Not all born-again Christians make it through the sanctification process!

[smaller]

Then people shouldn't make comments that are ignorant about another's beliefs.

The sect adherents themselves often do not know the extents of the sects 'official teachings' in that much detail and are also very often in outright violation of their sects rulz.

Before people continue on this age-old discussion, they should define several words, since it appears people tend to talk past each other.

Salvation
Justification
Faith
Works

When do these happen? What are they?

Depends on whose language we are employing. Obviously being a certain sect adherent that sect comes with it's own terms and conditions which we are not allowed to discuss, but as an adherent you have no choice but to take all of their terms for everything.

And therein lies the dilemma of trying to have a conversation huh?

s

 

[Eugene]

What is "Papal Inerrancy"? Never heard of it.

As an ex-Catholic I have an idea, and the following axiom is a prevalent Catholic teaching unless changed yet again.

2. The axiom means that Christ commands all men to be baptized into the Catholic Church and to remain therein, united to the pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence anyone knowing of this strict command of Christ and refusing to obey it cannot be saved.

3. All men are not only commanded to join the Church, but Christ also has made the Catholic Church the means by which they are to enter into heaven.

 

[reba]

Full Question

A nun told me that Vatican II did away with all the stress on the pope as an infallible teacher. Which Vatican II writings say this?

Answer

There is no Vatican II document which "did away with" papal infallibility. Vatican II actually reaffirmed, in no uncertain terms, the teaching of Vatican I on papal authority.
The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) says this: "This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all the faithful" (LG 18).


http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/did-vatican-ii-do-away-with-papal-infallibility

 

[reba]

This is not a Catholic site . There are lots of 'em out there... reba

 

[francisdesales]

Then people shouldn't make comments that are ignorant about another's beliefs.

The sect adherents themselves often do not know the extents of the sects 'official teachings' in that much detail and are also very often in outright violation of their sects rulz.

That was not my comment, it was on one person who THOUGHT they knew something but didn't... I was not making a statement about the knowledge of YOUR "sect" or anyone else's OWN knowledge of their own "sect".

In other words, remain silent on things you don't know about, especially if you use disparaging comments.

Depends on whose language we are employing. Obviously being a certain sect adherent that sect comes with it's own terms and conditions which we are not allowed to discuss, but as an adherent you have no choice but to take all of their terms for everything.

There is nothing wrong with defining a word, despite your attempt to avoid that. There is nothing in the ToS that says you cannot define what you mean by "salvation".

If you were to define how your sect saw as the meaning of salvation, it would clarify things. That was the intent of my comment.

 

[francisdesales]

What is "Papal Inerrancy"? Never heard of it.

As an ex-Catholic I have an idea, and the following axiom is a prevalent Catholic teaching unless changed yet again.

2. The axiom means that Christ commands all men to be baptized into the Catholic Church and to remain therein, united to the pope, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Hence anyone knowing of this strict command of Christ and refusing to obey it cannot be saved.

3. All men are not only commanded to join the Church, but Christ also has made the Catholic Church the means by which they are to enter into heaven.

The term is "papal infallibility".

Your definition has nothing to do with papal infallibility.

Since this is a taboo topic, I am not going to detail what it means, Reba has done so. But one can readily see how few people actually know what the Catholic Church teaches, to include "ex catholics"...

Regards

 

[smaller]

In other words, remain silent on things you don't know about, especially if you use disparaging comments.

These matters are not mysteries in the age of transparency.

There is nothing wrong with defining a word,

Uh, yes, there is when the understandings are founded on RCC positions.

despite your attempt to avoid that. There is nothing in the ToS that says you cannot define what you mean by "salvation".

Again, depends on what information one brings to bear. THEE only official position an orthodox term can have is the one provided to them by their official teaching body.

Unless the orthodox posters want to identify that they are not within the rules and confines of what their sect sez, which is in fact 'most of the time' anyway.

If you were to define how your sect saw as the meaning of salvation, it would clarify things. That was the intent of my comment.

That is kind of the point. As orthodox y'all know you can't toy with any term on your own and that all understandings must stem only from the official teaching body.

Anyone else in that body is A. Not official B. Technically limited C. If they do engage they must do so with what they are officially granted to employ

s

 

[dadof10]

So I can see the wisdom of it being non allowed topic matter.

You must be joking. OSAS or eternal security is a HUGE topic on this forum. It is discussed frequently and openly. If you want, I can point you to a couple of threads that deal with the subject.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[dadof10]

These matters are not mysteries in the age of transparency.



Uh, yes, there is when the understandings are founded on RCC positions.



Again, depends on what information one brings to bear. THEE only official position an orthodox term can have is the one provided to them by their official teaching body.

Unless the orthodox posters want to identify that they are not within the rules and confines of what their sect sez, which is in fact 'most of the time' anyway.

If you were to define how your sect saw as the meaning of salvation, it would clarify things. That was the intent of my comment.

That is kind of the point. As orthodox y'all know you can't toy with any term on your own and that all understandings must stem only from the official teaching body.

Anyone else in that body is A. Not official B. Technically limited C. If they do engage they must do so with what they are officially granted to employ

s

What in the world does this mean?

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[By Grace]

LOL! Perhaps not anti-Catholic, but certainly ignorant of things Catholic. There are no good Catholic systematic theology books out there??? Ever hear of the Catholic Catechism? It's been around for a few years... Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? What is "Papal Inerrancy"?..

You assume much, and use those assumptions to ridicule me; that is to your shame.

Because I was in a hurry, I missed two things.
First was my use of inerrancy when I actually meant "papal infallibility".
Second was my non-remembrance of Thomas and his Suma Theologica. That is why I said, "I don't believe..." I left wiggle room for myself.

