Apostasy:

[musterion]

No, I absolutely do not agree that either of us is "gravely, eternally wrong". I think that even severed from full communion with Christ's one and original church, Protestants can be saved.

How?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

How?

Grace.

 

[veteran]

I have news for you. All the Old Testament saints did not believe in Jesus Christ for salvation, and yet their saved because salvation doesn't necessarily require a full assent to the timeless truth of the gospel. Full revelation of Jesus Christ will often happen not in this life, but in the life to come. But where I will agree with you is that once somebody has been introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ, there is no excuse whatsoever to reject it. Those trying to follow God with a sincere heart will embrace Christ when they are introduced to him just as the blind man Jesus healed (who is the son of God that I might believe in him?). But the truth is, billions of people live this life falling well short of that full revelation. They aren't all consigned to perdition, as much as you'd like them to burn in hell. But God calls every human being who has ever lived into a loving relationship with him, and some respond to God's grace and others reject it and remain hostile to the love of God their entire life. But those who respond to God's grace and show the works of redemption in their life will invariably receive the gospel of Christ when its presented to them.

I recognize the future time of Christ's "thousand years" reign, when ALL... of man's religious systems built upon men's traditions will no longer hide the Truth of God's Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ only. It will be in that time when all nations will not only 'see' Christ Jesus, but will 'know' that very Truth, and either believe or still reject Him unto their destruction by their own choice.

But what your church is doing today is corrupting Christ's Name and His Salvation by trying to join the various faith systems of this world together under the inter-faith movement, even allowing religious leaders of other faiths to come into Christ's Church and teach believing Christians about those other faith systems! And all that is blasphemy which will be judged when the time comes, along with those who have taken part in it.

 

[musterion]

Specifics, please. Unless you're a universalist; if so, don't bother answering.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Specifics, please. Unless you're a universalist; if so, don't bother answering.

I specified in my post, which you didn't read. And if you think that Catholics are universalists, then you need an education on what the Catholic Church believes.

I recognize the future time of Christ's "thousand years" reign, when ALL... of man's religious systems built upon men's traditions will no longer hide the Truth of God's Salvation through His Son Jesus Christ only. It will be in that time when all nations will not only 'see' Christ Jesus, but will 'know' that very Truth, and either believe or still reject Him unto their destruction by their own choice.

But what your church is doing today is corrupting Christ's Name and His Salvation by trying to join the various faith systems of this world together under the inter-faith movement, even allowing religious leaders of other faiths to come into Christ's Church and teach believing Christians about those other faith systems! And all that is blasphemy which will be judged when the time comes, along with those who have taken part in it.

If you're looking for the thousand year reign of Christ sometime in the future, I have news for you. We're in it right now. And it isn't a literal thousand years, it's a Jewish idiom that denotes a long and unnumbered period (Psalm 50:10 for example). But what I find entertaining is how any system you are a part of is divine while any you disagree with is "men's traditions". That haughtiness is just hilarious. As far as your other comments, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I think you might be mischaracterizing inter-religious dialogue and then calling it "blasphemy". I love how you fling that word about like the Pharisees did in the days of Jesus.

Thanks for your post. I had a good laugh.

 

[musterion]

I did read your response. The only thing I got out of it, besides a pointless dose of condescension, was the implication that salvation is by good works no matter what errors one may believe. This is why I asked for specifics because I know you cannot believe that.

So...specifically...if I plan to die adamantly refusing all things Catholic...what must I do to be saved?

As to universalism, I have in fact met many Catholics who are quite universalist. You may not be among them but I solemnly assure you, they exist.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I did read your response. The only thing I got out of it, besides a pointless dose of condescension, was the implication that salvation is by good works no matter what errors one may believe. This is why I asked for specifics because I know you cannot believe that.

So...specifically...if I plan to die adamantly refusing all things Catholic...what must I do to be saved?

As to universalism, I have in fact met many Catholics who are quite universalist. You may not be among them but I solemnly assure you, they exist.

