Through Mary to Jesus

On the flip side, at the end there are those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says,"THY will be done." And those who insist on their own way will at the last be granted it. They won't like it much.

I'm not being clear, I guess. I'm trying.

To reiterate my earlier statement: "The short answer is yes. You can."

848 "Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men."

The above is part of the earlier detail you posted.

I am not ignorant of the Gospel.

847 This affirmation (all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body)that is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

Christ and His Church means the Catholic church. I know the Catholic church and the Gospel of Christ.

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

The Head and the Body are necessary, one initiating and one delivering. I do not belong to the Catholic church and therefore not part of that body.

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

I have been told numerous times that the Catholic church was founded as above and I refuse to enter it.

Is, according to church policy, which policy would apply to all those who have been told of the status of the Catholic church, salvation available to me regardless of the church?

If yes, because of non belief of the church's claims, the church has no authority except those who swear to it, independent persons not easily persuaded having also the free path to salvation without the church. It cannot be the true, only and one Body and Bride of Christ, because salvation can be had by being tough minded and rejecting its claims.

If no, then salvation of an individual rests on an individual's avoiding hearing or reading of the church's claims, and the evangelizing of the church is dooming many to Hell, unless they dance the church's tune.

It is much more than my business. And I want "papists" in their evangelizing to, up front in simple words, admit either one or the other.

William,

There is but one Church. Christ established that one Church. St. Paul, throughout his epistles, used the illustration of the "body of Christ" to show the unity of that one church. When you read a document from the Vatican, it is written from that persepctive.

The CCC paragraph you keep citing (para 848) is referring to people who are not baptized, by the way.

You state, Christ and His Church means the Catholic church. I know the Catholic church and the Gospel of Christ.

Yes, it does mean the Ekklesia Katholikos.

You state, The Head and the Body are necessary, one initiating and one delivering. I do not belong to the Catholic church and therefore not part of that body.

There is only one Body of Christ. You are either a member of that One Body or not. That is an objective, Biblical fact. It is not up for debate, it is not the product of some Vatican document, it is from Sacred Scripture.

You then state, I have been told numerous times that the Catholic church was founded as above and I refuse to enter it.

Fine. Don't enter it. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

You then continue:

Is, according to church policy, which policy would apply to all those who have been told of the status of the Catholic church, salvation available to me regardless of the church?
If yes, because of non belief of the church's claims, the church has no authority except those who swear to it, independent persons not easily persuaded having also the free path to salvation without the church. It cannot be the true, only and one Body and Bride of Christ, because salvation can be had by being tough minded and rejecting its claims.
If no, then salvation of an individual rests on an individual's avoiding hearing or reading of the church's claims, and the evangelizing of the church is dooming many to Hell, unless they dance the church's tune.

The simple answer to this is the one that I've been stating all along (I'll say it a little differently, so maybe you'll get it this time, but it's the same message):

If you've heard the Gospel and believed on the name of the Lord Jesus and are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, you are a member of the Body of Christ:

All sin is washed from you
You are a new creation in Christ

If you are not baptized, then, we who are baptized and are in communion with the See of Peter have hope in God's Divine Mercy that your soul will somehow be preserved from eternal perdition. But that is God's business, not ours.

(I am absolutely confident that you will read this as saying you being baptized in a Latin Rite baptism. That is not what I said nor what I meant...just thought I'd clear that up)

It is impossible for you to be a Christian and not be a member of Ekklesia Katholikos. You say you reject that. You are not acting scripturally when you do so. Fine. That's your choice to act in accordance with scripture or not.

You say that you reject the authority Christ gave to St. Peter (the authority of a prime minister). (See St. Matthew 16). Fine. You are acting unscripturally in doing so. But that's your business one way or the other.

You say that you reject the pastoral responsibility Christ gave St. Peter to shepherd His entire flock (See St. John 20). Fine. You are acting unscripturally in doing so. But that's your business one way or the other.

You reject the authority given to Peter to speak for the college of apostles (See the Acts 1 and the Acts 2). Fine. You are acting unscripturally in doing so. But that, too, is your business one way or the other.

You reject the concept of apostolic succession (See the Acts 1:26, 1 Tim 4:14, 2 Tim 1:6-7, etc.). Fine. Again, you are acting unscripturally in doing so. But once again, that is utterly your business what you believe.

