Replies

[paladinan]
Oh, honestly...! Neither is Protestantism, Lutheranism, "altar calls", "the sinner's prayer", "accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior", and hosts of other things to which you probably wouldn't object. Are you seriously objecting to the fact that the word "Catholic" isn't in the NT?

[metmom]
Exactly. Which is why no one denomination can claim to be the one true church.

How on earth does *that* follow? All it proves is that the idea of "if it isn't in the Bible, there's no reason to believe it" doesn't work.

The church isn't organizations of governing structures. It's PEOPLE.

You're setting up a false dichotomy, based on your personal preferences (i.e. your distaste for hierarchies, at least in the context of religion); the Church is both/and. It has a structure, AND it's made of people; there's no reason to force an "either/or" choice.

Believers make up the body of Christ no matter where they worship nor what denomination they affiliate with.

On the one hand, I agree with you (in a sense); on the other hand, the Church cannot POSSIBLY be reduced to a loose collection of "all believers in Jesus", since those very members believe contradictory things... and logic itself demands that two contradictory things cannot both be true at the same time; at least one must be wrong, and it'd be irresponsible to bury our heads in the sand by ignoring those differences (especially when they deal with matters of salvation and damnation). If the Seventh Day Adventists are correct, then you and I are going to hell for worshipping on Sunday (isn't damnation important?)... so we'd better be pretty sure that they're NOT correct, yes? That can't happen if you take a sort of "Oh, we're all believers in Jesus, so we're all the Church!" approach.

There are believers and unbelievers in EVERY denomination or church building. The only thing that varies is the ratio within the congregation.

That's likely to be true... but that doesn't change the fact that certain things about God are true, certain beliefs are necessary, and certain things can damn us to eternal flames. It would behoove us to know what they are, and to be sure of our answer (and to be sure on a basis stronger than "I feel it, deep in my soul", or "Of course it's true... how stupid to suggest otherwise")!

[paladinan]
When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

[metmom]
No. I'm quoting Scripture. The fact that the CCC lifts some things from Scripture and says it as well is really irrelevant.

My point was that you have a mistaken notion of "only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior", as if you have some sort of copyright on the idea. The Catholic Church had that fact, 500 years before Protestantism was a twinkle in the eyes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

Its not like the Catholic church thought it up first.

No, GOD though it up first; but the Catholic Church RECEIVED it first.

[paladinan]
I understand that that's your opinion. Your task, now, is to prove it, and not simply assert it (which is ironic, given that you're using it to accuse the Catholic Church of the same thing).

[metmom]
Well, when they condemn to hell anyone who doesn't agree with their statement of faith, then it's a power grab.

So... when you condemn people to hell for not agreeing with YOUR statement of faith (i.e. that someone needs to believe on Jesus to be saved), is that a power-grab? I don't think so; I think that you are merely passing on (and rightfully so) a truth which God originally revealed. That's not "power-grab"--that's simple obedience to what God asks of us. The same is true for the Catholic Church; She only hands on what She has been given by God. I understand that you don't believe this; but you have no basis, whatsoever, for assuming base and corrupt MOTIVES for the Church passing on what She does, any more than I would have any basis for assuming that you're (as a hypothetical) simply a scare-monger whose self-esteem is bolstered by "collecting scalps/converts". Do you see my point? Disagree with the Church if you must, but do not assign corrupt motives to Her if you can't pass the same standard!

They're hanging people's eternal destiny over their heads as a bargaining chip to force submission to Rome.

As opposed to earnestly warning people of what they need to do to avoid hell, because She loves them and doesn't want them damned? Why are you so ungenerous when the Church warns away from hell, but you give yourself (and those who agree with you) a free pass? This is bias on your part, pure and simple.

I don't see that anywhere in Scripture.

Does this mean that you're ready to prove "sola Scriptura"? Given that loads of people on this forum have accused me of constructing "straw men" whenever I suggest that you hold to an "if it's not in the Bible, don't believe it" idea, do you see why statements like this (of yours) give me that idea? SO WHAT if it isn't explicitly in your 66-book version of the Bible? What difference does that make? I really want to know your answer; this isn't a rhetorical question!

Jesus told us to simply believe and that those who are His would NEVER be lost.

Jesus said a good deal more than that. He said that those who do not care for "the least of these, My brethren" do not do so for Him, and they will be consigned to eternal flames; apparently, "believe" means quite a bit more than merely saying "Lord, Lord", or some mere intellectual consent to an idea. It means to OBEY. It means to LOVE Him. It means to do what He tells us (as Mother Mary instructs us to do). You've reduced the "Gospel message" to something so small the it will save NO ONE.

I can provide the Scripture for that if you'd like.

All right. Just be aware that I'll ask you to explain (from Scripture alone) how you know that your interpretation is correct... and I won't be satisfied with mere "pat" answers or platitudes or slogans or fallacies. Proofs.

[paladinan]

Re: St. Peter's proclamation in Acts 4: where, in the Catechism, can you find any teaching which suggests that anyone is saved by a Name OTHER than that of Christ? EVERYTHING comes from Christ--the intercessory power of the Saints, the authority of the Blessed Virgin (as Queen-Mother of the King of Kings), the intervention of St. Michael the Archangel, the authority of the keys to the Kingdom given to St. Peter. When you say that Christ is our only Savior, you're quoting the Catechism, though you may not know it (or like it).

