Posted on 02/06/2010 8:21:23 PM PST by Salvation
This website surveys the origin and development of Roman Catholic Christianity from the period of the apostolic church, through the post-apostolic church and into the conciliar movement. Principal attention is paid to the biblical basis of both doctrine and dogma as well as the role of paradosis (i.e. handing on the truth) in the history of the Church. Particular attention is also paid to the hierarchical founding and succession of leadership throughout the centuries.
This is a set of lecture notes used since 1985 to teach the basis for key doctrines and dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church. The objectives of the course were, and are:
The course grew out of the need for the authors to continually answer questions about their faith tradition and their work. (Both authors are active members of Catholic parish communities in the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia. Dr. Robert Schihl was a Professor and Associate Dean of the School of Communication and the Arts at Regent University. Paul Flanagan is a consultant specializing in preparing people for technology based changes.) At the time these notes were first prepared, the authors were spending time in their faith community answering questions about their Protestant Evangelical workplaces (Mr. Flanagan was then a senior executive at the Christian Broadcasting Network), and time in their workplaces answering similar questions about their Roman Catholic faith community. These notes are the result of more than a decade of facilitating dialogue among those who wish to learn more about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches and why.
The Catholic Response to "Are You Saved?"
The Catholic Christian answers this question in three stages or levels corresponding to the three meanings the words "saved" and "salvation" have in the Bible. (These meanings are found in the previous section, "Salvation: A Biblical Portrait." )
Catholic Christians can respond that they have been saved. This acknowledges the first meaning of "saved" and "salvation" in scripture--Jesus Christ, Savior, by whose act of salvation we are objectively saved--He died, rose from the dead, saved them from sin.
Catholic Christians can also respond that they are being saved. This acknowledges the second meaning "saved" and "salvation" have in scripture--the present experience, God's power delivering constantly from the bondage of sin.
Catholic Christians also respond that they will be saved, that they have hope and confidence that God will give them the grace of perseverance; that they will respond to it; and accept his gift of salvation until their death. This acknowledges the third meaning the words "saved" and "salvation" have in scripture--the future deliverance of believers at the Second Coming of Christ.
“His sacrifice suffices for all our sins (past, present and future) if we have accepted him as our saviour”
So, if you committed a pre-meditated murder of an innocent person, and a bystander shot and killed you so that you died unrepentant, you’d go straight to Heaven, no sweat.
Is that what you believe?
This a a link to a great site and DVD about the common ground between Catholics and Protestants. And the differences. I want to order the DVD. I saw the program on TBN at midnight on Thursday.
http://www.catholicprotestant.com/
Wait. So you’re saying that “No, but I AM fully invested,” is NOT the correct answer?
Some simple things take many words to explain. The fault is not in the thing but in words.
No doubt to protect them form the winter of error and misbelief.
:-)
And your point?
What a glorious, all sufficient salvation we have in the finished work of the Lord Jesus Christ!
I like to respond, “Would you like to buy some Cub Scout popcorn?”
“Why do you ask?” is always a useful response, too ... for just about any question!
God wants us to be nothing less than "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pt. 1:4). But how can we do this? For us, the divine life does not "come naturally." We have a human nature, and human things come naturally to us. We eat, sleep, gather together, and mate without having to take extensive lessons beforehand. But the abundant life, perfect happiness -- life in the Family of the Trinity, is not merely beyond our power; it is inconceivable to us."
So, we must be baptized and strive daily to live the life that God lives here on earth -- even though we be sinners, so that we can live the life God lives in heaven.
25 Jesus answered them: I speak to you, and you believe not: the works that I do in the name of my Father, they give testimony of me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of my sheep. 27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me. 28 And I give them life everlasting; and they shall not perish for ever, and no man shall pluck them out of my hand. 29 That which my Father hath given me, is greater than all: and no one can snatch them out of the hand of my Father. 30 I and the Father are one.(John 10)
So we have those who are His sheep and those who are not. Those who are follow His voice. To follow is to work. End of story, really. You guys took a simple gospel and made it into a get out of jail free card.
I asked you a specific question: if one is not responding to the Holy Ghost that dwells in him, will he be saved?
What you gave as answer is some generic Protestant feel-good fluff. No scripture that your link cites supports what they teach out of their own mouths. For example, your link posits the question "Can a saved person ever again be lost?". Read their "answer". First, they give a categorical "of course not!". Then they explain that "The very nature of the spiritual life that has been received—eternal—and the Divine Source and Agent of that life—God—forbid drawing the conclusion that a saved person can ever again be lost." Well, that is their philosophical opinion. I have an opinion too, that eternal life can be spent in hell as well as in heaven. So that is not an answer. Then they quote from John 10, incompletely. Who does and who does not receive the eternal life in the sense that God holds them securely, they don't explain. This would be a good time for them to also explain how we have the process of judgment, based on works, described in such detail in Matthew 25, but they don't. Instead, the rest of that silly paragraph is devoted to the question no one is asking, how to call that doctrine.