I am very sorry for you in your struggle against Christ. I am thankful that you have received part of the Gospel, though, but how can you truly establish the Lordship of Christ (See Rom 10:9-10) in your life if you ignore those parts of His Holy Word that do not agree with your personal theology (See 2 Pet 1:20, 2 Pet 3:15-16)? Never the less, I am thankful that the name of Christ is preached one way or the other (See Phm 1:12-18).

However, when you make statements like the ones I quoted above, you need to review those claims upon which you base those statements. If you read them as they should be read, in context of the Church being the "Universal Church (Ekklesia Katholikos)," the claims will sound significantly less outrageous. I'm not hopeful that you will do so, but if you can manage it, the documents will make far more sense to you (whether you choose to believe them or not).

Finally, you said, It is much more than my business. And I want "papists" in their evangelizing to, up front in simple words, admit either one or the other.

I have tried to do so, again and again. I guess because you're not getting the answer you're looking for, you're not recognizing that I am, in fact, answering your question. As have others.

It's my experience that so great a difficulty in reading an agreed upon starting place usually comes from deeply held and not articulated presuppositions or conceptual frameworks. So I've been trying to track down the skips and apparent assumptions.

For example, we have:
Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it. [my emphasis]
answered with
I have been told numerous times that the Catholic church was founded as above and I refuse to enter it.[my emphasis]
and later
... which policy would apply to all those who have been told of the status of the Catholic church [emphasis added]...

There seems to be an assumption here that being told something many times is equivalent to knowing it. But this is not true at a car dealership nor, more seriously, was it true in my spiritual life. I am sure I was told many times that God loves me, but I didn't "get it" for years.

It's just not clear that Mr. Terrel falls in the class of tose who "know that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ." The tag is credo ut intellegam and he hasn''t gotten to credo. And he doesn't seem to understand what we claim.

When I failed to see his seeming equation of hearing and knowing, while I distinguished the two, that may account for some of his frustration in trying to achieve communication.

And in fact, what he has said about the Church leads me to believe that he does not "know" much about it. He certainly may disagree with our assertion that there is one Church which fully subsists in those bodies in Communion with the Holy See but which subsists, though to a lesser degree in other bodies, at least if they initiate with the sacrament of Baptism. But if he doesn't see that that's how WE see things, whether rightly or wrongly, then he cannot be said to "know" our claims.

There are two other matters:
First, Mr. Terrel almost always talks about salvation as something to be "attained". While this does not seem to be to be necessarily wrong, it COULD lead to, or be an expression of, the notion that Salvation is earned. Salvtion is primarily, the free gift of Jesus Christ and cannot be earned any more than any other gift is earned. Our talk of merits must be, I think, understood in the larger context of the whole thing being a gift motivated by God's unearned Love.

Second, I get a flavor of the Church, In Mr. Terrel's view, being like a voluntary association -- which the tough-minded manage to avoid joining, despite the blandishments of meretricious hymns, polyester vestments, and numerous demands on our time and efforts. Of course, viewed as though I didn't have a dog in this fight, that could be true.

But from my point of view, as I tried to suggest earlier, the Church and her teaching are like Medicine. That is, an appendectomy is the premier way, the royal road, to get over acute appendicitis, whether you believe or agree with it or not. You don't even have to know you have an appendix to die from appendicitis or to be saved by a well done appendectomy. It may sometimes seem as if the surgeon is just trying to make the next boat payment or likes pushing people around. That may even be true of particular surgeons, God help them! But having the thing out is the way to go whatever one's beliefs or motivations are.

Yes, of course, the things the Church deals with involve willing and choice and conscience and all that. But she does not view herself as creating teachings and throwing up hurdles. The authority she claims is "apostolic", which is to say like that of a deputy or delegate, an "agent" for whose actions the principal is responsible.

A Pope doesn't wake up one day in a bad mood and decide that he's going to construct some new outrageous imposition on the laity because he feels good when others feel bad. He and his councilors and the Church as a whole bend all their skill, learning, prayer, and thought toward trying to figure out what the right thing to do is, when it comes to the big stuff.

And we think we have a promise that, despite the fact that a Pope may turn from acting as a Pope to doing something obviously sinful, God, in His MERCY, will keep the Pope from messing up. It's not that there is anything intrinsic to Popes or the Church. It is said that Mount Sinai was and is an undistinguished mountain of no remarkable beauty or excellence, and that THEREFORE God gave the Law on Sinai, because no one would confuse the excellence of the Law with the excellence of the mountain.

