INDULGENCES

[Billiards Ball]

On 10/8/2018 at 5:16 PM, Concretecamper said:

Everything you just said is wrong.  Sort of like a Luke Skywalker moment here.

Here are some Dogmas of the Catholic Church

1.  Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation

2.  For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.

3.  The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.

So, according to the Catholic Church,the outlook for Budists is pretty bleak as is the outlook for non-Catholics.  This is not my teaching so don't get mad at me.

Thanks for posting, but we can simplify the issues like this:

1) The Bible teaches two words for salvation, "Trust Christ"

2) Rome says, "Anyone who trusts Christ only for salvation is both unsaved and anathema to the true church, the Roman church"

3) Rome joins other groups worldwide in mixing some kind of trust/faith and works to hope to possibly maybe become saved, someday

4) Trust Christ today, to be 100% assured of salvation, going forward, eternally

[Concretecamper]

10 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

1) The Bible teaches two words for salvation, "Trust Christ"

The Church teaches we are saved by grace.  We are saved by His sacrafice.

10 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

2) Rome says, "Anyone who trusts Christ only for salvation is both unsaved and anathema to the true church, the Roman church"

Nope.  The Church teaches we are saved by Christ Act 4:12

 

10 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

3) Rome joins other groups worldwide in mixing some kind of trust/faith and works to hope to possibly maybe become saved, someday

Shown me official Church teaching where the Church says that those who are not part of His Church are saved.

 

10 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

4) Trust Christ today, to be 100% assured of salvation, going forward, eternally

Yes, Christ and His Church are One.  Christ is present in His Church for the salvation of souls.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Concretecamper

[Billiards Ball]

11 hours ago, Concretecamper said:

The Church teaches we are saved by grace.  We are saved by His sacrafice.

Nope.  The Church teaches we are saved by Christ Act 4:12

 

Shown me official Church teaching where the Church says that those who are not part of His Church are saved.

 

Yes, Christ and His Church are One.  Christ is present in His Church for the salvation of souls.

Hi CC,

Rome has never revoked the Council of Trent resolutions, they are still in force, including these excommunicable offenses, many of which speak again assurance, trusting Christ alone for salvation, rebuking all non-Catholics, etc.:

1. If anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified (that nothing else is required to obtain justification and that it is not necessary to use one's own will), let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing but confidence in divine mercy, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that it is necessary for everyone to believe that their sins are forgiven, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he believed himself absolved and justified, let him be anathema.
5. If anyone says that a man born again and justified is bound to believe that he is one of the predestined, let him be anathema.
6. If anyone says that he will persevere unto the end, unless he learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.

There are dozens of other anti-biblical statements, all of which are excommunicable offenses, remaining in force since Trent, at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_excommunicable_offences_from_the_Council_of_Trent

If a born again Christian wishes to remain in fellowship with Rome, they ought to first study what Rome teaches and believes. Have a look at the page and read it, please.

Thanks, sincerely.

[Concretecamper]

1 hour ago, Billiards Ball said:

Rome has never revoked the Council of Trent resolutions, they are still in force, including these excommunicable offenses, many of which speak again assurance, trusting Christ alone for salvation, rebuking all non-Catholics, etc.:

1. If anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified (that nothing else is required to obtain justification and that it is not necessary to use one's own will), let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing but confidence in divine mercy, let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that it is necessary for everyone to believe that their sins are forgiven, let him be anathema.
4. If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he believed himself absolved and justified, let him be anathema.
5. If anyone says that a man born again and justified is bound to believe that he is one of the predestined, let him be anathema.
6. If anyone says that he will persevere unto the end, unless he learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.

None of these anathemas are at odds with what I posted.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Concretecamper

[Billiards Ball]

27 minutes ago, Concretecamper said:

None of these anathemas are at odds with what I posted.

If anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified (that nothing else is required to obtain justification and that it is not necessary to use one's own will), let him be anathema.

(If one says they're saved by faith in Christ, they are not.)

 

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing but confidence in divine mercy, let him be anathema.

(If one says faith alone justifies as confidence in God's mercy, they should know instead that faith includes works, and they are not saved.)

