Beloved57 are you sure you’re chosen?

[Idolater]

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
This is exactly what has happened to the churches today, that little bit of leaven from the law has grown to a huge blob of nothing but dough.

So again, and I'm repeating myself, if I understand that when Paul uses "the law" he means what I basically think of as the "Old Testament" part of my Bible (and I have like 40 Bibles), then we don't get the 'antinomianism' that I'm sure everybody's heard about, that's always talked about like it's a plague (metaphorically), like how Covid is a plague.

'Plague's winding down.

Adding all kinds of crap to the simple gospel.

Waxing cold.
Falling away.
False teachers.
Preaching the gospel of the kingdom on earth while trying to reach up to heaven.

Colossians 3 teaches that Christian ethics, which is definitely "on earth", is heavenly, it's from heaven, and when we meditate on Christian ethics we are meditating on heavenly things.

 

[Idolater]

Yes, I understand. Just saying that he claims to be Catholic (RCC) and they do not agree with your list.

If he does, he's anathema.

Canon 12. If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema.

Canon 24. If anyone says that justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely fruits and signs of justification obtained, not the cause of its increase, let him be anathema.

Canon 30. If anyone say that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out ... that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be discharged ... before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.

Canons are just required in order to adjudicate when needed. In spite of Paul instructing us to not take one another to court, if we somehow end up in court anyway, then we need canons. They are traditions of men, and not of God (canons are not strictly speaking Apostolic), but they are ideally founded upon the practical interpretation of the Apostolic teaching on our faith, doctrine, morals and ethics. In other words our honest understanding of the Scripture and Catechism cannot be repugnant to the canons, though it is possible for our interpretation of the canons to be repugnant to the Scripture and Catechism (i.e. to Apostolicity).

The practical implication of the canons for the 'average' Catholic is almost nothing.

 

[Right Divider]

The practical implication of the canons for the 'average' Catholic is almost nothing.

So important then...

The RCC is a bogus organization making bogus rules.

 

[Idolater]

So important then...

The RCC is a bogus organization making bogus rules.

Missing the entire point. Par for the course with you. So predictable.

 

[glorydaz]

So Musty, for the third time, can you please provide the chapter and verse that states that we must only believe certain things, and that if we believe more than that, we cannot get saved?

I'm not saying that things that are believed that are more than what is presented by Paul will get you saved, I'm saying that believing what Paul said regarding belief will result in being saved, IN SPITE of anything else one believes.

The promise of the Spirit through faith has been confirmed through Christ and no man can take away or add to it.

Gal. 3:14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

 

[glorydaz]

So again, and I'm repeating myself, if I understand that when Paul uses "the law" he means what I basically think of as the "Old Testament" part of my Bible (and I have like 40 Bibles), then we don't get the 'antinomianism' that I'm sure everybody's heard about, that's always talked about like it's a plague (metaphorically), like how Covid is a plague.

'Plague's winding down.

Colossians 3 teaches that Christian ethics, which is definitely "on earth", is heavenly, it's from heaven, and when we meditate on Christian ethics we are meditating on heavenly things.

The law was alive and well when Jesus walked the earth, and He and the apostles preached it daily. So you can include all the Bible except for Paul's letters in that Old Testament list of yours.

Christian "ethics" cannot be produced by man's own efforts. Man's best efforts apart from the fruit of the Spirit are worthless.

 

[glorydaz]

Canons are just required in order to adjudicate when needed. In spite of Paul instructing us to not take one another to court, if we somehow end up in court anyway, then we need canons. They are traditions of men, and not of God (canons are not strictly speaking Apostolic), but they are ideally founded upon the practical interpretation of the Apostolic teaching on our faith, doctrine, morals and ethics. In other words our honest understanding of the Scripture and Catechism cannot be repugnant to the canons, though it is possible for our interpretation of the canons to be repugnant to the Scripture and Catechism (i.e. to Apostolicity).

The practical implication of the canons for the 'average' Catholic is almost nothing.

Scripture stand on it's own. Man's "cannons" are as filthy rags.