Similarly, we have plenty to be embarrassed about in the history of our Church (though some things to be proud and grateful for as well), but God is faithful, as we think, and keeps us from running headlong off the edge and, in fact, brings great acts of mercy and love out of vessels which would be happy if somebody mistook them for something as basically harmless and pleasant as clay or earth. As the song says, "WE are weak [and venal, and ugly, and cupiditous], but He is strong."

But all that excess of prose is to say that it is not a sense of our own merit or wonderfulness of any kind, but of God's faithfulness which leads us to make the claims we make. But those claims are not those of a voluntary association but of "the way it is."

Dear Mad Dawg,

I will praise you gently, that when God yanks on your chain again, He will do it gently, as well.

;-)

Wonderful post.

sitetest

There is but one church, and that church is the body of believers worldwide, with individual local churches and congregations worshiping together.

This is the church Jesus was referring to.

1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
    a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
    b) the assembly of the Israelites
    c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
    d) in a Christian sense
        1) an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting
        2) a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order's sake
        3) those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body
        4) the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth
        5) the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

When you read something from me, it is from the perspective of the individual and his relationship with God and the soul which only the individual has, and the only thing in need of salvation.

The Gospels and the teaching and authority to gain salvation and eternal life rests with the individual. The church(es) are only important to the limited extent that a church allows worshiping together.

Hell will never prevail against the body of believers in the world when they can come together, interact, worship, support one another and die for Christ and one another.

The entire Gospel exists by and for the individual.

The Catholic church sees scripture from the perspective of a corporate entity and that entity's power and domination.

The Vatican would write from that perspective, and probably even believe that perspective is true, given its orientation and need.

Did the holy spirit enter into you when you were baptized, did you prophesy and speak in tongues, or hold forth in the grip of the Spirit? In my perspective, and according to the scriptures, those who didn't were not baptized as baptism is described in the scriptures.

What the church calls baptism is just a ritual. The baptism comes from God when you truly walk His paths and hold with His law.

I'm sure the Catholic church doesn't know any other way to salvation then baptism. But, like I see someone baptized with water commit sins worthy of death, I see any not baptized with water attaining salvation.

There is only one Body of Christ. You are either a member of that One Body or not. That is an objective, Biblical fact. It is not up for debate, it is not the product of some Vatican document, it is from Sacred Scripture.

Yes. And if you're in the Body and remain so, you are saved. Therefore the Catholic church has no authority beyond its members to determine the path to salvation, and none even with its members whether one will be saved or not.

It can express all the opinions it likes, and some opinions it offers are universal, but none are required behavior, except that copied directly from scripture.

Fine. Don't enter it. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

So, your carelessness is because people are saved with or without the Catholic church? Doesn't church doctrine disagree with that?

It is impossible for you to be a Christian and not be a member of Ekklesia Katholikos. You say you reject that. You are not acting scripturally when you do so. Fine. That's your choice to act in accordance with scripture or not.

Here is this organizational, corporate interpretation of the scripture again. All that is required scripturally with many scriptural cites is faith and belief. This can be done and is done without your Greek phrase.

That the Greek phrase cites itself as being this grouping, such that it is impossible to be not a part of it, is just an artificial entity doing what such does, validating a preconceived notion of what it is.

I am acting scripturally as noted in my perspective above.

But that is God's business, not ours.

But, you see, all of it God's business, including who is called to salvation or not, and not according to the rules posted from Catholic policy so far. Fact is, no one on the face of the Earth knows God's purposes and His requirements. To claim so is, in my opinion, arrogance.

You reject the authority given to Peter to speak for the college of apostles (See the Acts 1 and the Acts 2). Fine. You are acting unscripturally in doing so.

Already discussed my perspective of the church. I am acting scripturally.

All these authorities and responsibilities that are assigned to various powers, I grow tired. Here is the reality, true and observable today as well as 200,000 years ago.

The individual has a soul.
That individual soul is of God.
The integrity of that individual soul must be saved to be in condition to have communion with God.
The physical being and soul cannot reach the state of perfection to have communion with God. Jesus Christ came to be that perfection that by each imperfect soul can come to the presence of God.

