Replies

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?

[paladinan]
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.

[metmom]
"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.

I put it in "scare quotes" to distance myself from the idea. (I do wish that there were some other type of quotation marks--perhaps triple marks?--because I agree, it can be confused for actual quotes.) But if that idea is so foreign to you, then why did you write this, back in #601?

Why someone would want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization is beyond me.

Now, unless someone hacked your account and/or commandeered your computer, and wrote those words in your stead, then you apparently believe that Catholics (perhaps among others--but you specifically mention Catholicism in that comment) "want to replace following Christ Himself for a man or organization". (You also said that "it's beyond you", and I can hardly blame you: it's beyond me, and beyond any faithful Catholic, why anyone would dare do that. Needless to say, faithful and well-informed Catholics do NOT do that, and the Church condemns any such thing. I wonder what you had in mind, when you wrote this.)

But tease this out: if you believe your statement, then you apparently think that Catholics do NOT think Jesus is their Savior... or else, why would they abandon Him for "a man or organization"?

I'd also direct you to my comment about "owning logical deductions" (#655), which addresses the phenomenon of dropping suggestions, but then demanding to be quoted when the logical deductions of one's comments are attributed to one. "I never said that Socrates was mortal! (etc.)"