The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[malakhi]

Because Unam Sanctam isn't the end all be all of Catholic teaching regarding extra ecclesiam nulla salus .

So this is one of those doctrines that evolves? That has developed and become more nuanced?

From the outside this looks like:

"Outside the Church, no salvation."

TWEAK

"Outside the Church, no salvation ^(when 'we are dealing with a medieval polity in which church membership and citizenship are identical.')"

TWEAK

"Outside the Church ^(which means those who have accepted the authority of the Church), no salvation ^(when 'we are dealing with a medieval polity in which church membership and citizenship are identical.')"

TWEAK

"Outside the Church ^(which means those who have accepted the authority of the Church) ^(which means that those who are outside the church, don't know its teachings, and thus are invincibly ignorant, are exempt), no salvation ^)when 'we are dealing with a medieval polity in which church membership and citizenship are identical.')"

TWEAK

"Outside the Church ^(which means those who have accepted the authority of the Church) ^("doesn't formally apply to people born into non-Catholic religions who, through no fault of their own, no nothing about the distinctive Truths of the Catholic Church."), no salvation.

TWEAK

"Outside the Church ^(which "doesn't formally apply to people born into non-Catholic religions who, through no fault of their own, no nothing about the distinctive Truths of the Catholic Church."), no salvation.

TWEAK

"Inside the Church there is salvation for those who accept the authority of the Church; outside the Church there is salvation for "people born into non-Catholic religions who, through no fault of their own, no nothing about the distinctive Truths of the Catholic Church."

TWEAK

"Outside the Church there is salvation for 'people born into non-Catholic religions who, through no fault of their own, no nothing about the distinctive Truths of the Catholic Church.'"

TWEAK

"Outside of the Church there is salvation."

A ==> -A

Why not just say Boniface was wrong? Because you can't.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Man, you play spin the cheese good!

BigMack

[malakhi]

Catholics believe that all who are baptised validly ARE members of the Church. They aren't formal members of the visable Church, though. Becuase they aren't formal members of the visable Church, Boniface's final statement doesn't apply to them. How can they submit to the head of the visable Church if they are not formal memebers of said visable Church?

FURTHERMORE WE DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE THAT IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE SALVATION OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF.

1. DECLARE, STATE AND DEFINE (Sounds pretty dogmatic to me, like he's actually making a firm statement or something)

2. IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ("ABSOLUTELY." "NECESSARY." This admits no exceptions)

3. FOR THE SALVATION (If you don't do this, you're screwed.)

4. OF ALL HUMAN BEINGS ("ALL." Nope, don't see any wiggle room there.)

5. THAT THEY SUBMIT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF (Surely there is no disputing what "SUBMIT" means?)

You cannot credibly argue that Boniface's statement was not meant to apply to ALL HUMAN BEINGS. Its the plain language of what he said!

"Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ"

Let's consider this passage from Unam Sanctam for a minute. Boniface is saying that the Orthodox, because they do not accept the authority of the Roman Pontiff, cannot confess to being Christians. So much for being "valid members" of the Church.

We don't call the Church the Mystical Body of Christ for nothing, you know.

I understand that. I don't think Boniface did.

You and the Protestants may not like the nuanced distinction made, but there it is.

I don't have any problem with your nuanced distinction. (Of course, even with your nuanced explanation, this Jew is SOL.) The problem I have is that Boniface allowed no room for your nuance to wriggle in. You and the present-day Catholic Church are right. He was wrong. But you cannot admit that, because that would be admitting that a pope could be in error on a matter of faith.

[malakhi]

Becky is pretty good at cutting cheese too!

LOL! Ooooh, someone's gonna be in trouble tomorrow!

[saradippity]

Thanks for posting Unam Sanctum. I am going to print out about 50 copies of that and John Paul II's "Gospel of Life",and mail both to some of our "esteemed" Catholic pro-choice politicians with a little yellow stickie saying "You better think about this--you are now no longer 'invincibly ignorant'".

