EMBRACING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BrianT:
What do you mean "in part"? What other authority for doctrine does sola scriptura allow?

My point was that that is not all that Sola Scriptura means. Perhaps we miscommunicated on that.

What do you mean "submission to the self-attesting authority of scripture"? For example, why should I believe that Jude is "scripture"? How would I know, on my own, not to accept some other writings that are not part of the canon?[/qutoe][/qb]Read Sproul's article for starters. No one has ever made a decision on their own on this matter. There is always a "communal effect" if you will in church history. The Catholics err in trying to force themselves to the top of that heap, when in fact they do not belong there.

What??? Scripture was written by the church! Some of the NT books weren't even written until approx 50 years *after* the church was established.

[/qb]Scripture was written by the apostles to the church. Those epistles formed the basis on which the church is built. The church is not the basis on which the epistles are accepted.

But scripture DOES say that the "church" has authority, at least in my understanding of scripture. I realize many people do not agree that that necessarily means the Catholic Church. But then what do these passages mean? Does the "church" still have authority today? If so, which church, and in what form does this authority exist? If not, when did it cease?

But the "church" that has authority is the NT church, not the RCC. The RCC departed from the NT church many centuries ago when they left biblical doctrine. SCripture gives the marks of the NT church in many terms, including holding to the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." When teh RCC left that faith and introduced their own man made doctrines, they lost the claim to be a NT church.

The authority of the church is secondary to the authority of Scripture. In other words, a church only has authority under the mandates and teachings of the Scripture, just as an ambassador has authority only under the mandates of his sending government. The church is the guard of truth, not the determiner of it. They are the propogaters of truth, not the writers of it. This is an important distinction. Scripture never gives the church the authority to determine what is truth and what is not.

The OT canon took no special council to determined. The NT needs none either. It can be well and heartily affirmed without the benefit of the RCC. It is revisionistic to a high degree to claim that the RCC determined the canon. It simply isn't so.

 

[BrianT]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Read Sproul's article for starters. No one has ever made a decision on their own on this matter. There is always a "communal effect" if you will in church history.

Is "communal effect" authoritative? Why should I accept it? What about when someone disagrees on some point?

Scripture was written by the apostles to the church. Those epistles formed the basis on which the church is built.

Pastor Larry, maybe I'm not understanding you, because I can't believe you just said that. The church is NOT built on the epistles. The church existed BEFORE the epistles. The church was already thriving. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:20).

The authority of the church is secondary to the authority of Scripture. In other words, a church only has authority under the mandates and teachings of the Scripture, just as an ambassador has authority only under the mandates of his sending government.

Then the ambassador does not really have *his own* authority, he is just reflecting authority.

Scripture never gives the church the authority to determine what is truth and what is not.

Pastor Larry, the more you say, the more you are losing me. How did the church determine what books to accept in the canon? Why does 1 Tim 3:15 say the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"?

Tell me, what was the "authority" before all the NT books were written? By what "authority" should I accept or reject James or Hebrews or Revelation as scripture?

I'm sure you seen me ask in the Bible versions forum: By what authority should we accept KJV-onlyism, since the KJV doesn't say only the KJV is authoritative? Well, by what authority should we accept sola scriptura, since scripture doesn't say only scripture is authoritative (nor could it, for the church existed before scripture)?

 

[Ray Berrian]

When this pope has completed his life tour and you get a new and liberal pope in office, will you still be shouting his praises, even if he decrees some new ideas that are contrary to the Word of God, the Bible?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by BrianT:
Is "communal effect" authoritative? Why should I accept it? What about when someone disagrees on some point?[/qutoe]When "someone" disagrees, the weight of the agreement stands against them in the matter of biblical truth. Communal effect is not authoritative. The communal effect did not establish teh canon, which has been my point all along. They merely recognized what God had inspired. Recognition is the result of God's canonization. God is the one who stipulated the canon and then worked through history to bring that about.

