Posted on 05/12/2015 4:21:27 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Let us begin with a church history exam question. Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542–1621) was a figure not to be taken lightly. He was Pope Clement VIII’s personal theologian and one of the most able figures in the Counter-Reformation movement within sixteenth-century Roman Catholicism. On one occasion, he wrote: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is _______ .” Complete, explain, and discuss Bellarmine’s statement.
How would you answer? What is the greatest of all Protestant heresies? Perhaps justification by faith? Perhaps Scripture alone, or one of the other Reformation watchwords?
Those answers make logical sense. But none of them completes Bellarmine’s sentence. What he wrote was: “The greatest of all Protestant heresies is assurance.”
A moment’s reflection explains why. If justification is not by faith alone, in Christ alone, by grace alone — if faith needs to be completed by works; if Christ’s work is somehow repeated; if grace is not free and sovereign, then something always needs to be done, to be “added” for final justification to be ours. That is exactly the problem. If final justification is dependent on something we have to complete it is not possible to enjoy assurance of salvation. For then, theologically, final justification is contingent and uncertain, and it is impossible for anyone (apart from special revelation, Rome conceded) to be sure of salvation. But if Christ has done everything, if justification is by grace, without contributory works; it is received by faith’s empty hands — then assurance, even “full assurance” is possible for every believer.
No wonder Bellarmine thought full, free, unfettered grace was dangerous! No wonder the Reformers loved the letter to the Hebrews!
This is why, as the author of Hebrews pauses for breath at the climax of his exposition of Christ’s work (Heb. 10:18), he continues his argument with a Paul-like “therefore” (Heb. 10:19). He then urges us to “draw near … in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:22). We do not need to re-read the whole letter to see the logical power of his “therefore.” Christ is our High Priest; our hearts have been sprinkled clean from an evil conscience just as our bodies have been washed with pure water (v.22).
Christ has once-for-all become the sacrifice for our sins, and has been raised and vindicated in the power of an indestructible life as our representative priest. By faith in Him, we are as righteous before the throne of God as He is righteous. For we are justified in His righteousness, His justification alone is ours! And we can no more lose this justification than He can fall from heaven. Thus our justification does not need to be completed any more than does Christ’s!
With this in view, the author says, “by one offering He has perfected for all time those who come to God by him” (Heb. 10:14). The reason we can stand before God in full assurance is because we now experience our “hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and … bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. 10:22).
“Ah,” retorted Cardinal Bellarmine’s Rome, “teach this and those who believe it will live in license and antinomianism.” But listen instead to the logic of Hebrews. Enjoying this assurance leads to four things: First, an unwavering faithfulness to our confession of faith in Jesus Christ alone as our hope (v.23); second, a careful consideration of how we can encourage each other to “love and good works” (v.24); third, an ongoing communion with other Christians in worship and every aspect of our fellowship (v.25a); fourth, a life in which we exhort one another to keep looking to Christ and to be faithful to him, as the time of his return draws ever nearer (25b).
It is the good tree that produces good fruit, not the other way round. We are not saved by works; we are saved for works. In fact we are God’s workmanship at work (Eph. 2:9–10)! Thus, rather than lead to a life of moral and spiritual indifference, the once-for-all work of Jesus Christ and the full-assurance faith it produces, provides believers with the most powerful impetus to live for God’s glory and pleasure. Furthermore, this full assurance is rooted in the fact that God Himself has done all this for us. He has revealed His heart to us in Christ. The Father does not require the death of Christ to persuade Him to love us. Christ died because the Father loves us (John 3:16). He does not lurk behind His Son with sinister intent wishing He could do us ill — were it not for the sacrifice his Son had made! No, a thousand times no! — the Father Himself loves us in the love of the Son and the love of the Spirit.
Those who enjoy such assurance do not go to the saints or to Mary. Those who look only to Jesus need look nowhere else. In Him we enjoy full assurance of salvation. The greatest of all heresies? If heresy, let me enjoy this most blessed of “heresies”! For it is God’s own truth and grace!
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.