A case for Catholicism: rbdeli & Knight go One on One.

[Nathon Detroit]

rbdeli and I are going to have a "One on One" discussion for the next couple of weeks.

I want to allow rbdeli the freedom to make his case for Catholicism. I will mainly be asking questions and making small points (or rebuttals) but for the most part I want to allow rbdeli to make his case for Catholicism.

Both rbdeli and I are really busy so we have agreed to be very patient with each other regarding the responsiveness of our rebuttals etc. This IS NOT a formal debate. Instead it's merely a discussion between two friends.

LET THE ONE ON ONE BEGIN...

The ground work - Sources.

rbdeli, while I am sure we both agree that the Bible is the ultimate source of truth for our faith, what online Catholic resource can I turn to when investigating the things you may be telling in this One on One?

I.e., you may say.... "Catholics believe such and such....", is there a resource you can point me to so I can check things out for myself?

Thanks in advance for your time. I know how busy you are with work so just answer when you can, there is no rush. Also, lets both do our best to post and respond in "bite size" chunks so that we don't overwhelm ourselves knowing how busy each of us are.

 

[rbdeli]

The Catholic Catechism would be the first place to verify that I am properly speaking on behalf of the Church's views.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, it is a very large book and not the easiest place to find a quick explanation or answers to questions.

Here is a very good website forum that will offer quick answers to searched for questions: http://forums.catholic.com/

We also have a great resource right here in Denver, in our own Archbishop, Charles Chaput

He has always been great about answering emails when I have questions.
There are definitely plenty of places to go to verify the truth.

Hopefully, this helps.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The Catholic Catechism would be the first place to verify that I am properly speaking on behalf of the Church's views.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

However, it is a very large book and not the easiest place to find a quick explanation or answers to questions.

Here is a very good website forum that will offer quick answers to searched for questions: http://forums.catholic.com/

We also have a great resource right here in Denver, in our own Archbishop, Charles Chaput

He has always been great about answering emails when I have questions.
There are definitely plenty of places to go to verify the truth.

Hopefully, this helps.

OK, great thanks!

Lets get this party started.....

Although I was raised in a Catholic family I do not consider myself Catholic. As a teenager a became a hardcore atheist and actually enjoyed debating against Christians (Catholic or otherwise) every chance I got. Not to brag but I usually crushed them without much effort. It wasn't until later in life that I became a Christian. This brief background leads me to my first three super basic, simple questions.

1. Are you a Catholic? (if so, can you describe what type of a Catholic you are? For instance... I would describe myself as a fundamentalist Christian, how would you describe yourself?)

2. Should I become a Catholic?

3. Why should I become a Catholic? (assuming you answered "yes" to question #2)

Thanks in advance for your time. Only answer when you have time, there is no rush.

 

[rbdeli]

1. Yes, I am a Catholic. I consider myself a fairly devout Catholic, but wasn't always. Like you, I was brought up Catholic, but left the faith in my highschool days, and never went back until long after I was married. For about 20 years, I was agnostic and didn't belong to any church. I was married in the Methodist Church of my wife's. After that, I experimented with some Protestant Churches, but never felt at home in any of them. Desiring to raise my children with the same faith and morals I had as a child, I started reading the bible and doing some soul searching. Because I was brought up Catholic (Cradle Catholic), I never really understood or knew my faith well. This changed about 7 years ago, when I converted back to the Church - this time with my wife and kids, and learned it all with greater interest, and much better biblical knowledge to back up and relate the teaching and make sense of it all.

2. Yes, I think you should be Catholic.

3. Why? While I certainly consider you a Christian, I believe the full truth resides in the Catholic Church. With that truth, comes the fullness of God's word, and experiencing it in our life in ways that aren't possible outside of the Church. Let's pretend for a moment, that I could convince you that the Catholic Church today is the one, Holy and Apostolic Church. It is the original bride of Christ from over 2,000 years ago, and it has remained holy and unchanged on every doctrine and teaching of faith and morals. With that understanding, I believe you wouldn't see the teachings and traditions of the Church as a bunch of rules, burdens and works any longer. You would see them as heavenly gifts from Christ. Gifts that are not mere promises waiting for us in heaven, but real, breathing, living sacraments of Christ's life-giving love. When we receive them they bring us intimately closer to Christ in our lives today. Why wouldn't I want that for you?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

1. Yes, I am a Catholic. I consider myself a fairly devout Catholic, but wasn't always. Like you, I was brought up Catholic, but left the faith in my highschool days, and never went back until long after I was married. For about 20 years, I was agnostic and didn't belong to any church. I was married in the Methodist Church of my wife's. After that, I experimented with some Protestant Churches, but never felt at home in any of them. Desiring to raise my children with the same faith and morals I had as a child, I started reading the bible and doing some soul searching. Because I was brought up Catholic (Cradle Catholic), I never really understood or knew my faith well. This changed about 7 years ago, when I converted back to the Church - this time with my wife and kids, and learned it all with greater interest, and much better biblical knowledge to back up and relate the teaching and make sense of it all.

I see. Thanks for sharing that.

2. Yes, I think you should be Catholic.

3. Why? While I certainly consider you a Christian, I believe the full truth resides in the Catholic Church. With that truth, comes the fullness of God's word, and experiencing it in our life in ways that aren't possible outside of the Church. Let's pretend for a moment, that I could convince you that the Catholic Church today is the one, Holy and Apostolic Church. It is the original bride of Christ from over 2,000 years ago, and it has remained holy and unchanged on every doctrine and teaching of faith and morals. With that understanding, I believe you wouldn't see the teachings and traditions of the Church as a bunch of rules, burdens and works any longer. You would see them as heavenly gifts from Christ. Gifts that are not mere promises waiting for us in heaven, but real, breathing, living sacraments of Christ's life-giving love. When we receive them they bring us intimately closer to Christ in our lives today. Why wouldn't I want that for you?

