Posted on 02/07/2011 8:45:48 AM PST by verdugo
The point, which seems to have passed you by,
Did Abraham know of Christ?
Your answer? _
Was Abraham saved?
Apparently so.
As for circumcision, Paul just spent chapters on discussing that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.
No, the point is that you are flat-out contradicting the Word of God, and do not understand how a man is justified in the sight of God.
You said “I believe Abraham was saved in leaving his home and moving to Israel, in trusting the promises of God, and submitting to them by actually acting and following through.”
This is salvation by doing something (works).
The Word of God says that “We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness.” - BEFORE he did anything (circumcision, moving, offering Isaac, etc....)
This is a critical distinction. Abraham was counted righteous by believing God. Nothing more. The fact that he followed through and obeyed was evidence of his belief, not the basis on which he was counted righteous.
BK - “Did Abraham know of Christ?”
The Bible doesn’t tell us how much Abraham knew, but he certainly believed that God was going to provide a way of salvation for mankind.
BK - “Was Abraham saved?”
Yes.
BK - “As for circumcision, Paul just spent chapters on discussing that circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing.”
I understand that. That was provided to prove that Abraham was counted righteous because of his faith before he DID anything. Which proves you wrong.
“The Bible doesn’t tell us how much Abraham knew, but he certainly believed that God was going to provide a way of salvation for mankind.”
Is that what God told him?
Now who’s making up stuff.
God was very clear with what he promised Abraham.
He promised Abraham the following:
1, that his descendents would be as numerous as the sand on the shore.
2, that they would reside in Israel, in the land between the Nile and Euphrates.
Which is why I referred to circumcision? No.
Circumcision was given after Abraham had already obeyed God, and submitted to him and left his home to travel to Israel. God commanded, he obeyed, and God blessed him.
James is very clear, Faith without works is dead. If you have faith in God, you will obey the commandments.
STF-””Try explaining Saint Genesius of Arles who was declared baptized by Martyrdom””
Ver-The martyrology is in error, he had received the sacrament of baptism.
Prove it? Your wrong! There are others as well.
Ver-”Anyhow, I answered your questions about baptism of blood, WHICH DOES NOT AFFECT numerically speaking practically ANYONE which you liberals are saved outside of the Church”
Is this going to be the new mission of the Feeney crowd now- to start a crusade to remove Saint Genesius of Arles and others from Sainthood ?
Also, I never said there is no Salvation outside the Church,dear brother and I adhere to the defined teachings of the Church on these matters which is in the DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION LUMEN GENTIUM regarding the invincibly ignorant who follow the law of love,thus not making me liberal at all,but one who is obedient to the Church,unlike Feeney. We have been through this already.
Salvation comes through the Church through a mystical connection through God’s grace
From Lumen Gentium and Dominius Lesus(AGAIN!)
Lumen Gentium-DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life.
And from Dominus Iesus written by Cardinal Ratzinger before he became Pope Benedict XVI...
The Church is the “universal sacrament of salvation”,79 since, united always in a mysterious way to the Saviour Jesus Christ, her Head, and subordinated to him, she has, in God’s plan, an indispensable relationship with the salvation of every human being.80
For those who are not formally and visibly members of the Church, “salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church, but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit”;81 it has a relationship with the Church, which “according to the plan of the Father, has her origin in the mission of the Son and the Holy Spirit”.82
Feeney’s antisemitism written in his own articles at the below link ought to trouble you regarding him,ver
http://fatherfeeney.org/point/index.html
“The Bible doesn’t tell us how much Abraham knew, but he certainly believed that God was going to provide a way of salvation for mankind.”
Is that what God told him?
God was very clear with what he promised Abraham.
He promised Abraham the following:
1, that his descendents would be as numerous as the sand on the shore.
2, that they would reside in Israel, in the land between the Nile and Euphrates.
Wrong again.
Genesis 12:3 - “I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and IN YOU ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH WILL BE BLESSED.”
Hebrews 11:8 - “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance.”
Abraham went as a result of his faith, not the other way around.
So now two questions for you.
1. What is justification?
2. How is a man justified in the sight of God?
“1. What is justification?”
Justification is the process whereby God redeems man.
“2. How is a man justified in the sight of God?”
By the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.
“Justification is the process whereby God redeems man.”
What is the “process”?
I thought I already answered that question.
We are saved by the Grace of God, through faith in Christ.
Sorry if I wasn’t clear.
You wrote “Justification is the process whereby God redeems man.”
Therefore, I’m asking:
What do you mean by “process”?
If you are saying that man is justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, we agree. If you are saying anything other than that, please elaborate.
“justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone”
I believe I did say that we are Justified by the Grace of God, through Faith in Christ.
Said so twice.
We aren’t in *dis* agreement about much at all in this thread. You are arguing between yourself and your perceptions.
You are looking for an answer, but you aren’t getting the one you like, so you continue asking.
So I’ll answer again.
We are justified by the Grace of God through Faith in Christ.
The good thief was under the old covenant. He did not go directly to heaven, he went to the same place as Adam, Eve, Abraham, and the Holy Innocents all of which were not under the obligation of being baptized to be saved. Heaven was not opened till the Resurrection of Our Lord.
From The Catechism of Trent: Baptism Made Obligatory After Christ's Resurrection
The second period to be distinguished, that is, the time when the law of Baptism was made, also admits of no doubt. Holy writers are unanimous in saying that after the Resurrection of our Lord, when He gave to His Apostles the command to go and teach all nations: baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, the law of Baptism became obligatory on all who were to be saved.
re: Baptism of desire is scriptural. That's your opinion. There is no passage in scripture that is more exact than the requirement that one must be baptized to be saved. Besides, I'm not a Protestant, if you want to discuss dogma that's fine. If you want to discuss scripture, go and join one of the many never ending circle discussions with other YOPIOS on FR.
re:What’s your issue with converts, btw?
