• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

Calvinism and the Nicene Creed

Many of the Fathers delayed baptism because there was an error in the early Church that many held, that of Novatianism. It taught baptism should be delayed, as most people (especially single people) were more prone to temptation and sin.




Sorry but not EVERY Catholic will be going to heaven. The Church doesn't teach that. Baptism removes all sin, and if EVERY Catholic died immediately after baptism, you would be correct.

Baptism does not remove future sins, only present and past sins.
W, in post 40 I asked you if baptism saves and you replied YES.

Now above you attach conditions....which are correct.
But, I don't think you did so in post 40 and so it gives an incorrect belief of the catholic doctrine of baptism.

I just think it's important to state the doctrine properly.
Protestants have enough wrong ideas....
 
I agree with 90%.
I DO believe Luther was correct about some catholic practices.
What started it all was the sale of indulgences. These are still available today although they are not sold. It's inconceivable to me that a person in the church could come up with such an idea...How would God have proposed such an idea?




Mr. Seewald can say what he will and of course his is only an opinion.

What counts is not what HE says but what the magesterum says.
And what the Pope says,,,be it excathedra or not.

The following is from Lumen Gentium,,,,an official Papal Document:

56. The Father of mercies willed that the incarnation should be preceded by the acceptance of her who was predestined to be the mother of His Son, so that just as a woman contributed to death, so also a woman should contribute to life. That is true in outstanding fashion of the mother of Jesus, who gave to the world Him who is Life itself and who renews all things, and who was enriched by God with the gifts which befit such a role. It is no wonder therefore that the usage prevailed among the Fathers whereby they called the mother of God entirely holy and free from all stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.(5*) Adorned from the first instant of her conception with the radiance of an entirely unique holiness, the Virgin of Nazareth is greeted, on God's command, by an angel messenger as "full of grace",(286) and to the heavenly messenger she replies: "Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word".(287) Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator. Embracing God's salvific will with a full heart and impeded by no sin, she devoted herself totally as a handmaid of the Lord to the person and work of her Son, under Him and with Him, by the grace of almighty God, serving the mystery of redemption. Rightly therefore the holy Fathers see her as used by God not merely in a passive way, but as freely cooperating in the work of human salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St. Irenaeus says, she "being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race."(6*) Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert in their preaching, "The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience; what the virgin Eve bound through her unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosened by her faith."(7*) Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her "the Mother of the living,"(8*) and still more often they say: "death through Eve, life through Mary."(9*)

57. This union of the Mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to His death it is shown first of all when Mary, arising in haste to go to visit Elizabeth, is greeted by her as blessed because of her belief in the promise of salvation and the precursor leaped with joy in the womb of his mother.(288) This union is manifest also at the birth of Our Lord, who did not diminish His mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it,(10*) when the Mother of God joyfully showed her firstborn Son to the shepherds and Magi. When she presented Him to the Lord in the temple, making the offering of the poor, she heard Simeon foretelling at the same time that her Son would be a sign of contradiction and that a sword would pierce the mother's soul, that out of many hearts thoughts might be revealed.(289) When the Child Jesus was lost and they had sought Him sorrowing, His parents found Him in the temple, taken up with the things that were His Father's business; and they did not understand the word of their Son. His Mother indeed kept these things to be pondered over in her heart.(290)

58. In the public life of Jesus, Mary makes significant appearances. This is so even at the very beginning, when at the marriage feast of Cana, moved with pity, she brought about by her intercession the beginning of miracles of Jesus the Messiah.(291) In the course of her Son's preaching she received the words whereby in extolling a kingdom beyond the calculations and bonds of flesh and blood, He declared blessed(292) those who heard and kept the word of God, as she was faithfully doing.(293) After this manner the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan,(294) grieving exceedingly with her only begotten Son, uniting herself with a maternal heart with His sacrifice, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this Victim which she herself had brought forth. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to His disciple with these words: "Woman, behold thy son".(295) (11*)

59. But since it has pleased God not to manifest solemnly the mystery of the salvation of the human race before He would pour forth the Spirit promised by Christ, we see the apostles before the day of Pentecost "persevering with one mind in prayer with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus, and with His brethren",(296) and Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation. Finally, the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all guilt of original sin,(12*) on the completion of her earthly sojourn, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory,(13*) and exalted by the Lord as Queen of the universe, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords(297) and the conqueror of sin and death.(l4*)


part 1 of 2


The words I quoted in Seewald's book were those of Pope Benedict.