 

[Clete]

It says and I quote (from memory, because we confess this creed many Masses throughout every year), "I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

It doesn't say water it says one. It's the baptism of the Holy Spirit, just as the Scripture says, and yes, the sacrament is a meeting of the eternal and the temporal, just as they all are, so there is water but that is the material corollary to the eternal reality which is that Jesus Christ baptizes you. If He baptizes you before you celebrate the sacrament, which was the case with me and most every convert to the Church I'm almost certain, what is the problem?

Catholicism doesn't believe in a strict wooden literal interpretation of baptism being what saves you anyway, if you (like me) like a good Protestant, who knows how to study and interpret the scriptures, would only turn your skill upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well, it is easily seen.

I'll meet them one-by-one. The point of the confession is to remind us all of what we all collectively and uniformly believe and confess. We might and do differ on a lot of other stuff, but we all agree on this and on the Apostles Creed.

The effect is mental. In reminding ourselves we practice those 'neural pathways' and strengthen them, so that our mind is continually conformed to the mind of Christ.

It almost has nothing to do with 'getting saved'. See below.

Catholic soteriology is identical to the 'Solas' which concern soteriology, by Christ alone by grace alone and by faith alone. This again is coming from my own 'Protestant' interpretation of Catholicism, based upon studying the Catechism in the light of the Scripture and with sound reason.

To answer this question we turn to the Catechism, which addresses Noncatholic Christians. The only condition specifically given which assures as far as Catholicism is concerned that a person is saved, is to "believe in Christ" (I believe this is the exact quote in the relevant text).

So for Catholics, basically, so long as you believe that you believe in Christ, you're a real Christian and going to heaven after death. Now when you examine the Catechism for what 'believing in Christ' means to Catholicism, it means believing in the Resurrection of Christ, and in His divinity, the supporting texts of which I can provide if you don't believe me or are curious.

But Catholicism doesn't even deign to pronounce just what it means to believe in Christ for Noncatholics, we only believe good Catholic doctrine for our own salvation, and honestly, there is great freedom of thought in Catholicism, and so you are able to properly treat each doctrine one-by-one, in your own time and on your own time table, as you continue to maintain the status of 'full communion', which enables you to licitly receive the Eucharist at Mass, which you would be going to weekly (to stay in full communion).

We believe it's up to your own conscience to determine what it means to believe in Him. It's up to you, it's up to God, and we pray that you do find the Church, because of the freedom, and because of the Feast (the Blessed Sacrament, Holy Communion). Keep the feast.

For your intention Clete: In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; amen.

None of this made any sense whatsoever. I can't even tell if you're a Catholic or not after reading that!

Can you not simply answer the question? It isn't that complicated of a question!

Does your religion teach that if someone merely and only believes the six points I've presented as the gospel, that person is saved?

Yes or no.

 

[Clete]

It depends on if his faith is based on anything other than the shed blood of Christ.

Well, the discussion is predicated on the gospel as I have presented it, which I'm not necessarily attached at the hip with, by the way. I'd be happy to be shown where it needs correction.

So what if a person accepted the gospel as I've presented it and then, after that, someone came along and managed to convince him that he had to get water baptized to get saved and so he did it.

What if a person trusts in Christ just as you say he should and then, in college, meets a girl who happens to be Catholic and because boys are boys, he starts attending her church for her sake and then one day down the road finds himself practicing Roman Catholicism?

Is there, in your view, ANY difference between the gospel as I've presented it and basing one's faith only on the shed blood of Christ?

 

[Clete]

I think this might be one of those hypothetical things like Tam saying a believer can turn from God and start worshipping satan.
I don't believe that's possible. Could be a Catholic in name only, I suppose.

On what do you base the belief that it is not possible?

Losing salvation?
Rather....fallen from grace. Do we know what that means?

For the purposes of this discussion it would be going to Hell to pay your own sin debt.

Do you believe that can happen once someone accepts the gospel as I've presented it?

Also from what Paul says in Gal. 2, those who preach any other gospel (adding to the cross) are to be accursed.

Paul was referring to those who preach that believers must submit themselves to the law. That's sort of the theme of the whole book - indeed it is the theme of Paul's entire ministry. And it isn't just the preachers who Paul said were cursed...

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”​

But he isn't teaching that these lose their salvation. The book is talking about how to live the Christian life and telling people that the Law is NOT the way but faith is.

Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

​

And he tells us elsewhere...

​

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,​

​

​

Clete

 

[Idolater]

None of this made any sense whatsoever. I can't even tell if you're a Catholic or not after reading that!