Not good enough.
Notice the clear language, "NOT as your fathers did eat." How did their fathers eat? By putting the manna in their mouth and chewing. That is not how we "eat" the Bread from Heaven. We "eat" this bread by believing.Keep in mind that He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved. He has already taught that the man that is taught by the Father comes to him and are saved. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, is just terribly twisted.
I notice the language. The difference between the Eucharist and the manna is explained right there: manna sustains for a while and then you die. The Eucharist gives eternal life. The Jewish fathers did not receive theeucharist and died. Christians receive the Eucharist and they live. Big difference.
If Jesus meant to say that we eat the Eucharist metaphorically, as you claim, "by believing", why did He not say so? Instead, amidst that exhortation to faith He insisted that the Eucharist is His body and it is "food indeed".
The rest of your post is building up the false dichotomy of physical versus spiritual. That, too, is the result of not reading the Scripture. Christ said in the same discourse two things: the Eucharist is "food indeed" and at the same time "flesh profiteth nothing" from it. That is the very definition of a sacrament: a physical act that profits the spirit.
A heretic is one who knows the doctrines of the Church and prefers his own. I cannot test you on how deep your understanding of Catholicism is (most Protestants I speak to on FR haven't a clue), but the doctrine you seem to like is not scriptural. That is not a good thing.
mark for later
I've never seen it put exactly that way. That is an extremely helpful explanation.
Purgatory is a Vatican invention. It does not exist. People don’t have two chances at salvation.
Small wonder it's right in the gospel then.
Please tell us, what's "purgatory"?
Read the end of Mark. Jesus said, “Whoever believes and is baptised is saved. Whoever believes not is damned.” http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=mark%2016&version=KJV
He didn’t say whoever isnt baptised is damned. This shouldn’t be an exercise in trying to prove the other person is wrong.
To “follow His voice” is to follow the unction from the Holy Ghost. Works has nothing to do with it. The Holy Ghost instructs and gives us the thoughts and direction to stay on the path of righteousness. We obviously can rebel against Him and choose to sin, no doubt. But it’s not like one catholic at work told me once, “I can do what I want to do (sin) as long as I go to Mass.” He is completely wrong and willful sin is egregious in the sight of the Lord.
Not trying to be blunt, but your attitude “not good enough” is not someone who has an open mind about these things. Unfortunately, this is the standard attitude of literally dozens of catholic I have encountered in my years. And that is that they are 100% correct, and everyone else is 100% wrong. The Pharisees had this attitude toward Christ Himself. Good luck in your studies.
Excellent
Right, He didn't. That is the Catholic teaching: the judgment is by our works, and the sacraments strengthen us to do them.
To “follow His voice” is to follow the unction from the Holy Ghost. Works has nothing to do with it
You mean the unction one receives at the Confirmation? Yes, in a way.
I disagree that "works has nothing to do with it". To follow means to do certain works and not do other works.
one catholic at work told me once, “I can do what I want to do (sin) as long as I go to Mass.”
No, if that is how he indeed put it, he was not helpful to you. Eternal security of salvation does come from receiving the Eucharist at Mass, but one must receive it, as the Bible teaches, "worthily", which is a tall order. But the question was, where does the Protestant concept of security of salvation come from. I can explain the correct doctrine any time, but wouldn't you want to defend what you believe?
your attitude
There are many things Catholics agree with the Protestants about. After all, Protestantism emerged from Catholicism and retained certain truths. Further, the Protestants often know and defend their faith better than the Catholics, and we Catholics should learn from them that kind of attitude. "Be always ready to explain the hope that is in you", St. Peter said. But when a doctrine is wrong, it is wrong. We are not saved by faith alone; we are not saved till we are dead and justified. What you teach is the sin of presumption, in this case, presumption of salvation, especially destructive if "faith alone" is taught right next to it. We can probably agree on very many things, but on this one I am 100% correct and you are not. I understand that it is not pleasant to hear, but then it is a discussion forum and presumably you came here to discuss something.
Purgatory is an invention by the Vatican. Ask them.
I ask you because your #73 betrayed ingorance of what purgatory is.
When I don’t understand something I try not to post opinions about it.
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.