The awareness of that condition and remedy for it was imparted 2000 years ago, by Jesus.

It was a changeover from a corporate salvation, the Israelite tribes and their covenant with God, to the individual covenant with God.

That can now take place because of Jesus, and each individual claims that salvation. Corporate entities are just a residual habit growing out of imperfect men.

Your church policies of how that must happen for salvation to occur had been invalidated before the church was formed. The reliance is on a particular interpretation and view of scripture, but a obsolete corporate one.

You will immediately reject what I say here because you are Catholic, or are invested in a church which considers itself to be the sole authority, the way and the light. Belief is the key, just as it was as Jesus brought the light. If you believe, as a condition of reality, that you must follow the church's dictates as expressed as principles as truth, you will need it for salvation.

Jesus brought the concept of the power of belief and it's operative, faith, not just belief in the mind but the belief as a sure gut knowledge of what is.

I am saved simply because I find what is necessary for salvation in the Gospels and do it, and believe it. But it works both ways. Your belief can limit your options.

The most telling line in the latest is:

You will immediately reject what I say here because you are Catholic, or are invested in a church which considers itself to be the sole authority, the way and the light. Belief is the key, just as it was as Jesus brought the light. If you believe, as a condition of reality, that you must follow the church's dictates as expressed as principles as truth, you will need it for salvation.

If this is an explanation of how Catholics come to the opinion we share, it is lacking. There are a number of people who have come from no religious background, or Protestant religious backgrounds, or from entirely different "belief systems" who become members of the Church. Their disagreement with Mr. Terrell's opinion cannot be explained by their background. Is it because they are insufficiently tough-minded that they join the Church? Or could there be a disagreement of the kind that reasonable people of good will can discuss?

The Scriptural basis for the contention that Jesus came only for the individual is also lacking. Sure there are plenty of texts which would be congruent with that point of view, but there are plenty of other verses which suggest something else.

Of course, if the standard of proof on legitimate questions of Scriptural scholarship is:

It is obvious, for right now, today, within each individual is the soul of God and His kingdom, groups not having souls. It is the soul that is saved.

The kingdom of God in the midst of a group. I don't think so, friend. I think you and many have been deceived.

then we have proof by restatement and repetition, which is not persuasive.

In Luke 15:13 when Jesus upbraids the Pharisees something each of them might do he says hekastos umon - each one of you. But when he talks about where the Kingdom is he says "entos humon". There's that pesky plural of the second person pronoun with no clear or conclusive indication that "each of you" is meant. It could be, but it also might not be, and we know from 15:13 that "each of you" is in the Lukan vocabulary.

But if it's obvious that Mr. Terrell is right, then how do we proceed?

I am saved simply because I find what is necessary for salvation in the Gospels and do it, and believe it.

The interesting part of this is the affirmation of conscience. The perilous part of it is the seeming assumption that the category of "objective mistake in spite of personal sincerity and conviction" seems not to be allowed to exist. It is as if God were less uncompromisingly real than gravity. A person who sincerely thinks there are steps where there are none is just as likely to fall than the person who knows there are none but steps out into space anyway.

There have been people who considered themselves Christian who found in the Bibles justification for racial prejudice and slavery and for polygamy. Personally I find having one wife quite sufficiently challenging. I don't see how a polygamous marriage, however sincerely entered into, would be as sacramentally efficacious as a monogamous one. My wife and I would have ducked a lot of the challenges and sacrifices that monogamous marriage required if I could choose among bedrooms every night, and I would have lost many benefits.I am acting scripturally.

For centuries that "corporate entity" (i.e "thing which exists in a manner like that of a body") we call "the Church" gathered, edited, copied, bound together, kept, and handed on the Scriptures. In those same Scriptures we find in the 18th chapter of Ezekiel a ringing declaration of individual responsibility, while in The Corinthian correspondence we find "we, being many, or one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one bread."

The corporate entity preserved and gave to Mr. Terrell the Scriptures which he relies upon to make his argument that the corporate entity is irrelevant. In those Scriptures the Old Testament Prophet declares the responsibility of the individual while the Apostle of the New Covenant to us Gentiles repeatedly asserts the ethical responsibilities and spiritual reality of our membership in one body. But we are told the the new covenant is merely individual.

And I, being a convert, think these things because I am Catholic with a tender mind. It's gonna take some tough thinking, that's certain.