Can you not simply answer the question? It isn't that complicated of a question!

Does your religion teach that if someone merely and only believes the six points I've presented as the gospel, that person is saved?

Yes or no.

There are at minimum four superfluous points, so I'll say Yes since you're demanding a yes-no.

 

[glorydaz]

Well, the discussion is predicated on the gospel as I have presented it, which I'm not necessarily attached at the hip with, by the way. I'd be happy to be shown where it needs correction.

So what if a person accepted the gospel as I've presented it and then, after that, someone came along and managed to convince him that he had to get water baptized to get saved and so he did it.

Why can't we just say a person accepted the Gospel as Paul presented it?

Is there any way we can tell if a person has actually believed the Gospel? Not that I know of.
They can give their testimony, and if includes faith alone in the Cross of Christ, then we can assume they are believers.
Otherwise, we can't know. This is why Paul tells people to examine themselves whether they be in the faith.

So, any speculation about what a person does after he is saved is not only pointless, but a total waste of time.

What if a person trusts in Christ just as you say he should and then, in college, meets a girl who happens to be Catholic and because boys are boys, he starts attending her church for her sake and then one day down the road finds himself practicing Roman Catholicism?

Is there, in your view, ANY difference between the gospel as I've presented it and basing one's faith only on the shed blood of Christ?

When we're talking about things done in the body....that can be burned up at the Bema Seat....those are things done in the flesh

The guy having sex with his father's wife --

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.


However, the promises of God remain and stand firm.
Does the Lord keep us from adding to the work of the cross once we've been saved? I believe He does.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

 

[glorydaz]

On what do you base the belief that it is not possible?

Because I believe we are kept by the Power of God. We are His workmanship, and He causes us both to will and do His good pleasure. These are not idle promises. Does the Lord keep us from falling or not? Well, I've stumbled many a time, but I have never fallen. Never in a million years would I think I had to be water baptized to be saved. Never would I think I had to add one single thing to Christ's work on the cross. That very fact is drilled into our head the moment we believe.

For the purposes of this discussion it would be going to Hell to pay your own sin debt.

Do you believe that can happen once someone accepts the gospel as I've presented it?

Alright, I'm going to have to go back and look at your list again. Why can't we just say the way Paul presented it?

Anyway, I'll say again, how in the world can we know whether a person has actually believed the gospel and trusted it for salvation?

Paul was referring to those who preach that believers must submit themselves to the law. That's sort of the theme of the whole book - indeed it is the theme of Paul's entire ministry. And it isn't just the preachers who Paul said were cursed...

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.”​

But he isn't teaching that these lose their salvation. The book is talking about how to live the Christian life and telling people that the Law is NOT the way but faith is.

Galatians 3:2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh?​

​

And he tells us elsewhere...

​

Colossians 2:6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him,​

​

​

Clete

Yes, Paul does teach how to walk in Christ, but he is most adamant about the gospel of grace, and that's why I think he is so against anything being added to Christ's work on the cross.

In fact, he is more adamant about his gospel of grace than he is about our assurance of salvation.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

 

[Clete]

There are at minimum four superfluous points, so I'll say Yes since you're demanding a yes-no.

Excellent! That's a good starting point.

Which four (or more) points do you say are superfluous?

For ease of reference, I'll re-post the six points here and I'll included a very brief explanation as to why I believe they are necessary...

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

All these six points are nothing more than a fleshing out of Romans 10:9-10...

• You have to believe in the right God.
• You must acknowledge guilt of sin and thus the need for being saved.
• Jesus is God's spotless lamb, to put it in Old Testament terminology. He is the just God's (point 1) sacrifice for our sin (point 2).
• You have to believe in the right Jesus. (i.e. Mormonism and other cults doesn't cut it.)
• THE central belief of Christianity.
• Explicit statement of scripture (Romans 10:9-10) which the other five points serve to flesh out.

Notice no mention of good works or struggle or perseverance or any other such human effort. We cannot earn our salvation but must simply accept it as the free gift that it is.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Why can't we just say a person accepted the Gospel as Paul presented it?

Well, if you ask me, that's what I'm doing. That's sort of the point of the exercise, right? I started that thread to provide an explicit answer to the question, "What is Paul's gospel?"

