Okay, thank you, that makes sense.
And you bring up a good point. I could have sworn that a person I met through AIM was a Christian when I was talking to him, but when I went to a website he pointed me to, I discovered he was a mormon. It sounds VERY Christian, but as you learn more and more about it, you discover how anti-biblical the doctrine is. Sure they say you recieve salvation by faith in Christ, ah! but dig deeper and you learn a whole lot more.
I find an interesting, but opposite parallel with the Catholic Church. At first glance it looks very unChristian, but as you dig deeper and deeper and learn the meaning of such phrases as "no salvation outside the church", things are not as they first seem. Which is why its so fascinating to learn accurate Catholic teaching, but so frustrating at this message board when so many folks are already convinced they know what the Church teaches only to even contradict each other on what they think it teaches, which is naturally, not what Catholicism teaches.
It can be such a struggle because they do teach that one is saved by more than "faith alone", but they want their protestant brothers and sisters to understand what it refers to first, before they jump and say "Aha! you believe in "works salvation".
Catholics have a 2000 year history (or at least 1600 if the most extreme anti-Catholic protestant sources are correct). It isn't easy to explain what's gone on in 2000 years in short posts on a message board.
God Bless,
Bro. Adam
The Catholic "Salvation"
Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Brother Adam, Feb 10, 2004.
Page 4 of 15
-
-
There's more to it than rolls? I guess it IS said that man cannot live by bread alone...
Sorry, that was bad. Couldn't resist temptation...
Gina [/QB][/QUOTE]
Gina, I think I'm starting to understand your humor, and like Dr. Bob, its warped.
So I have only this to say:
HA-HA! :D -
Gina -
You don't actually have to read the documents of VII of VI or alot of stuff to understand what the Church teaches. It is there if you want to study it, and if you are like me, you tend to read everything anyway.
The whole sum of Catholic teaching in its most simple form is in the Creeds. If you want to go on a broader base than that though, you need only read the Catholic Catachism, or talk to Catholics and ask what they believe.
Before I became a Baptist- it took almost 3 years of studing what they believe because the statements of faith were increadibly vague and left out a great deal when it came to doctrine.
The catachism is pretty thick- but includes almost anything you may want to know, and on top of it is saturated in footnotes to scripture references and other documents.
I think the big thing Catholics have done wrong (and its only my opinion) is that the past couple of centuries they have flunked when it comes to teaching Catholics about their faith- which we can see clearly with people on this board who grew up Catholic, but don't understand Catholic theology at all.
Shoot- I gotta stop there and go to the store. I'll be back later! -
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Adam,
You wrote, "I think the big thing Catholics have done wrong (and its only my opinion) is that the past couple of centuries they have flunked when it comes to teaching Catholics about their faith- which we can see clearly with people on this board who grew up Catholic, but don't understand Catholic theology at all."
Actually.. it's just those who are aged 55 and younger. Catechesis in the U.S. (and elsewhere) took a nose dive after the Second Vatican Council - not due to the council but - due to liberals who infiltrated the Church causing a great exodus of religious from religious orders and confusion within catechetical circles. Thankfully, this is currently being overcome as the fruits of Vatican II are borne - a major one being the publication of the CCC in 1992 (French), 1994 (English, and 1997 (Latin Typical edition).
Before the 60's (when everyone went crazy), Catholics, in general, were well catechized. I have been personally called by Jesus to take part in the New Evangelization as a catechist.. armed with God's Word and his Spirit. -
Carson,
I'm not sure I agree with the "liberal infiltration" theory -- at least not completely. A big chunk of it had to do with the educational theories of the times. The same sort of experts who brought us "new math" (and kids who learned no math) and new ways of teaching reading (and kids who never learned to read) also brought us "new catechesis."
Gotta get rid of that old Baltimore Catechism, and replace it with ... well, give us 40 years or so and maybe we'll figure something out. And in the meantime, here are some crayons and glitter, kids. Keep yourselves busy.
Mark -
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Mark,
That's what I mean. Catechesis from above was replaced with catechesis from below.. no longer was divine revelation the point of departure but rather our experiences, etc. This is modernism undercover - the denial of the existence of divine revelation and its primacy. Content came to serve methodology and content was - in practial terms - done away with. Unfortunately, this came in during the 60's, the same time that theologians were dissenting in mass numbers and the religious were leaving their vows. It is all related. -
-
(I'll rephrase your comment if I may)
By saying "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the Vatican Council does not mean one has to be a Catholic to gain salvation; the only requirement is that one has to be baptized in the Catholic Church in order to be a Catholic.
Now after saying that, it still doesn't make sense to me. Sure, if you're baptized in the Catholic Church; of course you're a Catholic.
Now that doesn't describe anything for one seeking salvation and reading what the Vatican has to say about the issue...to quote: "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church".
