Your views on ecumenism

[Halbhh]

Yet, he also refers to what he has already attained.

Pail wrote about all believers one day receiving their incorruptible and immortal bodies. That hasn’t happened yet, of course. Then there is the matter of heavenly rewards.

Salvation, however, is indeed an event. We pass from death to life when we are born again. After that we do continue on through life to grow in His grace and in Spiritual maturity.

It's a both isn't it?

We are saved, and we are being saved. Both.

It's like another both we see in 1 John -- those in Christ do not sin, as John writes clearly, yet in fact believers do stumble and sin, as John also writes in this same epistle. Both are true, and one can explain. It's a both, yes?

I feel we have to be able to hold both in mind at once, and not think it's one vs the other, one or the other. It's a both one and the other.

 

[Vicomte13]

When you say "salvation" many people are very reasonably thinking something like 'justification' even if unconsciously.

Yes, Tower of Babel.

When I say Salvation, what I mean is passing final judgment after the resurrection at the end of the world, and being permitted by God to walk through the gates into the City of God to live there with God for eons of eons. "Salvation", means "passing final judgment" and "not being thrown into the Lake of Fire or left in outer darkness".

"Justification" is simply a strange word. The normal English use of it is, essentially, giving an acceptable excuse for what one has done. Killing people is generally not good, but killing somebody in self-defense is justified. Some religious people use "Justification" to mean something very specific and esoteric, and I have never understood this use of the word, and really have no idea what it means.

It seems nonsensical to me to say that ones bad acts are "justified" by Jesus. What? Sins are made acceptable by Jesus? That doesn't make any sense, and contradicts what he said.

Obviously "Justification" really means something specific in some theologies - it's clearly a legal term of art - but I don't share the lexicon and only understand that word in its plain English meaning, which is clearly not what religious people who use that word mean when they use it.

Likewise, "Salvation", to my mind, refers to final judgment. It doesn't refer to the Gehenna/Purgatory vs. Gan Eden/Paradise bifurcation that occurs at death now and until the end of the world. One is not "Saved" from that. Maybe one is forgiven and spends less time in Gehenna to the extent one is forgiven. But that's not "Salvation" as I understand and use the word.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, Tower of Babel.

When I say Salvation, what I mean is passing final judgment after the resurrection at the end of the world, and being permitted by God to walk through the gates into the City of God to live there with God for eons of eons. "Salvation", means "passing final judgment" and "not being thrown into the Lake of Fire or left in outer darkness".

"Justification" is simply a strange word. The normal English use of it is, essentially, giving an acceptable excuse for what one has done. Killing people is generally not good, but killing somebody in self-defense is justified. Some religious people use "Justification" to mean something very specific and esoteric, and I have never understood this use of the word, and really have no idea what it means.

It seems nonsensical to me to say that ones bad acts are "justified" by Jesus. What? Sins are made acceptable by Jesus? That doesn't make any sense, and contradicts what he said.

Obviously "Justification" really means something specific in some theologies - it's clearly a legal term of art - but I don't share the lexicon and only understand that word in its plain English meaning, which is clearly not what religious people who use that word mean when they use it.

Likewise, "Salvation", to my mind, refers to final judgment. It doesn't refer to the Gehenna/Purgatory vs. Gan Eden/Paradise bifurcation that occurs at death now and until the end of the world. One is not "Saved" from that. Maybe one is forgiven and spends less time in Gehenna to the extent one is forgiven. But that's not "Salvation" as I understand and use the word.

Friend, will you read this part of the Catholic Catechism, where the word justification is being used (it's not long, and quite important for recognizing our commonality of Christian belief) --
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

 

[mark46]

I guess that I have misunderstood or mis-stated.

Don't you consider TEC and the progressive branches of UMC to have a similar mission to ELCA? Do you believe that the WLF has a different mission?

As an aside, when I worshipped at an ELCA service last year, I checked some of their materials on belief. They made it quite clear that ELCA members had freedom with regard to what they believed with regard to homosexuality and homosexual pastors.

As I indicated before, I consider this a debate about definitions of the requirements of two minor sacraments, marriage and holy orders. I see lots of commonality among the three churches. Do you disagree? I do indeed agree that it is better to have each congregation maintain their identities. We don't want to lose the different traditions of the Church.

That's pretty much how the majority of folks here think of my church, the ELCA. We are regularly told we are not real Christians simply because we recognize a diversity of opinions on many modern questions. Plastering this over won't change the reality that actual divisions exist between Christians in the world.

 

[Halbhh]

It is an effort to restore the will of God to the Christian faith. His clearly stated will concerning His followers was and still is "that they all may be ONE, even as I and my heavenly Father are ONE".

But His are One already, together, and spread around the world, and not all in any church are that group, nor is that group confined to any one branch of the Church. Even though superficially it can look as if there is division, as those who like to dispute points do what they like to do, nevertheless those believing fully in Christ, risen, their Savior, following Him by doing as He said to do, kind, charitable, loving, they are His, His sheep, already One together. Already.

 

[mark46]

Yes, much of the debate about salvation is a language issue, as the joint statement between Lutherans and Catholics made clear. When Catholics (and orthodox) use the word salvation, they mean justification AND sanctification AND glorification. Even justification is more inclusive than the evangelical walking down the aisle and professing his faith (a work, just BTW).

EVERY Christian believes that we are saved by the Grace of God, and no action by us can cause us to be more saved. Of course, we become closer to God through our life. Protestants call this sanctification, or even utter sanctification. Catholics used to call this "divinization". Arminian theology was rejected by the early Councils.

