Fixing a hole where the rain gets in ...

[Lost4words]

Demonstrate that. If you are talking about Jeremiah, then you would also have to be an Open Theist, which makes God time-bound which is not really a prospect I like much.

Thomas Aquinas was pretty clear that God does not change, so you are not disagreeing with me, but with him.

Its open to interpretation. Its how you interpret scripture.

God relented in scripture. He turned away from what He was going to do. He had a change of heart.

 

[Markie Boy]

Very big of them to allow that others might also be Christians...

Sounds almost like some Baptists I know, who seem to think, for one example, that if there are no baptist missionaries in a particular country, it is therefore without the gospel.

Funny - I have run into the same thing. Baptists are often the most anti-Catholic - yet do the similar things. I heard of them working to plant a church just a bit away from where I am because there wasn't a true one - like only theirs has the Gospel.

I know good Christians in both the Baptist and Catholic churches. But am not a fan of how the leadership of each of those churches views others.

 

[Lost4words]

We are all believers in Jesus as Son of God who died and rose again.

There has always been arguments between different denominations. Nobody is better than the other.

 

[Markie Boy]

As far as the topic at hand - the Council of Florence is so at odds with Vatican 2 teaching I can't see an honest way of showing continuity.

Florence is clear - if you are not Catholic you will not be saved. Vatican 2 says you don't even have to be Christian - Jews, Muslims, etc. are all good to go.

The real issue is the RCC never comes out and says "we were wrong", now we teach XYZ. To do so would destroy any claim to infallibility for them. So they add a new teaching, and just teach that. BUT it depends where you are. A staunch Latin priest or community will still teach the old Florence teaching, while a new modern one say what Vatican 2 does. Which one is the true Catholic Church - I can't figure out.

Either way - it takes too much fancy foot work to get from Florence to today, without saying "we were wrong".

 

[Lost4words]

I guess it all boils down to which church Jesus started. We all know its the Catholic church. No getting away from that. No matter what non Catholics say.

 

[Markie Boy]

OK - but which council is correct - Florence or Vatican 2?

They can't both be correct.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

I think it is possible to be saved without any evidence of good works, yes. There are a couple of examples in the Bible of this, one of which is the theif on the cross. I believe there is also an example of a hypothetical man in one of the Corinthians who has no good works but is still saved.

The theif repented from unbelief to belief. This is a good work. Then He defended Jesus Christ of Nazareth . This is another good work. Then the theif proclaimed the power and glory of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Yet another good work. In only a couple of verses this theif was able to proclaim the Gospel. Imagine what else he said before his death. His good works revealed his salvation.
Blessings.

 

[All Becomes New]

He had a change of heart.

Then that would mean God is not perfect and had to repent of His sin.

 

[Valletta]

As far as the topic at hand - the Council of Florence is so at odds with Vatican 2 teaching I can't see an honest way of showing continuity.

Florence is clear - if you are not Catholic you will not be saved. Vatican 2 says you don't even have to be Christian - Jews, Muslims, etc. are all good to go.

The real issue is the RCC never comes out and says "we were wrong", now we teach XYZ. To do so would destroy any claim to infallibility for them. So they add a new teaching, and just teach that. BUT it depends where you are. A staunch Latin priest or community will still teach the old Florence teaching, while a new modern one say what Vatican 2 does. Which one is the true Catholic Church - I can't figure out.

Either way - it takes too much fancy foot work to get from Florence to today, without saying "we were wrong".

There are two points. The first would be which statements of the Council of Florence were approved by the pope and were then considered infallible. The second point is the question of who is saved. Jesus did not leave us a numbered and complete set of theological truths. If He had there would be no purpose for theologians. From what was passed down from Jesus the Catholic Church can come to a greater understanding over the centuries. What happens at the moment of death no one knows. Does the Holy Spirit inform the person of the truth at that moment? What is clear is that if a person, at the final Judgment, knows the truth about Jesus and His Church and deliberately rejects it that person is not saved. It is also clear Jesus stresses His mercy.

 

[Lost4words]

Then that would mean God is not perfect and had to repent of His sin.

Nope.

 

[All Becomes New]

Nope.

A change of heart means your heart is not perfect.

 

[Lost4words]

A change of heart means your heart is not perfect.

Nope....

 

[All Becomes New]

Nope....

How so? Do you think Jesus repented of His racism as well just like Brandan Robertson?

 

[BobRyan]

Demonstrate that. If you are talking about Jeremiah, then you would also have to be an Open Theist, which makes God time-bound which is not really a prospect I like much.

Thomas Aquinas was pretty clear that God does not change, so you are not disagreeing with me, but with him.

Not true --

God does not have to be ignorant about the future for Jeremiah 18 to be true.

In Gen 6 God does not say "mankind failed just as I knew they would from the day I created" because that results in the false doctrine that God made man to fail and thus it is no longer man's fault -- it is God's.

The layer of indirection that God has created -- which removes blame from Himself for what man chooses to do - is free will in man... it is not ignorance in God.

Limited humanity can only imagine ways to know the future and those ways are meager and flawed. By contrast God knows the future without having to stoop to man's ideas of how to do it. Man supposes that the only way to do it is to program man to fail or to succeed and remove free will.

But God is infinite and not at all limited to man's meager attempts to plot a scenario for always knowing the future.

The biggest flaw that I see in Calvinism is its efforts to sit in God's chair.

 

[All Becomes New]

Not true --

God does not have to be ignorant about the future for Jeremiah 18 to be true.

In Gen 6 God does not say "mankind failed just as I knew they would from the day I created" because that results in the false doctrine that God made man to fail and thus it is no longer man's fault -- it is God's.

The layer of indirection that God has created -- which removes blame from Himself for what man chooses to do - is free will in man... it is not ignorance in God.

Limited humanity can only imagine ways to know the future and those ways are meager and flawed. By contrast God knows the future without having to stoop to man's ideas of how to do it. Man supposes that the only way to do it is to program man to fail or to succeed and remove free will.

But God is infinite and not at all limited to man's meager attempts to plot a scenario for always knowing the future.

The biggest flaw that I see in Calvinism is its efforts to sit in God's chair.

It just means God makes mistakes. That's not how I see God.

And why are you talking about Calvinism? I'm not a Calvinist.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Very big of them to allow that others might also be Christians...

Not so big of your post to phrase your point that way.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's not what Protestants mean by a "good work".

What specifically isn't? I dd mention more than one thing.

 

[FireDragon76]

What specifically isn't? I dd mention more than one thing.

"Good works" have a specific historical meaning for Protestants, and doesn't refer to any kind of disposition towards good. The thief on the cross was not doing a good work, in the sense we would be objecting to, as necessary for salvation. Merely having a change of heart is not understood as a good work.

 

[FireDragon76]

So, Catholicism is the default...? Everything else falls short?

In fairness, many Christians have the same attitude. It's rare a Christian denomination sees their church as just one of many equally valid choices.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In fairness, many Christians have the same attitude. It's rare a Christian denomination sees their church as just one of many equally valid choices.

The default is Scripture. No denomination.