Posted on 05/24/2014 8:26:44 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
When I, a “cradle Catholic,” am accosted by a “born again” Christian, and asked whether I am “saved,” my thoughts usually go to St. Paul’s frequent admonitions to work out your salvation in “fear and trembling.” Even St. Paul, after having been raised to the “seventh heaven,” felt it necessary to chastise his body, lest he become a castaway. (1Cor. 9:27)
The conviction that one is “saved” may be the result of a powerful religious experience. (Catholics have those too!) But people sometimes interpret it like Freud, as something psychological, or just some friendly divine encouragement to keep trying, or perhaps as a sign of God’s mercy in spite of one’s sins.
Personally, I am convinced that, if two-thirds of the angels, who never had to suffer, and had clear insight into what would happen if they rebelled, were saved (Rev. 12:4) – certainly at least that percentage or more of us humans, working our way with limited vision through suffering and often messy lives and bad choices, will be saved. Of course, I try to stand clear of the “universal salvation” heresy of Origen and others, condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543.
That said, it seems to me that Protestants are really missing out on the multiform assistance that the Church could provide, if they were open to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at thecatholicthing.org ...
And that is all that it is! It has no foundation in Scripture, only in fairy tales from another of the cults of personality! Blasphemy is best described as usurping God's authority and giving credibility to a some human poseur in fancy hard!
As to the premise of this article, it is easy to be saved and it only takes faith in Jesus Christ, not in some human institution!
Matthew 12: 31 And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.” ...
... 1 Corinthians 2: 1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.
6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written:
“What no eye has seen,
what no ear has heard,
and what no human mind has conceived”—
the things God has prepared for those who love him—
10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit.
The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for,
“Who has known the mind of the Lord
so as to instruct him?”
But we have the mind of Christ.
**There are only 5 uses of the word Priesthood in the new testament**
Why?
Because the word was omitted in many translations after the Reformation.
So, I show in great detail that your claim is not even supported by the NAB hosted by the Vatican for if it was a mistranslation caused by the reformation surely the Vatican would not be supporting it.
I wish you well, but as you seem unwilling to stay on topic it would only produce more heat and no light.
..to continue this exchange. (Hit send too soon)
God the Father communicated the way of Salvation to our first parents, Adam and Eve:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
The Redeemer would be needed to save us.
And God the Father communicated that the price would require a blood sacrifice:
Genesis 3:21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Adam and Eve's coverings by the works of their own hands would not do. God would provide the required covering, and it would cost blood.
The "good souls" in the Old Testament were saved through the method ordained by God the Father - through the Redeeming work of God the Son. The "good souls" in the Old Testament knew this, for the Old Testament scriptures pointed to Christ as the only way of Salvation (Luke 24:25-27; John 5:39). Abraham saw His (Jesus Christ) day, and was glad. And even Job, although not of the line of Abraham, was able to gaze through the haze a say in the midst of his misery:
Job 19:25-27 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
Now, I admit I do not know exactly what point you were trying to make in your post. If you were trying to make the point that Christ was unknown prior to His incarnation, I disagree.
If it was strictly an attempt to uphold the honour of the Trinity, and Tribune nature of God - we are in agreement. I like the Nicene Creed, although I do not pretend to plumb the depth of the nature of God. He IS God - infinite, and omnipotent. He is incomprehensible to any but God Himself. Nonetheless He allows us sheep to know much about Him - particularly revealing Himself through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ).
The Lord Jesus Christ (God the Son) came to Glorify God the Father, and the Father also Glorifies the Son. God the Holy Ghost indwells us and Glorifies God the Son.
Praise God - Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.