If you die refusing Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved. My point was that if God were so austere and set the doctrinal standard so high that only those who believed the precise and correct thing can be saved, then it bodes fearsome for Protestants if indeed the Reformation were in error and the Catholic Church was correct all along. I think we can both rest easy that such is not the case, that both of us being in Christ is what saves, not our assent to the correct doctrine. As to your other comment, Catholics are not permitted to depart from the Church's teaching. I could claim that I've met many Protestants who believe in salvific baptism, Purgatory, and the perpetual virginity of Mary (and I have) but it's meaningless because Protestants don't fall under a singular authority. We Catholics profess "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" and therefore fall under one authority. Catholics who depart from it are considered in schism. The teachings of the Catholic Church are not subject to debate or democratic referendum. So being a devout Catholic, you can rest assured that I affirm ALL the teachings of the Catholic Church and you need entertain the possibility that I'm a universalist.

 

[veteran]

I specified in my post, which you didn't read. And if you think that Catholics are universalists, then you need an education on what the Catholic Church believes.

If you're looking for the thousand year reign of Christ sometime in the future, I have news for you. We're in it right now. And it isn't a literal thousand years, it's a Jewish idiom that denotes a long and unnumbered period (Psalm 50:10 for example). But what I find entertaining is how any system you are a part of is divine while any you disagree with is "men's traditions". That haughtiness is just hilarious. As far as your other comments, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I think you might be mischaracterizing inter-religious dialogue and then calling it "blasphemy". I love how you fling that word about like the Pharisees did in the days of Jesus.

Thanks for your post. I had a good laugh.

That's the kind of rebuttal I would expect from those who think TODAY that we are already in Christ's yet future "thousand years" reign over ALL nations.

You left out a major requirement for that to come to pass, which is Christ's de facto Presence here on earth, with His coming to gather HIS CHURCH to where He will be, i.e., in Jerusalem on this earth!

No question now that you are pushing lies here, and not to be trusted.

 

[musterion]

If you die refusing Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved.

Just so we're crystal clear: As a Roman Catholic, are you affirming that eternal life is available outside of and wholly apart from - indeed, even in spite of - the instrumentality of Roman Catholic church and its sacraments, IF one does not die refusing Christ?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

That's the kind of rebuttal I would expect from those who think TODAY that we are already in Christ's yet future "thousand years" reign over ALL nations.

You left out a major requirement for that to come to pass, which is Christ's de facto Presence here on earth, with His coming to gather HIS CHURCH to where He will be, i.e., in Jerusalem on this earth!

No question now that you are pushing lies here, and not to be trusted.

Wow. I really must have touched a nerve because your font got bigger. And why am I not to be trusted, because I espouse the amillenial anti-dispensationalist viewpoint shared by the vast majority of Christians all over the world? Seems counterintuitive to me. The fundamental problem with the dispensationalist viewpoint is that it goes against the finality by which good and evil are separated which the Bible associates time and time again with the return of Christ. In your scenario Christ returns but doesn't bring an end to all deception, evil, and suffering. It grates against everything else the Bible has to say regarding the return of the Lord and the immediately ensuing final justice. The amillenial viewpoint says that Satan is bound right now. It's absurd when you consider all the evil in the world, evidence of the devil's work. But it makes more sense in the context of what the devil will do when he's released from prison, when the archangel Michael steps aside (Daniel 12) and Satan is allowed to commence unmitigated hostilities against God's people. The bloodshed and persecution will be so intense that, as described in Matthew 24, "If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened." In contrast to what the devil does when unleashed, it's easier to understand that he is bound today and we are in the period of the reign of Christ's church in the form of Western civilization which has brought relative peace to the world.

Moreover, your temporal interpretation of Jerusalem is myopic as well. It ignores that Jesus told the woman at the well that in the New Covenant, we would not go to this mountain or that, but would worship the Father in spirit and in truth. The Jerusalem of the apocalypse is described repeatedly as "the New Jerusalem" in the 3rd and 21st chapters of Revelation. It's further described as "the Jerusalem above" in Galatians 4, and "the heavenly Jerusalem" in Hebrews 12. All of which supports the idea that Jerusalem in the New Covenant is a spiritual place, not the Jerusalem of the Old Covenant.

 

[BLACK SHEEP]

I did read your response. The only thing I got out of it, besides a pointless dose of condescension, was the implication that salvation is by good works no matter what errors one may believe. This is why I asked for specifics because I know you cannot believe that.

