Witness to my Roman Catholic Parents

You are too deep for me. I would have to be a rocket scientist to understand what you are saying. If God's grace is all that is needed for Salvation, then why does Catholicism add the sacraments and other works that "merit more graces" as in the rosary of Mary? For one to walk in the grace of God, one would have to turn their salvation over to the Creator. That means ALL works done would be to glorify our Saviour, not earn more graces. One question, if a Catholic can merit more graces by the actions they do, then wouldn't that help out if they were to "don't live in it"? What I mean is, since they've done all this to merit more graces and then all of a sudden cease to walk in the grace, would they have any extra graces hoarded up? Is that like purgatory in doing enough good and you'll have a shorter time in there?

 

Is Peter THE foundation of God's church?.

Some read Matt 16 and think that is what they see there.

In Matt 16 just before calling Peter "Satan" - Christ made the following contrast between Peter's name (PETROS - pebble or bolder) and PETRA - BEDROCK;

To understand the contrast more clearly - we take note that Christ had already used the term PETRA-BEDROCK as that which is the FOUNDATION for building a HOUSE.

Notice that Christ's WORDS are also referred to as the PETRA as in the case above.

Christ is telling us that "ON THIS PETRA I will bulde my church " and "THAT PETRA (ROCK) is Jesus" 1Cor 10:4 acording to the Apostolic and explicit teaching in 1Cor 10. Jesus is not a CO-FOUNDER, or CO-foundation upon which the church is built - He is THE foundation.

1Cor 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Never in scripture is the term PETROS used as the one FOUNDATION or ROCK upon which the church is built. Not even in Matt 16.

That PETRA is said to be "The PETRA(ROCK) of OFFENSE" in Rom 9:33 - it is Christ the Messiah - rejected by the Jews. The Gospel story is NOT about how the Jews rejected their Simon Peter (petros).

But there is a "softening" of this concept that is provided in Eph 2 where consideration IS given to someone OUTSIDE of THE ROCK ( PETRA) our ONE foundation.

"They drank the SAME spiritual drink for they were drinking from a SPIRITUAL
ROCK (Petra) which followed them; and the "PETRA" WAS CHRIST" 1Cor 10:4

This was the perfect place to say "built on the foundation PETROS our POPE, then of the other APOSTLES and PROPHETS - with CHRIST as the FOUNDATION stone beneath Peter". It is very instructive that even in THIS LOOSE context - Petros DOES NOT come up.

But some may insist that the KEYS were given JUST to Peter and that HE alone had the magic POWERS to BIND and LOOSE (at least as they read Matt 16 in snippet fashion). Is it true that this was a POWER given to PETER and all looked to HIM for these benefits??

In Matt 18:18 Christ tells ALL His disciples "Whatever you BIND on earth shall have been bound.. and whatever you LOOSE..."

Christ after His resurrection when meeting with His followers - a group that included the Disciples as well we find..

John 20:23 "If you forgive the sins of any their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any they have been retained"


(Lk 24:33 tells us that these were His followers - and not just the smaller group of disciples).

-------------------

Far from establishing Peter as the PETRA (bedrock) that Apostolic teaching ascribes to Christ alone "The ONE PETRA" of the church - the ONE foundatoin (1Cor 10:4 and 1Cor 3:11. The Matt 16 passage Addresses Peter with TWO titles.

A. - Petros - (Pebble or possibly bolder) as opposed to PETRA - "Bedrock" A-building-foundation.

B. - Satan: Christ addresses Peter in Matt 16 and says "Get behind Me Satan" Matt 16:23


In christ,

Bob

 

From Nimrod :

"How do you know it was Jesus?'

Because Jesus would never ask me to leave the Church that He established on the earth.

Because Jesus calls people to Himself, not away from where He is.

Because Jesus puts people under the authority which He established on earth rather than telling them to be rebels and think they know better than 2000 years of Christian teachers, doctors, mystics, and contemplatives.

Because Jesus has a Church which was established in AD 33, NOT AD 1906.

