Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Ok- my sensitivity faculty may be over-reacting today.I was just pointing out it's not exclusive to the RCC. Nothing else was meant to implied or concluded. Hmm found it informative, which was my only interest in pointing it out.
Salvation is spoken of in Scripture as a past, present, and future event-and one that's ultimately "worked out". We're the wildcard in it all-not Him.
Even those saints, who the Church simply came to recognize and affirm as making it to heaven, and to serve as spiritual role models for us- wouldn't have had absolute and perfect certainty about their salvation in this life-at least not according to the material on those whose lives I've read about. They were quite humble folk-that's how they came to know, love, and serve God as well as they did to begin with.
Then he is confusing the issue when he makes such statements as: We must love-that's really all there is to it.I think we can all agree that according to fhansen’s previous posts he does not advocate salvation by love without faith. I believe he is saying that we must have both love and faith to receive salvation. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 13 “if I have all faith so as to move mountains but I have not love, I am nothing.” I believe his message here is that faith without love is useless, much like what James said in James 2:14-16.
Then he is confusing the issue when he makes such statements as: We must love-that's really all there is to it.
That kind of statement works its way into being a false doctrine.
Sorry, that is the gospel. I don't know about how well Orthodox Jews love-I only know that love-done His way, agape- is the work and goal of God in man's life. Without it faith amounts to nothing-it hasn't achieved its purpose-and then we are nothing. 1 Cor 13:2Sorry. . .that is not the gospel. . .many who deny Christ love and love well, as in Orthodox Jews.
They are not saved.
How many times do I have to repeat this gospel truth?
Love is not all there is.
Paul tells us that we must obey the law, but that its fulfilled only by love, under grace IOW. Why do you misunderstand the gospel? I forgot, you have only your own personal, private, myopic interpretation of God's word to go by, which doesn't always agree at all with the interpretations of others using the same "methodology". But the Church of God teaches this simple eternal truth:You are presenting another gospel--saved by love--than the one Paul presents; i.e., saved by faith without works (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Why do you need to change the gospel?
Faith saves unto the obedience realized by love. And without that love-born obedience we are not saved.Saving faith obeys, but it is not its obedience which saves, it is the faith apart from its obedience which saves.
Love does not save.
Why, do they love well? I thought that was an Italian thing anywayAre you sure you're not Irish?
He would definitely have reason to think so. He also said in Phil 3 that he was striving to attain that heavenly promise.Paul said that to be absent from the body is to be with the Lord. That he was torn between staying and being absent from the Lord or leaving and being with the Lord. That really seems to indicate that Paul firmly believed that if he died right then, he would immediately be in heaven with Jesus.
I don't mind the challenges. And critical thinking is always the best route. Now, with research one will still run into plenty of pop mythology mixed with truth, half-truths, and falsehoods regarding Catholicism as its been a big target for centuries, not always undeserved. Where I get perturbed, however, is not with straight answers but with answers that come across more as diversions, consciously made or not. Answers that haven't really addressed the question IOW.
You're not comparing apples with apples. Your research then should've told you that those rites are nothing more than churches in communion with and under the authority of Rome; they're still Catholic Churches with the Roman bishop, the pope, as their head. They hold to the same catechism-holding a unified body of beliefs IOW. Their main differences are strictly non-dogmatic, involving liturgies and practices that have evolved within differing cultures. They call these different "rites".
The Catholic Church recognizes truth in those denominations that promote the basics of Christianity correctly, even if the lack of unity between us all is considered to be a wound, and ultimately not consistent with God's highest desire for His Church. But Protestant denominations resulted form protesting against and leaving the Catholic church and the CC stills sees them as "separated brethren" and still part of the one larger Church regardless of whether or not they agree- or love, hate, or otherwise ignore the CC. The differences in beliefs between the denominations themselves and with the CC are rightly called "wounds to unity", and the Catholic Church teaches that the "fullness of truth" resides within Catholic teachings. But the Church also teaches:
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276
Access to Scripture mainly came about due to the printing press and increasing literacy. And the result, ultimately, was a wide range of differing beliefs, based on Scripture alone. Some basics that were agreed upon didn't produce the predicted fruit. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura proved itself invalid despite best desires and intentions, and the doctrine of Sola Fide works sorta kinda ok when qualified, while the rest of the Solas are consistent with Christian truth.