So...specifically...if I plan to die adamantly refusing all things Catholic...what must I do to be saved?

As to universalism, I have in fact met many Catholics who are quite universalist. You may not be among them but I solemnly assure you, they exist.

Grace is God's part in salvation. Without it no man can be saved. It's available to everyone. Faith is man's part in that saving grace. Works is the evidence that man has responded to that grace. It's not that works saves anyone. It's that grace/faith without works is dead.

 

[musterion]

That was a simple Y or N, Vale.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Grace is God's part in salvation. Without it no man can be saved. It's available to everyone. Faith is man's part in that saving grace. Works is the evidence that man has responded to that grace. It's not that works saves anyone. It's that grace/faith without works is dead.

And yet works can't be discounted as a necessary ingredient. You can argue quite compellingly that works aren't the salvific agent, but as I pointed out to somebody else, the Bible says repeatedly that people will be judged by their WORKS, whether they be good and evil. And then you have the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 that gives a lesson that can't be ignored. People were accepted into heaven or slotted to perdition based on their works. I find the biggest blindness that many Christians have when it comes to works is separating the two types of works spoken of in scripture. You have the works of the law that Paul emphasized when he said we are justified apart from the law. And then you have the works of corporal mercy spoken of in the parable I mentioned. James informs us that a man is saved by this type of works and not faith only. It all leads to the same conclusion. Those who say they have faith but are impoverished of good works cannot expect to be saved.

 

[veteran]

Wow. I really must have touched a nerve because your font got bigger. And why am I not to be trusted, because I espouse the amillenial anti-dispensationalist viewpoint shared by the vast majority of Christians all over the world?

Now that's funny, especially that part in bold. Just so others here know, Amillenialism is about the REJECTION that Christ Jesus will return to reign a "thousand years" on this earth with His elect priests and kings. It is essentially a complete... rejection of the events of Revelation 20, and ALL... associated prophecies given by God's Old Testament prophets about it (which is a lot of Bible Scripture).

Furthermore, the early Church was NEVER Amillennialist, nor even the early Roman Catholic Church.

And that's HOW I KNOW... YOU ARE A DECIEVER HAVING COME HERE.


"Although none of the available Church Fathers advocate amillennialism in the 1st century, Justin Martyr (died 165), who had chiliastic tendencies in his theology,[3] mentions differing views in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80: "I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[4]
A few amillennialists such as Albertus Pieters understand Pseudo-Barnabas to be amillennial. In the 2nd century, the Alogi (those who rejected all of John's writings) were amillennial, as was Caius in the first quarter of the 3rd century.[5]With the influence of Neo-Platonism and dualism, Clement of Alexandria and Origen denied premillennialism.[6] Likewise, Dionysius of Alexandria argued that Revelation was not written by John and could not be interpreted literally; he was amillennial.[7]"


Those in the early Church that denied Christ's future thousand years reign were ALLIED with the Alexandrian school in Alexandria, Egypt; a school influenced by pagans and Gnostics of Neo-Platonism. That's why they rejected the Premillennialism of the early Church, and the writings of Apostle John, even to the vain denial that Christ even gave Apostle John to write the Book of Revelation!!!

Thus today's Amilennialist schools and Churches are allied with the secular one-world government globalists of THIS PRESENT world, and not with Christ's Kingdom to come. Afterall, those are the ones trying to build the New World Order system today that Christ Jesus is going to come to destroy off this earth in our near future. Be a part of that if you want and suffer the consequences by Christ when He comes.

 

[BLACK SHEEP]

And yet works can't be discounted as a necessary ingredient. You can argue quite compellingly that works aren't the salvific agent, but as I pointed out to somebody else, the Bible says repeatedly that people will be judged by their WORKS, whether they be good and evil. And then you have the Parable of the Sheep and Goats in Matthew 25 that gives a lesson that can't be ignored. People were accepted into heaven or slotted to perdition based on their works. I find the biggest blindness that many Christians have when it comes to works is separating the two types of works spoken of in scripture. You have the works of the law that Paul emphasized when he said we are justified apart from the law. And then you have the works of corporal mercy spoken of in the parable I mentioned. James informs us that a man is saved by this type of works and not faith only. It all leads to the same conclusion. Those who say they have faith but are impoverished of good works cannot expect to be saved.