Just objective, Bible based truth, my man. Not deception of the kind you were brainwashed with!!! You are going strictly on your feelings of what is right. I am following 2000 years of apostolic teaching. I don't have to check my "feelings", just read Church history, to know that Jesus is in the Church and therefore, I should be also.

[ January 07, 2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: CatholicConvert ]

 

~Because Jesus commanded that we do so.~

~No, It is a part of the sacraments of Jesus, that he instituted in order that I may receive his grace, which in turn produce the fruit in my life which is evidence of the spirit that was inputted in my soul by reception of the sacraments.~

~I am following the commands of Jesus but not out of fear or because I am under the law, but because I am under grace and because I love Jesus and he is my king but he rules with love not law.~

~I have no idea where this quote is about.~

~My faith is in Jesus Christ and in him alone. My faith is in him, and in his church, which he gave his full authority to teach in his name. My faith is the same faith that was handed down to us all by Jesus and the 12 apostles.~

~Well that's good to know because Catholics are saved by grace alone, and that is the reason why I asked if Nimrod believe that his parents were saved because they so happen to be Catholic and not Baptist.~

 

What? "Salvation is not of works"...agreed. "But of Grace"...agreed. "And of works done in grace"...Huh? So, are you saying that your works done under grace are "meritorious"? Then you are not saved by God's grace but by your own works whether they are done "under grace" or not. You must not use anything to honor Him who gave it to you. When one realizes the grace of God in Jesus Christ, one WANTS to honour Him who gave it to them. That is the difference between Romish salvation and Salvation in Christ by God's grace. I want to please and honour the One who has by His grace saved me from my sins. You as a Catholic under the pope feel it is necessary or that you must live under that grace or you will lose it. The sacraments do not instill more grace upon you, neither does praying the rosary. It is all of God or nothing. It is Grace that has brought me safe thus far, and it is Grace that will lead me Home. Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His word. Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a wretch like me. I claim nothing but the blood of Jesus. I once was lost but now I'm found, was blind but now I see. Only trust Him, He will never leave thee nor forsake thee.</font>[/QUOTE]I think what is being said is this; we are saved by the grace of God.

We can not earn salvation it has been given to us all, freely by Jesus’ death on the cross. The grace that Jesus won for us is freely given and we can live in this new life of grace and have salvation as we persevere to the end while living in this new life of grace. But we also can forfeit grace and opt for a life of sin, we can't have it both. We can either choose grace, which is free, not earned, or we can choose sin but we can't choose both at the same time. We can not say "I love you, Lord and then slap him in the face with our sins and expect to live in his grace.

So this is what we mean by "works," living a Christian life. The sacraments of the Church, Jesus' Church, aid us in obtaining the freely given grace and strengthen us in our life of grace. It's grace that empowers us to do "works."

 

I want to please and honour the One who has by His grace saved me from my sins.

Then you better start feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and taking care of the poor. Read Matthew 25 if you don't understand what we are talking about.

You as a Catholic under the pope feel it is necessary or that you must live under that grace or you will lose it.

No, we KNOW that we MUST do this because that is how a covenant works. News flash -- God's salvation is a covenantal relationship and covenants CAN BE BROKEN. We call it "losing grace" but it is the same thing. Break the covenant and the relationship is broken. That is why St. Paul warned the Galatians against falling back into apostasy, because they could LOSE EVERYTHING by breaking their covenant they had with God through Christ.

The sacraments do not instill more grace upon you, neither does praying the rosary.

Entirely YOUR OPINION, and completely wrong to boot. When I receive Jesus in the Eucharist, He comes into me and His righteousness, combined with my confession of sins and faith in Him, makes me righteous before God. The Eucharist is the way we, as the Bride of Christ, become "one flesh" with Jesus, our divine Bridegroom. What you are saying is like saying that a person's marriage is not more complete by the performing of the marital act wherein the two become "one flesh" as St. Paul said. Got news for ya. No "one flesh" relationship and you don't have a true marriage. All you have is a piece of paper

Go check out the Jewish ritual of marriage as found in the Old Covenant. The marriage may have begun ceremonially long before the actual coming together of the bride and groom, but until they became "one flesh", there was NO MARRIAGE!! NONE!!

