Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by DaChaser1, Feb 17, 2012.
Are boths tillheld, and what roles do they represent ?
I think limbo has been removed as doctrine. Purgatory is a comforting doctrine because it gives people a second chance to shape up.
Limbo use to be where unbaptised catholic baies all went to spend eternity of a heaveny Nusery, wasn't it?
Purgatory would up Robb Bell alley, eh?
Technically, not sure there is such a person as an unbaptized Catholic baby.
A historical discussion:
From the new catechism: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s2c1a1.htm#1261
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
Concerning those chldren who die without baptism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (no. 1261) says that “the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them," allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.”
So tjhe RC would be implicit there that the Baptism savesus, not receiving Christ in/by faith?
It isn't either or, as I understand the catechism. I am just starting to study the catechism so I really don't want to try and present their postion when the Catholics on this board can present it much more accurately. However, the bible seems to support what I believe to be their position with the following:
Mark 16: 15-16 – He said to them, “Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
1 Peter 3:21 – The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And another verse says that unless you are born of water (water baptism) AND the spirit (baptism of the Holy Spirit), you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.
I really believe now that you have to go through some 'scriptural gymnastics' to make it say something other than the obvious. From my reading thus far, the Early Church doesn't seem to have had a different understanding than that of the Catholic Church.
Once we look at all of those scriptures, it become quite evident that the RCC does not teach that one is saved by faith alone, but that we are instead saved by administering the rite of water baptism to us, and that we are saved by that act, and that though they claim to be saved by the Gospel message, its more that we are saved not by faith, but by the RCC itself!
They're sacerdotalists and simply for this fact preach another gospel. It doesn't matter what else they say they believe, the simple fact they practice this shows they preach a false gospel. Thus, the gospel itself is incomplete, this is why they put into practice this false doctrine. Sure, they try and smooth it over, but so did the Judaizers in Galatia.
they seem to be like those in the Gospel of John who heard jesus talking of spiritual things, and always took it literally, not in the intended spiritual matter jesus wanted them too!
Also, seem to be really a continuation of the OT religion, with papacy as high Priests, priests as under Old Covenant etc!
Do you have any proof of your statement?
RCC denies full suffiecency of the atonement of christ, as we still need to be "helped' by God in matter of sacraments, as those infuse additional grace upon us, and hopefully they say if we partake enough times, and receive the extra gracing, just might be 'good enough" to allow the Lord to declare us justified and saved by His grace!
I grew up in the RCC and have never heard of such a thing. So can you provide some written documentation to support your statement such as a RCC website or something else.
In RCC theology, water baptism cleanses from original sin, regenrates the person, but we still need to partake of the sacraments, ESPECIALLY the Mass, in order to be made progressively better by grace of God and us 'co assisting"...
Goal in RCC is to get ourselves in a spiritual state where no longer sinners, but "good enough" to allow God to declare us now able to be justified..
exact opposite of reformers, who saw bible teaching us that we are saved/justified initially, then we start on progressive sanctification!
The problem I have with a lot of what I read is something perpetuated by someone who thinks they know when they do not. It is not all that uncommon for others to exaggerate about someone of something they disagree with. Often nothing more than pure fabrication. So that is the reason why I asked for documentation.
I have found over the years that so often what I have read about the RCC is nothing more than a case of repeating what someone else said and it seriously lack credibility. Since 1975 the RCC has actualy made some changes in some of their theology.
At one time there was an attempt by one of the popes to return to orthodox theology. If I remember right he died before that was accomplished.
If one were to go back to Baptist theology and practice when Baptists first began they would have found infant baptism. Imagine pew rents. Imagine some of the views on the Holy Spirit!! Would it be fair to tag that as what Baptists today believe?
RCC NEVER had repudaited the Coucil of trent, made in response to reformation, and all of those doctrines described still in the RCC!
I am unable to find any documention you provided to support your statements though.
Check ANY catholic Theolgian statements of faith, or those in the footnotes of any offical catholic endorsed study bible!
Again you have not provided any documentation for any of your statements. I would like to know where you got your information.
A biblio-ecclesiastical term; which denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God. Considered as an act (actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God's preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans). Considered as a state or habit (habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace. Since the sixteenth century great differences have existed between Protestants and Catholics regarding the true nature of justification. As the dogmatic side of the controversy has been fully explained in the article on GRACE, we shall here consider it more from an historical point of view.