Pastor Larry, maybe I'm not understanding you, because I can't believe you just said that. The church is NOT built on the epistles. The church existed BEFORE the epistles. The church was already thriving. The church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Eph 2:20).

[/qb]The foundation of the prophets and apostles is a reference to the doctrine and teaching. That doctrine and teaching is found in the epistles for us. The teaching originally was first hand. When the apostles died, their teaching continued in the canon. So yes, the church is built on the foundation of hte apostles and prophets, found in the Scriptures.

Then the ambassador does not really have *his own* authority, he is just reflecting authority.

It is delegated authority. It is real authority, but it is delegated to him.

[qbPastor Larry, the more you say, the more you are losing me. How did the church determine what books to accept in the canon?

[/qb]Through the recognition of hte inspired books by the inner testimony worked through the corporate consciousness of the church.

Why does 1 Tim 3:15 say the church is the "pillar and ground of the truth"?

Because it is. But neither of those words means "determiner" or "canonizer." It means that the church defends and propogates the truth.

Tell me, what was the "authority" before all the NT books were written?[/qutoe]The apostles.

By what "authority" should I accept or reject James or Hebrews or Revelation as scripture?

The authority of the fact that they are universally recognized as Scripture. In history some doubted, but most did not.

Well, by what authority should we accept sola scriptura, since scripture doesn't say only scripture is authoritative (nor could it, for the church existed before scripture)?

The teaching of sola scriptura, despite attacks on it, is clearly found in Scripture and this has been defended on numerous occasions. The church existed before with the authority of the apostles. We exist also with the authority of the apostles as our guide. The difference is that our guide is written and codified in one volume. Theirs was not. That does not change the authority itself. It changes the form in which that authority is found.

Who appointed the RCC has the authority? Answer? Themselves ... Jesus never picked them. They have set themselves up as the authority. Don't be swayed by their fine sounding arguments. We must hang our hats on the facts of 2 Tim 3:16-17 (combined with many other passages) that establishes for us the true authority.

I think you are struggling with this issue because the RCCs have convinced you that their church decided what the canon was. They didn't. God decided it and worked through history to bring that out. The RCC long ago left the status of the NT church when the left NT doctrine. And that fact cannot be overlooked. THat does not mean they are wrong on everything. It means that they are wrong on areas where they have contradicted the Bible. Unfortunately for them, they have chosen rather serious areas to contradict biblical doctrine. They get by with it because they claim authority to do such and demand that everyone is supposed to follow their authority. You notice that RCCs spend a lot of time appealing to church history and comparatively little time appealing to deep study of the text. There is a reason for that. Their sacred tradition overrules the text. That should not be.

 

[Todd]

I'd like to know what our Catholic friend makes of Mary being seen as "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix" within Catholic theology. I thought that Jesus was the one and only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man (1 Tim. 2:5, John 14:6).

Also, I'd like to know how our Catholic friend can denounce the biblical notion of eternal security of the believer when it is so clear in the Scriptures (2 Cor. 5:5, Eph. 4:30, John 10:27-30, 2 Tim. 2:12, etc.).

I agree with the Pastor - the RCC ceased to be an authority when they departed from the authority of Scripture. The most recent councils of the church have been nothing more than attempts to cover up the corruption of the church. Thanks Pastor for making that clear with your replies.

 

[Brother Adam]

Originally posted by Todd:
I'd like to know what our Catholic friend makes of Mary being seen as "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix" within Catholic theology. I thought that Jesus was the one and only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man (1 Tim. 2:5, John 14:6).

Also, I'd like to know how our Catholic friend can denounce the biblical notion of eternal security of the believer when it is so clear in the Scriptures (2 Cor. 5:5, Eph. 4:30, John 10:27-30, 2 Tim. 2:12, etc.).

I agree with the Pastor - the RCC ceased to be an authority when they departed from the authority of Scripture. The most recent councils of the church have been nothing more than attempts to cover up the corruption of the church. Thanks Pastor for making that clear with your replies.