None. My issue is liberals and progressivists and the dumb down Catholics they have taught. Where people came from to become Catholics is of no concern to me. My favorite female saint is Mary Magdalene, who was a whore. Among the strict interpreters of EENS there are many Protestant converts.
re: All this sedevacantist nonsense is no different than what Luther, or Calvin did 500 years ago. You simply don’t want to submit to the pope, anymore than Luther or Calvin.
1)I'm not a sedevacantes.
2)Luther and Calvin rejected THE OFFICE of pope. I don't.
3)The author of the article of this thread is in union with his local bishop and the pope.
4)sedevacantes don't reject the office of the pope, which would be heretical. They just don't believe that the post Vatican II popes are valid popes. Big Difference.
5) Let's see how you submit to the pope when he issues a decree that you don't like? Do you contraceptives? 99% of Catholics use them. I doubt if 1% of you who claim to follow the pope have had all the children God has sent you.
Heaven was not opened till the Ascencion of Our Lord.
1, ok cool.
2, 3, 4. Submission is the issue. Like them, you find submission to Benedict XVI difficult.
“5) Let’s see how you submit to the pope when he issues a decree that you don’t like? Do you contraceptives? 99% of Catholics use them. I doubt if 1% of you who claim to follow the pope have had all the children God has sent you.”
And you lose. I have never used contraception. I am hoping, God willing, to have a family.
“That’s your opinion. There is no passage in scripture that is more exact than the requirement that one must be baptized to be saved. Besides, I’m not a Protestant, if you want to discuss dogma that’s fine. If you want to discuss scripture, go and join one of the many never ending circle discussions with other YOPIOS on FR.”
I’m not arguing against the principle that baptism is a requirement. All I’m arguing is that baptism of blood and baptism of desire are valid ways by which one can achieve baptism.
Fr’instance my home parish baptises catecumenates at Easter, every year. If someone were to die in the process of entering the Church, they still would be considered baptised. In the early days catechumens studied much longer than they do now.
Luther and Calvin did not "find submission difficult", they outright rejected the authority of the office of the pope. They were schismatics, and heretics.
Besides, what exactly is there that you feel that the author of the article is not "submitting" too? Obviously, B-16 and his local ordinary in New Hampshire do not see what you see.
This progressivist ruse of "submit" is a now almost 50 year old and can be seen now for what it was, a ploy to get the ignorant of the faith to submit to their lying novelty religion. Open your eyes, All the progressivists and their stooges are not submitting to all the popes of 1960 years. Today, they teach "who knows who is outside of the Church?"
ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (400-450 AD) CONFESSOR OF THE CHURCH
"What then should a Catholic do if some part of the Church were to separate itself from communion with the universal Faith? What other choice can he make but to prefer to the gangrenous and corrupted member the whole of the body that is sound. And if some new contagion were to try to poison no longer a small part of the Church, but all of the Church at the same time, then he will take the greatest care to attach himself to antiquity which, obviously, can no longer be seduced by any lying novelty." (Commonitorium)
from: http://www.traditio.com/tradlib/popelim.txt
I’m familiar with their arguments, and yours.
Luther made similar ones and eventually came to the conclusion that he must divide the body in order to save the souls of his charges. The result is what we see today. That he argued the Church was irredeemably corrupt, is identical to your argument here.
Benedict has welcomed you in as our brothers and sisters. Then as now, I wrote, we shall see whether they shall submit to the legitimate authority of this pope.
You are right, that there are many who have undermined the teachings of the previous two millenia. I agree with you wholeheartedly. But the answer is not the division of the body, but to submit to the legitimate authority of Benedict XVI. Then we can work together.
We have far to many enemies to fight each other, we must stand together.
Baptism of blood - The theological construct called baptism of blood is a fallible theory. Cantate Domino's "even if they shed their blood for Christ" is infallible. So are the other nine ex-cathedra definitions that I posted. In total, those 9 ex-cathedra, and those many more magisterial decrees of popoes which confirm the 9 ex-cathedra, and the thousands of actual cases of people raised from the dead just to be baptized, all those stand against what? Like 5 martyrology cases of Baptism of Blood like 1500+ years ago?
If you want to believe in baptism of blood, there is nothing wrong with that, as far as I'm concerned. BUT, you'd be a rare liberal if that is all that you want to make of baptism of blood. So, where are you going with this?
Baptism of desire - another theological construct. It is a fallible theory. The requirement of the sacrament of baptism is infallible dogma:
Council of Trent. Seventh Session. March, 1547. Decree on the Sacraments. On Baptism
Canon 5. If any one saith, that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema. (P. S. - Baptism of desire is not a sacrament.)
Some more observations on Baptism of desire:
1)One has the "desire" only by the grace of God. In order to believe in baptism of desire, one would have to believe that God's Grace could convert the hardened person, but God did not have the power to keep the person alive long enough to get someone to pour water on his head. You are caught in a vortex of confusion!
St. Augustine: “If you wish to be a Catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.’ There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief.” (On the Soul and Its Origin 3, 13)
2)The theory of baptism of desire saves no baptized Protestant or Eastern Orthodox, they are already baptized.
3) The theory baptism of desire does not save anyone who does not desire to be a baptized member of the Catholic Church.
So, these two theories don't really apply to all the Protestants and Eastern Orthodox on FR, the people that the liberalized dumb down Catholics are trying to bend over backwards to show that they are saved.
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.