Also, this thread is going all over the place but to answer your question on indulgences, the Scriptural support is found in the example of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

In 1 Cor 5:3-5 and 2 Cor 2:6-11, the Apostle gives a penance and penalty; the penitent expresses contrition; Paul then remits the penalty. This is how the Church understands indulgences.
 
W, in post 40 I asked you if baptism saves and you replied YES.

Now above you attach conditions....which are correct.
But, I don't think you did so in post 40 and so it gives an incorrect belief of the catholic doctrine of baptism.

I just think it's important to state the doctrine properly.
Protestants have enough wrong ideas....

I presumed it is common knowledge that Catholics do not profess Calvin's doctrine of once saved, always saved.

Baptism saves, but post-baptism, one is bound by the commands of God. Baptism does not give one license.
 
The words I quoted in Seewald's book were those of Pope Benedict.

Also, this thread is going all over the place but to answer your question on indulgences, the Scriptural support is found in the example of St. Paul to the Corinthians.

In 1 Cor 5:3-5 and 2 Cor 2:6-11, the Apostle gives a penance and penalty; the penitent expresses contrition; Paul then remits the penalty. This is how the Church understands indulgences.
Could you please check the verses?
They don't seem to apply to me and I've never heard this before.
 
I presumed it is common knowledge that Catholics do not profess Calvin's doctrine of once saved, always saved.

Baptism saves, but post-baptism, one is bound by the commands of God. Baptism does not give one license.
Agreed.
I just don't think it's correct to say that baptism saves because Catholicism believes that we are saved by grace through faith...
Ephesians 2.8

Immediately followed by progressive justification...
Ephesian 2:10
 
Could you please check the verses?
They don't seem to apply to me and I've never heard this before.

Check the verses? I don't understand your request.

Here is an indulgence explained using the Scripture from 2 Cor 2...

"...But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ..." (2 Cor 2:5-10)

The Corinthian is given a penance / punishment---> He expresses sorrow / contrition ---> The penance / punishment is relaxed.

Indulgences 101
 
Agreed.
I just don't think it's correct to say that baptism saves because Catholicism believes that we are saved by grace through faith...
Ephesians 2.8

Immediately followed by progressive justification...
Ephesian 2:10


But baptism does save, as Scripture explicitly states...


"because they formerly did not obey, when God’s patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ..." (1 Peter 3:20-21)
 
I think the reason Protestants have jettisoned the Sacraments, can borrow a creed without really subscribing to it, and do not have a defined ecclesiology is because they truly do not believe the Church is an extension of the incarnation - that is, the mystical body of Christ that continues in time and is thus a divine and holy institution. Rather, for most, the church is nothing more than a religious Elks Club.
 
No, what this is ALL ABOUT is trying to understand the logic behind a group of people professing the creed of a Church they reject. Thus far, no one has made a logical argument or rationalization for it.
I did explain my reasoning, you rejected it out of your flawed ROMAN CATHOLIC bias that Protestants aren’t really the same church that Christ started with the Apostles. You even claimed that it was irrelevant that every point of the Nicene Creed was supported by Sola Scriptura ... the battle cry of the Reformation.

Your’s is a sad and funny world view.
 
Sexual sins are as old as man himself, and those members of the Church are not immune to sin.
Once upon a time, the church dealt with it. Now they pay off victims to remain silent and shuffle deviants to new parishes to prey on fresh victims and protect the reputation of the church, rather than its Holiness. That is what has changed under the current Roman Catholic management.
 