OK, so let me see if I have this straight. First off, I appreciate your compassion for me. I can tell that you really do want the best for me.

Correct me if I am wrong but it sounds like you are saying that you believe I am saved i.e., "I certainly consider you a Christian". Yet you also believe that if I were Catholic I could be (would be) closer to God. Is that what you are saying?

What do you think that the official church position would be regarding me? Would they think as you do, that I am a Christian but just "missing out" on a closer relationship with God?

 

[rbdeli]

Yes, The Catholic Chuch recognizes you as a Christian because you believe Christ is the son of God, died for your sins, and was resurrected on the 3rd day. .The Church does not believe Protestants are going to hell just because they are not Catholic. The Church recognizes that God will judge everyone to the best of their ability to know and believe in the full truth. However, the Church also believes that though they still may love God, Protestants have not chosen the best route for their salvation. This brings up a couple of important difference in Catholics and Protestants: WE do not believe our Salvation is merely one single act of faith. Nor does the Church teach that salvation cannot be lost. We don't believe in OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) We know from the bible that God will never disown us or cast us astray by his own desires, but we also know that we are still human beings of free will and can refuse Christ of our own choice. Why? Because God loves. Love cannot be forced. Christ will not force you to keep something you decide you no longer want. And as long as we still live, eat and breathe we are humans with the choice of free human will.
1 Timothy 5:8

Just because we have professed our faith in Christ and say we are saved does not mean that we cannot choose to go astray from our faith.
1 Timothy 1:19
keeping faith and a good conscience, which some have rejected and suffered shipwreck in regard to their faith.

We believe salvation is a lifelong process: Yes We are saved. Romans 8:24. We are being saved: 1 Cor 1:18, And we WILL be saved provided we perservere and keep our eye on the prize: Romans 5:9-10.

2 Cor 5:10
For we all must appear before the Judgement Seat of Christ

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes, The Catholic Chuch recognizes you as a Christian because you believe Christ is the son of God, died for your sins, and was resurrected on the 3rd day.

That's good to know.

On another thread two TOL Catholic's strongly disagree....

The truth is we don’t know if Knight will be saved

We do know that he is not saved now

Many things are required because they demonstrate obedience.

Jesus was very clear:

Matt 7
21"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

How would you respond to chestertonrules and chrysostom?

You say I am NOT going to hell, they say I AM going to hell. This seems like something I should be concerned about.

We don't believe in OSAS

rbdeli, lets put this to rest right now, OK?

You DO believe in OSAS.

You do! I know you think you don't.... but you do.

Afterall.... you do not believe that a man can be saved while he is alive (here on earth). You believe that a man is judged by his works after he dies and then he is either saved or he is not saved. Once he is saved he goes to heaven for eternity. Therefore you MOST CERTAINLY believe that once a man is saved, he is always saved.

rbdeli is unequivocally OSAS. Our only difference in opinion is when a man can be saved.

Based on that fact, I think you should reconsider how you debate that issue. You cannot rightly argue against the doctrine of OSAS since clearly you adhere to it just as strongly as I do. Where we disagree is that you do not believe that a man can be saved while he is still alive.

From this point further wouldn't it be more accurate for you to argue against man's ability to be saved before death, rather than argue against OSAS?

 

[rbdeli]

Neither Chesterton nor Chrystostom said you were going to hell. They said they do no know. Neither does the Catholic Church. Neither do I. I simply stated that the Catholic Church recognized Protestants as Christians, and they CAN be saved even though it doesn't believe they've chosen the best path to get there. Besides, how does us offering opinions on one another's salvation have anything to do with the official teaching of the Church? It doesn't. It's just speculation, but we all want what's best for our fellow Christians. THat's what this board is for to argue on what we think is the right way.

Matt 7:21
Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter

This verse by Chesteron shows that not everyone who thinks they are saved ARE saved, or will BE saved in the end.

OSAS
The misunderstanding we have about OSAS is not based on WHEN a man can be saved. It is based on WHAT it means to be saved.

Let me use an analogy. You're lost at sea and about to drown. A rescue ship comes along and throws you a life preserver. You are saved. Are you always saved or can you still drown? Next, they send you a life raft. You are still being saved, as you make your way to the raft. Are you always saved? Can you get lost along the way? Once on the raft, you are still saved, but you still have to get to shore. Are you there just because you are saved, or do you have to use the oars to get there? As long as we live and breath, we have not reached our destination. So, as I said earlier. We ARE saved, we are BEING saved. And we WILL be saved, provided we remain in the faith: My salvation started with baptism. I was saved then, but I have to remain on course.

Even Paul says he is not assured of his own destination:
Phillipians 3:12-13
Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. Brethren, I do not count myself to have apprehended; but one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind and reaching forward to those things which are ahead, I press toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

The position of the Catholic Church on Salvation:
We are saved by Grace and only through the Grace of God, and not of our own works CAN we be saved. But that grace requires a response from us. We are justified by Faith and Works, as I showed in the example above. Christ gave us the path for our salvation. We have to believe in the way and row the boat. Faith and Works.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Neither Chesterton nor Chrystostom said you were going to hell. They said they do no know. Neither does the Catholic Church. Neither do I.

Hmmmm.... I hate to sound dense here but I think I need a bit of clarification.

You say... Chrystostom didn't say I was going to hell.