Amazing how many people talk down Catholicism but can't figure out what it teaches...

Here is something for which you have no evidence, therefore it is bearing false witness against me.
If you wish to take objective things personally, that is your choice, but know this: Any more personal attacks will be referred to the moderators.

 

[Webb]

The phrase "born again Chrisians" is redundant.

 

[smaller]

So I can see the wisdom of it being non allowed topic matter.

You must be joking. OSAS or eternal security is a HUGE topic on this forum. It is discussed frequently and openly. If you want, I can point you to a couple of threads that deal with the subject.

Brother I so look forward to hearing the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH version that you will present here.

 

[reba]

Discussion of Catholic doctrine will be allowed in the One on One Debate Forum and End Times forum only. RCC content in the End Times forum should relate to End Times beliefs. Do not start new topics elsewhere or sway existing threads toward a discussion or debate that is Catholic in nature.

How many threads will you all close? Those baiting are noticed those happily taking the bait are noticed.....

 

[dadof10]

So I can see the wisdom of it being non allowed topic matter.

You must be joking. OSAS or eternal security is a HUGE topic on this forum. It is discussed frequently and openly. If you want, I can point you to a couple of threads that deal with the subject.

Brother I so look forward to hearing the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH version that you will present here.

WOW, really??? There is no "ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH version", that's the point. We are simply discussing the TOPIC at hand and not attacking the denominations or "sects" (to use your word) of the members. Why are you the only person here who can't grasp this simple concept? Can't you discuss OSAS or "works" without attacking the Church or denomination of the poster?

See for yourself. Here are two threads, one on OSAS, one on faith and works. Please read them and note how discussion can and does happen without attacks on churches or appeals to Church teachings. Also note that both sides of each issue use SCRIPTURE ALONE (as opposed to appeals to church teachings) to prove their points. It's really not that hard.

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=51151

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=44354

 

[Mike]

Here is the final line in the sand on this topic, or at least the topic that has evolved. Several warnings have been issued by reba to remind the participants in this thread that discussions pertaining to RCC doctrine are NOT to be had in this forum, and they seem to have little effect.

If there is one more post made that is in COLOR= of this rule, this thread will be locked and the member dealt with accordingly. General doctrines such as OSAS, salvation by works, etc. are open for discussion. The RCC position on them is not.

Last chance.

 

[George Muller]

Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

agiazw hagiazo, hag-ee-ad'-zo

from 40; to make holy, i.e. (ceremonially) purify or consecrate; (mentally) to venerate:--hallow, be holy, sanctify

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Holiness is in the spirit, every born-again believer is complete and holy in spirit. The only "process" is for us to learn to walk in the spirit and not according to the flesh.

Ga 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.
18 But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.
25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

 

[francisdesales]

These matters are not mysteries in the age of transparency.



Uh, yes, there is when the understandings are founded on RCC positions.



Again, depends on what information one brings to bear. THEE only official position an orthodox term can have is the one provided to them by their official teaching body.

Unless the orthodox posters want to identify that they are not within the rules and confines of what their sect sez, which is in fact 'most of the time' anyway.

If you were to define how your sect saw as the meaning of salvation, it would clarify things. That was the intent of my comment.

That is kind of the point. As orthodox y'all know you can't toy with any term on your own and that all understandings must stem only from the official teaching body.

Anyone else in that body is A. Not official B. Technically limited C. If they do engage they must do so with what they are officially granted to employ

s

So what you are trying to say is that you prefer to remain vague and ambiguous by NOT defining what YOU mean by salvation and works.

Good for you...

 

[francisdesales]

LOL! Perhaps not anti-Catholic, but certainly ignorant of things Catholic. There are no good Catholic systematic theology books out there??? Ever hear of the Catholic Catechism? It's been around for a few years... Ever hear of Thomas Aquinas? What is "Papal Inerrancy"?..

You assume much, and use those assumptions to ridicule me; that is to your shame.

Because I was in a hurry, I missed two things.
First was my use of inerrancy when I actually meant "papal infallibility".
Second was my non-remembrance of Thomas and his Suma Theologica. That is why I said, "I don't believe..." I left wiggle room for myself.

I wrote what I wrote. Both of these comments you made were in error.

Was I wrong to point that out?

Amazing how many people talk down Catholicism but can't figure out what it teaches...

Here is something for which you have no evidence, therefore it is bearing false witness against me.
If you wish to take objective things personally, that is your choice, but know this: Any more personal attacks will be referred to the moderators.

What personal attack? I didn't call you any names. This is an apologetic forum. If you make an error, expect for someone to call you out on it. It is nothing personal. If you take a correction personally, that is YOUR problem, not something against the ToS.

Now, back to the topic. It might be useful for you to define what you mean by salvation and works and faith, as I mentioned earlier. You would be amazed how often these discussions talk past each other because these terms are not defined - and DEFINITIONS have NOTHING to do with Catholicism. Catholics don't own a monopoly on definitions.

Regards

 

[George Muller]

Col 2:6 As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him(Ro 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
7 Rooted and built up in him, and stablished in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.
8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
10 And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power:
11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
13 ¶ And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
15 And having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.
16 ¶ Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
18 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,
19 And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God.
20 Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
21 (Touch not; taste not; handle not;
22 Which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men?
23 Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh.
(KJV)

 

[smaller]

So what you are trying to say is that you prefer to remain vague and ambiguous by NOT defining what YOU mean by salvation and works.

Good for you...

Nice try on insertion of a strawman.

Scripture is abundantly clear that those who call upon 'our' Lord, Jesus Christ, shall be saved.

It's not a maybe.

There is of course a scripture mine for this position.

and there is an equally amazing scripture mine on how to address the stuff you focus on to make it a maybe that will not result in the conclusion your formula has.

Simple enough?

s