Steven,I hope you don't mind my using your new name in vain.

[Havoc]

"Render unto Caesar" and all that.

Let's not forget that Boniface's other great act was an attempt to deny Kings the ability to tax the clergy - in defiance of both scripture and law. That blew up in his face and he ended up backing off.

[IMRight]

Thanks (I think).
I didn't realize you guys had already jumped on him.

Have we bumped heads here? I don't recognize the nic, and I'm not sure what you are apologizing for but it seems to fit a few I've swapped posts with :)

[Havoc]

You say that you can be His sheep by being obedient, but you lose that sheephood when you disobey. Or you could be saying that these sheep don't become sheep until they reach heaven (only then will they know they are sheep), which is again unscriptural, because He tells Peter to feed His sheep 3 times. So please show me Scripture where this occurs??? You're grabbing a hold of Romans 8:1 and forsaking the rest of Scripture.

Through beating your head against a hard surface? Sheep know they are sheep. Sheep hear and follow. Just getting saved doesn't make you a sheep, if it did, then Simon Magus would not have wandered off in errancy - oops, somebody forgot Magus who was saved and then tried to buy the Magic of the Holy Spirit - for which he was spurned. Magus became a pretty big deal with the Gnostics as I understand it. Getting saved is the first step. If you don't then repent, and learn and grow, you aren't a sheep. If you fall away, you squander your gift of salvation. The promises are for those who hear the Lord and Follow him - not for those that turn away and do their own thing.

And let me tell you something. The Yolk is light for those of us doing what we are supposed to and it gets lighter as time Goes on. For those still walking in the flesh, it is tough. Truth is truth, but it has to be applied properly before it is valid. I know where I'd go right now if I were to die and I'm happy to be able to say that. Not having doubt is a matter of knowing your walk is right and having the Spirit keeping you there. Eternal life is not owned from the moment of salvation. Salvation is given that you may have eternal life; but, there are miles to go before you sleep. You still have to finish the race just like all those Christians before you.. Including the Apostles. As I told someone last night outside of the threads, there may be an awful fine line with respect to Grace in the matter of getting run down after a willful sin; but, I have to err on the side of what scripture clearly says 'be ready - for you know not the hour or the day of My return.'

I'm grabbing hold of Romans 8 and what.. LOL. Yeah, right. Back up from Chapter 8 to chapter 5 and start reading. In fact, you can read everything Paul wrote and you'll find it all lines up with Romans 8. I don't go for single verses, I go for the big picture - the whole thing from beginning to end. The scriptures tell us that when the seed is planted, it either won't grow (no salvation), or it may grow a little and wither with weed overgrowth (saved and fell away), or the seed will grow and flourish (saved and following in the spirit - aka SheeP). I don't go in for buzzwords or oversimplified eternal security arguments. No one has promise save for the Sheep. And if you aren't a Sheep, you'd better become one if you want to claim the Lord's promises. If you are led of the spirit and being obedient, you're already there. It just amazes me that you don't know these things.

[Havoc]

Ahah! So, we're not dealing with salvation here, we're dealing with philosophy all of a sudden. OSAS. The exact thing the catholics are guilty of doing has cropped up among us once again - phollowing phillosophy (yes the ph is on purpose).

Once saved always saved is not in the Bible. Never has been, never will be. There are bold assertions in the Bible that strongly deal with that philosophy head on and run it through whilst waving the red cape in the air. The bull falls to the ground. Just lets warn the spectators not to step in it. Simon Magus was saved and was turned away afterward. That isn't eternal salvation. And when the Bible says he was saved yet was turned away, it does mean he was saved - no room for anyone to assume he wasn't in defense of a philosophy. Romans 8 makes the loud distinction between the saved who follow and those who don't - the one's that do are His, which aligns with John 10 and the description of who belongs to Him.