Chrystostom said that I am not saved "We do know that he is not saved now". And your posts seem to indicate a similar belief in that you believe I am a Christian but I am "not saved".

If.... as I was typing this message I suddenly died of a heart attack where would I go? Heaven or hell? :idunno:

Furthermore....
If I am not going to hell yet still "not saved" what makes me any different than a non-believer that is "not saved"?

Asked another way... why do I get to go to heaven (being "not saved") while a un-believer goes to hell (being "not saved")? In your view is there any benefit to being a Christian other than having a closer walk with God?

Maybe if you can clear this up for me we could move on to the next topic. :up: rbdeli, I want to tell you I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this. I like talking about this kind of thing. I have committed myself to considering your position and not simply trying to win an argument.

 

[rbdeli]

Rather than reply to each sentence of your last post, I hope to have answered your questions in the few paragraphs below. Let me know if I failed to cover one or more of them.

I don't think you are dense at all. Your confusion of what I am saying is based on the different philosophical view you have on Salvation, IMO. Secondly, one's opinion of whether or not you are saved really has no bearing on it. I can't speak for Chrysostum, but I don't think he is neccessarily implying that you cannot be saved or will not be saved, anymore than any ofus. I will state this again: The Catholic Church does not think Protestants are going to hell just because they are protestants and not Catholics. I believe you are a Christian who has been saved, but like me, you can still reject Christ at any time in your life, which is hopefuly many, many more years for the both of us! If our faith is sincere, then we are sowing to the spirit rather than the flesh, and we must continue this way, and we WILL continue this way because we love God. Whether or not you continue to be saved and will be saved in the end is up to us. Being saved doesn't mean we are finished with God here on earth, just the guy who was saved with the life preserver is not finished with his trip back to shore. Paul says we must continue in our faith. We must not lose heart. We must not shipwreck our faith. All of these things are warnings to Christians - those who are saved in the faith.

You asked me what is the difference between you and an unbeliever. The difference is that you have salvation, as long as you continue in your belief. You then ask, 'Is there any benefit to being a Christian other than having a closer walk with God?". I will try to answer your question with a question of my own: "Is there any benefit to being a Christian other than thinking you are Saved and will inherit eternal life?" Don't you live your life differently now that you are a believer than when you weren't? Why? Isn't it because you love God? Does a non-believer Love God? Can you be saved if you truly don't love God?

You are asking me to inject my opinion on what happens to you if you were to suddenly die. Understand that this is only my opinion, and I trust that only God knows for sure. . Most of us are not ready for heaven when we die. We are not perfect, and we are not holy and pure enough to be with the Lord in all his glory. On the other hand, we will not go straight to hell as long as we have not truly rejected God. Think about that. Having full knowledge of the truth, and wilfully rejecting God! That is something most people won't choose, but the farther we drift from unbelief the more tempting it might be. We can save the debate for the existence of Purgatory for another time. For now, I just wanted to answer your question and hopefully get you to see the differences we have in understanding what it means to be saved.

Understand, that I know that nothing I have said that you haven't replied to constitutes agreement on your part, only understanding of our different interpertations. Thank you for your effort to want to understand. I do believe you're sincere in wanting to know and learn Catholic teaching. Humbly, I will admit: I don't consider myself the best teacher, so feel free to look in other places. I can certainly recommend a couple of great books from Catholics who are far better at this than me.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Being saved doesn't mean we are finished with God here on earth, just the guy who was saved with the life preserver is not finished with his trip back to shore.

I think that the above line is the crux of our initial disagreement.

When I ask you about what it means to be saved, you describe what it means to be in the process of being saved. In my opinion that is not a practical definition of of the word saved.

When I see 8 people in the pool drowning I don't consider them saved until they are safely on the shore wrapped in a blanket.

It sounds to me like you consider those 8 people saved as soon as 8 life preservers are tossed into the water.​

Frankly, I do not find your definition of saved to be sufficient. I would assert that your definition of the word saved is more akin to the definition of "saving" i.e., the process of being saved.

Therefore, I believe you could make a much more consistent argument if you simply admitted that you believe that a man cannot be saved while he is still alive. You are of course free to disagree.

I asked....
In your view is there any benefit to being a Christian other than having a closer walk with God?

And you responded with a counter question...

Is there any benefit to being a Christian other than thinking you are Saved and will inherit eternal life?

Isn't that enough? :idunno:

There is nothing more important than our eternal destiny. (I assume you agree with that) Truth be told, a Christian can live either most wonderful or most miserable existence, becoming a Christian isn't a magic ticket to happiness. Our ability to have a loving relationship with God all depends on how much we lean on Him and not on ourselves (Proverbs 3:5). It is God Himself that produces good fruit through us when we lean on Him. The more we trust and love Him, the more He produces fruit through us.

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.​

Understand, that I know that nothing I have said that you haven't replied to constitutes agreement on your part, only understanding of our different interpertations. Thank you for your effort to want to understand. I do believe you're sincere in wanting to know and learn Catholic teaching. Humbly, I will admit: I don't consider myself the best teacher, so feel free to look in other places. I can certainly recommend a couple of great books from Catholics who are far better at this than me.

:up:

I think you are doing a fine job. I would much rather discuss this with you than read some "stuffy" old book (most likely written by a dead guy). :dead:

 

[rbdeli]

When I see 8 people in the pool drowning I don't consider them saved until they are safely on the shore wrapped in a blanket.It sounds to me like you consider those 8 people saved as soon as 8 life preservers are tossed into the water. Frankly, I do not find your definition of saved to be sufficient. I would assert that your definition of the word saved is more akin to the definition of "saving" i.e., the process of being saved.