2 Cor. 5:5
Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.



Ephes. 4:30
And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption.



John 10:27-30
My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: [28] And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. [29] My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. [30] I and my Father are one.



2 Tim. 2:2
And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

None of these verses say "Once a man has accepted Christ as His personal Lord and Savior, that man can never choose to leave Gods family". You're making an assumption based on faith.


Next, to the Mary issue. This is the actual petition submitted to Pope John Paul II by the Catholic faithful. It helps to read about what your disagreeing with:

When the Church invokes Mary under the title, "Coredemptrix", she means that Mary uniquely participated in the redemption of the human family by Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Saviour. At the Annunciation (cf.Lk.1:38) Mary freely cooperated in giving the Second Person of the Trinity his human body which is the very instrument of redemption, as Scripture tells us: "We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all" (Heb.10:10).

And at the foot of the cross of our Saviour (Jn.19:26), Mary's intense sufferings, united with those of her Son, as Pope John Paul II tells us, were, "also a contribution to the Redemption of us all" (Salvifici Doloris, n.25). Because of this intimate sharing in the redemption accomplished by the Lord, the Mother of the Redeemer is uniquely and rightly referred to by Pope John Paul II and the Church as the "Coredemptrix."

It is important to note that the prefix "co" in the title Coredemptrix does not mean "equal to" but rather "with", coming from the Latin word cum. The Marian title Coredemptrix never places Mary on a level of equality with her Divine Son, Jesus Christ. Rather it refers to Mary's unique human participation which is completely secondary and subordinate to the redeeming role of Jesus, who alone is true God and true Man.

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html


Catholics have not departed from the "authority of scripture" They believe the scriptures to hold the same attributes as protestants: It is divine, contains no error, and is infalliable. The Holy Scriptures are an authority in the Catholic Church. No doctrine, dogma, or teaching is permitted to be anti-scriptural. The Holy Scriptures however are not the "only" authority in the Catholic Church, just as they are not in the Protestant Church. Pastors, Deacons/Deaconesses, teachers, and others are seen as figures of authority in the protestant church.

 

[Brother Adam]

I'll be the first to ask though since I don't agree with the doctrine of the coredemptrix.

How does any suffering Mary went through at the foot of the cross add to or go with the perfect suffering of our Lord on the cross?

(It should be understood though that from what I've been told by my Catholic Brethren that this is not a dogma of the Catholic faith.)

 

[Harley4Him]

I don't know much about that doctrine either, but how can Paul's suffering add to Christs?

"Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church. "

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:

For one thing - it makes the RC blunder of lumping all non-Catholic churches "into one" church that is simply "anti-Catholic" and that "has a flawed view" of sola-scriptura.

Since that is "not true" - the entire argument is bogus.

Bob they don't lump us all together. How could you expect anyone to read your long posts when they start with such an obviously bogus statement?

 

[Brother Adam]

I'm learning as I go here... I'm discussing this doctrine with faithful Catholics as we speak, and it seems that this has been a very contraversial doctrine in the church for a long time, but any idea that Mary suffering at the foot of the cross adds to or is with Christs suffering and aids in the payment of sin for the world is completely rejected as heresy. This doctrine, believed by some Catholics, is not Catholic dogma.

 

[Carson Weber]

Adam,

Mary's role as Coredemptrix is a doctrine that is an integral part of the deposit of faith. It isn't something believed by some faithful Catholics and rejected by other faithful Catholics. Dogma is only a doctrine that has been defined in a precise and infallible manner to clarify the details. All doctrine must be believed by all of the faithful because it's true, while it may not be defined to such a degree as "dogma", and so the doctrine of Mary's role as Coredemptrix has room to shuffle about in, but that doesn't mean that the doctrine is up for the choosing. It's true.