 

If anyone says that it is necessary for everyone to believe that their sins are forgiven, let him be anathema.

(Preaching the Christ and trust in Him as remission for sin is anathema, antithetical to the church, and these "Christ alone" preachers are unsaved.)

 

If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he believed himself absolved and justified, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who says, "I AM saved!", not "I might be saved", or "I can be saved in the future", anyone who says, "I AM justified just as it says in numerous NT passages!", isn't saved at all.)

 

If anyone says that a man born again and justified is bound to believe that he is one of the predestined, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who says, "I'm born again, therefore saved, and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ following the Rapture," is unsaved/anathema/an enemy of Rome.)

 

If anyone says that he will persevere unto the end, unless he learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who teaches assurance/once saved always saved, isn't just a brother who is mistaken, but is unsaved/anathema.

 

Several dozen similar, heretical statements (statements that directly contradict the Holy Bible) are at the site I posted to you.

[Concretecamper]

24 minutes ago, Billiards Ball said:

If anyone says that by faith alone the impious are justified (that nothing else is required to obtain justification and that it is not necessary to use one's own will), let him be anathema.

(If one says they're saved by faith in Christ, they are not.)

 

If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing but confidence in divine mercy, let him be anathema.

(If one says faith alone justifies as confidence in God's mercy, they should know instead that faith includes works, and they are not saved.)

 

If anyone says that it is necessary for everyone to believe that their sins are forgiven, let him be anathema.

(Preaching the Christ and trust in Him as remission for sin is anathema, antithetical to the church, and these "Christ alone" preachers are unsaved.)

 

If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he believed himself absolved and justified, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who says, "I AM saved!", not "I might be saved", or "I can be saved in the future", anyone who says, "I AM justified just as it says in numerous NT passages!", isn't saved at all.)

 

If anyone says that a man born again and justified is bound to believe that he is one of the predestined, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who says, "I'm born again, therefore saved, and predestined to be conformed to the image of Christ following the Rapture," is unsaved/anathema/an enemy of Rome.)

 

If anyone says that he will persevere unto the end, unless he learned this by special revelation, let him be anathema.

(Anyone who teaches assurance/once saved always saved, isn't just a brother who is mistaken, but is unsaved/anathema.

 

Several dozen similar, heretical statements (statements that directly contradict the Holy Bible) are at the site I posted to you.

You seem to subscribe to non biblical ideas.  And what is funny you quote Trent with what appears not the slightest understanding.  Here is some more from Trent.

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]

So, instead of listing websites, if you want to take one topic at at time, Iwould be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you.  But I am not going to engage in a discussion against some anti Catholic website.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Concretecamper

[Billiards Ball]

3 minutes ago, Concretecamper said:

You seem to subscribe to non biblical ideas.  And what is funny you quote Trent with what appears not the slightest understanding.  Here is some more from Trent.

HOW THE GRATUITOUS JUSTIFICATION OF THE SINNER BY FAITH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD

But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely,[44] these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God[45] and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace.[46]

So, instead of listing websites, if you want to take one topic at at time, Iwould be more than happy to engage in a discussion with you.  But I am not going to engage in a discussion against some anti Catholic website.

Hi CC,

1) Wikipedia is not "an anti-Catholic" website. It is rather presenting a list of excommunicable offenses, directly from the Council of Trent, never rescinded by Rome. Wikipedia was quoting Trent, and I was quoting Trent, not "an anti-Catholic site".

2) I understand the Trent statement you posted above, regarding faith. Since Trent is still in force, this is also still official Catholic doctrine/official Rome doctrine never deviates from the Council of Trent, including:

a) we are justified by faith as the BEGINNING of salvation (from your Trent quotation above)

b) this BEGINNING toward salvation is apart from any works (your Trent quote above)

3) I also quoted Trent, that people who believe this faith justification, this trusting Christ, is not "the beginning of salvation" but "salvation" and/or do not add works to this faith and/or do not believe Rome holds all the truth and/or believe in non-infant baptism and/or baptism by immersion, etc., etc., etc. are a) unsaved b) not Catholics c) anathema to Catholicism/heretics/utterly rejected d) cannot receive the Eucharist, which is meant to help people on the path, etc., etc., etc.