Are you talking about my post without pinging me to it?

There is but one church, and that church is the body of believers worldwide, with individual local churches and congregations worshiping together. (Then an extract of Thayer's Lexicon)

Please observe very closely #d4 and #d5 of the definition you cited. Those two definitions come close to summing up the concept of the Church Universal. You object to my usage of the phrase "Ekklesia Katholikos." The reason why I do so is to avoid the "corporate" argument that so many protestants get hung up on. "Catholic" simply means "universal" as you obviously know.

When you read something from me, it is from the perspective of the individual and his relationship with God and the soul which only the individual has, and the only thing in need of salvation.

I sort of figured that one out.

The Gospels and the teaching and authority to gain salvation and eternal life rests with the individual.

You know, that's one thing that I don't really understand about protestant theology. If you have a chance, maybe you could explain it to me. See, we Catholics believe that salvation is by grace. I've read from you in multiple posts that salvation is something that an individual attains, gains, etc. So do you believe salvation is something that God grants you as the result of something you'd done (like believing or doing some act)? Not trying to be flippant, just trying to understand your perspective.

The church(es) are only important to the limited extent that a church allows worshiping together.

That is a fundamental disconnect then between your theology and that of the Church.

Hell will never prevail against the body of believers in the world when they can come together, interact, worship, support one another and die for Christ and one another.

It's interesting that you would cite (indirectly) Matthew 16:18. The Vulgate says the following for that verse: et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam Portae inferi means the gates of hell.

The RSV renders it slightly differently, but you'll see why I observe the irony:

Mat 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (gates of hell) shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

The entire Gospel exists by and for the individual.

Interesting way of putting it. Again, this is a fundamental disconnect. There are so many places where Christ is speaking to the apostles, there are so many places where St. Paul is referring to the Church as a whole or to Particular Churches, there is so much woven throughout the entire Bible that clearly refers to the Church as a whole, I can't possibly understand how you can make your above statement.

The Catholic church sees scripture from the perspective of a corporate entity and that entity's power and domination.

The Vatican would write from that perspective, and probably even believe that perspective is true, given its orientation and need.

Again, that is a fundamental disconnect. I pray you have an opportunity to see the error in your ways while you are still on earth. Not that I am stating that your salvation is at risk because of that, but you will be in for some massive surprises at the judgement and beyond.

Did the holy spirit enter into you when you were baptized, did you prophesy and speak in tongues, or hold forth in the grip of the Spirit? In my perspective, and according to the scriptures, those who didn't were not baptized as baptism is described in the scriptures.

Where in the scriptures is this? I see that, at some points, these events involving the manifestation of the Spirit are mentioned in association with baptism, but hardly all of them. (As far as the Holy Spirit entering into the new Christian, of course that is the case)

What the church calls baptism is just a ritual. The baptism comes from God when you truly walk His paths and hold with His law.

What the Church calls baptism is essentially how they've baptized since the time of the apostles. Matthew 28:19. (If you'd like to see a complementary text, I'd refer you to the Didache. Of course, that is not a text upon which to base our faith, but it does validate what was done in apostolic times).

I'm sure the Catholic church doesn't know any other way to salvation then baptism. But, like I see someone baptized with water commit sins worthy of death, I see any not baptized with water attaining salvation.

Well, again there is a fundamental disconnect. The commandment Jesus gave was to baptize (water). The actions shown by the apostles throughout the book of Acts was to baptize (water). St. Paul speaks throughout his writings about the significance of baptism (water). The old testament typology (Noah) involved salvation through water. The early church did water. If you choose not to be baptized with water, that's your business. But don't call it scriptural.

Yes. And if you're in the Body and remain so, you are saved. Therefore the Catholic church has no authority beyond its members to determine the path to salvation, and none even with its members whether one will be saved or not.

It can express all the opinions it likes, and some opinions it offers are universal, but none are required behavior, except that copied directly from scripture.

As I've stated before and before, you are entitled to those beliefs if you choose. It's your business. But don't call it scriptural. As St. Paul said (2 Ti 2:15), So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Here is this organizational, corporate interpretation of the scripture again. All that is required scripturally with many scriptural cites is faith and belief. This can be done and is done without your Greek phrase.

I've already stated why I used the Greek earlier in the post.

