Ok...Catholics. Just had a Catholic tell me that I'm not saved by "Grace"

vanity | 06/03/11 | winston's julia

[Winstons Julia]

I was raised Lutheran and have attended many churches. I was born-again in 2005. I was shocked to have a Catholic tell me that *we* aren't saved by grace alone ... but that we need to recharge our salvation with works.

Now ... it's not that I'm not charitable and kind. We all know the studies about Christians and charitable giving.

But *I'M* NOT saved by Grace? Are you kidding?

[Winstons Julia]

I really don’t think I need to do serious study.

Other than the study of my Bible.

I think that’s kind of the point.

[Winstons Julia]

“Both are prohibited by forum rules. “

I stopped reading there. Grow up.

[Mad Dawg]

I’m intrigued. If I am mischaracterized and used discourteously while the “rules of the house” are broken, it’s immature to mention it? But it’s mature to tell me to grow up?

It’s interesting.

[Mad Dawg]

I really don’t think I need to do serious study. Other than the study of my Bible.

Well the thread seems to have gotten unpleasant. But I don't imagine when it comes time to fix the dishwasher you confine your search for information to the Bible.

I don't see the history on the sale of indulgences in the Bible. So, certainly, study of the Bible is always good, but it won't provide enough information to make a good judgment about what was going on with indulgences in the 16th century.

And likewise with the Crusades and "the Inquisition" (as though there were only one.) I know you didn't bring these two up. I'm bringing them up because they are both historical things which are often brought forth as examples of how awful Catholicism is.

But often what is presented as universally known truth about the Crusades and "The Inquisition" is not true. Neither the falsehoods nor the truth about these three historical things will be found in the Bible

So, if we want to talk about faith and works, the Bible should suffice. If we want to talk about what the Catholic Church's teaching about faith and works is, we will have to look further. And if we want to talk about Indulgences and the rest, we will have to look further still.

I am happy to confine myself to Scripture and the consideration of what it means that God has prepared good works for us to walk in. But if we're going to do that,let's not talk about indulgences and the rest.

Does that make sense?

[Mad Dawg]

I think as good a statement as any of what "Sola Scriptura" means is found in the Articles of Religion of the Church of England, to wit:

VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

I agree that Sola Scriptura, strictly interpreted, appears to be epistemologically impossible.

[Judith Anne]

An interesting little quote came to me, as I was reading this post, sort of a parallel to your point: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

[netmilsmom]

>>Again, taken to a better place by God for protection to spare him of death.<<

So Enoch went to heaven. Case closed.

[Jack of all Trades]

Heck, I was in Mass two weeks about and the homily was about how we are not to judge other faiths because there are many rooms in the Lord's house, and many paths to get there. Who are we to say that Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. do not also have access.

I'm still left wondering what was the point of converting. If he's right, then I think I'd rather get there by being a Rastafarian...

[netmilsmom]

I’m sorry Julia, I’ve got to get out of this thread. I’ve tried to say light with you and give you every explanation I could. I thought we had a history of respect on the Beck thread but either you are reading me wrong or I was wrong.

God Bless.

[ScottfromNJ]

Heaven?

From Hebrews 11:5

“translate” - to put or place in another place, to transport, to transfer.

[netmilsmom]

So you want to make up a whole new “place” to rationalize your belief?

Okay, sure.

[TradicalRC]

Okay, except that this assertion about Scripture is ALSO extra-Scriptural, St. Paul says

And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition which they have received of us.

Then of course the canon WAS decided by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, which Luther decided to edit. Makes me wonder why some Protestant sect hasn't decided that the Roman Church had no right or authority to decide canonicity and fashion something based on other early Christian writings and gnostic texts while we're at it.

[Mad Dawg]

Oh I wasn’t defending, just clarifying. It helps sometimes to remember what it is we’re tangling about.

[ScottfromNJ]

“So you want to make up a whole new “place” to rationalize your belief?”

Nope, it’s called intensive Biblical research.

“Translated” comes from the Greek word “metatithëmi” (Strong’s Concordance), meaning to transfer, transport, exchange, change sides, carry over, change or remove.

Other uses of metatithëmi:

Acts 7:15-16 (Carried over)

Galatians 1:6 (removed)

Enoch was removed, transfered by God to a place where he was not found. He was taken away and eventually died.

[netmilsmom]

>>Nope, it’s called intensive Biblical research.<<

LOLOL!!!

Nope, that’s called Your own interpretation of scripture, using the Greek’s seven uses to find ONE that fits.

Keep on keepin’ on there, my FRiend.