Anyone with a brain the size of a pea would interpret that to mean that there is no salvation possible if one chooses to attend a Protestant church.
You described how to become a Catholic (by baptism in the RCC), but you didn't address the problem.
Your description is faulty, Adam. Will you please try again. Actually, you're about as enigmatic as a Catholic when it comes to explaining what those ambiguous statements from the Vatican publictions project.
Come down to an understandable level if you're able.
Singer -
Let me try this again, since it seems to have been missed on the previous page.
-
Carson Weber <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">
Hi Gina,
You wrote, "A number of people you tend to quote did not follow the Catholic church as it presents today."
Every single one of the individuals I believed above adhered to Catholic distinctives that you - as a Baptist - would consider "Catholic" and therefore "not Christian".
You have - in an ignorant and blanketed fashion - condemned the whole of 1500 years of Christianity.
I really don't know much about them so I can't go into a detailed discussion on them. Not that it matters a fig.
Of course it matters. These individuals were the big names, the Bible preachers of the Early Church, individuals who translated the entire Bible by hand from manuscripts that no longer exist (for example, Jerome), individuals who have written more on Jesus, the Trinity, and Salvation from their prayerful time spent pouring over the Scriptures than you could care to read with the rest of the time available at your fingertips in your life.
What DOES matter is what does the bible say, and does what we believe agree with it?
Amen.
And what does the Bible teach? Things that contradict your beliefs as a Baptist such as regenerative baptism:
Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 3:18-21
An authority composed of bishops:
Matthew 18:15-18
Auricular confession:
John 20:21-23
The loss of one's salvation:
1 Cor 10:12
That Jesus' flesh is food indeed:
John 6:55
That we are to adhere to Apostolic Tradition:
2 Thess 2:15
That the Church is visibly one:
John 17:21
and on many other points.
You can say that you are a "Bible Christian," but when the Bible test is applied, you clash with as much of the Bible as you claim Catholics do. When others point this out, you become uneasy, and rightly so. I would certainly be uneasy if my faith was unBiblical.
I could care less what a bunch of dead guys who didn't write inspired scripture thought, it doesn't pertain to me and my God at this point in time.
Then you don't have a Bible.
In 324 A.D., the Church historian Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:
"One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon . . . Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name" (History of the Church, 3:3:1, 3:25:3).
Did you hear that? 2 Peter isn't inspired. This was the consensus in Eusebius' day in the circles he was familiar with, which were wide and far.
Why is 2 Peter in your Bible if you "could care less what a bunch of dead guys who didn't write inspired scripture thought"?
Who put that in there for you? Peter?
St. Thomas the apostle didn't write any Scripture; do you care what he thought?
St. Timothy didn't write any Scripture, yet he was ordained by St. Paul and was commanded to teach others who could faithfully teach others what Paul had taught him (2 Tim 2:2). Paul didn't say, "Keep this letter I'm writing to you safe because it's inspired Scripture. Copy it as many times as you can and distribute it far and wide because that is how Jesus planned his Church out to work."
Far from it! Paul ordained Timothy as a bishop, giving Timothy the authority to shepherd the flock, and he instructed Timothy in many things that Timothy was to instruct others upon whom he was to lay his hands and ordain.
You join a baptist board you jump on and promote the Catholic church and try to tell Baptists they should leave the Baptist church and become Catholic. Is that really such a hard concept of etiquette to grasp?
It reminds me of Paul who went into the synagogue & preached Christ crucified. It made the Jews pretty upset to hear Paul argue from the Scriptures in a way that differed from their own interpretation. In fact, the Thessalonian Jews scorned Paul, whereas the Bereans had open hearts and minds and were praised as such.
Gina, be a Berean. Open your mind to the Scriptures and interpretations apart from your own fallible human interpretation.
Unless, of course, you think you have an infallible guide that can lead you through the Bible and provide you with certainty that is infallible with regard to interpretation.
Yes, it is not only rude to share false beliefs, it's just wrong.
But, that presupposes that the beliefs are false to begin with. You see, you have already laid a preemptive strike at learning and accepting the truth of God's Word by closing yourself off to dialogue.
In doing so, you nullify the Word of God by confining yourself to your own interpretation, which you must admit can certainly be fallible. If your personal interpretation is wrong on various points, and if you aren't open to edification, then you have thereby nullified the Word of God, not allowing it to say to you what it is supposed to say.
Jesus commands you to share your faith in Jesus, not your faith in the Catholic church.
Scripture tells us that the Church is the Body of Christ. Read Acts 9:4; 22:7; 26:14.
Jesus tells us that he will build his Church, which is in Scripture (Matthew 16:16-20), a part of the Gospel. If the Church isn't a part of the Gospel, then why is it in the Gospels? Why is it within the purview of St. Paul's preaching?