That the Greek phrase cites itself as being this grouping, such that it is impossible to be not a part of it, is just an artificial entity doing what such does, validating a preconceived notion of what it is.

I am acting scripturally as noted in my perspective above.

And I would be the last one to state that you are not entitled to hold your perspective. But don't expect me to state that your perspective is the scriptural perspective.

But, you see, all of it God's business, including who is called to salvation or not, and not according to the rules posted from Catholic policy so far. Fact is, no one on the face of the Earth knows God's purposes and His requirements. To claim so is, in my opinion, arrogance.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. However, I would encourage you to review, again, Matthew 16:19, quoted above or John 21, cited in an earlier post. (BTW, I was having a back and forth with another protestant once who claimed that Matthew 16:19 and John 21:15-17 as a forgery inserted by the Catholic Church)

You will immediately reject what I say here because you are Catholic, or are invested in a church which considers itself to be the sole authority, the way and the light. Belief is the key, just as it was as Jesus brought the light. If you believe, as a condition of reality, that you must follow the church's dictates as expressed as principles as truth, you will need it for salvation.

I've weighed your arguments carefully. See, I was, for a number of years, involved in a evangelical/fundamentalist sect. I got sucked into it because of poor catechesis as a child. I was zealous to convert all of the Romanists, because they were all going to hell. After all, the Pope is the son of perdition, the antichrist. But then, as I studied more and more scripture, I found there were all of these uncomfortable little verses there that lined up with what I'd learned as a youth...not with what I was taught as a young adult. I went to more learned people and asked them about those verses and they couldn't offer a truly satisfying answer without twists and turns and distortions. Gradually, I found that I had no choice but to swim back across the Tiber and come back to the Church. So what I am saying is that I have considered all of these arguments you are presenting. I weighed them all very, very carefully in my own life many years ago. So yes, other than those references you provide that actually line up with scripture, I will reject the arguments. I do not do so out of hand, though. I weighed them and rejected them long before we had this conversation.

I hope you have a great day today! God's blessings on you.

Are you talking about my post without pinging me to it?

Yes. I am.

I thought about it before I did it, and then I did it.

You said the conversation would be over if I didn't answer your question. Then in spite of my giving the best answer I could under your enquiry-stifling requirements, you said, "Bye." I took you at your word.

I don't see how it can be right for you to dismiss me and then expect that somehow that means I can't comment on what you write. If you dismiss me from conversing with you I still can read and comment on what I read, just not with you.

Again, once you threaten that the conversation is over if I don't give an answer that meets your impossible requirements and then say, "Bye," if I continue to ping you you would have grounds to complain that I was stalking you. That would mean that you could restrict my speech just by saying you don't want to talk to me, since I would be wrong to ping you and wrong not to ping you. I cannot allow myself to be controlled like that.

If you put up an argument, having excluded me from the discussion, I think I am free to comment on it, just as you are free to read it, even though it's not addressed (at your request and according to your dismissal) to you.

YMMV, but that's the way it looks from here.

You have been on FR long enough to know that it is consistant with integrity and politeness to ping a person you discuss or whose words you dicuss. Whatever your reason otherwise. I was talking to the poster to which I responded, not you.

God bless you and goodbye.

Jesus' teaching in the four versions of the Gospels indicate the most inclusive of the definitions of a "church". Remember the person John found casting out devils in Jesus' name, to which Jesus said to forbid him not.

Remember all of Jesus' words regarding salvation and note that He was speaking to individuals with souls, and their election to follow His teachings. If an individual has power over the destination of his own soul, Jesus' church is the most inclusive.

Fact is, we don't know what part of the Greek definition of "church" Jesus meant. For my own reasons, I hold with the more inclusive parts.

I don't adhere to protestant theology. I read the Bible and the New Testament and do what Jesus said.

If salvation is by grace, then it is the individual that is the recipient of grace. According to Paul's letters to Timothy, grace without works is dead. In this, he means that if God has bestowed upon an individual grace, that individual does the consistent works, out of his heart. I am and am not in agreement with the Calvinists.

In our limited view of reality, we "choose" to accept Christ as our personal savior (for, isn't this what Jesus said?), and out of our hearts comes the works consistent with the grace. I "choose" to make Christ my personal savior, I study His words, and I do what He says. I could "choose" not to do that, but I do "choose" it because it is in my heart to do so. It is in other's heart to not do so.