If it was only peripheral stuff, or reforming abuses done by churchmen (which was Luther's original objection), that would be one thing. The baby got thrown out, however, when doctrinal changes were thought appropriate. This very matter of justification-what it takes and means to be right in the eyes of God-was central to the Reformation-and became the main focus of the Church's attention as she addressed the matter at the Council of Trent.
Ok, so you'd be insisting that everyone who's ever heard or read those words down through the centuries and applied them to themselves was/is necessarily saved. Doubt it. That probably wasn't even true for every one of the first audience they were addressed to. Much of that language is encouragement and hyperbole, which is also balanced, in Scripture, with warnings, admonishments, and instruction. We can have a decent idea, a strong while guarded assurance, that we're a child of God, based on His promises and evidence of fruit in our lives. We just can't have 100% perfect certainty which is considered to be rash or vain confidence. That kind of certainty is His province.
It's not the term but the application and overuse of it. And the insistence that I'm "there" and often that it's a permanent state of being for me, maybe even if I only once believed in the past depending on the variation.
I'd answer probably, not totally sure. Again, I'd leave that one up to God-at the end of the day it's a matter of what He thinks.
The text goes on to state that "because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head."
He would definitely have reason to think so.
He also said in Phil 3 that he was striving to attain that heavenly promise.
You were referring to the Eastern-Rite churches in full communion with Rome.The Eastern Churches are Catholic, and I was thinking of all those branches.
I see trust in Jesus as humility. I see trust in ourselves to know with perfect certainty our eternal destinies-what He knows- as somewhat arrogant. Either way, John included criteria that involved more than faith-but also how we live our lives.What I see as having complete trust and faith in Jesus to save, you seem to see as hubris.
Just tentative faith in myself- to know what I cannot.That seems like tentative faith in Christ to me
I think even Paul lacked the certainty of many self-described born-agains today.I don't think everything Paul talked about as far as achieving went, meant Jesus not condemning him to hell.
You were referring to the Eastern-Rite churches in full communion with Rome.
You were referring to the Eastern-Rite churches in full communion with Rome.
I see trust in Jesus as humility. I see trust in ourselves to know with perfect certainty our eternal destinies-what He knows- as somewhat arrogant. Either way, John included criteria that involved more than faith-but also how we live our lives.
Just tentative faith in myself- to know what I cannot.
And Jesus fulfilled them.
He kept the law. He lived a sinless life.
I think even Paul lacked the certainty of many self-described born-agains today.
"I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus." Phil 3:10-14
No, he referred specifically to the 20+ rites of the Catholic Church.
That's true-but they're not part of the 20+ rites of the CC. The EO Church is, however, officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church to be fully true church due to its teachings and historical lineage traceable to the beginnings of the faith, and regardless of what they may think of the RCC at this point.I've heard and read that in 1054 there was a split called the Great Schism between the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.
For myself we'd say, "if my salvation was up to me alone, I would lose it". Again, it's perfectly ok for us to have obligation, according to God's wisdom, the first of which is faith. I'll check out the video when I get a chance. Thank you.To me that's the whole point in putting complete faith in Christ. I don't agree with everything John MacArthur says, but when at around the age of 80 he said, "if my salvation was up to me, I would lose it" it really resonated with me. The older I get and the more sanctified I become, though the grace of God, the more wretched I see that I am. There's a lot of the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life that has been subdued in me though the Holy Spirit (and probably through getting along in years as well), but I by no means feel one bit deserving of salvation. It's all pure faith and trust in Christ alone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?