Is there any way we can tell if a person has actually believed the Gospel? Not that I know of.

That's an excellent question but what I've driving at presumes that a person has believed all six points of the gospel as I've presented them.

Again, the emphasis here is not on me, or the way I've worded things. Quite the contrary, the whole point of the thread that produced those six points what to think through the issues and come up with a concise way of stating them. I'm not attached at the hip to them the way they are. If someone thinks they need modification then let's discuss it and see if there is a better way to state it.

They can give their testimony, and if includes faith alone in the Cross of Christ, then we can assume they are believers.
Otherwise, we can't know. This is why Paul tells people to examine themselves whether they be in the faith.

So, any speculation about what a person does after he is saved is not only pointless, but a total waste of time.

Oh, I disagree completely. It is just the exact opposite of a waste of time. It's no more a waste of time for us to understand the core of the gospel than it is for a Secret Service agent to be intimately familiar with real American currency.

Besides, how is this discussion not simply one version of the very examination of ourselves that you rightly point out that Paul admonishes us to do?

When we're talking about things done in the body....that can be burned up at the Bema Seat....those are things done in the flesh

The guy having sex with his father's wife --

1 Corinthians 5:5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

1 Timothy 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.


However, the promises of God remain and stand firm.
Does the Lord keep us from adding to the work of the cross once we've been saved? I believe He does.

Philippians 1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:

I agree with you here. Once we've been saved, we belong to Him and we are, from that day forth, Jesus' handiwork. Anything we attempt to add is a work of the flesh that He will remove, either now or at the Judgment seat of Christ. Those that have stubbornly refused to repent of such fleshly works will suffer loss but they themselves will be saved, as though through fire and they will be saved precisely and ONLY because there was a time in their life where they believed the actual gospel, which is what I think I've presented in those six points.

Because I believe we are kept by the Power of God. We are His workmanship, and He causes us both to will and do His good pleasure. These are not idle promises. Does the Lord keep us from falling or not? Well, I've stumbled many a time, but I have never fallen. Never in a million years would I think I had to be water baptized to be saved. Never would I think I had to add one single thing to Christ's work on the cross. That very fact is drilled into our head the moment we believe.

So you don't believe that any person that have really been saved can ever fall into error? You don't believe that it is possible for a person to read the book of James and get confused about whether works are required for salvation? Is every member of the Church of Christ actually unsaved?

That is certainly not compatible with the way I understand Paul's gospel of grace.

Yes, Paul does teach how to walk in Christ, but he is most adamant about the gospel of grace, and that's why I think he is so against anything being added to Christ's work on the cross.

In fact, he is more adamant about his gospel of grace than he is about our assurance of salvation.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

Well, this seems to be the crux of the disagreement, particularly when it comes to musterion's objection.

He (and perhaps you as well) seems to be saying that in addition to the six points I've presented, there needs to be an affirmative and explicit rejection of good works having any role in getting saved. It seems to me that simply omitting any mention of them as a requirement is sufficient. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

Clete

 

[Idolater]

The law was alive and well when Jesus walked the earth, and He and the apostles preached it daily. So you can include all the Bible except for Paul's letters in that Old Testament list of yours.

No. Nope. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the whole entire New Testament wasn't written down until way after the 'DBR' occurred, Galatians or Mark or 1st Thessalonians was not written until like AD 50. The whole entire Christian faith was "oral tradition" until the first book of the New Testament was written. Even single book of the NT was written to an already established, existing and 'operating' Church.

Christian "ethics" cannot be produced by man's own efforts.

No----now, you don't believe that! It's "Christian" to not invade Ukraine, for example. And Vlad Putin doesn't have to be a Christian in order to not invade Ukraine! I don't believe that you think that. I think you misspoke.

Man's best efforts apart from the fruit of the Spirit are worthless.

In terms of salvation sure.

 

[Idolater]

Scripture stand on it's own. Man's "cannons" are as filthy rags.

It's just about defining or setting out rights and obligations in this society, for when there are disputes. Hopefully there are just never any disputes and it's all superfluous, but in the case that it's not superfluous, there it is. It's at least a starting point in helping to resolve the dispute, that was apparently unavoidable.