The theology of the church is from a corporate entity point of view. The corporate organization has no soul and seeks to extend itself and it power. This has always been the nature of artificial entities.

The passage where Christ seems to bestow power on an all encompassing church has a more reasonable interpretation from the individualist point of view. No iron content there.

I can make the statement because Jesus charged to the Apostles to take His message to the people. They are to say what He said. The churches at that time were the focus of persecution, and under persecution, people pull together in an organization.

So it was then, and so it probably will be with the rising of Islam. This has to do with the saving of the people of faith in Jesus Christ, not any authority over the destination of souls. It is merely that organizations make for safety in people working together.

Again, that is a fundamental disconnect. I pray you have an opportunity to see the error in your ways while you are still on earth. Not that I am stating that your salvation is at risk because of that, but you will be in for some massive surprises at the judgement and beyond.

Organizations have no souls. Only the individuals therein. The judgment comes to individuals, including those who run artificial entities. No corporate entity can possibly be judged beyond the human beings with souls that run it.

In Acts and the letters, it is obvious that proper baptism confers being filled with the Holy Spirit. What priest, with the laying on of hands, confers that Spirit? What pastor confers that Spirit with the laying on of hands? Some priest and some pastors. God, in my observation, does not work through the church, only the person.

For instance, John Baptist baptized with water, but Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, and so did His Apostles. Priests, except some and pastors, except some, do not.

What the Church calls baptism is essentially how they've baptized since the time of the apostles.

When the Apostles baptized, the Spirit came upon those baptized. When it did not, there was actually comment made about that.

Read the New Testament. I have, a couple dozen times.

The commandment Jesus gave was to baptize (water). The actions shown by the apostles throughout the book of Acts was to baptize (water).

When the Apostles baptized, the Holy Spirit came upon those baptized. As a note aside, Jesus did not baptize, only His disciples. Perhaps we could ask, why not?

As I've stated before and before, you are entitled to those beliefs if you choose. It's your business. But don't call it scriptural. As St. Paul said (2 Ti 2:15), So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

Oh, but I do call it scriptural. According to the four Gospels. Traditions cannot conflict with what Jesus taught in the Gospels. The the extent it does, as voiced by the Catholic church, it would have to be either wrong, or Jesus is not the Son of God.

My perspective is composed of exactly what the Master actually says in the scripture, knowing He spoke to the people, not some select group, except that members of that group spread His words to the people.

The people are the end users and the only ones that are capable of acting on His words and teachings in faith and belief. And organization cannot believe and have faith, only the individuals within it.

Please note, I am not a protestant. I don't hold with much of how protestant ledership approaches the Gospel, either.

Regarding Matthew 16:19, read the rendition in the other versions of the Gospels. I don't which part of John 21 you're referring to. If it about Peter feeding His sheep, please note, Peter was charged with bringing the Gospel to the Israelites, including the dispersed tribes. Paul was charged with bringing in the Gospel to the non-Israelites.

Also please note that Jesus charged the Apostles with bringing the Gospels to the various individual peoples, according to their missions.

I don't believe all "Romanists" are going to Hell. I do believe that the leadership of the Catholic church errs seriously, but that does not taint the true believers of their doctrine; they are just mislead. I believe that God's infinite mercy notes the heart and the true intention of the heart. It is the Catholic leadership that have guilty knowledge I hold responsible.

Thank you, and God bless you also. It is a pleasure to debate with one who is clear on doctrine and whose views are articulated as focused and not fragmented.

Truth is found in this way, I believe.

WARSAW, Poland — Lawmakers have drawn up a resolution naming Jesus Christ as the honorary king of Poland, but have failed to win support from the country's powerful Roman Catholic church.

Gee... why am I not surprised?

Do a search of FR and count the number of threads like this one 'championing' mary or some one else ( you'll get a large number of hits) and compared that to the number of CATHOLIC threads where JESUS is the main topic (who dat?).

Mary has become an idol.

LOL! I meant to ping you and left off the last part and evidently.... there is a 'william'.

It seems to me that worship or reverence of a female principle tends to influence people to be submissive and obedient, to accept. The male principle, the force of Biblical God, tends to influence people to be aggressive and challenging, to seek.

Organizations would really like the former and really fear the latter.

That's twice you have dismissed me! And you dismissed me the second time for taking your first dismissal seriously! Remarkable! What would you have done if I had ignored it?