I agree that the crux of our disagreement is in what it means to be saved. I also think the barrier to you understanding this is that you are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. You are looking at being saved as something different than Catholics, because you believe in Faith Alone.
My analogy about the life preserver is accurate in all of it's forms: Past, Present and Future tense. Yes you were saved by the Grace of the Life Preserver the moment you clung to it. Yes, you continued to be saved when you got on the Raft, and yes, you will be Saved when you reach Shore. In your analogy about the 8 people in the swimming pool, you skipped the part about how they got safely to shore. Why does that not have anything to do with their salvation? Weren't they saved from drowning the minute they were rescued? Had they just stayed in the middle of the pool on a life saver, would they have ever gotten to shore? Weren't they also saved through their own faith, work and cooperation when they were brought back to shore? This is the problem I see with the Faith Alone doctrine. It requires one single act of faith, and nothing else matters leading up to that point before or afterwards. It's automatic, yet the bible has all kinds of warnings and advice from Jesus, James and Paul that are completely contrary to this idea. However, it requires that you do believe they are talking to you, and not just some believing Jews, or people who came before Christ's finished work on the cross.

I asked....
In your view is there any benefit to being a Christian other than having a closer walk with God?

And you responded with a counter question...
Isn't that enough? :idunno:

There is nothing more important than our eternal destiny. (I assume you agree with that) Truth be told, a Christian can live either most wonderful or most miserable existence, becoming a Christian isn't a magic ticket to happiness. Our ability to have a loving relationship with God all depends on how much we lean on Him and not on ourselves (Proverbs 3:5). It is God Himself that produces good fruit through us when we lean on Him. The more we trust and love Him, the more He produces fruit through us.

Yes, there is nothing more important than our eternal destiny.
But that doesn't mean what we do with our lives doesn't count or that we play no role in getting there. Yes, being Christian doesn't guarantee happiness, but long lasting happiness always comes in the form of serving the Lord. Sure, there is nothing wrong with doing things for ourselves, but that's merely satisfying an itch or an urge. Long-term happiness is only possible through serving God, and that means loving God through works of faith. As Catholics we take an active part in loving God, and we are rewarded through the many gifts of Christ's Church. Through the Church, we are closer to Christ. Being members of the Church, we are not just mere idle parts of the Body of Christ. We are living and rejoicing with the Saints. We can experience heaven on earth through the Mass. Pretend for a moment that you really believed Christ literally in John 6:54: Would you still want to miss Mass? I don't think so. And if you really believed The Catholic Church was the bride of Christ, you would be Catholic, right?

Galatians 5:18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.

Catholics agree, 100% with all of Paul's teachings, especially this one. Of course, we are not under the law, but we also see, here that Paul is telling us what it means to live in the spirit. Doing these things of evil are not of the spirit and if you do them, you cannot see the Lord. Can a Christian consider themselves saved and still resort to a life of these warnings of Paul? Certainly, or else we are all perfect.

I think you are doing a fine job. I would much rather discuss this with you than read some "stuffy" old book (most likely written by a dead guy).

Actually, Scott Hahn is young, alive, passionate and tremendously gentle at teaching the Faith to non-Catholics. Just one of his great books:

Reasons To Believe

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You are looking at being saved as something different than Catholics, because you believe in Faith Alone.

That's true. And I agree.

My analogy about the life preserver is accurate in all of it's forms: Past, Present and Future tense. Yes you were saved by the Grace of the Life Preserver the moment you clung to it.

I was basing my disagreement on your first analogy.

You stated...

Let me use an analogy. You're lost at sea and about to drown. A rescue ship comes along and throws you a life preserver. You are saved.

While I appreciate your optimism, I am not sure how comforting your words will be to those in the water until they are safely on deck.

This is the problem I see with the Faith Alone doctrine. It requires one single act of faith, and nothing else matters leading up to that point before or afterwards. It's automatic

Don't you believe that an atheist or non-believer can call out to God and be saved? The thief on the cross did that and he went be with the Lord (Luke 23:43), yet he did not perform a single work. I am pretty sure that you agree that at least at some point, faith is all it takes to tell God that you want to be with Him in heaven and He will grant that wish if you ask Him with a pure heart.

Where we disagree is...... what comes next, i.e., does one need to work to maintain that faith or not. Would you agree that that is the actually disagreement?

Yes, there is nothing more important than our eternal destiny.
But that doesn't mean what we do with our lives doesn't count or that we play no role in getting there.

I agree with that.

Yes, being Christian doesn't guarantee happiness, but long lasting happiness always comes in the form of serving the Lord. Sure, there is nothing wrong with doing things for ourselves, but that's merely satisfying an itch or an urge. Long-term happiness is only possible through serving God, and that means loving God through works of faith.

I do things for my children because I love them, not because I am obligated to.

As Catholics we take an active part in loving God, and we are rewarded through the many gifts of Christ's Church.

Do you do what you do for the church because you love the church? Or do you do what you do for the church because you are obligated to?

For instance....
I can imagine a person giving financially to the Lord simply because he loved God and his gift was something he wanted to give out of love.

Yet, I don't think the same can be said when an envelope arrives in your mailbox telling you what you SHOULD give to the church. I do not believe that gift is given out of love but instead given out of obligation.

At my church we don't even pass a collection plate. You give only if you are moved to give out of love. If the ministry were to fail due to lack of funds... then so be it.

Through the Church, we are closer to Christ. Being members of the Church, we are not just mere idle parts of the Body of Christ. We are living and rejoicing with the Saints. We can experience heaven on earth through the Mass. Pretend for a moment that you really believed Christ literally in John 6:54: Would you still want to miss Mass? I don't think so. And if you really believed The Catholic Church was the bride of Christ, you would be Catholic, right?

