What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Pope says "all religions lead to God"

donadams said:
I said an infant that dies without baptism cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, i did not say it goes to hell, it has no personal sin it also has no grace and Jn 3:5 says not enter without baptism
Click to expand...
Agreed... I assumed that if a person doesn't go to heaven that the only alternative was hell.... where to the unbaptized infants go? ... maybe your answer is "we don't know" ...if so, fair enough

But infants and fetus' that are baptized...they go to heaven ?????
 
donadams said:
Where did i say that?

I said an infant that dies without baptism cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, i did not say it goes to hell, it has no personal sin it also has no grace and Jn 3:5 says not enter without baptism

There are many things we don’t know, Christ did not tell us everything and there are mysteries
The mystery of faith
The mystery of the trinity and the nature of God
The mystery of Christ and His church eph 5:32 acts 9:4 isa 53:5 etc.

Dogma the nature of God incomprehensible to man!

Thanks
Click to expand...
I said an infant that dies without baptism cannot enter the kingdom of heaven, i did not say it goes to hell, it has no personal sin it also has no grace and Jn 3:5 says not enter without baptism
Click to expand...
Where does the infant go?

All humans (babies) are born in sin.

Psalms 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me.
 
Fastfredy0 said:
Agreed... I assumed that if a person doesn't go to heaven that the only alternative was hell.... where to the unbaptized infants go? ... maybe your answer is "we don't know" ...if so, fair enough

But infants and fetus' that are baptized...they go to heaven ?????
Click to expand...
Infants who die after baptism yes heaven

Jn 3:5
2 pet 1:11

Know we dont know what happens to those who die without baptism but we do know God is merciful
Limbo
Really its our understanding that is in limbo. Thks
 
donadams said:
Infants who die after baptism yes heaven
Click to expand...
So, if a baby is born dead does a baptism still send it to heaven? If so, how long after a soul is dead can a baptism be made to send the soul to heaven? Could I go to a grave site and dig up a 4 year old babies corpse and baptize it and thus send the soul to heaven?
Thx
 
Fastfredy0 said:
So, if a baby is born dead does a baptism still send it to heaven? If so, how long after a soul is dead can a baptism be made to send the soul to heaven? Could I go to a grave site and dig up a 4 year old babies corpse and baptize it and thus send the soul to heaven?
Thx
Click to expand...
No knowledge of this but i think the child needs to be alive
 
Fastfredy0 said:
...
Click to expand...

[The Pope says “all religions lead to God”] Not an exact quote for “Every religion is a way to arrive at God”. Interesting the pope didn’t mention Buddhism.

I think that the pope here is bad, but not so bad. The polytheistic language about [my god; your god], is in context what an interlocutor might say to him, and to some extent he negated polytheism, noting that there is one god, God. Languages (ie concepts) of deity differ.

That many world religions have been built to point to deity, and can do so I part, I no longer doubt. After all, we are all imago dei. IMO all religions can offer insights to heaven, but none can offer tickets to heaven. As C S Lewis said, “If you are a Christian, you are free to think that all these religions, even the queerest ones, contain at least some hint of the truth”, yet “as in arithmetic—there is only one right answer to a sum, and all other answers are wrong: but some of the wrong answers are much nearer being right than others” (Mere Christianity, ch2.1). That is, Christianity is the most important religion (pace the pope), but not the only one with truth about deity and through which we can arrive at God.

At what I call Level 1, we are all sons or daughters (children) of God, by coming from Adam (Lk.3:38): the pope is right in this. But we are not all sons or daughters of God in Christ (Level 3), within the messianic community: the pope is wrong in this, unless his wider dialogue makes this point. But IMO those who die merely within Level 1 can still be a son or daughter of God everlastingly (Level 4).
 
donadams said:
Yes according to his teaching
A manifest heretic is outside the church and therefore cannot hold office in the church, same with the bishops, but we cant judge them.
Click to expand...
Is the Pope's teaching that there are many paths to God apart from Christ wrong?

Because, here is the problem as I see it, provided I have understood your position correctly:

donadams said:
We dont have and right to declare who is a valid pope or not!

If he teaches contrary to the faith we do not follow him!