Still, it's the doctrinal and moral (or ethical) teachings of the Apostles that supersede canons. The canons express a particular interpretation of the Apostolic tradition. This is all my own 'Protestant' report of the situation, on the other side from you, letting you know 'how the water is' here. It's OK.

 

[Idolater]

Excellent! That's a good starting point.

Which four (or more) points do you say are superfluous?

All the ones that aren't about Him being the Son of God (as the Creed specifies and describes, "God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father"), and Him rising from the dead (ibid. the Creed's, " rose again on the third day").

But honestly Clete I'm only giving you my 'Protestant' answer to this very Protestant question, which I perceive to be, basically, what really is the barest essential to saving Christian faith, according to Catholicism, for a Catholic.

Catholics can't claim to not know certain things, whereas if someone is raised in a situation where they're taught that Jesus isn't God, or that the Resurrection was phony somehow (e.g. in Islam), those people are ignorant, or can claim ignorance, but for a Catholic, we're always reminded that Jesus is God and that He rose from the dead----every single Mass.

But as far as I'm concerned, for Noncatholics, it's really up to you all to decide for yourself what it means to believe in Christ, and then all according to your own conscience on the matter of Him, you are either saved or not. That's Catholicism's view of the matter, according to my 'Protestant' treatment of Catholicism, as a monolithic theory, that is accurately expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, when understood in light of the Bible.

For ease of reference, I'll re-post the six points here and I'll included a very brief explanation as to why I believe they are necessary...

• God exists and is the Creator of all things and He is perfect, holy, and just.
• We, having willfully done evil things and rebelled against God, who gave us life, deserve death.
• Because God loves us, He provided for Himself a propitiation (an atoning sacrifice) by becoming a man whom we call Jesus Christ.
• Jesus, being the Creator God Himself and therefore innocent of any sin, willingly bore the sins of the world and died on our behalf.
• Jesus rose from the dead.
• If you confess with you mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge your need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, YOU WILL BE SAVED.

All these six points are nothing more than a fleshing out of Romans 10:9-10...

I agree with you. But I also believe that Catholicism itself is basically nothing more than a fleshing out of Romans 10:9-10

• You have to believe in the right God.
• You must acknowledge guilt of sin and thus the need for being saved.
• Jesus is God's spotless lamb, to put it in Old Testament terminology. He is the just God's (point 1) sacrifice for our sin (point 2).
• You have to believe in the right Jesus. (i.e. Mormonism and other cults doesn't cut it.)

I would just say . . . then you have to believe in the Catholic Jesus, even if you're not Catholic, because Catholicism is the original theory that believes in the "right" Jesus, according to you all. It would just be giving credit where it's due.

• THE central belief of Christianity.
• Explicit statement of scripture (Romans 10:9-10) which the other five points serve to flesh out.

Notice no mention of good works or struggle or perseverance or any other such human effort. We cannot earn our salvation but must simply accept it as the free gift that it is.

Yeah.

 

[Right Divider]

No. Nope. The Old Testament is the Old Testament, and the whole entire New Testament wasn't written down until way after the 'DBR' occurred, Galatians or Mark or 1st Thessalonians was not written until like AD 50. The whole entire Christian faith was "oral tradition" until the first book of the New Testament was written. Even single book of the NT was written to an already established, existing and 'operating' Church.

Many were written to a "church" named Israel (e.g., James 1:1).

Note that the majority of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are OLD TESTAMENT (since the new testament required the DEATH of the testator, Heb 9:16-17).

 

[Idolater]

Many were written to a "church" named Israel (e.g., James 1:1).

Note that the majority of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are OLD TESTAMENT

No they're not, that's just YOUR NARRATIVE. Right in John 1 we read that the Old Testament was given by Moses, and we infer that the New Testament is given by Jesus (which is called "grace", verses 16-17). We read about the 'DBR' in verse 29, " The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world"----He's going to take away the sin of the world through the 'DBR'. And we also read that Jesus is the One " which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost," not with water. That's all New Testament, and that's right in John 1.

(since the new testament required the DEATH of the testator, Heb 9:16-17).

'DBR' in like AD 33. Galatians, Mark, 1st Thessalonians, the first books of the New Testament to be written down, like AD 50. 17 years of Church happened before the first book of the NT was written down. Up until like AD 50 it was all oral tradition, 'word-of-mouth'.