By prohibiting me from preaching the Body of Christ, you have prohibited me from preaching part of Jesus Christ himself: his own bride, which he leads through his shepherds in union with the Prime Minister of the Kingdom: the successor to the Rock, Kephas (See John 1:42).
You were not discussing and debating issues, you were proseletyzing or however it's spelled. There is a difference.
I should repent from the task of evangelization? Of preaching the good news of Jesus Christ and his Body?
You are not sharing the truth of the bible. You are sharing the truth of the twisted Catholic version of the doctrines of the bible and some other garbage.
That is for you to demonstrate. You see, Gina, you are just as fallible as I am, and you could very well be sharing the truth of the twisted Gina version of the doctrines of the bible and some other garbage.
You are prohibiting me from privately interpreting Scripture. You are prohibiting me from exercising my priestly function as a priest of Jesus Christ.
Your actions usurp the Baptist belief in the private interpretation of Scripture.
I did note that not one of them threw a hissy fit though. The only one that did was the one I tried to privately send an explanation to.
A question pertaining to the logic of a situation is far from a hissy fit, which is an emotative term in response to my substantial point that your actions are duplicitous.
First, you write, "I don't like it when people disagree with me either, but this is an open forum, and here I am!" and then you demonstrate just how closed the forum really is in word and action.
My exhortation is for you to be consistent in word and action. If this moral exhortation causes a stir in you, I would suggest searching your heart instead of attacking the messenger. -
(I'll rephrase your comment if I may)
By saying "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the Vatican Council does not mean one has to be a Catholic to gain salvation; the only requirement is that one has to be baptized in the Catholic Church in order to be a Catholic.
Now after saying that, it still doesn't make sense to me. Sure, if you're baptized in the Catholic Church; of course you're a Catholic.
Now that doesn't describe anything for one seeking salvation and reading what the Vatican has to say about the issue...to quote: "There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church".
Anyone with a brain the size of a pea would interpret that to mean that there is no salvation possible if one chooses to attend a Protestant church.
You described how to become a Catholic (by baptism in the RCC), but you didn't address the problem.
Singer </font>[/QUOTE]You are still missing the point. I'm not describing how to "become Catholic" I'm describing how the Catholic Church sees you Singer, as a Catholic:
Any valid baptism- in the CC or in the Baptist Church or in any church or in no church at all, imperfectly unites a person to the Catholic Church.
If you wanted to be in full communion in the Catholic Church you would need to attend membership classes, go to confession, be confirmed, and take part in the Eucharist. -
I wanted to mention- since Gina and Carson had there little rumble over what can and can't be posted- there is a message board where you can speak to all sorts of Catholics including priests, regular everyday Catholics (you can talk about anything and everything), seminary students, Church Scholars, Militants, and some Catholics that are just goofy.
You can ask any question you want, debate until you are blue in the face, and get angry if you so desire, as long as you are civil. Its where I've spent a year and a half laying down what I was taught by protestants and learning what Catholics truly believe. And guess what- I'm still a protestant!
I won't post the link here, but if you are interested, PM, AIM, or email me. -
But as the above demostrates, even though we differ in doctrine, there needs to be a love for the brethren.
DHK -
-
"Lumen Gentium" a look -- paragraphs 14-16
What in the heck is that?
-
Yes, we all belong to the catholic church that Jesus' followers belong to yet today, but it sure as ##&&%(#@ isn't the Catholic Church.Click to expand...
Would you say that there is salvation outside Christ's catholic (little "C") church? -
Well Singer, like me or not, you've undoubtly proven that you don't have a grip on the Catholic theology
-
Would you say that there is salvation outside Christ's catholic (little "C") church?Click to expand...
I know the game; your emphasis will be on the American Indian or the Brazilian Cannibal who never heard the gospel and then you'll emphasize how God saves them through the Natural Law, but yet a Protestant is an imperfect specimen of christianity because he won't join your church.
So I just saved you alot of time and saved the Webmaster some space on this forum.
By the way, you didn't answer my question:
Now, tell me that salvation is not possible to those who attend Non-Catholic Churches and I'll be satisfied that you're a total Exclusivist !
(**That was the belief of those who wrote the Vatican Council II.)
Singer -
No Singer, I wasn't necessarily going in that direction. Can you answer my question though?
Or will you acknowledge that this is simply another inroad to be made in order to attack the Catholic Church's teaching that she is the true and only Church that Jesus Christ founded? I ask again, is there salvation outside the Church Christ founded?
The answer to your question is yes.
Vatican II also says: "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."
Those validly baptized have union with the Catholic Church though an incomplete and imperfect one, yet one that can still save. Your attempts to obscure and complicate the issue are painfully obvious and I think everyone else can see that.
Page 4 of 15