[ScottfromNJ]

Transfer, transport, exchange, change sides, carry over, change or remove = trip to Heaven for Enoch? Explain, “citing Biblical reference, book, chapter, verse,” since there’s not even mention of where Enoch was taken to, as no one knew.

To reiterate,

John 3:13:

“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”

[netmilsmom]

>>“No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man.”<<

Yup, I explained that before, we are all of the Body of Christ. If you’re not, you don’t make it.

Where Abraham and Elijah hanging out before they came down and spoke to Christ?

I know, that imaginary holding cell.
Kind of sounds like PURGATORY. LOL!!!!!

Look, I personally don’t care what you believe. Imaginary holding cells or heaven. It doesn’t matter at all to me. I’m confident in my place. Maybe you’re not. Who knows? God knows.

[raygun]

"And Enoch walked with God: and he [was] not; for God took him. " (Gen 5:24, KJV)

"By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, 'and was not found, because God had taken him'; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God." (Heb 11:5, NKJV)

"And it came to pass, when the Lord was about to take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal . . . Then it happened, as they continued on and talked, that suddenly a chariot of fire appeared with horses of fire, and separated the two of them; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven." (II Kgs 2:1, 11, NKJV)

One of the rarely taught teachings of the Bible is that there are THREE types or kinds of heaven that scriptures can refer to:

1. The FIRST heaven is the atmosphere or sky that surrounds the earth.
2. The SECOND heaven is the physical universe that has stars, planets and so on.
3. The THIRD heaven is where God and his throne resides.

WHICH heaven is II Kgs 2 referring to when it states Elijah went into heaven?

We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. - II Cor 5:8

The context of II Cor 5:1-10 implies that we are present with the Lord as soon as the soul quits and takes its leave and farewell of the body. Jesus said that he was leaving to prepare a mansion for us having many rooms. Revelation speaks of the martyrs being in a compartment beneath God's Throne. Moreover, there is clear intimation of a new Heaven and Earth being created after the end of the Millenial Kingdom. Furthermore, there is an account of Lazarus speaking of his plight in the grave, i.e., sheol (Lazarus clearly not being present with the Lord - the saints relaxing in the cool luxury of Abraham's Bosum however).

While it is true that Jesus stated none have ascended to heaven, where was John during his vision he recorded in Revelation? It would seem he was there. So just where does the soul go when the body dies? I'm comfortable to say it is a heaven of sorts for believers in Christ.

Thomas L. Constable, John Walvoord and J. Dwight Pentecost of Dallas Theological Seminary provide a dispensationalist interpretation of the two witnesses described in Revelation as two "new individuals" to arrive on the prophetic scene yet future. Tim LaHaye also considers the two witnesses to be future prophets. William Barclay believed that they are most likely Enoch and Elijah returned to earth.

I am inclined to agree with Barclay, in that along with the foregoing in mind, and in conjuction w/ "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:" (Heb 9:27) - the judgment alluded to being the same Paul referred to in II:Cor 5:10, i.e., Bema Seat, speculation is warranted that the two witnesses spoken of in Revelation are Elijah and Enoch. Aside from the issue of neither having experienced physical death, which of all the prophets have ever called fire from heaven? One who did, however, is recorded as having died (although there is contention about that issue as seen in Jude 9 between the archangels and Satan; they refusing in that confrontation to bring about railing accusation against him; deferring instead to the Lord Himself rebuking Satan on that matter).

That being said, just because only two prophets ever are recorded in Scripture having called fire from heaven, doesn't mean that the Lord won't grant that authority to two entirely new individuals during the Tribulation; such is entirely within His providence.

All I know is that I don't really know what's up with that. Neither am I losing any sleep over the issue, nor do I believe that any essential doctrine of salvation is predicated upon that.

[netmilsmom]

>>So just where does the soul go when the body dies? I’m comfortable to say it is a heaven of sorts for believers in Christ.<<

I believe you are correct.

>>All I know is that I don’t really know what’s up with that. Neither am I losing any sleep over the issue, nor do I believe that any essential doctrine of salvation is predicated upon that.<<

And I’m standing with you on this.
Thanks for your input!

[ScottfromNJ]

“Where Abraham and Elijah hanging out before they came down and spoke to Christ?”

Which was a vision, not a literal appearance.

Matthew 17:9

“And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.”

From a Biblical standpoint, a vision is a spiritual phenomenon when God causes something to appear in a person’s mind, eye or to his physical eyes.

Examples:

2 Kings 6:17; Acts 10:9-20; 2 Cor. 12:1-4