If I REALLY believed I was the Bride of Christ I would be Jewish. The bride of Christ or more accurately "The Lamb's wife" is a term used to describe Israel, not the Body of Christ. (read Rev 19:5-9, Rev 21:2, Rev 21:9-27)

Without getting too "theological", just think about it and it makes perfect sense.... Christ doesn't marry Himself does He? (for folks really interested in this topic you might start here... "The Bride of Christ or the Lamb’s Wife")

Are you in Christ i.e., the body? Or are you in the bride? As for me... I am in Christ. I am in the bridegroom, not the bride.

Again this is another example of the Catholic church wrongly dividing the word of God and viewing itself in the place of Israel. It's almost as if they believe they are the surrogate Israel.

It is important to note that the Catholic Church is not alone in making this mistake. The vast majority of churches Catholic or otherwise fail to rightly divide the word of God in this same fashion.

OK, notice how these types of topics and threads start to mushroom? One point leads to two points, two points lead to four points and before you now it there is a ton of stuff we each need to respond to. I don't think either of us have the time to respond to everything in each post. So please feel free to respond only to what you have the time for. And if there is something that you REALLY want me to respond to that I have missed please highlight it in some fashion so I know that it is essential.

As for me I would like to move on.

QUESTION: What does it take to be *saved?

* Please use your definition of the word saved. In other words... what I am asking is.... if a non-believer told you they were down and out and they wanted to live a life for God and they wanted to go to heaven what would you tell them?

Once we solve these minor issues surrounding the universe, God, and religion we will move on to more serious topics such as: Is Dan Hawkins the right man for the job? And... Will the NCAA ever institute a national playoff system for college football?

 

[rbdeli]

Sorry, I hadn't realized you replied and it was my turn!

You stated...While I appreciate your optimism, I am not sure how comforting your words will be to those in the water until they are safely on deck.

I agree they shouldn't be completely comfortable until they are at shore. However, it's darn nice to get that life preserver (Grace). But Lots of things can happen from the moment they were first saved 'til the moment they are safely at shore. It doesn't change the fact that their salvation was impossible without grace, 'the life preserver' that's what saved them and made it all possible. Now, they have to stay the course and get home. Paul says we must persevere or become shipwrecked in our faith.

Don't you believe that an atheist or non-believer can call out to God and be saved? The thief on the cross did that and he went be with the Lord (Luke 23:43), yet he did not perform a single work. I am pretty sure that you agree that at least at some point, faith is all it takes to tell God that you want to be with Him in heaven and He will grant that wish if you ask Him with a pure heart

.

Yes, he can be saved. If he believes it and really means it and responds to God's reply, which is Grace. Christ will grant him that grace out of love, but he can also freely deny God at any later time, by rejecting that love. The bible is explicitlly clear that we CAN lose our way. Paul, especially:

Galatians 6:8-10
For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life. 9 And let us not grow weary while doing good, for in due season we shall reap if we do not lose heart. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith.

What Paul says is that we can lose heart and only if WE DO NOT lose heart shall we reap.

Where we disagree is...... what comes next, i.e., does one need to work to maintain that faith or not. Would you agree that that is the actually disagreement?

Yes, almost. The problem is that your question is based on a different interperetation of what it means to be saved. Saved to you is complete instant salvation. You're done. IF you recognize that saved doesn't mean you're done, and that's all you do to meet the Lord in heaven, then yes. Our difference would be based on what we do next.

I do things for my children because I love them, not because I am obligated to

.

Exactly. I go to Church because I love God, not because the Church makes me. In fact, the Church doesn't make me go. I'm answering to God, through his Church. If I'm not taking Mass, having the full knowledge it is God's body and blood then I surely don't love him. If you don't believe it's really the body and blood of Christ, then fine. I can see why you would stay home.

Do you do what you do for the church because you love the church? Or do you do what you do for the church because you are obligated to?

Because I love Christ. Do you visit your parents? You love them. Of course you do.

If I REALLY believed I was the Bride of Christ I would be Jewish. The bride of Christ or more accurately "The Lamb's wife" is a term used to describe Israel, not the Body of Christ. (read Rev 19:5-9, Rev 21:2, Rev I be21:9-27)

You're making statements about the bride as if Christ is a man. The same obstacle occurs in believing in the Body and Blood - the presence. Christ is the lamb of God. The Bride of Christ is not the bride of a mere, man, but God's Church: Eph. 5:23–32

As for you thinking it requires you to be Jewish, that's only because of the unique way you've chosen to interpret the bible and multiple Gospels for different groups, one being Jewish. More on that later. (MUCH MORE)

This last topic is way too important to dismiss, but much too involved to debate without writing essays back and forth. I know the Plot and the Divided Truth might seem like a tidy little way to explain-away problematic bible verses that deal with works, but Catholics do not accept this. Also, as I will demonstrate when I have more time, this whole Plot theory is much messier than you think. It's full of biblical problems, and I will tell you what those are in a later post. As a Catholic, the entire message of the bible fits, and it is one message and only one message for one flock: One Flock, one shepard, one fold. John 10:16

TO answer your question:
What it takes to be saved is Grace, and for us to accept, respond and accept the call to that Grace through continued Faith and Works. It's pretty simple, we have to remain in our faith. Galatians 6:8-10

 

[rbdeli]

Dispensational Premillenialism.

Dispensational Premillenialism.

Knight,

I think it's important that we understand and agree on where the differences are in how we interpret the covenents and the rapture.
When this topic is brought up, it completely throws our dialogue off course, because youv'e accepted the book to mean something completely substantially different than Catholics and most traditional Protestants. The result is different rules for different people. Same book, but different interpretation.

