Catholics and Salvation

[halifaxchristian]

Satan is the master of deception.  Changing the words ever so slightly to change the meaning is one of his best tricks.  Leaving out confidence in the first phrase changed the meaning dramatically.  With the second phrase the actual words were much more clear and understandable.  Why would some one change the words other than to try to deceive.  What this has proven is that a blind rage to discredit the RCC will use any lie that supports the stance.  Satan is very good a manipulating this kind of hatred.  If you want an honest discussion on what the RCC believes do so, but don't use lies and deception, however small,  to prove your point.

God Bless,

Kansas Dad

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Kansas Dad...I understand your concerns, I really do...and if I did purposefully leave out a word...yes, that would have been deceitful...but God as my faithful witness...and may He strick me dead right now if I lie...I DID NOT PURPOSEFULLY LEAVE OUT ANYTHING. I made an honest copyist mistake and I do apoligise for that...but I can assure you from the depths of my soul that it was not intentional...and God knows I lie not. From there...you can make an honest judement of my character.

[Guest stray bullet]

This is why I don't like dealing with a lot of Christian-themed forums. You have people that love to cut and paste things, but they never actually discuss anything, they don't make any points. They think they are saying something or being clever and they just aren't.

Instead of cut and pasting and not making any point, how about you tell me what is wrong with two canons mentioned and the beginning on the thread and we go from there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The way I read these two canons, they are basically stating that Christ's death alone is not sufficient for God's justification, and that faith alone is not sufficient for the believers to have the surity of their salvation.

This will turn out to be a faith vs. works argument, I can just smell it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rather, faith vs. works vs. faith + works.

The idea of faith and works isn't anything new or dramatic. So what that the Catholic Church doesn't teach Sola Fida..That's nothing new, so yeah... I'm not getting this topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is my whole point in posting those canons...the RCC does teach that works has a part in our salvation...thankyou for clarifying. Shall we proceed from here??? That was my point from the get-go. Sorry if you misunderstood my intentions in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You didn't need to get the point across, because no one is denying that. It's like starting a topic to announce Benedict XVI is the Pope.

[halifaxchristian]

I want everyone on this board to know this:

Catholics ADMITTEDLY, both by individuals on this board, and by official CHURCH CANONS AND COUNCILS, believe that salvation DOES NOT come from FAITH ONLY IN CHRIST JESUS...BUT that WORKS has a part in our own SALVATION.

This is a fact that the other side does not even deny...and, thus, my point in starting this thread in the first place. I wish to fully PORTRAY and BRING TO LIGHT this IRRECONCILABLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS.

Catholics can believe what they wish...God gave us all freewill.

But there is no longer any point in any of us on this board arguing the essential relationship between Catholics and Protestants if we can all agree on this matter.

If we can agree on this matter, as stated...the end result is...THE ECUMENICAL MOVEMENT BETWEEN PROTESTANTS AND CATHOLICS CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT CONTINUE...and it is a deception to believe that it can and should.

Agreed, stray bullet??? If so...I will not even bother debating over other differences between the two faiths...because this matter alone is enough to dispell any other harmonies we may share.

And that...is the whole point. Understood?

[Fiosh]

HC,

Please read this carefully. I take it seriously. Do you?

F

From your own KJV, lest you think we RC's tampered with it:

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 

Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth [his] sheep from the goats: 

Mat 25:33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 

Mat 25:34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 

Mat 25:35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 

Mat 25:36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 

Mat 25:37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed [thee]? or thirsty, and gave [thee] drink? 

Mat 25:38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took [thee] in? or naked, and clothed [thee]? 

Mat 25:39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me. 

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 

Mat 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 

Mat 25:43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 

Mat 25:44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 

Mat 25:45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did [it] not to one of the least of these, ye did [it] not to me. 

Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. 

He sounds serious to me......no?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Pipit]

The joys of discussing wether or not the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation really is a Doctrine of Salvation that finds itself as Scripturally founded and framed, or if it is a doctrine of salvation based on works, or on faith, or on faith expressed in works, or on wearing blue socks (meaning, whatever other claim there is on what the catholics teach).

The problem firstly in such a discussion is to make certain everyone knows what is being discussed-- tossing two sections of the Canon from the Council of Trent and letting people haggle over it is not the way to start: hense why there are so many confused posts and misunderstandings and why it took 20 posts to finally dig out the point that is trying to be made.

Secondly, tossing to parts of the Canon out for us to haggle over does little to really reveal the full Doctrinal ideology of salvation held by the Catholic Church--it provides us just enough to be ignorant of what we are being asked to discuss. It is like picking a page out of a book, and trying to discuss the whole book with just that one page.

So, lets take a moment and read a fairly standard and easy to understand definition of Salvation held by the Catholic church. Go to edit*** and read the definition provided (and if you want, you can also look up the Canon indocrinated by the Council of Trent on the website). Then, go back to the two exerts from the Canon posted by HC, and in light of a fuller definition of Salvation as understood by the Catholic Church, use the Bible to show both the aspects of TRUTH and FALLACY found in the Catholic definition, and how they are TRUTH or FALLACY.

p.s. I put this all in bold in hopes it will actually be read....

Edited August 30, 2005 by Dr. Luke

[halifaxchristian]

HC,

Please read this carefully.  I take it seriously. Do you?

F

From your own KJV, lest you think we RC's tampered with it:

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:

[dgolvach]

I would have to guess there are many Catholics and Protestants who have recieved Christ in spite of certain false doctrines that their organazation teaches.

Dan

[Fiosh]

HC,

Please read this carefully.

[halifaxchristian]

The joys of discussing wether or not the Catholic Doctrine of Salvation really is a Doctrine of Salvation that finds itself as Scripturally founded and framed, or if it is a doctrine of salvation based on works, or on faith, or on faith expressed in works, or on wearing blue socks (meaning, whatever other claim there is on what the catholics teach).

The problem firstly in such a discussion is to make certain everyone knows what is being discussed-- tossing two sections of the Canon from the Council of Trent and letting people haggle over it is not the way to start: hense why there are so many confused posts and misunderstandings and why it took 20 posts to finally dig out the point that is trying to be made.

Secondly, tossing to parts of the Canon out for us to haggle over does little to really reveal the full Doctrinal ideology of salvation held by the Catholic Church--it provides us just enough to be ignorant of what we are being asked to discuss. It is like picking a page out of a book, and trying to discuss the whole book with just that one page.

So, lets take a moment and read a fairly standard and easy to understand definition of Salvation held by the Catholic church. Go to edit**** and read the definition provided (and if you want, you can also look up the Canon indocrinated by the Council of Trent on the website). Then, go back to the two

Edited August 30, 2005 by Dr. Luke

[halifaxchristian]

HC,

Please read this carefully.