I agree entirely. If I were to teach or preach on the salvation doctrine to those I see in the Protestant Churches I go to, I would probably expelled by at least one for believing that. In the doctrine of salvation I KNOW that the scriptural evidence is that you can't separate grace, faith, and works and be saved. But maybe in rare circumstances like on a death bed........grace and faith?????

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

From what I read, I wish I had the opportunity to communicate with him.

He is a pretty clear thinking guy .... put a lot of effort and research into his posts ..... pretty small audience here so maybe he gave up on this forum.

Hope he comes back

 

[musterion]

Vale,

If it is true that,

...even severed from full communion with Christ's one and original church, Protestants can be saved.

by,

Grace.

then the logic of your assertion establishes the reality of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ, without the works prescribed by Rome since a protestant - being a non-Catholic - will reject these as meaningless, as well as all works of righteousness FOR salvation, leaving them nothing through which to be saved except their faith in Christ. As you said,

If you die refusing Jesus Christ, you cannot be saved.

So if it's true that many can be saved by "accepting Christ" before they die, that is, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ, without your church's sacraments. . .why can't you?

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Vale,

If it is true that,


by,



then the logic of your assertion establishes the reality of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ, without the works prescribed by Rome since a protestant - being a non-Catholic - will reject these as meaningless, as well as all works of righteousness FOR salvation, leaving them nothing through which to be saved except their faith in Christ. As you said,

I think you presume too much when it comes to the beliefs of other non Catholic Christians. Most of them are ignoring what James says about the role of works in salvation, nor the fact that scripture says all men will be judged by their deeds, good or evil. I've hardly met any Protestant who believes works are meaningless.


So if it's true that many can be saved by "accepting Christ" before they die, that is, by grace alone through faith alone in Christ, without your church's sacraments. . .why can't you?

Grace alone yes, faith alone no. Grace is not equal to the interplay of faith and works, it's above it. The best way to see this is to study what Jesus said about the unprofitable servant in Luke 17. We are to do what is our duty to do, but in the end we are unprofitable servants. Here it's made clear that we have a duty to corporal works of mercy, but fulfilling that duty doesn't "earn" salvation because we cannot with good works ever hope to match the ransom that was paid for us by nothing less than the blood of Jesus. In fact, we can't even come close. So when reading Ephesians 2:8-10, you see the hierarchy. Grace, then faith and works.

But what is all too often missed is the different works spoken of in the New Testament. The corporal works of mercy, which James says a man is justified by in tandem with faith, is different then the works of the law in keeping with the Old Covenant. So in this passage of Ephesians, Paul speaks of one type of works in verse 9 and another in verse 10. In verse nine (not of works lest any man should boast) he's speaking about works of the law as seen later in verse 15, "the law of commandments, contained in ordinances". But in verse 10 we see that we are "created for good works", which is categorically NOT the works spoken of in the previous verse. I love this passage because it compares the entire hierarchy of salvation, grace, then faith, but not according to the Levitical law, then good works which are prepared for us that we may operate in them.

 

[musterion]

you presume too much when it comes to the beliefs of other non Catholic Christians.

So when reading Eph 2:8-10, you see the hierarchy.

Why correct me on what you presume I think others believe, but you don't hesitate to tell me what I believe? Are you even able to see how you look when you do this?

Anyway...what specifically are the good works a lover of Christ (me) who refuses Rome (me) can do that will be acceptable to the Father for salvation? See, I'm going back to my earlier question you didn't answer: what must I - the guy you're speaking to - do to be saved, if I can still be saved even though I refuse every sacramental work your church says is necessary to salvation?

Once again, I await the simple specifics of a specific answer.

 

[sanhedrin]

Apostasy:

This writing is offered as a study of Apostasy and is to be considered the view of the writer, me. If it offends any I am sorry, but just as I give others the right to believe and write as they see it I claim that same right for myself. This writing is not a claim, by me, that I know everything. It is my effort to try and understand the truth.

From what you have read in the bible, can you please define apostasy in its simpliest term that can be easily understood?