Posted on 01/16/2006 6:00:21 AM PST by NYer
But to me, if you are saved through Christ, you *are* a Christian. What did you mean?
As I was reading your post I realize I WAS causing contintion, and this was not my purpose, eventhough I believe Catholics have a more myopic view of scripture what is clear is, you are Christians, recognizing who gives and sustains life. And as long as we focus on HIM then all this other stuff doesn't matter.
You got it. This is the Church teaching: Christ converts some whose hearts are open to the Truth, to His one Church, on their deathbed. Thus a righteous Muslim dies Catholic. There is no salvation outside the Church.
Except that you cannot be righteous by works... it takes faith, which comes by hearing, hearing by the word of God. Faith in Christ and his substitutionary atonement.
I dunno... I'll keep an ear open, but I don't like ecumenicism... I would never want us all to pretend to agree... just for the sake of getting along. (this is different from getting along in spite of not agreeing, which I do think is valuable).
Christ can give one faith when He chooses and when He sees a receptive heart. Works prepare for the gift of faith, just like they sustain and strengthen the faith already obtained. The word "righteousness" does not imply overt faith in Christ, but rather obedience to the natural law of God, manifested in works.
I agree that ecumenism for the sake of fake harmony is harmful and foolish. But the Pope did not engage in any such foolishness, to my knowledge. Rather, he explained the Catholic (in fact, both Catholic and Orthodox) view on who gets to be saved and how. He did not water down Catholicism in any way.
You shouldn't be able to get past that first sentence. It is the basis I believe for the entire argument, but it is a fallacy. Therefore, I hold little hope for the argument.
That was my point. It is incorrect to assume that the natural state of man is heaven, and that only those who CHOOSE to disobey God go to h*ll.
My interpretation of the Bible is that the natural state of man is h*ll, and only by a direct act by God can man be reconciled to Him, and be granted access to heaven.
These are two opposing views, which can't both be correct. And I am confident my position is correct, and therefore the other is wrong.
My position has the unfortunate side effect of NOT guaranteeing to parents that their infants automatically go to heaven when they die, something that disturbs a lot of people. However, I also believe in predestination, so at least I believe SOME infants will go to heaven.
Those who believe that the only way to get to heaven is to make a conscious, free-will decision to believe Jesus died for their sins have to postulate a completely separate mechanism in order for infants and severely mentally handicapped people to get to heaven. Leading them VERY CLOSE to the error I saw in the original article:
To wit -- infants are automatically saved because they aren't old enough to make a choice. Therefore, at some point, the act of growing older might cause them to go from a state of eternal dwelling in heaven upon death, to spending an eternity in damnation, simply because they aged a day and became "aware" of sin but hadn't yet done anything about it.
I only assert that I believe that my position is correct. I have to presume that every other believer also would assert that THEIR beliefs are correct -- it would hardly make sense to believe something you think is wrong.
Sir, with all due respect, perhaps you should consider the vast spectrum of something called "Protestantism". Millions of people of "good will" who believe they have the Spirit guiding them believe in diametrically opposed views on ESSENTIAL items! Please...
Your just proving my statement when I say the Catholic church is not centered on Christ, it's centered on itself, and all the orthogonal aspects of religion
Your senseless cliche aside, did Christ tell individuals to read the Bible, or did He leave an inner circle of men with the power of authority over a formed community of believers? Read the history - it is quite clear what Christ left to His followers to continue to bring the Kingdom of God to future followers - not a book, but a group of preachers and witnesses with authority. The Catholic Church is ABSOLUTELY centered on Christ.
Regards
While I do believe that God could be man - for He could do anything - I yet do not believe that a man was God.
Torah provides the guidance (i.e., Deut 4:19 and Malachi 1:11) we’ve been discussing. It’s inspirational to me as it suggests a largess universal, more appealing to me personally, as the suggestion or statement often made by many that without Christ you’re dammed.
I’d like to believe that, “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come.”
Communism is anti-religion which I believe would tend to bring one unto the opposite judgement simply by its atheism and its belligerency.