1 cor 10:20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
Click to expand...
You have argued numerous times on these forums that the Church is the final authority on doctrine, and argued against sola Scriptura, such as HERE.

However, now you seem to be arguing to Scripture to support not following the Pope, the "Vicar of Christ," when he contradicts Scripture. In other words, you are appealing to sola Scriptura--Scripture is the ultimate, though not only, authority.

Which is it then? Either the Church, under the direction of the Pope, is the ultimate authority and, therefore, the Pope must necessarily be correct in understanding that the Bible teaches salvation apart from Christ, or the Pope is wrong, which supports the Protestant position that the Bible is the ultimate authority.
 
Free said:
Is the Pope's teaching that there are many paths to God apart from Christ wrong?

Because, here is the problem as I see it, provided I have understood your position correctly:


You have argued numerous times on these forums that the Church is the final authority on doctrine, and argued against sola Scriptura, such as HERE.

However, now you seem to be arguing to Scripture to support not following the Pope, the "Vicar of Christ," when he contradicts Scripture. In other words, you are appealing to sola Scriptura--Scripture is the ultimate, though not only, authority.

Which is it then? Either the Church, under the direction of the Pope, is the ultimate authority and, therefore, the Pope must necessarily be correct in understanding that the Bible teaches salvation apart from Christ, or the Pope is wrong, which supports the Protestant position that the Bible is the ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
No. Quoted scripture about the nature of false religions being demonic

Must be a valid pope.

must teach the faith (eph 4:5) that is revealed by Christ (Jude 1:3) and commanded by Christ (matt 28:19)

Thks
 
donadams said:
No. Quoted scripture about the nature of false religions being demonic
Click to expand...
You quoted 1 Cor 10:20 to support your statement, “If he teaches contrary to the faith we do not follow him!”.

donadams said:
Must be a valid pope.
Click to expand...
But, you said in post #56 that you cannot judge whether he is valid or not: “We dont have and right to declare who is a valid pope or not!”

Then, in post #59, you stated: “If he is validly elected he is a valid successor of Peter the visible head of the church, the vicar of christ!”

Was the current pope validly elected? Is he a valid pope or not?

donadams said:
must teach the faith (eph 4:5) that is revealed by Christ (Jude 1:3) and commanded by Christ (matt 28:19)
Click to expand...
Now you seem to be using this criteria instead to determine if a pope is valid—that he is teaching contrary to Scripture. Is this how you determine if a pope is valid? If so, then once again sola Scriptura is correct and the Catholic Church is not the final authority on Christian belief and practice.

Of course, that also means you are judging whether or not he is a valid pope.
 
Free said:
Which is it then? Either the Church, under the direction of the Pope, is the ultimate authority and, therefore, the Pope must necessarily be correct in understanding that the Bible teaches salvation apart from Christ, or the Pope is wrong, which supports the Protestant position that the Bible is the ultimate authority.
Click to expand...
ChatGPT:
Summary: In short, for Roman Catholics, Tradition is not secondary to Scripture but complementary, both forming an integral part of how the Church understands and lives out the Christian faith.


Tradition plays a central and authoritative role in the Roman Catholic Church. It is considered one of the key sources of divine revelation, alongside Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that God’s revelation comes through both Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition, which together form the deposit of faith. Here's a breakdown of its role:

1. Source of Divine Revelation​

  • Sacred Tradition refers to the teachings that were handed down by the apostles, which are not explicitly written in the Bible but have been passed on through the life and practice of the Church. This includes the teachings, liturgical practices, doctrines, and authority that the apostles received from Christ and then transmitted to their successors.
  • Tradition is viewed as living and dynamic, meaning it evolves in the sense of a deeper understanding, but it remains consistent in core teachings.

2. Authority of the Magisterium​

  • The Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church, including the Pope and bishops) is entrusted with interpreting both Scripture and Tradition. The Church believes that this authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, ensures that the teachings remain faithful to Christ’s original message.
  • Tradition is necessary to properly interpret Scripture. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, but it is a key part of the Catholic faith that has been handed down through Tradition.