No one believes in the scales of justice measuring works. That is an Egyptian religious concept. And yes, almost all of us have the idea of a deathbed confession of faith.
========
As an aside, some (few, but some) believe in double predestination. As Luther (and Wesley) made clear, we can have many discussions and reconciliations, but this doctrine is simply not acceptable.

Useful, but let me try to address a possible language trouble. I feel all humanity is still under the Tower of Babel effect (well, clearly it's common for people to misunderstand each other at minimum).

When you say "salvation" many people are very reasonably thinking something like 'justification' even if unconsciously.

We can highlight this with a concrete example possibly.

If a person converts to full belief in Christ on their deathbed, repenting and relying on Christ Jesus for their salvation, and dies moments later, they gain salvation, even lacking any works.

But, what you say if reworded clearly is simply the gospel given to us from Christ -- we must do as He said to do, generally, or we will not make it.

 

[amariselle]

It's a both isn't it?

We are saved, and we are being saved. Both.

It's like another both we see in 1 John -- those in Christ do not sin, as John writes clearly, yet in fact believers do stumble and sin, as John also writes in this same epistle. Both are true, and one can explain. It's a both, yes?

I feel we have to be able to hold both in mind at once, and not think it's one vs the other, one or the other. It's a both one and the other.

I don't believe that our salvation is an ongoing process. I believe it is an event, and that we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption, as Scripture tells us.

We do learn and grow throughout our lives as Christians, and any trials we go through can most definitely build character. However, we can know we are saved and have assurance in Christ, fully, that we are His and He will never leave us or forsake us.

 

[Vicomte13]

Thanks for that.

That use of the word "justify", to mean "to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ and through Baptism" is very strange. It's just not what the word "justify" means.

I should very much prefer the longer sentence: "to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ and through Baptism".

 

[mark46]

We must pray that we learn to go forward in our mission, even when this small minority of Christians harangues us and calls us names. The form of fundamentalism in the US (who call themselves evangelicals) is a phenomenon of the last 150 years, with roots back to the Reformation. HOWEVER, and it is a very big however, they are a relatively small minority of Christians. The vast majority of the world's Christians are what is called "mainstream" in the US.

That's pretty much how the majority of folks here think of my church, the ELCA. We are regularly told we are not real Christians simply because we recognize a diversity of opinions on many modern questions.

 

[Vicomte13]

The vast majority of the world's Christians are what is called "mainstream" in the US.

The vast majority of the world's Christians are what are called "Catholics" in the USA.

 

[W2L]

The vast majority of the world's Christians are what are called "Catholics" in the USA.

Vast majority?

 

[Vicomte13]

Vast majority?

Overstated a bit.

1.2 billion Catholics out of 2.2 billion Christians - about 55% - are Catholic

 

[Halbhh]

The vast majority of the world's Christians are what are called "Catholics" in the USA.

Catholic = "Universal".

(one can search up the origin of the word: "etymology catholic" via search)
Origin

late Middle English: from Catholic.


In other words, all who believe fully in and follow Christ.

 

[Vicomte13]

Catholic = "Universal".

(one can search up the origin of the word: "etymology catholic" via search)
Origin
View attachment 233183
late Middle English: from Catholic.


In other words, all who believe fully in and follow Christ.

When I say "Catholic", I mean "recognize the Pope as the head of their Church".

 

[Kiterius]

My view is that everyone should be a Free Methodist.

 

[mark46]

Vast majority?

Well over 2/3 of the world Christians are from the

Mainstream churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ (and some others)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

 

[mark46]

all three

We were saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved (that is our Christian Hope).

justification, sanctification and glorification

It's a both isn't it?

We are saved, and we are being saved. Both.

It's like another both we see in 1 John -- those in Christ do not sin, as John writes clearly, yet in fact believers do stumble and sin, as John also writes in this same epistle. Both are true, and one can explain. It's a both, yes?

I feel we have to be able to hold both in mind at once, and not think it's one vs the other, one or the other. It's a both one and the other.

 

[Halbhh]

When I say "Catholic", I mean "recognize the Pope as the head of their Church".

Well, truly, and I think you agree, Christ is surely the head of the Church.

http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-18.htm

(but this is simply the obviously true fact. Christ Jesus is the head, and we all already know this.)

 

[Vicomte13]

Well, truly, and I think you agree, Christ is surely the head of the Church.

http://biblehub.com/colossians/1-18.htm

(but this is simply the obviously true fact. Christ Jesus is the head, and we all already know this.)

Yes, God is the ultimate head of the Church.
The Pope is the living, visible, human leader of the Church, the final human authority on matters in the Church.
The Pope is Christ's Prime Minister, the head of the Catholic Church government.

So, for terms to be clear, when I say Catholic Church, I mean the Roman Catholic Church plus the other 22 or so rites of the Catholic Church - the Eastern Rites (Byzantine, Coptic, Syriac, Maronite, Malabar, etc.) I mean that Church whose visible human head, the "Vicar of Christ" is Francis I, whose seat is in Rome.

I do not use the word "Catholic" (capital C) to mean something mystic and universal. By "Catholic" I mean the same thing as I do when I say "Southern Baptist" - not just any old self-described adherent of baptism in the South, but the specific denomination.

Ecumenism, from a Catholic perspective, seeks to make the Catholic Church the catholic church. Because the church worldwide - meaning the Christian religion - is disunited, the Catholic Church is not catholic, but it's the closest thing TO catholic that there is.

 

[W2L]

Well over 2/3 of the world Christians are from the

Mainstream churches: Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ (and some others)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members

My question was about Catholics only.