Though don't get me wrong. I don't believe America could have been founded without Christianity.
Yet Maimonides and my time in synagogue has led me to a stricter monotheism.
Again, I ask you: Make your argument. Up to this point it consists of a single word, "whosoever."
Of course PAGANS can be saved! The whole point I'm making is, John 3:16 reference to "whosoever" includes pagans. John 3:16 is where God tells the world that "whoever" you are, Christ came and died for YOU.
It's a HUGE misconception to believe this verse was written only FOR believers.
>. Of course PAGANS can be saved! The whole point I'm making is, John 3:16 reference to "whosoever" includes pagans. John 3:16 is where God tells the world that "whoever" you are, Christ came and died for YOU. <<
Then maybe you either need to check the meaning of "whosoever" or re-read the verse. "Whosoever" means all members of the given set. That given set is "whosoever believes in him." By definition, a pagan is one who is not a Christian, and by definition a Christian is one who believes in Christ. Hence, by definition, a pagan is one who does not believe in Christ. So, when the scripture says, "whosoever believes in Him should not perish," it is equivalent to saying "whoever is a Christian should not perish," or "whoever is not a pagan should not perish."
The issue, then, is: "what does it mean to believe in Christ?"
The bible teaches, "if you believe in Christ, you will do the will of the Father." Hence, by contrapositive induction, we know that "if you do not do the will of the Father, you do not believe in Christ." (Hence, the Catholic Church asserts simultaneously that Works are a necessary condition for salvation, and that Faith is a sufficient condition for salvation.)
The problem is that the statement "if you do not do the will of the Father, you do not believe in Christ" is not logically equivalent to "if you do the will of the Father, you do believe in Christ." (For instance, if one says, "If Spot is a dog, Spot has four legs" is not equivalent to saying, "If Spot has four legs, Spot is a dog.")
The Calvinist belief in Utter Depravity could be expressed, however, as "There is not a case where someone does not believe in Christ such that he does the will of the Father." This is logically equivalent to, "If you do not believe in Christ, you do not do the will of the Father." THIS statement is logically equivalent, by contraposition, to "if you do the will of the Father, than you believe in Christ."
Two problems remain unsolved:
Many churches hold that there exists "prevening Grace," by which a person CAN do good even though he has not yet been saved. This is a refutation of the doctrine of Utter Depravity, and the debate over this position is beyong the scope of this discussion.
Secondly, what is "good?" Which of two alternative statements does the Doctrine of Utter Depravity imply: that if a man does good, then he believes in Christ, or that if a man does not believe in Christ, then no act he performs can truly be good.
By referring to acts of non-believers which were called good in the bible, I meant to disprove the second statement by counter-example. Thus, I would assert that if a pagan does good, then he believes in Christ. How is this not a contradiction? The pagan may not know Christ by name (so that he remains a pagan by definition), but may believe in Him by intuition.
So can a pagan be saved? Yes, if he does the will of the Father.
This does not mean that there is no point in converting pagans: It is much easier to do the will of the Father, if one is instructed what the will of the Father is, even though it is possible to know the will of the Father through sheer intuition.
The fact that you would even bring up doing good or bad shows me your lack of understanding of grace. Christ had to die for the SINNER. Do you understand this? Christ's death covers ALL sin, the responsiblity of the sinner is to make Christ Lord of their lives. Once you do this, it's finish, you are no longer held under penalty of sin.
Whosoever is ANYONE who comes to believe in Christ, especially the pagan.
>> Ok, what if the pagan decides to believe in Christ? <<
Well, then he'd be a convert, not a pagan. Please tell me we didnt waste this time debating whether *converts* are saved? (of course they are.)
LOL! I think we just did, but we didn't waste time, we at least, clearly communicated this time!
My whole point was that the "WHOSOEVER" opportunity is free for everyone or rether anyone to "convert" to Christ...
"Obviously, it cannot be merited. But perhaps a better question to ask is, how can theosis bestow merit? By "becoming Christlike in our very being" would we not also be made worthy to share in His inheritance?"
Quick answer is , yes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.