So, let's do a brief overview here:

Am I right in defining you as a Dispensational Premillenialist?
Yes or No?

Assuming your answer is yes, this is what I understand about your belief system:

You believe that Christ will return before the millenium for a 1,000 year reign on earth. right? There will be a rapture that takes place before a great 7-year tribulation. Those who are saved will be taken away by God, and those who aren't will be left to deal with the misery of that 7-year period. After the thousand year period there will be another judgement. God will make good on his original promises to the jews, who choose God over the devil. There will be a rebuilt temple and an earthly kingdom for the believers.

You believe there is not one convenent, but two - and the Jews have a completely different path than the gentiles for salvation. Therefore, much of what is said in the Bible's new testament is intended for Jews, and not Gentiles. Israel and the Church of today have two distinct paths. More than likely, you also believe that much of the Gospels do not apply to us. Paul and part of Acts is where most of the message to the gentiles is revealed, correct?

Dispensation is the idea that God relates to his people at different times and different periods of dispensations. Each dispensation comes with different promises and expectations for each period's people. When the Jews rejected the Kingdom, God went to the gentiles with his 'new' plan of salvation, and the new Church, which consists of the Christian believers today, who are saved by Grace and faith. The Church is not a physical visible structure or building, but represents the body of believers, right? You think that the Christians are confusing it's Church with the Church of Israel and that is why accused us of serving as a surrogate church, right? I think you also believe that when God fulfills his original promise to the Jews, works and the law will again play a role in salvation.
-----------------------------------

No arguing here at this point. I just want to see if I properly understand your beliefs. Then I can portray the Catholic view, and we can discuss and debate why or why not we are in disagreement with the bible.

So...Am I 90%, 80%, 30% correct?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Exactly. I go to Church because I love God, not because the Church makes me. In fact, the Church doesn't make me go.

:up: That's good to know.

When I was growing up we were taught it was a mortal sin to miss mass.

And I am refreshed to hear you reject teaching such as this....

Missing Sunday Mass is a serious sin. If it involves full knowledge and full consent, then it is a mortal sin. Remember, all three conditions (grave offense, full knowledge, and full consent) have to be present for a sin to be a mortal sin. God says to “keep holy the Sabbath”. Jesus showed us how to worship by gathering his friends around a table, and celebrating a meal. He commands us to “take this all of you and eat it…do this in memory of me”. As followers of Jesus, we are obligated, then, to keep holy the Sabbath by celebrating the Eucharist (Holy Mass). It is a grave obligation. - source

It kills me that guys like that think attending mass is "keeping the Sabbath". :rotfl: Again, the Catholic's fail to distinguish themselves from Israel. The sabbath was a sign between God and Israel. (Exodus 31:16)

Moving on....
I asked.... "What does it take to be saved?"

TO answer your question:
What it takes to be saved is Grace, and for us to accept, respond and accept the call to that Grace through continued Faith and Works. It's pretty simple, we have to remain in our faith. Galatians 6:8-10

rbdeli, isn't it sort of odd that you would answer a question like that with even mentioning Jesus Christ?

In fact, you didn't even mention God.

I believe that your answer should represent a red flag for you. This reminds me of a very close relative of mine who is a staunch Catholic, the minute I bring up the name Jesus she gets extremely uncomfortable and wants to change the subject. How can a Christian answer the question "What does it take to be saved?" without mentioning God or Jesus Christ? :idunno:

Furthermore...
If your neighbor asked you... "What does it take to be saved?" and you answered.... "What it takes to be saved is Grace, and for us to accept, respond and accept the call to that Grace through continued Faith and Works. It's pretty simple, we have to remain in our faith." Your neighbor would be left with more questions than before he asked the question.

Grace saves us? Who's grace? Buddha? Gandhi? Connan O'Brian?
Accept the call? How do I do that? Is it a collect call? What if nobody answers?
Faith and works? Who's faith? What works? I already work at the power plant, are you saying I need another job?

HELP!!! Your neighbor is confused!

If my neighbor asked me.... "What does it take to be saved?"

I would tell him....
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Knight,

I think it's important that we understand and agree on where the differences are in how we interpret the covenents and the rapture.
When this topic is brought up, it completely throws our dialogue off course, because youv'e accepted the book to mean something completely substantially different than Catholics and most traditional Protestants. The result is different rules for different people. Same book, but different interpretation.

So, let's do a brief overview here:

Am I right in defining you as a Dispensational Premillenialist?
Yes or No?

Assuming your answer is yes, this is what I understand about your belief system:

You believe that Christ will return before the millenium for a 1,000 year reign on earth. right? There will be a rapture that takes place before a great 7-year tribulation. Those who are saved will be taken away by God, and those who aren't will be left to deal with the misery of that 7-year period. After the thousand year period there will be another judgement. God will make good on his original promises to the jews, who choose God over the devil. There will be a rebuilt temple and an earthly kingdom for the believers.


You believe there is not one convenent, but two - and the Jews have a completely different path than the gentiles for salvation. Therefore, much of what is said in the Bible's new testament is intended for Jews, and not Gentiles. Israel and the Church of today have two distinct paths. More than likely, you also believe that much of the Gospels do not apply to us. Paul and part of Acts is where most of the message to the gentiles is revealed, correct?

