Are all Catholics lost?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

pray tell how you might more completely involve the cross, then.

Please quote the paragraph you are responding to. All these posts make it hard to figure out what you are responding to when you only give your response with no quotes.

I'm sorry; could you rephrase this?

It's hard without the entire quote. This time you didn't quote enough. I have to hunt through the thread and find the ENTIRE applicable statement showing context, when you could have just copied it here before your response.

um, could you rephrase this also? because i am not getting it, sorry.

If a person knows their own works cannot save them, they have no faith i what THEY can do. If such a people fully trust that God's work alone on the cross can save them, in order to see sins remitted, and the cross alone can be counted as our deaths, because we had to die due to our sins as a penalty, then that faith and trust is applying the work of the cross adequately. And the work of the cross must be applied to us the way the apostles preached what steps to go through. Acts 2:38, basically.

Again, it's too much to fish through threads of posts and find what the specific chat was to better respond to you. So please quote enough from the other conversation so I can get what you are asking.

[shazeep]

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.

yet there are Pentecostals whom you might not feel are "really" Pentecostals because they are Trinnies, etc., so to me it seems that there is no allowance for others to define various doctrines for themselves, which all of us naturally do. I have already stated that you equally have no proof that people who believe Catholicism completely--priests or the pope or whatever--are "lost," and i think we have both had abundant opportunity to clarify any semantics here, so i'm not grasping what this re-re-re-hash is meant to accomplish, sorry.

[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."

You cannot use LEGAL with the sense of requirement when speaking theologically. You just can't. No one but you does that. You can't because LEGAL always refers to LAW from the old covenant, and law taught salvation works.

Galatians 3:12 KJV And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

Leviticus 18:5 KJV Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I am the LORD.

You use the term to demote a belief because the Bible used it to speak against a belief. The New Testament spoke of lawyers in a negative light because they were practicing law and overlooking their sins. So to try and use biblical terms, that originally spoke about those who seek salvation by works, and apply that to general idea of requirements, is offkey.

It's like a man I know who used the term "whore" since it was biblical and spoke it like a cuss word, applying a biblical term in a way the bible did not use it. lol

[shazeep]

Again, it's too much to fish through threads of posts and find what the specific chat was to better respond to you. So please quote enough from the other conversation so I can get what you are asking.

Mike, i've been gone for less than 10 minutes, and you have posted like 50 questions Time for a reset, bro. Let's give some others a chance, perhaps they might rephrase Qs for you or for me, and we can go from there.

Whom do you ask for forgiveness? Do you not see that it would be hypocritical for me--who is not Catholic--to forgive you for saying "All Catholics are lost?" the Catholic is not represented in this scenario. My forgiveness would be irrelevant, as it is not i who have been offended.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

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.

yet there are Pentecostals whom you might not feel are "really" Pentecostals because they are Trinnies,

lol.

no.

Pentecostal applies to trinitarians and oneness. APOSTOLIC is oneness. But Pentecostal applies to anyone who believes in Speaking in tongues when receiving the Spirit today.

etc., so to me it seems that there is no allowance for others to define various doctrines for themselves, which all of us naturally do.

Sure there is. You misunderstand me, yet again. I just hope you see what I mean now and not speak as if I never said this.

I have already stated that you equally have no proof that people who believe Catholicism completely--priests or the pope or whatever--are "lost," and i think we have both had abundant opportunity to clarify any semantics here, so i'm not grasping what this re-re-re-hash is meant to accomplish, sorry.

You excuse catholics for thinking all non catholics are lost. You excuse muslims for thinking all non mulsims, and all christians, are lost. You do not excuse christians for thinking all non christians are lost. THAT is my point.

So, if a catholic came to his end while adhering to the belief all non-catholics are lost, are they lost?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Again, it's too much to fish through threads of posts and find what the specific chat was to better respond to you. So please quote enough from the other conversation so I can get what you are asking.

Mike, i've been gone for less than 10 minutes, and you have posted like 50 questions Time for a reset, bro. Let's give some others a chance, perhaps they might rephrase Qs for you or for me, and we can go from there.

You posted so many posts to which I am just responding, and with your lack of quoting enough references to indicate the context of your questions, it's too hard. It's not the time. It's failure to quote references.

Who do you ask for forgiveness?

Now here is an example.

WHAT?! In what context are you asking this?

Shazeep, your communication is lacking.

[shazeep]

You cannot use LEGAL with the sense of requirement when speaking theologically. You just can't. No one but you does that. You can't because LEGAL always refers to LAW from the old covenant, and law taught salvation works.

ok, so i cannot, and yet i am, and we both grasp my definition of "legal" from a human standpoint, and hopefully it is understood that if i mean to make a comment about works i will use the term "works."

[shazeep]

Sure there is. You misunderstand me, yet again. I just hope you see what I mean now and not speak as if I never said this.

until you make a statement that can be understood on the matter, i'm not sure why i should deviate here.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

You cannot use LEGAL with the sense of requirement when speaking theologically. You just can't. No one but you does that. You can't because LEGAL always refers to LAW from the old covenant, and law taught salvation works.

ok, so i cannot, and yet i am, and we both grasp my definition of "legal" from a human standpoint, and hopefully it is understood that if i mean to make a comment about works i will use the term "works."

I know, I get that. But you use lawyer demeaningly since Jesus did, but Jesus did not mean what you meant. I see no other reason to use it other than that. It's using it in the sense that it is wrong. It seems dishonest to me, because people will think of Jesus using it, to appear you're on Jesus' said and condemning what he condemned, when He's the one who made requirements for salvation as in Mark 16:16.

It's like terms carry baggage, and the world knows it. So they speak of a fetus rather than unborn human being, etc. It just smacks of dishonest, so it's best to avoid that.

[shazeep]

So, if a catholic came to his end while adhering to the belief all non-catholics are lost, are they lost?

i have no idea, and beyond forgiving them it is not for me to judge.