Are all Catholics lost?

[shazeep]

Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?

His Word does not contradict Itself

but that is just another avoidance, not an answer. Just because Scripture does not contradict itself does not mean that we have all of the answers down pat for the apparent contradictions, which are legion. This phrase is actually pastor-speak for "I am right, and if you quote some Scripture that suggests i might be wrong, come to me and I'll (patiently) explain your error."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

My views reflect on me, not them. What has that got to do with excusing "them" for saying the same thing you do not excuse me for saying? I cannot see it as anything other than obvious bias.

um, what? i did not excuse them (i just forgive them).

But you don't forgive a christian who claims everyone must be a christian?

i plainly stated that this view would condemn them if they held it.

Well a person who does not hold that view is not a catholic in my use of the term catholic.

However, a poll of Catholics asking if "All other Christians are lost" would likely reveal a roughly 50/50 split among them also, the point being that there is no doubt at least one Catholic who does not hold that view, hence all Catholics may not be lost. (not that that would be the standard, though)

So those who hold that view are lost or not?

My point is a person is not a catholic if they do not hold that view, for the catholic dogma states that view. Son in a sense we agree. Unless terms are used for the same purpose and in the same way, there is confusion and misrepresentation. So, basically you said the same thing I did, because you said a person who holds the dogma that non-catholics are lost is lost, where as I meant one who holds that dogma is a catholic. To me a catholic is not anyone except someone who holds those dogmas of catholicism.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Christ cannot be obscured with law except by saying the cross is PART of salvation, while our works complete salvation. Legalism is always and never will be anything other than salvation by works. Again, all theological stripes agree on that definition. All of them.

Yet faith without works is still dead, and i still prefer my understanding of legalism to yours, but ty.

Faith without works is indeed dead. But the works do not save. True faith WILL WORK. that doesn't mean the works save though. They're only evidence of true faith that alone can save.

And your preference of what legalism means suits your argument, that's all. But you're the only one who holds that definition. Definitions are not dependent upon the view of the speaker, you know.

You have to align your definitions up with what a theological dictionary says. When words lose all meaning, communication is impossible.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i am not suggesting that practicing agape...look, this is just too far from pick up your cross and follow Me for me to give a meaningful reply; perhaps someone else can reply in a manner more acceptable to you, ok?

Your writing is always so obscure. it's hard to follow you. I've said that more than once.

But I will try to wade through your words to get your point.

I dealt with all these catch phrases you use and dealt with context in the word. You always disappeared at those instances and spoke as though I never said anything.

Here's one you used more than once: Picking up your cross and following Jesus. That DOES NOT SAVE US. That is the live we live AFTER we are saved by Jesus' cross. Our cross cannot save us. His cross alone does.

I cannot die on the cross and remit my own sins! I realize now that all your concepts of salvation, and agape love equaling God's work on the cross, women saving themselves by becoming pregnant and giving birth, are all means of salvation that never address SIN. the SIN question is seemingly absent from your concept of salvation. So, what are people saved FROM if not sin? What does salvation even mean to you? It's seemingly nothing to do with sin.

And again, you keep talking about no one knows they are saved, and yet it's a cop-out for you to read Paul's statements that distinctly say he referred to living people in his day as having been saved and then say that's there to catch up dishonest people. Come on, Shazeep. Admit you are wrong about the claim of salvation.

[shazeep]

But you don't forgive a christian who claims everyone must be a christian?

i am a Christian, and so my forgiveness is not an issue there.

Well a person who does not hold that view is not a catholic in my use of the term catholic.

understandably, and i would not say that you are incorrect there, but that many people might identify as Catholic who do not necessarily agree with every Catholic doctrine, similar to the results of my poll.

So those who hold that view are lost or not?

well, being as how none of them have held out to the end yet, i could not say. Scripture suggests that those who judge will be judged, and a Catholic may change their mind before the end.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Faith without works is indeed dead. But the works do not save. True faith WILL WORK. that doesn't mean the works save though. They're only evidence of true faith that alone can save.