Mary's role in the Redemption mirrors Eve's role in the Fall. We did not fall in Eve; we fell in Adam. Yet, Eve played an integral role in our Fall alongside Adam. In the same way, God so ordained salvation history as to prefigure the role of Mary in Eve and to fulfill the foretype of Eve in Mary's person and work. We are not saved in Mary but in Christ. But, this doesn't preclude the fact that Mary played an integral role in the Redemption as the Co-Redemptrix.

The "Co" in Co-Redemptix does not mean "equal to," but "with" because it is the English translation of the Latin cum, which means "with", not "equal to".

Mary participated in the work of Christ, whose work as the Redeemer is infinitely sufficient in its own accord. She did so throughout her life from her "yes" at the Annunciation to the foot of the Cross where her heart was pierced by a sword (Hence, the "Immaculate Heart").

This participation in Christ's sufficient work was one of participation in the objective redemption: those events that occurred once in time to redeem humanity.. whereas our participation is a participation in the subjective redemption: the application of the objective redemption to mankind throughout the course of history. We do this through our lives as Christ-ians; we pray and we suffer in and with Christ so that his work may be manifest in time and so that more souls may receive salvation.

And so Mary participated with Christ in those events that saved the human race - all the way from the Incarnation at the Annunciation to the foot of the Cross. Remember, all of Christ's life was a saving event - not just Golgotha. God (e.g., Jesus Christ) choose to associate the free (and truly free, because she was sinless because of her Immaculate Conception) and constant consent of the Co-redemptrix in his work of Salvation, and so now Mary reigns as Mediatrix of All Graces, Advocate for All Peoples, and Co-redemptrix of Humanity as the Queen of Heaven alongside the Redeember, the King of Heaven, our Messiah, the Incarnate God-Man .. who, beginning with Mary, asks us to particpate in his saving work, enlisting our free consent in his work of saving souls for the greater glory of God in time and eternity.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Carson Weber,

You said, 'The "Co" in Co-Redemptix does not mean "equal to," but "with" because it is
the English translation of the Latin cum, which means "with", not "equal to".'

Ray is saying, 'Was the N.T. written in Latin or Greek? Secondly, where in the Bible in I Timothy 2:5 does it say in the Greek the word--equivilent to the Latin word, "cum" meaning with or along with Jesus?

You and I know that it does not say "with" but the Greek does say, One Mediator, referring to our Lord Jesus. You and I both know that the Latin was employed to cloud the issue of Jesus being our only Redeemer. Some of us do not appreciate Rome's intervention in the Word of God by adding some Latin word which is not part of the thoughts coming from Jesus, the Savior of all who believe.

Take your Roman traditions and add on theology and dispose of it, and start obeying what the Holy Spirit is teaching to His people of God.

 

[Todd]

Carson and Adam, I have had these same conversations with Catholics many times before. Anytime an unbiblical Catholic dogma is questioned, then they always refer to the Pope or the Cathecism, as if someone who believes in the full inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible gives a hoot what the Pope or the Catechism says.

As to the issue of eternal security, Adam's assertions that someone could "opt out" of a covenant relationship with God is ridiculous - "If we are faithless, He remains faithful; He cannot deny Himself" (2 Tim. 2:13). Salvation is not something someone can opt in and out of, but it is a covenant relationship with God that is sealed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, of whom Paul said is an earnest (a guarantee, NKJV) of future glory (2 Cor. 5:5). Paul made the same statement in Eph. 4:30. Besides, if a man could lose his salvation, would he even know that it was gone? How many times can a person who has lost their salvation be "re-saved?" Further, is there even one example in the Bible who lost their salvation and was "re-saved?" Of course there isn't - that's because the Bible emphatically declares the eternal security of the believer as truth. If someone wants to say that God would "break" his guarantee of eternal security with a believer, they are much bolder than I am. I know you will probably reply by saying that we broke the covenant, not God, but it is impossible for a true believer to do so according to John: "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us (1 John 2:19). Of course, there have been many so-called Christians who have turned their back on God and stopped fellowshiping with the brethren, but John clearly states that they never belonged to God to begin with. Besides, if eternal security is not a reality, then how could John later write in the same epistle, "these things I have written that you might KNOW that you have eternal life."? The RCC's view of salvation is nothing more than rehashed Pelagianism.

