Posted on 01/16/2006 11:59:31 PM PST by NYer
OoooooooooooK.....
It's now confirmed one doesn't have to be a believer to obtained salvation. In fact, people can emphatically state they are NOT believers and still be saved. Incredibly the author quotes all sorts of Catholic papers but never the scripture. Perhaps this is the true error.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (John 3:14-18 KJV)
Quote: "Incredibly the author quotes all sorts of Catholic papers but never the scripture. Perhaps this is the true error."
Roman Catholicism has two sources of authority: Scripture and Tradition. Thus, the lack of Biblical references is no problem for the RC.
Ishmael was a good Muslim, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness. (Apostasy 13:13)
These days it's more tradition than scripture.
LOL!!!
And all to serve to further the cause of ridicule. Good job. Rest well.
SD
Your interpretation is welcomed.
Which source is considered the "higher" authority? It seems in this case that Tradition is contradicted by (but nonetheless trumps?) Scripture. Still, this should be read as a University Professor's attempts to interpret Benedict XVI's Nov 30th address within the context of various earlier doctrinal pronouncements, and not explicitly as the words of BXVI himself.
Well, you could begin with:
First, that it is not possible to be saved without faith.
Unfortunately, this negates the hilarious point you were trying to make, so I don't blame you for pretending not to remember you read it.
I realize it's harder to read for comprehension rather than ammunition, but shouldn't you honestly try to understand, rather than just ridicule?
"Though God in ways known to himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please him, yet a necessity lies upon the Church, and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel."
This means that God does what He likes (isn't that a Calvin idea?). And if He is in the process of leading one into faith, but that one has not yet intellectually grasped the Gospel, is he not saved? Would you say God is sovereign in choosing whom to save except He can not save anyone unless they have a certain intellectual understanding and knowledge?
SD
I rather wish sola scriptural folks would emphatically obey 1 Corinthians 14:34. It'd silence at least half of them.
But then their emphatically and equally obedient husbands would make their wives' concerns known to you. You might have to deal with half the number of voices, but you'd be faced with an equal number of concerns.
And if He is in the process of leading one into faith, but that one has not yet intellectually grasped the Gospel, is he not saved?
God is fully capable of leading one into faith AND giving that person the knowledge and understanding. IF a person does not demonstrate both they are not saved.
I have been told many times by my Catholic brethren that faith without works is dead. Now I'm being told that works without faith is life. This is beyond goofiness if you ask me.
Well firstly a lot of pastors would have to give the pulpit over to their husbands. That aside the lessened number of voices would make things a lot more organized, halving the number of folks talking.
"But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter."
Apparently there is, as you continue to ignore the words written and focus narrowly on one sentence out of an entire article. Perhaps the words being used don't mean what you think they do?
"Second, there are many more people who, even stating that they are not believers, will obtain eternal salvation."
Yep, that's the one sentence. What troubles you about this? Do you think intellectual knowedge about the faith is instantaneous and automatic? Or does it requre learning and teaching?
It seems, to me, to be completely within reason that someone who is "saved" could be in the larval stages of their development as a believer. God could be dwelling within and the person could not have come to the realization of this fact.
Perhaps you think that is impossible. But I don't. So someone in the initial stages of being moved by God, toward God may deny intellecutally that they have a "faith." But deep inside, they do because that is what God wants.
If God gives a person His grace to instill faith, then that person will know our Lord Jesus as Savior. I would simply point you to John the Baptist who leaped inside the womb when he was in the presence of Lord Jesus before He was born. He knew the truth.
See this makes me think we aren't using the same words to mean the same thing. If you asked fetal John the Baptist if he was a believer in Christ, what would he have said? If you asked him what the name of the Savior was, what would he have said?
Nothing. Fetuses can't talk. Neither can infants. I agree that he had faith inside him, a gift from God. But I deny that he would claim he was a believer in the substitutional atonement of Jesus because he lacked the capacity and knowledge to say those things.
Get it yet?
Have you ever heard people's conversion stories where they may have spent years avoiding confronting God, pretending that He wasn't calling, denying that they needed Him? Well, was God working in them, leading them to a faith that they had not yet intellectually accepted?
God is fully capable of leading one into faith AND giving that person the knowledge and understanding. IF a person does not demonstrate both they are not saved.
When did you cease being a Calvinist? Aren't those who are saved, saved from the moment of Creation? If someone is going to be saved in the end, they must have been elected before the universe began. There is never a time when they were not saved. Isn't that what you believe?
So, it is entirely possible for God's inner tugging to precede the brain accepting faith.
I think the problem here is that you mean something different by "faith" then we do. And that you are reading looking for faults instead of reading what is being said.
SD
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.