To be clear: I do not grant you authority to tell me how to behave. As I say, you dismissed me when I didn't choose between the false alternatives you implicitly proposed. I had the courtesy to take your dismissal sufficiently seriously not to ping you. Had I pinged you, you could have complained about that as well. So the first person to say "bye" wins? I don't think so.

Not only have I been around long enough to know what the customs are here, I have been around long enough to make my own opinions about them. And one opinion is that the first time somebody dismisses me, I will allow him to go sulk. But if he then complains that I am not talking to him and dismisses me again, THEN he gets his inconsistency pointed out and mocked.

If you post in a public forum I will reserve the right to comment on your post, and I will not be influenced by your judgments on politeness and integrity. Even though you come swaggering into this conversation throwing around such words as "Bill of Particulars" with an obvious intention to impress and a lack of interest in what the phrase actually means, I dealt with you respectfully and attentively. Then despite reference to the standard linguistic, lexicographical, and grammatical work on entos humon, you just reject out of hand on your own self-claimed authority what disagrees with your point of view, making the classic circular argument. "The text means what I say it means because I'm right."Then in message 912 you write, "I tried. Ok, bye." What that meant to me was that you didn't want to hear from me any more. The conversation was over. So while I did nothing in secret, I no longer pinged you. And so just as you dismissed me for answering the question you asked, now you are angry because I did not try to continue the conversation.

After a while, one gets the idea that the real deal here is just finding an excuse to be angry. Certainly what I noticed was that when the argument wasn't going your way you got all huffy. You are making the basis for your complaint about Catholic authority clear: YOU want to be the one to call the shots for others as well as for yourself. You'll never be happy trying to do that.

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.

I also understand the teaching of the Catholic church in regards to Invincible Ignorance.

The Catholic church does condemn people to hell by their actions. They do this via the act of excommunication.

They will never say that they have done anything; but they have significantly reduced the ability for that person to receive grace. The reduction further hinders the individual from attaining sufficient grace to achieve salvation. (in their humble acumen)

What they fail to mention is that the RCC's statements made in council are also telling. The counsel of Trent declairs any that follow the doctrines of Luther to be Anathema. This has never been refuted by the Vatican one or two.

Anathema simple meaning that person is set into a state of perpetual non ability to achieve salvation through the work of Grace. The work of grace being that of the RCC imparted sacraments.

This all becomes a game to the Catholic church, which cannot tolerate any group of believers, i.e. a sub set of the church yet outside the RCC.

They will site policy, and dictates, and other source to say that you can be saved, and yet never allowing any to be declared saved, even after canonization.

This also seems intolerable for a God that created a means of salvation and then sanctification through ONE act of grace to allow a group to turn that grace into a means of slavery.

The slavery being always dividing the distance by half to peace for the soul and the settled question of salvation.

They will never say you have or you don't have salvation, because they cannot say it about themselves. They think salvation is what you understand as sanctification, only you have to be good enough to be saved. Hence purgatory.

If you can get them to define salvation then perhaps you can get them to tell you if you are or are not.

They are entrenched in their works and their earning of God's freely given grace despite what they say. They have negated the gift into a quota system of venal humiliation in order to maintain a monopoly they do not have.

Never put it past the RCC that if given power again the RCC would revert back to burning heretics at the stake.

I put this at the feet of the Papal puppets that truly have lost their faith but doggedly defend their lively hood.

I do not state that these fine folk here who are attempting to explain what they believe are Papal puppets. I do say that they have not simply read the scriptures.

They have not ask the Holy Spirit to reveal what He would have them know, when they read: John 14:6 or Acts 4:12. They simply reley on others rather than the Holy Spirit granted in full measure to them. Read I John 2:20-22. In fact read all of I John and you will see that John and Jesus, wrote this so you would know you have eternal life.

I have watched these threads for more than a year, and I too was drawn into the flesh and responded with what "I KNOW".

The bottom line is that too many here have not decided what their purpose is in being here!

Do you endeavor to love your brother's to a deeper walk with Christ? Do you wish for them to experience the daily verbal speaking to each Christian that Jesus promised He would do? John 10:27.

Or do you want to BE RIGHT.

Each of you has to make up your mind about that.

I'm sorry. Please forgive me.

Well said. A soul is saved. A church has nothing to do with it.