It is all of God or nothing.

Of course it is. You are just blinded by your Protestant presuppositionalism into having a certain idea of what it means that salvation is "all of God". Marriage, in the TRUE sense of the word and not this modern feminazi perversion of the 21st century, is all of the man. If the MAN did not choose, the woman had no spouse!!! But once the man chose, the will of the woman had to come into play and she had to "DO" something --reciprocate the love and choosing.

We are not automotons as Calvinism pictures us to be. We are creatures who choose -- to either love or to reject. And both can be done throughout the lifetime of the relationship until we get Home to Heaven.

Cordially in serious disagreement,

Brother Ed

PS Do yourself a huge favor and go to THE I.C.E. WEBSITE and read Ray Sutton's book THAT YOU MAY PROSPER -- DOMINION BY COVENANT. You can read it for free. It will help you immensely to get a proper perspective on what a covenant is, the 5 principles of a covenant, how one works, and Biblical applications. And don't worry, Sutton was not a "papist" when he wrote this!!

 

Do you understand that not all fundamentalists or Baptists are Calvinists? I mentioned this in another forum, but you still seem to have a Catholic vs. Calvinist idea in your head. Just wondering.

Neal

 

I guess I am ignorant. What was established in 1906?

Weren't you the one who later says: We are not automotons as Calvinism pictures us to be.

But aren't you just being an 'automoton' by just following what someone else tells you to?

Neal

 

Hello Neal --

First of all, I am mentioning Calvinism not to necessarily state that anyone on the board is even a Calvinist. I am simply stating that this is NOT what we are in the Catholic/Orthodox Faith.

Secondly, what was started in 1906 (or around that time) was Fundamentalism, which is what Nimrod has said that he is. So he is following a religion which did not even exist until the beginning of the 20th century. I think that the "Church of Christ" started in Kentucky around the 1850"s. Am I right?

Thirdly, I am not an "automoton" by CHOOSING to accept that which the Church teaches. It is a STUDIED POSITION in which I looked at all the data and made a decision, based on my free will and God's grace enabling me to use that will. Calvinist thought knows no such ideal.

Thanks for the questions.

Brother Ed

 

Well, since Kenneth is going to turn tail and run, I will nonetheless post a response to his post, for his is filled with error.

Yes, it is a MUST that we do good works in order to obtain eternal life. John 5: 28 - 29 and Romans 2: 5 - 10 says so. It is not a must to obtain salvation, however. That is another subject altogether.

Protestant thinking has completely muddied the waters concerning eternal life and salvation. Salvation is the gracious act of God in dying in the flesh for us, calling us to Him, and placing us in the covenant when we respond and are baptized. That is all of grace by faith, since we cannot even have faith ourselves, but rather, it is the gift of God. By faith, we are made members of the covenantal family and are placed in relationship to God as Father through the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, Who established the New Covenant by which men may be saved.

Eternal life, however, is called "the inheritance" in Scripture. It is NOT the same thing as salvation. It is the reward of salvation, the inheritance of the covenantal family, and that which we must obtain by being FAITHFUL COVENANT KEEPERS. And the way we keep the covenant is by keeping the covenantal relationship we have with the Father by doing His will -- which is good works. If you refuse (and you can -- you DO have free will, especially after you are liberated from the bondage of sin!!) and do not His will, you break the relationship with Him, dishonor Him, and endanger your inheritance. Those who will not do His will shall not recieve His inheritance. It is that simple.

So, yes "Believe and be saved" That is a free gift of grace through faith without any merit on our part.

But "work out your salvation in FEAR AND TREMBLING". That is how we inherit eternal life, which is the inheritance of the saints which awaits all the faithful.

