Questions for Catholics

[Frogman]

One whois born again knows that he is born again. Just as a baby is born it doesn't have to be told that it is born. It already knows. Salvation is not a "hope so" salvation. It is a definite salvation. Jesus never died to secure a "hope so" salvation.

Worthy of repetition. AMEN!!! From the AMEN!!! Corner, keep preaching it to us brother.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by CatholicConvert:

1. Salvation is entirely by faith, and not by works.

Correct. Salvation is entirely accomplished by Christ on the Cross, is entirely given by Christ in baptism, and is entirely unable to be earned, which is why infant baptism is such a perfect picture of God's grace, for the child can do nothing but receive God's grace.

Baptism is a work, so you have just negated your own answer. If salvation is entirely accomplished by Christ on the cross, then baptism is not needed for salvation. Christ paid the penalty for our sins, not baptism.

2. Salvation can never be earned.

Correct again. Salvation is purely by the grace of God in coming to sinners and calling them into the Church by His grace. Whether it be that He call adults to believe in His Word and accept His Christ, or infants to be part of the Church through the faith of their parents, it is nonetheless of grace and the Church teaches that man has nothing in it.

#1. God calls sinners into His family, not His church. You have the delusion that the Catholic Church is His Church. The Bible does not say that we are born into His church; but it does say that we are born into his family, adopted into his family, made his children.

John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Note that it never says that a child can be born into God's family through the faith of one's parents. "As many as RECEIVED Him." An infant cannot receive Christ by faith, not by themselves, not through the faith of their parents. There is no such precedent in the Bible. There is not one example of any infant anywhere in the Bible being baptized. It is a totally unscriptural doctrine.

3. Works have nothing to do with salvation.

Indeed they do not. Salvation is as free as the wind. Your problem, however, is that you #1 do not believe in the covenant, even though Jesus Himself said that He was establishing the New Covenant in His Blood, and # 2, you confuse salvation with eternal life. Works have everything to do with eternal life and both Jesus and St. Paul say so in scripture.

Baptism does not take the place of circumcision. The covenant was made with the Jewish nation, not with the Christian. We are partakers of some of the blessings that result from the covenantal promises made with Israel. The oovenant was made with Israel, not with us. The only covenant in the New Testament, outside of Israel, is that of Christ's death on the cross--that all who believe in his atoning blood will receive forgiveness of sins. It is more of a promise than a covenant, but like most of God's covenants are one way promises. They rely on the promise of God, no matter what man does. In other words: Because I have trusted Christ as my Saviour my sins--past, present, and future, have all been put under the blood to be remembered no more. I have been given the gift of eternal life, and will never lose it. God doesn't break his promises, and will not no matter what the outcome of my life.

4. Replacement theology, the teaching that the church replaces Israel is a wrong theology, for in no way can a Christian be called a Jew.

Wrong. Very wrong, according to scripture.

Ro 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.

Care to argue with St. Paul on that one? I think he knows a tad more about it than you do.

Ga 3:7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

Scripture is teaching right there that believers are now the Jews (i.e., children of Abraham.)

Why don't you put down yer mezzuzah and stop being a shill for the Kabbalists?

Hey, I didn't post that commentary on Romans 2 for the good of my health; I posted it for the good of your health!

Did you read it? Paul was using an illustration; speaking metaphorically. In no way was he saying that Christians were Jews. He was not saying that. You cannot take a verse or text out of its context and make it a pretext for your own predetermined theology that you try to force into the Scriptures.

5. There are two judgments: one for believers and one for unbelievers. What you believe on this fact alone will skew your interpretation of this passage of Scripture.

That idea is nowhere found in scripture except through a torturing of scripture. Furthermore, it contradicts Romans 2: 5 - 10 and John 5: 28 - 29 which speak of the Day of Judgment in which ALL who are in the graves shall come forward and be judged by what they have done.

I have found that a great deal of teachings from Protestantism have come from twisting scripture around, especially in the ignoring of the covenantal relationship of the believer to his God.

You are certainly no exception to that rule.

Like I am the one who tries to forcefully twist and justify the Scripture to make it prove that Mary was actually bodily assumed into Heaven, that purgatory actually exists, that the baptism of infants is a Biblical doctrine, that celibacy of the priesthood is a Biblical doctrine or practice,
that indulgences are Biblical, etc., etc. Give me a break Ed.
I believe and practice the Bible. I don't make up doctrines as the centuries roll along as the Catholic church seeems fit to do. When was the Assumption of Mary declared to be a doctrine. It was just 1950 wasn't it? Too bad all those Christians for more than 1900 years before that time were left so mercilessly in the dark by ignorant priests who kept this valuable knowledge from them. "Woe unto you scribes, hypocrites, for ye have taken away the key of knowledge." Peter (the fictious pope) must have lost have lost his key somewhere along the line.

There are two judgements. you can read about them in John 5, and in Revelation 20. One is for the righteous, and one for the unrighteous. Revelation 20 tells us very plainly that the two resurrections are separated by a thousand years, and thus the two judgements separated by as much as well. But then if you allegorize your Bible, you might as well believe that a tooth fairy died on the cross rather than Christ.
DHK

 

[Carson Weber]

Hi Ray,

I am not a scholar, and I probably will never be one in my lifetime. I do read scholars and learn from them; that's what they're there for.

I agree with everything you said up until this: "If God doesn't care if we have the mark or the lack thereof, then a Christian could never fall from grace by being circumcised or not being so marked." Your statement explicitly and completely contradicts exactly what St. Paul said.

You said that a Christian could never fall from grace by being circumcized.

Paul says that the Christians in Galatia will fall from grace if they are circumcized.

"Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. I testify again to every man who receives circumcision that he is bound to keep the whole law. You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace."

In all honesty and seriousness, is this the best response you have? I mean, there has to be a better way around St. Paul's words in Galatians 5 than what you're proposing, which explicitly contradicts the text.

 

[John Gilmore]

Originally posted by Carson Weber:

Regarding justification, the glory of God and of Christ is the final cause (causa finalis), the mercy of God is the efficient cause (causa efficiens), the Passion of Christ is the meritorious cause (causa meritoria), and the reception of the Sacraments is the instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis).

Reception of the Word and Sacraments is the instrumental cause: "through the Word and Sacraments, as through instruments, the Holy Ghost is given" Augsburg Confession, 1530. The Word can be present without the Sacraments to justify us but the Sacraments can not exist without the Word.

[ October 14, 2003, 10:57 AM: Message edited by: John Gilmore ]