And your preference of what legalism means suits your argument, that's all. But you're the only one who holds that definition. Definitions are not dependent upon the view of the speaker, you know.

You have to align your definitions up with what a theological dictionary says. When words lose all meaning, communication is impossible.

i think your insistence that "legal" must refer to salvation by works is a chimera, and if any reader here does not grasp my use of the word then they can ask for clarification. I am currently at least conflating "legal" with "legality, requirement, law."

[mfblume]

i am a Christian, and so my forgiveness is not an issue there.

NOW THAT is avoiding my question. I am not asking if you're a christian or not. It's the principle I am asking you about. You forgive muslims for saying non-mulsims are lost. Why can you not forgive christians for sayiig non-christians are lost?

Well a person who does not hold that view is not a catholic in my use of the term catholic.

understandably, and i would not say that you are incorrect there, but that many people might identify as Catholic who do not necessarily agree with every Catholic doctrine, similar to the results of my poll.

So those who hold that view are lost or not?

well, being as how none of them have held out to the end yet, i could not say. Scripture suggests that those who judge will be judged, and a Catholic may change their mind before the end.

Again you always miss my explanation of my use of statements. Why oh why? Wow. you cannot apply YOUR definition of legalism when speaking of legalism to me, because we have different definitions. And when I use the word you cannot apply your definition to my use of it. And the same goes here. You cannot apply my use of being saved or not to your definition that means you cannot know because their end has not come yet. That's another example of what I mean by giving explanations and you writing as though I never gave any.

I already said that my reference to being saved or not refers to, as in this case, someone who RIGHT NOW believes all non-catholics are lost. If that one should give up the ghost while holding that view, are they lost or not? Because that is what I mean. If their end comes while they adhere to that teaching, are they lost or not? That's the type of thing I mean about being lost or saved.

That's what Paul meant when he distinctly said people whom he knew were saved. Why do you ignore Paul's use of that term? You cannot keep ignoring Paul's use of the term "so and so is saved." But more importantly, if one came to their end holding that doctrine, are they lost or not?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

i think your insistence that "legal" must refer to salvation by works is a chimera, and if any reader here does not grasp my use of the word then they can ask for clarification. I am currently at least conflating "legal" with "legality, requirement, law."

There is no communication if two people differ on the definitions. Not hard to realize. No one holds your definition when it comes to theology.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?

but that is just another avoidance, not an answer. Just because Scripture does not contradict itself does not mean that we have all of the answers down pat for the apparent contradictions, which are legion. This phrase is actually pastor-speak for "I am right, and if you quote some Scripture that suggests i might be wrong, come to me and I'll (patiently) explain your error."

First of all, you do not quote the paragraph in which I said that, and what I was responding to, so I do not know what the context of my statement was. It was so far back and without more quotes I am at a loss as to your point.
Secondly,

Now you are accusing me of purposely being vague and not dealing with a question.

Why is it always about me and motives, and not objective? Always/ Man oh man.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

then you are doing it wrong wadr, because that is not what the verse says to do.

[/quote]

I do not follow you. How is it wrong to say muslims and catholics can have agape love? Why does one not have agape love if they believe muslims and catholics can have agape love and still be unsaved?

Speaking of do unto others, I would never walk up to a muslim and say "You are lost." I would believe they are lost, but speak to them in ways to show them the cross and show how the bible teaches we must accept it or be lost. You make it sound like I greet a muslim and say YOU ARE LOST. I never even did that with WII boy.

sure it is. Confession and rebound (repentance) are acts of love, not legal maneuvers to get you out of jail, free. When you sin, who do you confess to? Whom do you ask for forgiveness?

Confession and repentance do not save us, though. If it's confession and repentance base upon awareness and being convinced of the cross as our remedy, then they LEAD to salvation, but do not save i and of themselves. For that matter, baptism does not save anyone either unless it is with faith that Christ's death was vital for it to make it efficacious.