Brother Ed

PS....My hope is that one day, Catholic theologians and apologists will end this confusion by ceasing to refer to "losing one's salvation". You CANNOT lose your salvation, for once you are taken out of the kingdom of the evil one, made a son of God by the adoption of grace, and placed in covenantal relationship to God, that can NEVER BE UNDONE. But you most certainly CAN and people DO, break the covenant with God and forfeit that which is laid aside for you.

As Protestant apologist James Jordan said "Those who are cast out of the family as SONS are cast out because they have broken the covenant, and because they were in the covenant and turned from it, their punishment will be all the more worse than the infidel who never knew"

Amen, sir!!!

 

Catholicism convert,
I'm not "turning tail and run"ning. I'm trying to keep this thread on topic. The topic was Nimrod witnessing to his parents. We, friend, are off topic. Start a new one with your last reply if you want to continue this.

May the grace of God open your eyes to the "work" of Christ done on your behalf.

www.raycomfort.com

 

Don't know about this, I will have to check on it one day when I have time. But to my understanding fundamentalism is not a denomination or anything like that, but a way of interpreting Scripture. Someone correct me if I am wrong, please.

That smells a bit Calvinistic to me. That is one of their beliefs, that you cannot exercise your free will until God enables you through His grace.

I would agree if you are talking about free will, which I am pretty sure you are.

Again, sounds Calvinistic. I am not try to label you, but just pointing out some of your beliefs are close to Calvinism.

Also, another question for you. After reading your post on salvation and eternal life I was wondering what happens to those who lose eternal life (don't keep the covenant according to you) but don't lose salvation?

Thanks in advance,
Neal

 

Neal --

Orthodox Catholicism is very close to Calvinism in regards to certain points of the will of man. The Catechism states that if men were to be left to themselves, they would NEVER seek God. To insist otherwise is the heresy of Pelegianism, which the Church has long since condemned.

Where we differ is that we do not believe that God chooses only a few "elect" to enable to believe and call to Himself, leaving the rest alone to wander to hell without a clue. (Or worse, that He actively damns the "non-elect"). We believe that by Christ's work, the Holy Spirit goes into the world and calls to all men.

Yet even in this, there is a mystery, for not all respond. In Catholic thought, it is seen that this is because God enables only those whom He sees will respond to His invitation. In other words, if you WOULD respond, He WILL give you the grace TO RESPOND. If you WON'T respond, you don't get the grace. But it is NOT determined by random divine fiat, but by what we ourselves WOULD DO (which God, being omnipotent, does know) with the grace if given.

See? Close, but not close!!

Brother Ed

 

Also, another question for you. After reading your post on salvation and eternal life I was wondering what happens to those who lose eternal life (don't keep the covenant according to you) but don't lose salvation?

Neal --

Did I offer you this site:

THE RIVER OF FIRE

This is a really GOOD read. I think it fits the covenantal paradigm well, but it brings out an understanding which is more in line with God as LOVE. Look at the following from Dr. Kalomiros:

Origen, and all rationalists who are like him, was not able to understand that the acceptance or the rejection of God's grace depends entirely on the rational creatures; that God, like the sun, never stops shining on good or wicked alike; that rational creatures are, however, entirely free to accept or reject this grace and love; and that God in His genuine love does not force His creatures to accept Him, but respects absolutely their free decision. 32 He does not withdraw His grace and love, but the attitude of the logical creatures toward this unceasing grace and love is the difference between paradise and hell. Those who love God are happy with Him, those who hate Him are extremely miserable by being obliged to live in His presence, and there is no place where one can escape the loving omnipresence of God.

Paradise or hell depends on how we will accept God's love. Will we return love for love, or will we respond to His love with hate? This is the critical difference. And this difference depends entirely on us, on our freedom, on our innermost free choice, on a perfectly free attitude which is not influenced by external conditions or internal factors of our material and psychological nature, because it is not an external act but an interior attitude coming from the bottom of our heart, conditioning not our sins, but the way we think about our sins, as it is clearly seen in the case of the publican and the Pharisee and in the case of the two robbers crucified with Christ. This freedom, this choice, this inner attitude toward our Creator is the innermost core of our eternal personality, it is the most profound of our characteristics, it is what makes us that which we are, it is our eternal face — bright or dark, loving or hating.

