Kind of correct. God changes your will so you desire Him.
_______________________________________________
Posted on 02/02/2015 8:15:08 AM PST by Morgana
my question makes perfect sense
If you think faith cannot bring salvation without “works” then why do you believe a dying person can be saved without works?
Maybe because faith without works is not so dead??
“I take it, then, you are not a Papist?”
I’m a Catholic.
” Is not Peter the rock your institution claims to be built upon, the first Pope of a succession down to the present Argentinian Marxist one, Bogdoglio?”
Institution? You can’t even bring yourself to say “Church” can you?
“Is this not the main premise your institution is known for in the world, your succession of Popes?”
No.
“Has not your interpretation of Matt. 16:13-19, your alleged proof for your succession of Popes, always been the root cause of Protestant dissent?’
No.
1) Luther’s misunderstanding of verses on salvation, not any Catholic claim about Matthew 16, are the “root cause of Protestant dissent”.
2) Matthew 16 is not about papal succession so much as Peter himself.
3) It is not my interpretation but for some reason you’re saying “your”.
“Protestants interpreting Jesus Christ as the “rock” in the Matt. 16 passage, the true church built upon him, with Christ the head of his church, rather than Peter and your succession of Popes...the Papacy.”
Some Protestants. Others: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/07/protestant-exegesis-profoundly-affected.html
“The term “Papacy,” thus, has always been at the heart of the RCC vs Protestant issue.”
No. The term is not. The authority is.
“Why then act like it is not?”
Because it isn’t - and I’m not acting. Why are you acting like it is when it isn’t? What controversy is there over the term “episcopacy”? None. Yet the authority of bishops is a huge issue between Catholics and Protestants. It helps to know what you’re talking about in these matters.
““Papacy” is no derogatory term, face the truth, it defines precisely what you are known for in the world.”
Nope. Only anti-Catholics have EVER referred to me as a “papist” and no one has ever referred to me as “papacy”. But accordingt to your logic - AS YOU JUST EXPRESSED - I and all other Catholics should be referred to as “papacy”.
“Your succession of Popes is the Papacy.”
No. Papacy is an office - like office of the Presidency. The presidency is not the succession of presidents. Papacy is the office. Succession of the popes is succession of the popes.
Once again we see the damage wrought by government schools.
“The Holy Spirit dwells within the true (emphasize true) believer:”
So someone - by becoming less than true - no longer has the Holy Spirit dwelling within him? So, OSAS is a sham. Thanks.
“Help me understand a little.”
I don’t believe you can at this time.
“Not sure why God would give us an un-perfect gift that can be taken back?”
Who said it would be taken back?
“I would have thought the Son’s blood would have caused a permanent washing for everything past, present and future?”
So God forces people into Heaven you’re saying?
“Is it a one time deal where you screw up and you get kicked off the bus?”
Why is it on a bus?
Ever read this book by a Protestant?: http://www.amazon.com/The-Believers-Conditional-Security-Eternal/dp/0963907689
“my question makes perfect sense”
Nope.
“If you think faith cannot bring salvation without “works” then why do you believe a dying person can be saved without works?”
Why do you believe God is weak and trapped?
“Maybe because faith without works is not so dead??”
Again, why do you believe God is weak and trapped?
Your responses were typical papist sophistry. With the Marxist Pope you have now, I don’t blame you for shying away from the term “Papist.” With a more less Marxist one in office, which FRoman Catholics would be more proud of, it would be a different story. You probably wouldn’t mind the term at all.
John 10
“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.”
A gift has to be accepted, leaving it on the table isn’t accepting is it? Seatbelts are optional (conditional?) too. One can believe in the utility of seatbelts in general, but fail to use one. Failure to implement seatbelt use might also find one abruptly meeting the windshield at 50 mph. through my question I thought we were supposed to be talking about believing Christians and not unbelievers? Nobody is forced to do anything including eternal salvation.
It seems as though you brought up the point that people are not OSAS, as I actually believe, “OSAS is a Protestant doctrine. It is not an orthodox Christian doctrine”. Sorry if there was a poor understanding of what you said. I did take it as you intended to say salvation is conditional upon a person’s deeds. I have no time to watch the youtube link at the moment.
Let’s try to get on the same terminology. I take conditional to be something that can be taken away. For that, I made the reference to taking away, or screwing up one’s salvation. What does one do to get saved and remain in that state? Is it not trust & acceptance of the shed blood along with a genuine repentance followed by works?
Again, help me out determining the common ground, if there’s any.
“With the Marxist Pope you have now, I don’t blame you for shying away from the term “Papist.””
According to your previous - but perhaps ever-changing - logic I would be shying away from the term “papacy”.
“You probably wouldn’t mind the term at all.”
Spoken like someone who might tell blacks they wouldn’t mind being called the N-word by whites if only something were different.
I’m a Catholic. No matter who is pope, I am a Catholic. It’s just that simple.
Government education: the products of it show the worth of it.
“any man pluck them out of my hand.”
Exactly. No one ELSE can do it. But you can do it to yourself by turning against God. God saves no man against his own will.
What are “works”?
“Let’s try to get on the same terminology. I take conditional to be something that can be taken away.”
No. Not taken away. Lost. There’s a difference.
“For that, I made the reference to taking away, or screwing up one’s salvation. What does one do to get saved and remain in that state?”
You don’t know?
“Is it not trust & acceptance of the shed blood along with a genuine repentance followed by works? Again, help me out determining the common ground, if there’s any.”
Here’s my help for you:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/JUSTIF.HTM
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.HTM
Kind of correct. God changes your will so you desire Him.
_______________________________________________
Yep
Slacker.
It would be more but last year I was invited not to post for a few days.
“Kind of correct.”
Absolutely correct.
“God changes your will so you desire Him.”
Grace builds on nature. It doesn’t destroy it. God may harden or soften our will to rebel against Him, but He doesn’t simply change it for that would be violating it. Someone who doesn’t believe in free will will simply not see the point in the first place.
“Therefore, every man saved is saved against his own will:”
No. As the famous Protestant Spurgeon said: A man is not saved against his will, but he is made willing by the operation of the Holy Ghost. A mighty grace which he does not wish to resist enters into the man, disarms him, makes a new creature of him, and he is saved.
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.