually dead UPON PHYSICAL DEATH will still receive heavenly inheritence? How does the spiritually dead enter into the perfectly pure heaven (a place in which he must also be perfectly pure)?