3. Liturgical and Sacramental Life​

  • Tradition influences the structure and practice of Catholic worship, especially the liturgy and the sacraments. For instance, the rites of the Mass, prayers, and sacramental ceremonies are rooted in centuries-old practices, adapted and shaped by Tradition.
  • The development of doctrines such as the seven sacraments is also part of the Church's Tradition.

4. Doctrinal Development​

  • The Church believes that its understanding of God’s revelation develops over time through Tradition. While the core truths remain unchanged, the articulation and comprehension of these truths can grow. For example, teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, though rooted in early Christian belief, were formally defined centuries later.

5. Unity of the Church​

  • Tradition fosters continuity and unity within the Church. By following Tradition, Catholics maintain a connection to the early Church and the apostolic community, ensuring consistency in faith and practice across generations and cultures.
...

The Pope’s Role​

  • The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the successor of St. Peter, has a unique role in the formulation of doctrine. He has the authority to define doctrines ex cathedra (from the chair of St. Peter) in matters of faith and morals, a process known as papal infallibility. This has been used sparingly, such as in defining the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950).
  • While the Pope has the power to define doctrines independently, most doctrinal developments occur through the collaborative efforts of the Pope with the bishops and theologians of the Church.


Free .... you thinking of converting from Presbyterian-ish *giggle*



What I find interesting is the idea that for a very long time I thought the R.Cs. believed protestants were doomed to hell ... so the Pope's statement at the beginning of the thread was a curiosity to me. I found information to back this up:
  • Historically, the Church taught the principle "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church, there is no salvation). However, this teaching has been interpreted in a broader and more inclusive way in modern Catholic theology.
  • The Church now understands this to mean that while the fullness of truth and the ordinary means of salvation are found in the Catholic Church, God’s grace is not limited to the visible structures of the Church. Individuals who, through no fault of their own, are not formal members of the Catholic Church but seek God sincerely and follow their conscience can still be saved.
There is a caveat to salvation for protestants though:
  • According to Catholic theology, baptism is the ordinary means of entry into the Christian life and is seen as necessary for salvation (as taught in John 3:5 and the Nicene Creed). The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant baptism, as long as it is performed with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  • Therefore, baptized Protestants are considered to be in some form of communion with the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly.
So, according to R.C. doctrine, you and I are saved. (A hundred years ago or more I think they would have said we're toast (going to hell or somewhere). This assumes you have been baptized.
 
Last edited:
Fastfredy0 said:
ChatGPT:
Summary: In short, for Roman Catholics, Tradition is not secondary to Scripture but complementary, both forming an integral part of how the Church understands and lives out the Christian faith.


Tradition plays a central and authoritative role in the Roman Catholic Church. It is considered one of the key sources of divine revelation, alongside Sacred Scripture. The Church teaches that God’s revelation comes through both Sacred Scripture (the Bible) and Sacred Tradition, which together form the deposit of faith. Here's a breakdown of its role:

1. Source of Divine Revelation​

  • Sacred Tradition refers to the teachings that were handed down by the apostles, which are not explicitly written in the Bible but have been passed on through the life and practice of the Church. This includes the teachings, liturgical practices, doctrines, and authority that the apostles received from Christ and then transmitted to their successors.
  • Tradition is viewed as living and dynamic, meaning it evolves in the sense of a deeper understanding, but it remains consistent in core teachings.

2. Authority of the Magisterium​

  • The Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church, including the Pope and bishops) is entrusted with interpreting both Scripture and Tradition. The Church believes that this authority, guided by the Holy Spirit, ensures that the teachings remain faithful to Christ’s original message.
  • Tradition is necessary to properly interpret Scripture. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly spelled out in the Bible, but it is a key part of the Catholic faith that has been handed down through Tradition.

3. Liturgical and Sacramental Life​

  • Tradition influences the structure and practice of Catholic worship, especially the liturgy and the sacraments. For instance, the rites of the Mass, prayers, and sacramental ceremonies are rooted in centuries-old practices, adapted and shaped by Tradition.
  • The development of doctrines such as the seven sacraments is also part of the Church's Tradition.