No, my brothers, unhappily for us, paradise or hell does not depend on God. If it depended on God, we would have nothing to fear. We have nothing to fear from Love. But it does not depend on God. It depends entirely upon us, and this is the whole tragedy. God wants us to be in His image, eternally free. He respects us absolutely. This is love. Without respect, we cannot speak of love. We are men because we are free. If we were not free, we would be clever animals, not men. God will never take back this gift of freedom which renders us what we are. This means that we will always be what we want to be, friends or enemies of God, and there is no changing in this our deepest self. In this life, there are profound or superficial changes in our life, in our character, in our beliefs, but all these changes are only the expression in time of our deepest eternal self. This deep eternal self is eternal, with all the meaning of the word. This is why paradise and hell are also eternal. There is no changing in what we really are. Our temporal characteristics and our history in life depend on many superficial things 'which vanish with death, but our real personality is not superficial and does not depend on changing and vanishing things. It is our real self. It remains with us when we sleep in the grave, and will be our real face in the resurrection. It is eternal.

I hope this whets your appetite a bit. This is the gist of Eastern thought, i.e., that God is love. The Western Church tends to explain God's work in more juridical terms, which the East does not like. But there is correctness in both methods. We are ants trying to describe the infinate.

Think of the Muslims who flew those planes into the Twin Towers in NYC. All their lives they have honed to perfection a hatred of Jesus Christ and His people. Will death change them? Will they suddenly LOVE HIM? Of course not, but He will NOT GO AWAY!!! Where will they go to escape the true and living God? He is everywhere. And this very fact will be their torment. The radiant splendor of the love of God which will bless those who love Him, will be an eternally unbearable torment to those who hate Him. Where shall they run to in order to escape it?

And for the Christian, who has been taken out of Adam and placed into the family by baptism -- he faces an even worse eternity if he turns back to
the vomit of the world's sins. By doing so, he shows that despite being rescued from sin, he is a churl, and ingrate who loves sin more than the one who has adopted him. And he will have to not only see the love of God, but know that by HIS OWN CHOICE, he rejected that and chose the very sin which still gnaws in his soul to be fulfilled but cannot find satisfaction.

Ponder it a bit!!

Brother Ed

 

[ February 05, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Daveth ]

 

Dr. Alexander Kalomiros said God is love.

Very good did he not also say, in 'Against False Union,
"The Papacy is the distortion par excellence of Church love. It made that bond of love and freedom a bond of constraint and tyranny. The Papacy is unbelief in the power of God and confidence in the power of human systems."

"The meaning of catholicity has nothing to do with a universal organization the way the Papists and those who are influenced by the Papist mentality understand it."

Dr. Kalomiros has written a very thought provoking article, however, in regards to his above comments, he suffers from the same historical and theological dysfunction which the Protestants do. Perhaps he should go back and read his Early Church Fathers a bit closer. He would find a honor, respect, and obedience to the office of St. Peter which existed for 1000 years until the schism of 1054.

I continue to be saddened at how prejudice makes otherwise intelligent and wonderful men act foolishly.

Brother Ed

 

It really doesn't make much sense. So what is salvation if you spend eternity miserable? Sounds like all you are saying is we lose our salvation. Make it easy for me, my brain seems to be running slow tonight. What is salvation and eternal life to you? Salvation means we are saved from something, but what? And another thing, isn't eternal death (the opposite of life) eternal separation from God? Doesn't death mean separation and not cessation? Just thinking out loud (actually on screen).

Neal

 

Dear Ed, you seem a little hot under the collar! However, I couldn't resist your above remark. Does this mean Joseph and Mary had sex?
Enjoy, Colin