Posted on 05/01/2008 5:07:35 PM PDT by annalex
It is to laugh. The RCC is FAR more scriptural than any Protestant variety. Yes, there are very few doctrines that are not contained in Scripture, but MOST of those are logical necessities that result from things that ARE taught in Scripture. Protestants use an eviscerated Bible, and out of that, they only "see" a select few verses that agree with the teachings of their particular "magisterium", whether that be Martin Luther, or some other Johnny-come-lately "deformer" (I prefer the term "Deformation" to "Reformation", because the only thing that Protestants have accomplished is twisting the truth totally out of shape.)
So... it is not necessary to earn salvation over and over again.
“Like, what?”
Like everything the rcc espouses that is not contained in scripture. One of many...transubstantiation, but the list is long.
"Such doctrines and duties as were taught by the inspired apostles"
The blind and power grubbing rcc can't keep tacking on 'traditions' at your whim and still call it 'holy'! The 'traditions' you force on others were NEVER taught by the apostles. Merely added later by men alone.
My daughter was told at her first communion that, "Now that you have Jesus in you, you will be more willing to clean your room and obey your parents". Ha! What a load and demonstration of a COMPLETE lack of understanding by the rcc clergy as to the meaning of re-birth. AND, it wasn't just Luther that had questions about the deuterocanonical texts. MANY early Christians questioned their use as scripture....but it appears that by 393 the rcc was already trying to establish their political order and empire over Christianity....and the seed of corruption was sown. BTW...the deuterocanonical is not accepted by Jews either. You rcc are all by yourselves on this one.
Ah..so you then you must wholeheartedly agree with the rcc decision to burn William Tyndale at the stake, alive, because he dared translate the Bible for the masses instead of keep it strictly relegated to the holy rcc ‘magisterium’?
Gosh...Jesus had it wrong. He should have just taught the academically educated ‘magisterium’ instead of the masses. Nice.
My objection is not to the idea that the Gospel allows for the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and makes man a new creature. My objection is to the particular concept of being born again that is common in many Protestant communities, which makes the "born-again" a single event after which one is securely saved, and of which baptism is an outward sign. The Catholic, as well as patristic and Orthodox theology is that initial decision of faith must be followed by sacramental baptism, at which point the Holy Spirit begins His work of continuing conversion and continuing rebirth (if you will), which work, however, needs be cooperated with by the free will of man himself, and which is not complete till the last breath and the particular Judgement at death. Only at that time is one securely saved.
Since there is indeed one baptism, that is one act most closely resembling a new birth of water and spirit (John 3).
However, just as out baptismal promise to reject satan can be renewed as often as we will, so our rebirth is a continuing process of conversion in fuller obedience to the Gospel. This is the kind of process St. Peter speaks of in 1 Peter 1:23f. He concludes his analogy in the next chapter:
Wherefore laying away all malice, and all guile, and dissimulations, and envies, and all detractions, as newborn babes, desire the rational milk without guile, that thereby you may grow unto salvation
This indeed enables us to say that the Gospel is our rebirth, but this does not allow us to proclaim the born-again as a single state that endures once acheived. Babies grow. Some of them, sadly, die.
St. James is even more forthright in pointing out the danger of this Protestant presumption of salvation:
be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed.
This, of course, directly follows your born-again prooftext from St. James.
Does St. Paul contradict any of this in 1 Cor 4? Indeed, perseverance in the faith is not the same as initial conversion and baptism. The former follows the later; preaching follows baptism. However, does Paul say that the Corinthians' baptism was on no consequence? Not at all, both to them and to Romans (Rm 6:3) he points out that it was the baptism that opened the channels of grace to them.
Transsubstantiation is straight from the gospel of Luke, see the supper at Emmaus episode.
You earn it once with your life as you free yourself from sin.
brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.(2 Peter 1:10)
In Luke 24, the Sovereign Lord chose to hide himself from their recognition and then reveal Himself as the Master of the meal. The spirit is wind, no one knowing from whence it comes. God does not need to hide the spirit in bread for us to consume it. If this life changing bread has the power you attribute to it by relating this story, why is Christ not effectual for ALL that receive the rcc host? I'm sorry, but Christ's call is effectual 100% of the time. Christ does not fail.
If Christ really wanted people to eat His flesh and drink His blood, don't you think the last supper would have been an ideal time for them to consume them?
He said, “do THIS” in memory of me. And what was He doing at the EXACT moment He said, “do THIS”? He was breaking bread and drinking wine. He made no indication that anything had been transformed. He was still man. His flesh was not separate from His body at that time, nor His blood. THAT experience was the ‘THIS’ He talked about. Now that the rcc pretends the bread and wine are actual flesh and blood of Jesus, they are not doing the ‘THIS’ anymore, but something different and NOT according to His instruction. By necessity then, the rcc misinterpretation that now ADDS some magical priest necessitating conversion of material.
Was the little metal cup the ‘New Covenant’ too?
Christ intended we eat His flesh and drink His blood in exactly the manner He instructed us at the Last Supper.
pffft.
I never said you earn salvation even a single time. And if that is true, re-earning it is not necessary or productive either. Salvation is a gift from God. Annalex right arm can not save him. It is only through the atoning, propitiation of Christ's work on the cross that Annalex can stand before a Holy God. Your ‘good works’ are as dirty rags to Him.
“brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time. “
Ah yes, note that one's ELECTION is demonstrated by fruit-of-the-spirit. And in producing fruit one does not sin....but this text in no way declares that one will lead a sinless life in other respects.
Not infant baptism, surely. Which I don’t disparage, as long as it s considered a welcoming into the Christian family or somesuch. It is not being born again.
I have no interest in how you interpret Luke 24, or any other scripture. You said that transsubstantiation is not scriptural and I corrected you. If you have questions, I’d be happy to answer.
You may recall that these were not infants.
This is, again, your interpretation and I have no interest in it. The plain text in the verse quoted supports what I said: election is made sure when one does not sin at any time. If you have your own interpretations of scripture, start your own denomination, -- this is a free country.
This is an arrogant assertion, as some of your others have been also. It is common among Catholics, however. Since they cannot see the real reason, they assume it must be for selfish motives.
If baptism saves, and St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21) teaches it does, then it saves whoever is baptized, infant or adult.
Where’s the arrogance?
What about the words “I am”? Not “the Church is,” you will notice.
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.