Posted on 06/01/2007 2:28:41 PM PDT by Gamecock
You wrote:
“It sounds to me like you’re saying the sacraments are not necessary for salvation. Is this correct? If the sacraments are not necessary for salvation, what is? Are you saying you’re saved through faith?”
I can’t believe I have to explain this to someone who claims to know the Catholic faith well enough to have a right to attack it. We are saved by grace alone. We receive that grace through faith and works we cooperate with. Those works are begun in us through Jesus Christ’s grace. Thus, no work of our own (a work outside grace, a work of our own creation, etc) does anything for us. God uses sacraments to give us grace. Yes, the sacraments are necessary. They are necessary in two ways: 1) we are human and require basic elementary interaction with materials of this world and gestures with each other. 2) they are the way God set down to give us grace. They are not the only way, however. In some cases, a man can die before water baptism. He was filled with faith and longed to be recieved into the Church. Christians always believed he was baptised through desire. Thus, for most, sacraments are necessary, but in some situations, they are not. Never, however, should they be ignored, avoided, deliberately attacked out of ignorance, derided, etc. They are from God.
These are not difficult concepts. If you have difficulty understanding these very simple concepts I suggest you go to www.catholic.com for help.
You wrote: “I’ve been around FR a long time, and carrying over a discussion from another thread is “jumping threads.””
I didn’t carry over a conversation from another thread. I made a point about your knowledge. It was valid. It still is. I have seen this here at FR many times. Apparently I am in good company.
“You disproved nothing. In fact, I’m fairly certain now that you were involved on that old thread in a discussion with yourself....both the ask and the answer parts.”
I have no idea of what that even means. I was involved in a discussion with myself?
“With mirrors on both sides to accomodate a different focus for each, your head would spin faster than an exorcist in an Addams family movie.”
Is that a personal attack? Is that supposed to be a personal attack?
Still can’t debate the issues, huh?
You wrote:
“Nice try with that #356 nonsense, since the link was in #352. Little tricks of the trade, eh?.....”
Nice try in claiming I was responding to 352 and not 356. Remember, you addressed 356 to me. I responded to 356.
Can you start being honest now and stop other people are lying when you’re the one at fault. Again, there was no link WHATSOEVER in 356. NONE.
Remember, you wrote 356 TO ME. I responded to - wait for it - 356. Imagine that.
The link by William Webster which is from Christiantruth.com was given in my post 352...
You then responded to my post 352 (which contained the correct link) in your post 353...
It's usually a good idea to actually read a post before we respond to it. As shown by this lapse, it saves a lot of time and effort and invectives.
Thank you.
Blessed brevity bump. 8~)
You wrote:
“It appears the claim was false on several counts. You didn’t link to the banned website, the article does not appear on the list of articles at the banned website and the content does not source back to the banned website by google.”
First, and foremost, I just found the whole William Webster article at Jesus-is-Lord.com. Here is the link: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/roman_catholic_salvation.htm
Second, go to post #356. That was the one addressed to me. I never saw the article otherwise. I cut and pasted quotes from it and they showed up on google.com as being from Jesus-is-Lord.com
Here again is the William Webster article as posted at Jesus-is-Lord.com: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/roman_catholic_salvation.htm
If you couldn’t find it, then I don’t know how I could.
I didn’t write 356 to you. DrEckleburg did.
You responded to her #352 in #353 in which you called her a liar. She responded to the accusation by pulling from her 352 in 356.
It’s easy to see you trying to confuse the issue, but the record is clear and is still online. Try at least to be a bit creative in being tricksey.
You responded in #353 to her #352 in which she posted the Webster article and link. How can you say you "never" saw the article otherwise?
You wrote: “I didn’t write 356 to you. DrEckleburg did.”
You’re right on that.
“You responded to her #352 in #353 in which you called her a liar.”
I may have responded to her, but that doesn’t mean I responded to her post #352.
“She responded to the accusation by pulling from her 352 in 356.”
In any case, as I just proved the article was posted at Jesus-is-Lord.com even if she didn’t use that as her source. I don’t think I ever even saw 352 until this current argument started. Apparently using Jesus-is-Lord.com is banned here, but I had no idea that that was the case. Using all anti-Catholic sources is the same to me. #356 was addressed to me. #352 was not.
“It’s easy to see you trying to confuse the issue, but the record is clear and is still online. Try at least to be a bit creative in being tricksey.”
I used no trickery. So far everything I said was absolutely true except for one point which was only partially true.
1) The Catholic Church doesn’t teach salvation by works.