As for Mary being "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix," can you provide me with one verse of Scripture that makes that claim? I provided you with two verses that clearly show that Christ is the only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man, but you provided me with none to substantiate this phantom dogma of the RCC. The material you provided (an extra-biblical source though it was) only provided verses about Mary's emotional suffering and giving birth. The RCC tried to cover itself by saying that Mary was not equal with Christ, but they might as well have said it because making her co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix is the same thing! That is godless! It was interesting to see that Adam waffled on the subject while Carson tried to defend it.

I also noticed that Carson made reference to the infallible Papal dogmas of the church. I always like to remind my RC friends that it wasn't until 1870 that the RCC stated that the Pope has always been infallible when he spoke ex cathedra . That was nothing more than an attempt by the RCC to cover up the mistakes of past Popes (the condemnation of Copernicus, etc.). It seems pretty convenient for the RCC to state 1850 years later that the Popes have always spoken infallibly from the chair of Peter.

 

[thessalonian]

"I always like to remind my RC friends that it wasn't until 1870 that the RCC stated that the Pope has always been infallible when he spoke ex cathedra . That was nothing more than an attempt by the RCC to cover up the mistakes of past Popes (the condemnation of Copernicus, etc.). It seems pretty convenient for the RCC to state 1850 years later that the Popes have always spoken infallibly from the chair of Peter. "

You contradict yourself by saying that the declaratoin of infallibility of Vatican I was an attempt to cover up past mistakes such as the Copernicus. Catholicism never condemned Copernicus, where'd you get that. The fact is that historically the Church did give great weight to what Popes said. They did go to the Pope to resolve disputes time and time again and Popes did sign off on the decrees of the councils. Tell me, in the year 30 AD it was written that Jesus was going to be from Nazareth in Luke's Gospel. First time ever that it was written. So was it believed before that time? Awfully convenient of Luke to write it after the fact. In fact it wasnt' even mentioned in the Old Testament. Ignatus of Antioch and Irenaus from the very earliest post apostolic writings speak of the purity of doctrine of the Church in Rome. So infallibility was quite clearly recognized then.

Blessings.

 

[BobRyan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carson and Adam, I have had these same conversations with Catholics many times before. Anytime an unbiblical Catholic dogma is questioned, then they always refer to the Pope or the Cathecism, as if someone who believes in the full inerrancy and sufficiency of the Bible gives a hoot what the Pope or the Catechism says.

They often quote "their own sources" as "if" that forms some kind of "objective proof" for non-Catholics.

But more interesting - when non-Catholics find that over the course of the ever-evolving Catholic doctrines - some more recent errors are "refuted" by earlier Catholic sources - they "simply ignore the details".

All a fascinating study in the the behavior of human nature.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

As for Mary being "co-redemptrix" and "co-mediatrix," can you provide me with one verse of Scripture that makes that claim? I provided you with two verses that clearly show that Christ is the only Mediator and Redeemer for sinful man

No it is based on speculation and guesswork.

The Bible endorses Christ as alone as "mediator" and as "Redeemer".

The Bible contains "no reference at all" to infant Baptism = nor do the earliest Christian documents AND in fact RC historians themselves admit to "A evolution in the practice" so that what is practiced today is in their words "VERY different" from what was practiced by the first century church.

And of course in Acts 20 and 2Thess 2 - this evolving system of error introduced into the Christian church - was "predicted".

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Harley4Him]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
in fact RC historians themselves admit to "A evolution in the practice"

This coming from a guy who admits that he's a follower of an offshoot of the false prophet Miller At least you should have enough dignitiy to be a direct disciple of a false prophet, but a follower of an offshoot?