I’m not sure about taking the great amount of time it would take to respond to all this article’s claims, but it is a dishonest piece. Start with the “30,000 Protestantant denominations” making it sound like we’re all out of fellowship with each other when the author certainly knows that isn’t true. There are Bible-believing “Protestants” (in quotes because there is no Protestant church) and those who have rejected the Bible and they aren’t in fellowship as this author must fully know, too. So it must also be dishonest on his part to speak of “Protestants” accepting gay marriage because that’s as Protestants do. I’m actually at this time not part of a denomination, but understand that in part denominations draw people in their differences, for example, with speaking in tongues, which the Bible says some people have the gift of while others don’t. And denominations also form around looking to the early church, for example the church of Christ belief that baptism should be immediate as the Bible shows, (Cont’d)
rather than a ritualistic religious ceremony as it’s mostly become. The longer I’m a Christian the better I understand that the Lord desires all that’s part of true relationship rather than being mechanical in anything. Man, though, will take something good and then turn it into repetition in religion, and churches become like machines where people will usually get uppset if the “peace” that brings is threatened. That was just what Jesus Himself did while He was on earth, even to the point that He physically cleansed the temple. And the Lord didn’t just establish the church and leave it, as if its leaders could never go wrong and it would never start to take wrong turns and need correction from Him all along the way. The church itself is always under pressure to conform to the world and gives way here and there, but the Lord is there to call the church to come back and be renewed.
“So it must also be dishonest on his part to speak of “Protestants” accepting gay marriage because that’s as Protestants do”
The only faiths that have accepted homosexual “marriage” and take no stance on abortion, and have women “pastors” are protestant faiths. From birth control to abortion, to women feminist and open acceptance of homosexuality, it all started in various Protestant denominations.
Hey, Hey, if you’re not a Catholic, what are you doing talking about infants getting baptised????
From what I see, the Pope just concelebrated mass with a homosexual activist priest. Additionally, many if not most of those with heretical beliefs, who, if Protestant, would have to leave a Bible-believing church, such as a Southern Baptist church, and go if they wanted to to an Episcopalian Church, for example, seem to stay in the Catholic Church, even in positions of leadership, such as priests, nuns, bishops, etc.
What’s more about the Catholic Church is that it has been trying to follow the Protestants, both Bible-believing and not. I heard on Catholic radio that it’s only in recent decades that daily Scripture readings were added. And for the sake of time, have you heard of the book “Rebuilt” by a priest copying megachurches? He says Catholic church participation numbers are even worse than reported and the church he took over formally had no interest in evangelization and discipleship, but only mass attendance. He rebuilt the church doing what evangelical churches do, which comes from Scripture.
We are not part of the same body. I cannot pretend otherwise when I know Rome’s gospel is not my gospel and Rome’s Jesus isn’t the Christ Jesus I know. And I don’t say that because I want to argue or because I hate Catholics (I have quite a few Catholics in my own family) If I didn’t care I wouldn’t spend any time responding to all the Catholic posts here. In the end I much prefer to be divided by truth than united in error because that is biblical.
Rome’s Gospel not your Gospel??
What nonsense.
We use basically the same Bible as far as the Gospels are concerned.
I have the book Rebuilt. Now I will have to read it.
It seems to some here, that is perfectly acceptable to bash "Protestants" with the Reformation and all that it is accused of bringing with it (much is just pure hyperbolic propaganda, but it doesn't matter to them). But, when the behavior of the Roman Catholic Church is brought up as one of the major impetuses to the Reformation, we are brushed off with words like:
That history is ancient. So some corrupt people were selling indulgences. There were bad popes, blah blah blah. Big deal. What's the difference between a protestant today whining about the selling of indulgences in the 16th century and Muslims today bemoaning the Crusades? Nothing. Am I supposed to share in some guilt over all of it? I think not. Besides I thought we rejected the notion of collective guilt anyway as a device used by the left.
Ironical, isn't it? ☺
Yeah! But the bias is that of the Roman Catholic church. It has been shown time and time again on the Religion Forum threads - one most recently. The word "priest" is NEVER used for a New Testament church office. There were bishops, overseers, elders, deacons - but NO "priests". The KJV did not change or remove the word from the English language Bible. It just was never in there to begin with.
We can know we have eternal life because God said we could.
I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (I John 5:13)
There ARE many more.
Eye-opening bias, isn’t it?
