Posted on 01/23/2022 6:33:32 AM PST by daniel1212
“Hope is what faith is about. Those who know do not need faith.”
Yes. It depends on how “hope” is defined. In today’s world, it’s “I hope I get a pony for Christmas.” The Biblical meaning of “hope” is a certainty.
“Biblical hope is not a wishful desire for something that may not happen; it is confidence in what God promises to accomplish.”
Actually the Catholic Church does not regard the teachings and practice of the very early Christians as having supreme authority in working out the details of Christian faith, since as said, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
Instead, Catholicism selectively looks to the uninspired writings of later persons, so-called "church fathers" (they were not fathers of the NT church) with their incremental accretions of traditions of men. And from which and some cherry-picking of Scripture Rome decrees that she possesses ensured perpetual magisterial veracity of office, at least as regards salvation, and infallibility in defining matters of faith and morals for all the church by popes and ecumenical councils in union with him. All of which Catholics are required to assent to.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
"and the decisions of various Councils."
And inattention your traditional RCs contend, some of which wish the decree for RC rulers to exterminate from their lands all the heretics was still enforced.
"I think that evangelicals give inadequate credit to the value of being raised in, understanding, and believing in the Catholic faith. "
I was raised in it, and understanding it in the light of what the NT church manifestly believed is to understand that two are very different faiths.
"I do not need to be saved by the Spirit though a conversion experience to become a Christian. . It is who I am, utterly and thoroughly, as a sinner who is by Grace and choice a believing and practicing Catholic."
You most assuredly do need to be saved by the Spirit though a conversion experience with its basic profound changes in heart and life (though for some they are very dramatic relative to before), as do all persons, (Eph. 2:1) and which all believers within the NT church realized. Which is not effected by the act itself of baptism, but conversion is by heart-purifying regenerating faith. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9)
"We are all invited to Christ by our separate paths and according to our understanding."
But the only path to the Father is thru Christ, only thru the basic understanding of salvation by grace, in which the redeemed are those who come to God as sinners knowing their desperate need of salvation - not as a souls saved by their works or church affiliation, but as destitute of any means or merit whereby they may find salvation - and with a humble and penitent heart (that wants a new life following Christ) believe on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus who alone can save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. And who thus are baptized and follow Him. Thanks be to God!
"Just as Christ welcomed to Heaven the Good Thief on the Cross next to him, I hope that I too may be admitted to Glory."
You can only be admitted to glory as per the above, and which means you can know that your presently have eternal life by effectual faith, and one dies in that living faith then wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)
And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the "first resurrection." (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4; (Revelation 20:6)) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff) Thanks be to God.
Hebrews 11:1 ESV — Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
” the conviction of things not seen.”
I prefer “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (KJV)
Yes, you and me both.
Or, in the traditional Catholic recitation, “the sure and certain hope of resurrection and eternal life.”
“Double Slit” experiment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT-_uCLwKhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tKncAdlHQ
Entanglement q=einstein+spooky+movement+at+a+distance&iax=videos&ia=videos&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D6Dp27XYjHuk
Or any translation
Those are Michael Brown’s words but he is not “describing the struggle he experienced while coming to belief” but rather after he came to faith. He studied; alot; as I read him he “struggled” with others’ objections to his faith and became stronger in it. This is what I expect, and God requires, in a son or daughter, Jew or Gentile.
In general if you sincerely ask God for something He gives it to you...good and hard. This guy asked for one more thing beyond his limited understanding and God gave him something he couldn’t understand. In scriptural terms this is called separating the wheat from the chaff. God doesn’t answer us according to our wants. If we ask Him for patience, for example, He doesn’t magically gift us with patience; He puts us in situations where we have to exercise more patience. If we ask for abundance so we can be more charitable He may give us less so that our charity is more dear to us. God is funny that way.
THX!
You mean, "please grant me patience and do so quickly" is not how it works?
Rice, who recently died. was an on and off Christian so I pray she came back to Him
I know: I am the OP. Thus my comments (plural). While he sounds like one of those who get lost in academia and convert to Rome in looking to uninspired writings, he was unlikely to do so himself like as "Goodwin felt that adopting liberal Christianity would be uncomfortable and dishonest." Remarks on the New American Bible Maybe Francis will invite him to a Pan-Amazonian Ecclesial tree-planting and Pachamama” statue Zairean rite worship service. .
Thus confirmation bias infects their writings. Our (my) flesh hates God (cf. Romans 8:7), while the devil misconstrues what He is actually like, while the Christ of Scripture is worthy of nothing less than love, adoration and allegiance, yet these are "biblical scholars!"
Oops, post 109 was meant for a related thread, not this thread.
Oops, my response to you in post 109 was meant for a related thread, not this thread.
Confusion in those communities regarding Once Saved, Always Saved? Ever seen the confusion and division among Catholics, including TradCaths who are essentially like "Bible Christians" in that they determine the validity of RC teaching based upon their judgment of what historical teaching is and means:
Thus you have Catholic schisms and sects, not just btwn the EO and RC.
And as another poster wryly summed it,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. ” - Nathan, https://christopherblosser.wordpress.com/2005/05/16/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of-catholic-teaching (original http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html)
Thus we have, Is Catholicism about to break into three?
Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’
The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6
Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?
The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope …
A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is Novus ordo watch and which sums up the situation by saying (https://novusordowatch.org/start-here/),
Modernism 101: Is the Novus Ordo an Unworthy Sacrifice to God?
The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell
Is Pope Francis not just a Heretic, but a Apostate?
Meanwhile, as said b4, who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority have long testified to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death. But under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible.
And the debate regarding Once Saved, Always Saved is not a matter of confusion for them if those schools are Calvinistic, and which flows from beliefs regarding predestination. Which - once you really get into it (which should be necessary) - can be so contentious that not even the pope could settle it among Catholics.
The Congregatio de Auxiliis (Latin for "Congregation on help (by Divine Grace)") was a commission established by Pope Clement VIII to settle a theological controversy regarding divine grace that had arisen between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. ...the crucial point was the reconciliation of the efficacy of divine grace with human freedom.... after twenty years of public and private discussion, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, was not reached.. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
Meanwhile, if you want more mudslinging, more on the issue of liberal Catholics just was posted today: As I Found Out With My Daughter, Not Even Catholic Schools Are Safe Havens From Gender Ideology
Enough mudslinging for today.
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.