 

[BobRyan]

Carson said --

Mary's role in the Redemption mirrors Eve's role in the Fall. We did not fall in Eve; we fell in Adam. Yet, Eve played an integral role in our Fall alongside Adam. In the same way, God so ordained salvation history as to prefigure the role of Mary in Eve and to fulfill the foretype of Eve in Mary's person and work. We are not saved in Mary but in Christ. But, this doesn't preclude the fact that Mary played an integral role in the Redemption as the Co-Redemptrix.

The "Co" in Co-Redemptix does not mean "equal to," but "with" because it is the English translation of the Latin cum, which means "with", not "equal to".

This is what the Bible calls "vain imaginings" - speculation leading to claim such as "co-redemptrix".

"Imagining" that SINCE in Adam all fall with Eve also having a key role in the fall of mankind (duh) - THEN in Christ and Mary ALL are redeemed - is simply a non-sequiter a fallacious form of illogic (as Carson's quote proclaims).

What in fact DO the RC sources say about Mary?

You know, "the details".

CoRedemptrix -

"With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ, thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother....How grateful and magnificent a spectacle to see in the cities, and towns, and villages, on land and sea—wherever the Catholic
faith has penetrated—many hundreds of thousands of pious people uniting their praises and prayers with one voice and heart at every moment of the day, saluting Mary, invoking Mary, hoping everything through Mary." - Pope Leo XIII, Octobri Mense

"O Virgin most holy, none abounds in the knowledge of God except through thee; none, O Mother of God, obtains salvation except through thee, none receives a gift from the throne of mercy except through thee." - Pope Leo XIII, Adiutricem Populi

"Mary suffered and, as it were, nearly died with her suffering Son; for the salvation of mankind she renounced her mother's rights and, as far as it depended on her, offered her Son to placate divine justice; so we may well say that she with Christ redeemed mankind." - Pope Benedict XV, Inter Sodalicia

"Mary's suffering [at Calvary], beside the suffering of Jesus, reached an intensity which can hardly be imagined from a human point of view but which was mysteriously and supernaturally fruitful for the Redemption of the world." - Pope John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris, no. 25

"Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, Oh Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother....we adore and praise the peerless richness of the sublime gifts with which God has filled you above every other mere creature, from the moment of conception until the day on which after your assumption into heaven. He crowned you Queen of the Universe. Oh crystal fountain of
faith, bathe our hearts with your heavenly perfume. Oh Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin which makes the soul detestable to God and the slave of hell. Oh well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cries which rise up from every heart in this year dedicated to you. Then tenderly, Oh Mary, cover our aching wound; convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and the oppressed. Comfort the poor and humble. Quench hatred,
sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity and protect the Holy Church. In your name resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that all are brothers...Receive, Oh sweet Mother our humble supplications and above all, obtain for us that on that day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which is sung today around your altars. You are beautiful Oh Mary. You are Glory Oh Mary. You are the joy, you are the Honor of
our people." - Pope Pius XII, celebration of the Marian Year in Rome, 1950

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Carson said --
And so Mary participated with Christ in those events that saved the human race - all the way from the Incarnation at the Annunciation to the foot of the Cross. Remember, all of Christ's life was a saving event - not just Golgotha. God (e.g., Jesus Christ) choose to associate the free (and truly free, because she was sinless because of her Immaculate Conception)

Here then is the fallacy compounded by buidling one error upon another. Mary as Co-Redemptrix is being argued from "Mary-sinless-like-Christ" being argued from "Mary-born-without-sin".

Error upon Error upon Error.

With "nothing" to show for it from scripture.

One has to be astounded by the "blindness" of a supposed baptist that would see all this error and "leap back into the dark ages" inspite of it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Adam]

"How many times can a person who has lost their salvation be "re-saved?""

This is why conversations between Catholics and non-Catholics are usually fruitless. They are speaking two different languages. I've never once heard a Catholic use the term "re-saved" as in I went to "confession and got resaved".

And for the record I'm not Catholic.