Dispensation is the idea that God relates to his people at different times and different periods of dispensations. Each dispensation comes with different promises and expectations for each period's people. When the Jews rejected the Kingdom, God went to the gentiles with his 'new' plan of salvation, and the new Church, which consists of the Christian believers today, who are saved by Grace and faith. The Church is not a physical visible structure or building, but represents the body of believers, right? You think that the Christians are confusing it's Church with the Church of Israel and that is why accused us of serving as a surrogate church, right? I think you also believe that when God fulfills his original promise to the Jews, works and the law will again play a role in salvation.
-----------------------------------

No arguing here at this point. I just want to see if I properly understand your beliefs. Then I can portray the Catholic view, and we can discuss and debate why or why not we are in disagreement with the bible.

So...Am I 90%, 80%, 30% correct?

Pretty good! :up:

I give you an 80%.

You get a 20% deduction for this....

You believe there is not one convenent, but two - and the Jews have a completely different path than the gentiles for salvation. Therefore, much of what is said in the Bible's new testament is intended for Jews, and not Gentiles. Israel and the Church of today have two distinct paths.

There is no longer two distinct paths, there is now just one. (Galatians 3:28)

God's covenant with Israel is "set aside". Therefore if you want to be saved (today) you must become a member of the body of Christ. You must accept Jesus death on the cross as payment for your sin.

The only point in history where there were two dispensations operating simultaneously was the short period after the time when the dispensation of grace was ushered in (via Paul) and those that were already under the law were still alive. As those under the law died off so did that dispensation until the fullness of the gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25). Then God will resume His perpetual covenant with Israel.

SUMMARY:
There is NOT two gospels, instead... just one.

 

[rbdeli]

Knight;1850527]:up: That's good to know.
When I was growing up we were taught it was a mortal sin to miss mass

.

Of course it is a mortal sin to miss mass. Not because the Church is making you go, but because you are not loving God if you know Christ is really present in the Eucharist as the bible says, and you choose to spend your time doing something else than receiving Christ.

And I am refreshed to hear you reject teaching such as this....

Missing Sunday Mass is a serious sin

. But it is the most serious sin there is! If it involves full knowledge and full consent, then it is a mortal sin. Remember, all three conditions (grave offense, full knowledge, and full consent) have to be present for a sin to be a mortal sin. God says to “keep holy the Sabbath”. Jesus showed us how to worship by gathering his friends around a table, and celebrating a meal. He commands us to “take this all of you and eat it…do this in memory of me”. As followers of Jesus, we are obligated, then, to keep holy the Sabbath by celebrating the Eucharist (Holy Mass). It is a grave obligation. - source

It kills me that guys like that think attending mass is "keeping the Sabbath". :rotfl: Again, the Catholic's fail to distinguish themselves from Israel. The sabbath was a sign between God and Israel. (Exodus 31:16)

MISSING MASS is the biggest sin there is. I never said otherwise.
It is not the Catholics failure to distinguish itself from Israel. Rather, it is the fundamentalists failure to agree WHAT and WHO the Church is. We go to Mass because Jesus says we have no life otherwise. He says his flesh is real food and his blood is real drink. If we don't take part in Mass we have no life in us. Mistaking Catholicism for Jewish practices comes from man-evolved religion, not the Church. When you think Jesus is talking to Jews and not you, it completely changes all the rules. I think this is sad and unfortunate that men have done this to Christ's flock, which for nearly 1600 years (until Luther) consisted of one flock, one fold, as Jesus commanded. The Church cannot be divided.

Moving on....
I asked.... "What does it take to be saved?"

rbdeli, isn't it sort of odd that you would answer a question like that with even mentioning Jesus Christ?
In fact, you didn't even mention God.
I believe that your answer should represent a red flag for you. This reminds me of a very close relative of mine who is a staunch Catholic, the minute I bring up the name Jesus she gets extremely uncomfortable and wants to change the subject. How can a Christian answer the question "What does it take to be saved?" without mentioning God or Jesus Christ? :idunno:

Now, you're being silly. Of course Grace requires JESUS! If I felt you were one who did not know who Jesus was, I would have mentioned Jesus' name. I give you credit for knowing Grace is from Christ. Neither of us deny Christ is Lord. He died for our sins and arose on the 3rd day. Do we have to repeat this every time we talk about Grace? When I mention Grace to another Christian, it is with the understanding we know what Grace requires: CHRIST, and Christ's sacrifice.

Furthermore...
If your neighbor asked you... "What does it take to be saved?" and you answered.... "What it takes to be saved is Grace, and for us to accept, respond and accept the call to that Grace through continued Faith and Works. It's pretty simple, we have to remain in our faith." Your neighbor would be left with more questions than before he asked the question.

You are not just a neighbor. I know you quite well, and I answered the question according to your abilities to understand. Jesus is a must for our grace. Let's not play games with words.

I would tell him....
If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

Read the entire chapter of Romans 10. What does it mean to really believe? Is saying it enough? And does that verse say it is enough? What does Paul say afterward? Before? What point is he making about Losing Heart? What does he say in Timothy about being shipwrecked in your faith and cast away? What does James say about Dead Faith? Paul says if he has all faith to move mountains and has not love or charity, he is NOTHING. Can one who is nothing still be saved? Is one who is nothing a believer? I don't think so.

An analogy:
A football coach tells his quarterback:
Just believe in what I am teaching you and you will succeed.
Does that mean he doesn't have to throw the ball? Practice? Run? Do the very best he can? What does Paul say?

Back up. Isn't this statement made by Jesus in the Gospel
Pretty good! :up:

I give you an 80%.

You get a 20% deduction for this....

There is no longer two distinct paths, there is now just one. (Galatians 3:28)

God's covenant with Israel is "set aside". Therefore if you want to be saved (today) you must become a member of the body of Christ. You must accept Jesus death on the cross as payment for your sin.