2) The quoutes posted to prove such were in fact bogus. Texts were significantly distorted for instance.
3) The quotes appeared at Jesus-is-Lord.com but I was wrong in believing that was the ultimate source. Had I seen #352, then I might have followed the link, but #326 was directly addressed to me so I went there and never even saw #352 until much later.
So, my only error was in believing the info ORIGINATED at Jesus-is-Lord.com when in reality they are just posted there.
Yes, you did, because it's recorded at the bottom of your post #353 that you were responding to her post #352.
It's just about time to give it up, guy.
Calvinism is just a name for a set of doctrines that returns the glory which men sought for themselves to God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Calvin reaffirmed the Scriptural understanding of God's Predestination of all things which Augustine defended against the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. Calvin took this understanding, recognized it as being the word of God, and linked it directly to the work of the indwelling Holy Spirit who guides us through Scripture and our Christian walk.
In this effort, Calvin was joined by a variety of saints, such as Martin Luther, the Eastern Orthodox Cyril Lucaris, and the Italian, Jerome Zanchius.
The RCC used to have a much stronger understanding of Predestination, but sadly, it's been diminished as the human accoutrements have grown.
You wrote:
“You responded in #353 to her #352 in which she posted the Webster article and link. How can you say you “never” saw the article otherwise?”
Simple. Look at #353. See this quote: “The RCC teaches justification is a joint effort; that men can earn their right standing before God.”?
Do you see that quote? See it? Are you sure you see it? I am asking that question several times because it clearly is a quote from Dr. Eckleburg BUT DOES NOT APPEAR IN POST #352. I, in post #353, was responding to a post from her BEFORE post #352 and I cited that quote in my response.
Now do you understand? I did NOT respond to post #352. I responded in post #353 to an earlier post from Dr. Eckleburg and the quote in it from her proves that.
I do not read every post in the thread. I look at ones that are addressed specifically to me.
Your number 353 proves you were in 352.
I think you should read this verse again. If you think a shallow image of God who is mean and selfish and hates His own creation then you may have it. I happen to think that God is wondrous and He gave us all of His creation to love. If we can't love the angels or the saints then properly we can't love our spouses and our children and our relatives and we can't love the glorious creation that God gave us.
"This is my commandment that you love one another as I have loved you." Jesus showed that love in His willingness to die for you and you want to disrespect Him by ignoring His children and pretending if you speak to them that you disrespect God?! As I say you seem to want to limit God. I don't and I won't.
I have a Bible, I read it, I have read it for 40 some years, I discern it and in my own personal discernment it doesn't mean what you say it means. Why do you think I should listen to you? Who made you a prophet and wise interpreter of Scripture? Just because you interpret it from your own inspiration does not make it right. You read and interpret scripture from your own already held beliefs, I had my beliefs in the Methodist church and though I learned much truth there it was what wasn't there that sent me searching for the closest walk with God. I didn't get to the Catholic church on my own, I followed His will for me and God will not mislead me.
Don't worry about me, I will glory in God and all that He created and I will love his creations and I will talk to the saints and I will talk to the angels and I will talk to my family here on earth and I will love God first, and because He created them, I will love them all fiercely because God has given them to me and God has commanded it.
You wrote:
“Yes, you did, because it’s recorded at the bottom of your post #353 that you were responding to her post #352.”
Hey, you’re right! I’m sorry. I still didn’t check the link though in #352. And the article is still posted at Jesus-is-Lord.com.
This is what happens when you get old!
You wrote:
“Your number 353 proves you were in 352.”
Yes, it does. I just saw that the quote from Dr. Eckleburg was also in that post. Here, I thought it was much earlier.
My mistake.
At least I am still right on the issue: and no one here has yet posted any proof the Catholic Church teaches we earn our way to heaven. That’s what counts. Not whether or not I messed up on the posts. Maybe I need a nap!
Graciously spoken.
Time for both of us to have a nap.
Old_Mil: (A few rotten to the core ones as well: Episcopalians, United Methodists for instance.)xzins: I am an ordained United Methodist elder (minister.) I am currently lead pastor at our rural methodist church.
Ooooh...ouch.
There is a mostly orthodox remnant in each of these bodies, as in other of the old line liberal Protestant bodies.
Your average Baptist denomination will split at the drop of a hat. Others (like the Episcopalian/Anglicans) are slower and more careful about getting around to the distasteful necessity of separating from Belial.
In them there is not one word about the assumption of Mary, her immaculate conception, or her coredemption.Stem to stern it isn’t mentioned either by name or by similar teaching.
You know it, I know it. They'll find her in the strangest places.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.