I stand for scripture and truth of the Spirit regardless of whether I like any of you or not. OSAS is philosophy, not scripture. Eternal security belongs to those who have finished the race, as Paul said, not to those who have just begun it. If they cross the finish last or first, the important thing is crossing the finish line. If I stand alone, I stand alone; but, I'll do it on scripture and the Spirit of the Lord - not philosophies.

[Havoc]

Ahah! So, we're not dealing with salvation here, we're dealing with philosophy all of a sudden. OSAS. The exact thing the catholics are guilty of doing has cropped up among us once again - phollowing phillosophy (yes the ph is on purpose).

Once saved always saved is not in the Bible. Never has been, never will be. There are bold assertions in the Bible that strongly deal with that philosophy head on and run it through whilst waving the red cape in the air. The bull falls to the ground. Just lets warn the spectators not to step in it. Simon Magus was saved and was turned away afterward. That isn't eternal salvation. And when the Bible says he was saved yet was turned away, it does mean he was saved - no room for anyone to assume he wasn't in defense of a philosophy. Romans 8 makes the loud distinction between the saved who follow and those who don't - the one's that do are His, which aligns with John 10 and the description of who belongs to Him.

I stand for scripture and truth of the Spirit regardless of whether I like any of you or not. OSAS is philosophy, not scripture. Eternal security belongs to those who have finished the race, as Paul said, not to those who have just begun it. If they cross the finish last or first, the important thing is crossing the finish line. If I stand alone, I stand alone; but, I'll do it on scripture and the Spirit of the Lord - not philosophies.

[Havoc]

Ok, this is getting old. I've never had this happen on this frequency before. Sorry for the double post; but, I don't know what is happening with my connection.

[IMRight]

I don't think it's your connection, it's been happening quite a bit lately.

[JohnnyM]

"Simon Magus was saved and was turned away afterward."

Acts 8:9-24:
"But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the LORD for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me."

Please show me where Simon was turned away and lost his salvation. Seems to me Peter just reproved him, Simon was still young in the faith, and told him to repent of his sin before God. There is no indication of his losing his salvation. Young believers make mistakes and do things wrong because they are babes. Simon was a babe in Christ and he sinned. So Peter rebuked him and told him to repent of his sin. Seems pretty standard procedure to me.

JM

[OLD REGGIE]

For a different perspective you might look at "The Quest for the Historical Jesus". It is available online.

The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer

[DouglasKC]

Here's my learning topic for today:

Church structure

Can you all tell me what the structure of your respective denominations are? For example, my understanding (which is probably wrong) of Roman Catholicism is that the Pope is boss, cardinals are next, bishops are next, etc.

How about everyone elses? What is the "power" structure? Who makes the decisions on doctrine for your church? How is official doctrine changed...or is it changed? How many of you believe all of the doctrine taught by your church?

Looking forward to it...

[al_c]

"Oh Lord, please help Reggie stop being an asshole."

Can this be repeated on a rosary bead?

Only if it's said from the heart and not in vain repetition. ;o)

[SoothingDave]

Good Morning, all. I come before you contrite and asking for your pardon for my vulgar language. I allowed myself to be goaded into such a response against my better judgment. And of course, that response was not one of those lost in the void. Suffice it to say that I am saddened that it has come to this, and am certainly surprised at the party, but I must simply refuse all communication from a certain party in order to maintain my composure.

Angelo, I will try to address your many posts concerning our unique ecclesial claims shortly.

SD

[SoothingDave]

For the record, there are no references to cheese in the Christian scriptures. I'm sure this proves something.

Before I apologize let me add one more vulgarity onto the fire. To wit,

You mean "Christ on a cracker!" isn't in the New Testament?

SD

[dignan3]

So this is one of those doctrines that evolves? That has developed and become more nuanced

In a word, yes. And we regard that development of doctrine, most recently taught by Vatican II, as no more illegitimate than Nicaea's homoousian or Lateran IV's Transubstantiation definition.

Beyond that and what I've written earlier, I really have nothing further to say on this subject.

Pray for John Paul II