You can't reform the Church by destroying it's faith and rebuilding it with something completely new and novel. Luther was the progressive of his time. His doctrines (sola Scriptura and sola fide) were completely novel. As the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath rightly admits, Luther introduced a "theological novum" into Christianity.
Come on ... it was the absolute most corrupt period in church history. Princes were buying the papacy and selling indulgences to raise money to repay the debts from getting elected. Cardinals and bishops were keeping harems and most local priests were as ignorant of the gospel as the peasants they collected tithes from. Luther, like the Moravians before him were a threat to the purse of Rome and not to its theology. That was Rome’s UNFORGIVABLE SIN, hence the burning of those that refused to say that ‘evil’ (like selling forgiveness for your dead relatives in purgatory) is really ‘good’ ... or daring to let people read scripture for themselves.
 
I did explain my reasoning, you rejected it out of your flawed ROMAN CATHOLIC bias that Protestants aren’t really the same church that Christ started with the Apostles. You even claimed that it was irrelevant that every point of the Nicene Creed was supported by Sola Scriptura ... the battle cry of the Reformation.

Your’s is a sad and funny world view.


If every point of the Nicene Creed was supported by sola Scriptura, and as I have demonstrated the Church the Creed professes belief in is the "Roman" Catholic Church, then by your logic the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of Scripture.

"I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church..."


Land the plane.
 
... like the written word of God handed down by the Apostles?

That is not novel, as that has always been part of the Tradition of the Church. The reason you consider St. Paul's 1st and 2nd epistles to the Corinthians to be the written word and God and not his 3rd epistle to the Corinthians is because the Catholic Church decided that for you. The reason you assign Matthew and John's names to their respective Gospels is because the Catholic Church did that for you.

What was novel were his teachings, namely that man is justified by faith alone and that the Scripture alone is the final authority and source for all doctrine and practice of the Christian faith. (Both of these were novel and actually contradict Scripture.)
 
Last edited:
Once upon a time, the church dealt with it. Now they pay off victims to remain silent and shuffle deviants to new parishes to prey on fresh victims and protect the reputation of the church, rather than its Holiness. That is what has changed under the current Roman Catholic management.

That isn't new. Pick up a history book.

Sin is as old as man. (cf. Genesis)
 
Come on ... it was the absolute most corrupt period in church history. Princes were buying the papacy and selling indulgences to raise money to repay the debts from getting elected. Cardinals and bishops were keeping harems and most local priests were as ignorant of the gospel as the peasants they collected tithes from. Luther, like the Moravians before him were a threat to the purse of Rome and not to its theology. That was Rome’s UNFORGIVABLE SIN, hence the burning of those that refused to say that ‘evil’ (like selling forgiveness for your dead relatives in purgatory) is really ‘good’ ... or daring to let people read scripture for themselves.


You obviously have never read Church history in the 11th century!
 
Well, ufortunately for the church, Pope Benedict is no longer in charge. I respected him.

I'm not saying she IS called co-redemptrix, but that the church is coming close to doing this.

I also know that co-has a different meaning in Latin.
I can't remember the definition right now,,,but it COULD mean either equal or not. It WILL be understood to mean equal in person's minds.
A helper in salvation is already attributed to her which is in the doc I posted.

Sorry about the Seewald mistake....

Obviously you didn't read the quotation from Benedict, as he addresses your concern.

By virtue of the fact that Mary gave a human nature to the Logos, Mary did have a role in salvation history. Thus, anyone who seeks to denigrate her or diminish her role in salvation history is acting in the spirit of anti-Christ.
 
Check the verses? I don't understand your request.

Here is an indulgence explained using the Scripture from 2 Cor 2...

"...But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things. To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ..." (2 Cor 2:5-10)

The Corinthian is given a penance / punishment---> He expresses sorrow / contrition ---> The penance / punishment is relaxed.

Indulgences 101
Hi W...
The above is one of the 2 verses you had listed.
TTYTT, I've never heard of the above and it also doesn't make much sense to me.

But it doesn't matter....
I also don't believe 1 Cor 3 is about purgatory,,,
Let's just drop this. It's not worth it.
I'll always believe that a PERSON could not make the rules for God.
Like a Plenary Indulgence, for instance,
it makes no sense - at least to me.
 
Back
Top