Posted on 05/12/2015 4:21:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
So, you’re saying that Jesus intended Mormons and homosexuals in those words He spoke???
xzins ..We have been FR friends for many years.. we have debated our individual theology on many occasions.. but I have never doubted "we are one"..I have no idea the what position CB or 90% of the saved FR'ers have on the Ordo salutis...but because of faith in Christ we are one ....
We are not one with cults or those that have a jesus that does not save to the outtemost
Jesus knew what Jesus meant when He spoke those words in John 17:21-22. If someone wants to believe that Jesus included islamo-fascists and other cults in that verse, then the onus is on them to prove that.
I don’t think Jesus afterwards winked and said “When I use the word ‘believe’ I want you all to know that ‘fake belief’ is just fine with me.”
That would be a stretch
That’s me on my homepage
You can ping Travis McGee and verify
Man would I not be a scary dogfood ugly woman
Now, I just gave you two groups who claim to "believe in Jesus" and asked if they are included in your "us all". Now it appears that your "us all" does not include some who do indeed claim to "believe in Jesus".
So there seems to be a line that you do indeed draw as to who "us all" are even among those who claim to "believe in Jesus". Now the question becomes, where do you draw that line when making the claim that Jesus wanted "us all" to be one?
"In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."
http://www.askacatholic.com/_webpostings/answers/2007_11NOV/2007NovHowAuthoritativeIsTheCatechism.cfm
The problem comes down to was this declared by the pope ex cathedra;
Rome believes it contains some infallible statements but the document is not itself infallible ..
The thing is most catholics think EVERYTHING the church says or teaches is infallible...including the sermon on Sunday and the articles posted here....
Here is one example
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
From Catholic answers
Limbo is a theological speculation, not a dogma. It was found in some old Catechisms, but it's never been "official Church teaching".
Father William Jurgens, in The Faith of the Early Fathers, makes the interesting observation that the first theologians to come up with Limbo were the Pelagians - and that's not a very great recommendation (I'm paraphrasing.)
However, he does have an interesting argument about the possible salvation of unbaptized infants:
1. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the Eucharist is essential for salvation (see John 6.)
2. However, St. Thomas also clarified that if a baptized child died before receiving the Eucharist, the Church's desire for the child to receive the Eucharist would suffice for it.
3. By analogy, the Church's "desire" for the baptism of an infant who dies unbaptized through no fault of his / her own could (if St. Thomas' argument can be extended) suffice for an implicit baptism of desire.
4. Therefore, we must have a sanguine hope for the salvation of unbaptized infants.
(I'm simplifying the argument; the whole text can be found in Volume 3 of the aforementioned book.
Here is a contemporary discussion on limbo https://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/znotionlimbo.HTM
Rome has never said the catechism is infallible.. that way they are free to change doctrine as they will
Bluntly..are you “one” with Rome”?
Jesus’ words mean what Jesus meant. If someone thinks Jesus’ words include Mormons and cults, then it’s up to them to prove that’s true.
However, I do think the words mean what they mean. Let’s say that ‘believe’ means XY. Therefore, it doesn’t matter what else is true. If a person XYs, then they are one of the ones Jesus was talking about. Regardless of the group they were affiliated with at the time they XY’d, OR the group they affiliated with after they XY’d.
Baltimore Catechism1891
Here is one example
Q. 632. Where will persons go who -- such as infants -- have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism?
Answer ....A. Persons, such as infants, who have not committed actual sin and who, through no fault of theirs, die without baptism, cannot enter heaven; but it is the common belief they will go to some place similar to Limbo, where they will be free from suffering, though deprived of the happiness of heaven.
Limbo is not an "infallible" teaching of Rome ..but I memorized it believing it was..
Nice dancing...
I'm not even one with the United Methodist Church -- my own denomination. However, the Roman Catholic Church has many fine believers in it. So does the United Methodist Church. Your church/denomination, whatever it is, also has believers in it. I'm ONE with all of those people, and WE corporately are the Church.
I wish we were all more closely connected.
That's so unsatisfactory, biblically speaking. Paul says "whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved."
That's either true or it isn't. You either believe it or you don't.
Is it true, and do you believe it?
(I do believe it. In it's pure simple form, I believe it. Paul says they'll get started at that moment with the Lord. He'll ensure everything else will get done.)
Problem is MOST (not all ) RC’s call on the name of the church ...not Christ.. those that call on Christ eventually leave..
Are you being purposely evasive and obtuse? If so why?
There is absolutely nothing obtuse nor evasive in that post. It is extremely clear.
If someone believes in Jesus that person is saved. John 3:16.
There is nothing hard to understand about Jesus’ words. You believe and you’re saved. Period.
matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.
It seems to me that you may want to look at context for your Acts 2 verse.
Then I will ask you again. Will Mormons be saved? What about practicing homosexuals?
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.
John 6: "For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”"
Why do you have trouble with that?
Any Mormon who believes in Jesus will be saved. Any practicing homosexual who believes in Jesus will be saved.
Are you saying that sinners can't be 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.