The reason for the difference between English translations which use Latin Vulgate as primary source and those which instead use Greek, is not for some sly substitution having been purposely made (in NT portions) leaving out the word "priest" that was engaged in by KJV translators, but for those laborers having followed the Greek texts, rather than imposing upon their own translations the word "priest" such as Jerome himself did in usage of sacerdos when what otherwise is represented in Greek (as it would translate into English) are the words elder or presbyter, etc.
Words for "priest" exist in both Hebrew and Greek. There is no need now to insert "priest" where other terms are plainly enough used -- with reasons for Jerome having done so perhaps too complex a subject to go into, for the time being.
Do you know that a tertiary source for the KJV was the Complutensian Polyglot "...initiated and financed by Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros..."? That was used supplemental to Textus_Receptus which does have it own problems, with some of those being source for weaknesses or flaws in the KJV.
All these links I am providing may be a bit much to absorb all at once, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_textual_variants_in_the_New_Testamentthis] could be considered as central;
The modern critical text (e.g. Novum Testamentum Graece) is close to the Alexandrian text-type, which accounts for some of the earliest New Testament manuscripts; it stands behind most modern English translations of the New Testament including the ASV, the NIV, the RSV and the ESV.
If you will notice, the modern lines run through Cardinal Cisnero's (also known as Cardinal Ximenes) Complutensian Polyglot Greek (for his was more of the Alexandrian text-type.
Sorry...but for potential "bias" on this particular issue you do have things quite backwards.
Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts
Dr. Wallace: Earliest Manuscript of the New Testament Discovered?
If sacerdotalism takes something of a (small but significant) hit amidst all of this, well then too bad. Cry us a river of uncial.
BlueDragon:
Again, I am not debating the reliability of the NT. So I don’t know why you are posting this to me. Whatever word was used, presbyter which only means literally “older man” the NT very seldom fully defines what their role was. Early Liturgical evidence from Patristic sources see in terms of function, presbyters acting in priestly roles, the evidence for this is in the Didache, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, etc, etc. I have already covered this in numerous texts. There was no rejection of the priest and Bishop [firstmost], and then only presbyters could celebrate the Eucharist when a Bishop appointed him to, of those to offices to be the leaders of Divine worship, the Eucharist and to administer the Sacraments or Holy Mysteries.
The rejection of Bishops, Presbyters, acting as sacerdotal ministers is only found among the followers of the 16th century rebels, Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. The Eastern Orthodox, of which Greek is the sort to the primarily historical theological and Liturgical language understands Bishops and Presbyters in the same fashion as the Catholic Church. So if you look at them, you can’t play the Catholics say this but we Protestants say this. The Orthodox Church reads the same 27 NT books as we Catholics and you various Protestant groups, their conclusion, not mine, not other FR Catholics, not the Pope, understood the function of Bishops and Presbyters to more than just preachers, teachers, overseers and to function as administrative elders. The Bishop, and those presbyters appointed by him were the leaders of the Liturgical worship of the Christian community and were the ones give the authority by Christ via the Apostles to administer the sacraments of Eucharist, Baptism, Confession, anointing of the Sick, etc.
BlueDragon:
For the record, I am well aware of the weaknesses of the KJV translation. In addition, I in all honesty don’t want to get involved in this particular thread. Getting into who is saved or not is not something that I debate about. I believe that God saves thru the paschal mystery and person of Jesus Christ and the “normative means” thru which people are saved by Christ is thru his Body the Church, which I understand and believe to be the Catholic Church. However, the Church is the steward of God’s grace, but God can, through means of his own can and does save those who are not fully part of the Catholic Church. So, can protestants be saved, yes. Does the fact that an individual who is Catholic saved by the mere fact he is Catholic? No. Does the Catholic Church, given the fact that it is the apostolic tradition and the fullness of the means of salvation provide the best hope of salvation, I believe that to be yes.
Still, in the end, Only God decides who is with him in eternity and who is not. I had a similar debate about this in another thread with Mr Rogers and metmom regarding certain Catholics and I think my answer there was consistent with mine here.
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.