[metmom]
I'm aware of what the CCC teaches on those topics.

Then how could you make such striking blunders as to suggest that the Catholic Church DOESN'T teach all of the above? Earlier, you wrote, after quoting Acts 4:11-12 and its (true) statement that the Name of Jesus is the only Name by which anyone is saved (as if you thought Catholics didn't believe that, and the Scripture would be some sort of rebuke/refutation of us): "Why someone would want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization is beyond me. Anyone who was aware of what the CCC teaches could NOT make those claims accurately, since the CCC refutes them soundly.

I find no Scriptural warrant for any of it.

On that point: when the next NCC comes along and accuses me of "constructing a strawman" when I say that some NCC's on this board use "sola Scriptura" as a "negative test" (i.e. if it isn't in Scripture, don't accept it), can I send them to you? :)

I assume you don't mean that you find "no Scriptural warrant" for the idea that everything comes from Christ! That *was* my main point, in that paragraph. Beyond that... see above, re: "Scriptural warrant"; only one who assumed that "it needs to be in Scripture for it to be believed" would worry about "Scriptural warrant". To move your case forward, you'll have to demonstrate (from Scripture alone, including a Scripture-alone proof for your interpretation, and a Scripture-alone proof that your Scripture is complete, among other things required by plain logic) the unequivocal truth of Scripture ALONE being the sole standard (or whatever verbiage you'd like to use) of revealed truth.

So since it's a Catholic thing and not a Scripture thing, it is not binding on the born again believer, only binding on Catholics who choose to submit to Rome.

Again: you draw an invalid dichotomy between "Catholic" and "Scripture"; you assume that "rejection of sola Scriptura" = "rejection of Scriptura" (or else you wouldn't dare say "not a Scripture thing" in regard to Catholic things), and that's simple nonsense.

How on earth does *that* follow? All it proves is that the idea of "if it isn't in the Bible, there's no reason to believe it" doesn't work.

Sure it works. I know that the *sinner's prayer* and altar calls etc are not in Scripture. I don't necessarily believe that one has to do those to be saved.

God made salvation SIMPLE. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. To as many as received Him He gave the right to become the sons of God.

The method is not specified because it's not the method that saves, which is why sacraments don't save.

On the one hand, I agree with you (in a sense); on the other hand, the Church cannot POSSIBLY be reduced to a loose collection of "all believers in Jesus", since those very members believe contradictory things...

So what? God looks on the heart. Not every believer is at the same place in their Christian walk or level of spiritual maturity.

The Catholic church has TAUGHT contradictory things over the centuries.

So sure, the church can be reduced to a loose collection of all believers in Jesus. The NT supports it.

My point was that you have a mistaken notion of "only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior", as if you have some sort of copyright on the idea. The Catholic Church had that fact, 500 years before Protestantism was a twinkle in the eyes of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.

"only non-Catholics think that Jesus is their Savior"???

You put it in quotes as if I said those very words. Show me where I said that.

So... when you condemn people to hell for not agreeing with YOUR statement of faith (i.e. that someone needs to believe on Jesus to be saved), is that a power-grab?

It's not my decision. My pointing out what Scripture says is not me condemning anyone to hell. OTOH, the Catholic church claims to actually have the power to do so. Remember the claims that the RCC makes about it having the authority to bind and loose?

John 3:3-8 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”

John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”

How can *HAS eternal life* not mean *has eternal life*?

The only way to not read it as it stands is to *interpret* it.

Besides, I'm not *interpreting* the Scripture, I'm explaining it. :)

When people came to Jesus, did He give them a theology exam? Did He demand that they jump through hoops to earn salvation?

Or did He say to them *Your faith has saved you. Go in peace*?

God wants relationship with His creation, not fear of damnation based performance. He made salvation simple enough for a child to grasp it and told us that unless we become like little children, we would never enter the kingdom of heaven. So how does that square with the RCC demanding works?

Many years ago I reached a point of desperation where I finally told God, *If you can straighten out this mess of a life of mine, you can have it. I'll do anything you want, even become a missionary and go to Africa cause I'd rather be happy doing what You want me to, then keep going the way I am.*

He took me up on that.

Some time later someone was telling me about accepting Christ into my heart and I didn't understand what he meant in the least, but something in my heart was stirred and inside I thought, *THAT'S IT!!! That's what I want.* Then I prayed *Jesus, I don't know what it means to ask You into my heart as an act of will, but I will you in.*

Not exactly a *sinner's prayer*, no altar call, it happened at work, but the change was immediate and dramatic. There is nothing else except the fact that I was born again,born spiritually, that could explain the complete change in focus of my entire life. In an instant. I didn't even have to try.

You know what? I really believe that God doesn't care nearly as much as all the crossed t's and dotted i's of having out theology nailed down, as He cares about a heart that is unreservedly following after Him.

It's HIS responsibility to straighten out people's whacked out theology and He will. He can be trusted to do that because He who began a good work in me will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus.

My salvation is in HIS hands and cannot possibly be safer.

Am I perfect? Hardly

Do I sin? Every day.

DO I have a long way to go? Seems like every step I take reveals more stuff that needs to be dealt with, that I'm taking two steps backwards for every step forwards.

It can become discouraging, but with Paul I forget what is behind and press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Is the intent of my heart to follow God and glorify Him in all I do? Absolutely.

All He wants is a surrendered life, not a perfect one.