Of course you have to be a member of the Body of Christ, but our differences lie in what you and I think it means to be saved and become a member of Christ's Body. Accepting means what? Just saying, 'Okay, I guess so' ?

The only point in history where there were two dispensations operating simultaneously was the short period after the time when the dispensation of grace was ushered in (via Paul) and those that were already under the law were still alive. As those under the law died off so did that dispensation until the fullness of the gentiles has come in (Romans 11:25). Then God will resume His perpetual covenant with Israel.

See. You have erased just about all of the preachings and teachings that comes from Jesus. You think it is only intended for believing Jews who have already died, right? What do you know about Jesus - the man who made such a perfect sacrifice of love? Can you love someone you don't know? How is it you love Jesus, if what he says is not intended for you? The Gospels are for all of us. Jews, Gentiles - whoever believed in him could be saved as Gentiles. One covenent for all - Not jews waiting to have a promise fulfilled from old law. This one statement by Jesus says it all:

Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.Mathew 16:24

Note:
Did Jesus qualify this statement, by saying "all those who come after me EXCEPT for GENTILES at a later date after my death on the Cross who will be given a better deal? Not hardly. He says, ANY ONE. ANYONE who comes after him, must pick up his cross and follow him. The Church believes in what Jesus said. You are trying to sell me on an idea that I simply don't think is biblical. Christ makes it clear not to do what you are trying to do - That is, invent a method in which what he says doesn't apply to EVERY one.

I think you should reconsider what you've been taught, and really consider if it is biblical. Next, I would like you to study Catholicism as judicially as you studied anti-Catholicism when you were first sold on this interpretation of the bible a few years ago. Seriously, I tried it your way, but my wife and kids brought me to the light, and I was renewed in my knowledge of the Faith I was born in. Before that, I tried Protestantism. I read Enyart's book as you asked me to. I read the bible, ON MY OWN, without Catholic study groups telling me what to think. Have you read and studied the bible, without anti or non-Catholicism influences telling you what to think?

You've read about and been told stories about Catholics who converted to Fundamentalism. DO you know there are many Catholics who were once Fundamentalists? Have you considered their point of view? I have considered the Plot, and I went full circle to get where I am today.

Born Fundamentalist - Born Again Catholic

What does the bible really say?
How did the bible come to be?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

.
Now, you're being silly. Of course Grace requires JESUS! If I felt you were one who did not know who Jesus was, I would have mentioned Jesus' name. I give you credit for knowing Grace is from Christ. Neither of us deny Christ is Lord. He died for our sins and arose on the 3rd day. Do we have to repeat this every time we talk about Grace? When I mention Grace to another Christian, it is with the understanding we know what Grace requires: CHRIST, and Christ's sacrifice.

You are not just a neighbor. I know you quite well, and I answered the question according to your abilities to understand. Jesus is a must for our grace. Let's not play games with words.

I apologize then.

Maybe you didn't see the small print in my original question.... (from post #13)

QUESTION: What does it take to be *saved?

* Please use your definition of the word saved. In other words... what I am asking is.... if a non-believer told you they were down and out and they wanted to live a life for God and they wanted to go to heaven what would you tell them?

I was asking you to answer the question as if I was your neighbor who was a non-believer. I guess I didn't make that very clear.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Of course it is a mortal sin to miss mass.

So... if you do miss mass... what then?

Can one who is nothing still be saved?

Romans 4:4...or what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.
David Celebrates the Same Truth

5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”​

You continue...

An analogy:
A football coach tells his quarterback:
Just believe in what I am teaching you and you will succeed.
Does that mean he doesn't have to throw the ball? Practice? Run? Do the very best he can? What does Paul say?

Paul says we can not add anything to what Christ has done for us.

And those attempt such a self righteous task will put themselves under a curse, i.e., the i.e., the entire law!

Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? 2 This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? 4 Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Therefore He who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you, does He do it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 7 Therefore know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.” 9 So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.
10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” 11 But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for “the just shall live by faith.” 12 Yet the law is not of faith, but “the man who does them shall live by them.”
13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”), 14 that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

Of course you have to be a member of the Body of Christ, but our differences lie in what you and I think it means to be saved and become a member of Christ's Body. Accepting means what? Just saying, 'Okay, I guess so' ?

I don't remember ever phrasing it like... 'Okay, I guess so' , so I am sure how to respond to that. :idunno:

How is it you love Jesus, if what he says is not intended for you?

Paul was given the gospel of grace directly through Jesus Christ therefore what He says IS intended for us.

Yet during Jesus's earthly ministry was sent only to Israel, at least of course if you want to take Him at His word.

But He answered and said, “I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

The Gospels are for all of us. Jews, Gentiles - whoever believed in him could be saved as Gentiles. One covenent for all - Not jews waiting to have a promise fulfilled from old law. This one statement by Jesus says it all:

Matthew 16:24
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.Mathew 16:24

Oh yeah.... I love that verse, it's right after when Jesus calls Peter "Satan".

But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”​

Some things never change eh?

I think you should reconsider what you've been taught, and really consider if it is biblical.

I do that on a daily basis.

Next, I would like you to study Catholicism as judicially as you studied anti-Catholicism

I have never once in my life studied "anti-Catholicism", I don't even know what that is. :idunno:

I simply study the Bible, that's it.

I have considered the Plot, and I went full circle to get where I am today.

The Plot is merely one of hundreds of books about Dispensationalism. Recently I read another fantastic dispensationalism book. :up: Excellent stuff!

 

[Nathon Detroit]

rbdeli is really busy at work (i'm busy too). Therefore we are going to extend this One on One out for two more weeks.

It will now end on September 30th.