4. Doctrinal Development​

  • The Church believes that its understanding of God’s revelation develops over time through Tradition. While the core truths remain unchanged, the articulation and comprehension of these truths can grow. For example, teachings on the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of Mary, though rooted in early Christian belief, were formally defined centuries later.

5. Unity of the Church​

  • Tradition fosters continuity and unity within the Church. By following Tradition, Catholics maintain a connection to the early Church and the apostolic community, ensuring consistency in faith and practice across generations and cultures.
...

The Pope’s Role​

  • The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the successor of St. Peter, has a unique role in the formulation of doctrine. He has the authority to define doctrines ex cathedra (from the chair of St. Peter) in matters of faith and morals, a process known as papal infallibility. This has been used sparingly, such as in defining the doctrines of the Immaculate Conception (1854) and the Assumption of Mary (1950).
  • While the Pope has the power to define doctrines independently, most doctrinal developments occur through the collaborative efforts of the Pope with the bishops and theologians of the Church.


Free .... you thinking of converting from Presbyterian-ish *giggle*



What I find interesting is the idea that for a very long time I thought the R.Cs. believed protestants were doomed to hell ... so the Pope's statement at the beginning of the thread was a curiosity to me. I found information to back this up:
  • Historically, the Church taught the principle "extra Ecclesiam nulla salus" (outside the Church, there is no salvation). However, this teaching has been interpreted in a broader and more inclusive way in modern Catholic theology.
  • The Church now understands this to mean that while the fullness of truth and the ordinary means of salvation are found in the Catholic Church, God’s grace is not limited to the visible structures of the Church. Individuals who, through no fault of their own, are not formal members of the Catholic Church but seek God sincerely and follow their conscience can still be saved.
There is a caveat to salvation for protestants though:
  • According to Catholic theology, baptism is the ordinary means of entry into the Christian life and is seen as necessary for salvation (as taught in John 3:5 and the Nicene Creed). The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Protestant baptism, as long as it is performed with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  • Therefore, baptized Protestants are considered to be in some form of communion with the Catholic Church, albeit imperfectly.
So, according to R.C. doctrine, you and I are saved. (A hundred years ago or more I think they would have said we're toast (going to hell or somewhere). This assumes you have been baptized.
Click to expand...
ChatGPT seems spot on.

I had many Catholics argue that the difference between a Christian and a Catholic is that Christians take the Bible seriously and Catholics do not.
 
electedbyHim said:
ChatGPT seems spot on.
Click to expand...
Yeah ... ChatGPT gets you through the "he said"/ "she said" whatever about something.
Also, to the point. With ChatGPT I almost think I know what I am talking about. *giggle*

electedbyHim said:
I had many Catholics argue that the difference between a Christian and a Catholic is that Christians take the Bible seriously and Catholics do not.
Click to expand...
I think R.C.s take the Bible very seriously ... but they have the power to interpret it correctly and to add to it. Very useful from some perspectives.
 
Fastfredy0 said:
Yeah ... ChatGPT gets you through the "he said"/ "she said" whatever about something.
Also, to the point. With ChatGPT I almost think I know what I am talking about. *giggle*


I think R.C.s take the Bible very seriously ... but they have the power to interpret it correctly and to add to it. Very useful from some perspectives.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

I have yet to mess with ChatGPT and have no idea where to even start.
 
Free said:
You quoted 1 Cor 10:20 to support your statement, “If he teaches contrary to the faith we do not follow him!”.


But, you said in post #56 that you cannot judge whether he is valid or not: “We dont have and right to declare who is a valid pope or not!”

Then, in post #59, you stated: “If he is validly elected he is a valid successor of Peter the visible head of the church, the vicar of christ!”

Was the current pope validly elected? Is he a valid pope or not?


Now you seem to be using this criteria instead to determine if a pope is valid—that he is teaching contrary to Scripture. Is this how you determine if a pope is valid? If so, then once again sola Scriptura is correct and the Catholic Church is not the final authority on Christian belief and practice.

Of course, that also means you are judging whether or not he is a valid pope.
Click to expand...
Sorry for the confusion
I qouted 1 cor 10:20 to show false or pagan religions are of satan not God

Another whole subject is the pope, im not qualified to judge anyone does he teach Christ? I have my doubts

Thats all
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top