One issue at a time? The only issue of import to me in all this is whether trusting Christ "starts possible salvation we might still have later, via doing many works" or "is salvation through Christ's sacrifice, a free gift". The difference could be eternal life for many people...

If we would like to discuss one issue at time, let's discuss the gospel. The Bible seems very plain to me that one trusts Christ to "begin" but also, at the same exact time and place, to "finish" salvation.

[Concretecamper]

5 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

1) Wikipedia is not "an anti-Catholic" website

Agreed.  I never said it was.  I just ask you during our discussion not to quote from an anti Catholic website.  It seeks to be a quite popular thing to do around here.

 

5 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

1) Wikipedia is not "an anti-Catholic" website. It is rather presenting a list of excommunicable offenses, directly from the Council of Trent, never rescinded by Rome. Wikipedia was quoting Trent, and I was quoting Trent, not "an anti-Catholic site".

2) I understand the Trent statement you posted above, regarding faith. Since Trent is still in force, this is also still official Catholic doctrine/official Rome doctrine never deviates from the Council of Trent, including:

a) we are justified by faith as the BEGINNING of salvation (from your Trent quotation above)

b) this BEGINNING toward salvation is apart from any works (your Trent quote above)

3) I also quoted Trent, that people who believe this faith justification, this trusting Christ, is not "the beginning of salvation" but "salvation" and/or do not add works to this faith and/or do not believe Rome holds all the truth and/or believe in non-infant baptism and/or baptism by immersion, etc., etc., etc. are a) unsaved b) not Catholics c) anathema to Catholicism/heretics/utterly rejected d) cannot receive the Eucharist, which is meant to help people on the path, etc., etc., etc.

Ok.  On not sure how this expanded explanation of you original post addresses my post on how the Church teaches we are saved by Grace.

 

5 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

One issue at a time

Yes, otherwise posts be too large and cumbersome....easy to get off topic.

5 hours ago, Billiards Ball said:

The only issue of import to me in all this is whether trusting Christ "starts possible salvation we might still have later, via doing many works" or "is salvation through Christ's sacrifice, a free gift". The difference could be eternal life for many people...

Ok, I'll start.

The Church teaches that salvation is through His sacrafice on the Cross.  It is through His grace freely given.  Man can do nothing to earn His grace.  Man can of course accept or reject the free gift of His grace. 

That's enough for now.  Your turn.

[Billiards Ball]

19 minutes ago, Concretecamper said:

Ok, I'll start.

The Church teaches that salvation is through His sacrafice on the Cross.  It is through His grace freely given.  Man can do nothing to earn His grace.  Man can of course accept or reject the free gift of His grace. 

That's enough for now.  Your turn.

I understand, but Trent and other official church documents--along with all I've heard from Catholic friends and Catholic clergy now--says this free grace MUST be followed up by numerous works, especially Catholic works and sacraments, or the person becomes lost again.

I find the Bible instead teaches eternal assurance, eternal security, for anyone who makes a onetime transfer of trust (I cannot save myself, I can never perfect myself morally/stop sin via religion/religious works, so I transfer my trust to Christ).

[Guest shiloh357]

On ‎10‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 4:16 PM, Concretecamper said:

Everything you just said is wrong.  Sort of like a Luke Skywalker moment here.

Here are some Dogmas of the Catholic Church

1.  Baptism by water (Baptismus fluminis) is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception for salvation

2.  For children before the age of reason, the reception of the Eucharist is not necessary for salvation.

3.  The Sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation to those who, after Baptism, fall into grievous sin.

So, according to the Catholic Church,the outlook for Budists is pretty bleak as is the outlook for non-Catholics.  This is not my teaching so don't get mad at me.

Baptism and the Eucharist are not necessary for salvation (and sprinkling isn't baptism; baptism is ONLY by immersion).

We are saved by grace along through faith alone in Christ alone. There is nothing else that has any value for salvation from sin.  Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient on its own for salvation and the Bible knows no other means of salvation.