Are all Catholics lost?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Really I don't have an explanation except grace through faith, though that faith be immature and imperfect. And on this I'm simply giving my opinion. But also speaking in a degree from previous experience. I didn't realize I was a legalist, or depending on my own obedience until God opened my eyes. I didn't feel like I "got saved" then, but that I had been saved, but woefully ignorant of the greatness of God's grace. I think for some, it can be an issue of spiritual maturity, rather than just a damnable belief. Certainly legalism is dangerous, especially for those who teach.

I can agree with that.

I'm failing to see how this isn't legalism and trusting in one's self or obedience for salvation.

If i think that NOT owning a TV, not wearing a pair of shorts, not growing beard somehow saves me, or makes me holy (or righteous), or a femine standpoint of not wearing pants or jewelry, not trimming hair, not apllying make up (even foundation or fingernail polish), makes me holy or keeps me righteous, or somehow saves me I'm not trusting in Christ's righteousness, but my own. This is the fundamental flaw in oneness soteriology.

I am oneness and do not think that way at all.

Disagree. If someone thinks that if they start wearing pants they will lose their salvation, they have no idea what grace ir true holiness is. They have no idea that they are saved based on Christ's righteousness and merits, not their own.

If someone thinks wearing pants makes them loose salvation, that does not necessarily mean they think refusal to wear pants affords them righteousness. It is a real good question though.

But this is a false equivocation. The things were accustomed to seeing put on people as standards typically aren't sinful, but are personal preferences that are abuses of individual Christian liberty in the name of pastoral authority. They are the setting aside of the commandments if God for the traditions of men. When the pastor says "no man in this church can have a beard" it is thus saith the Lord and anyone dissenting person is in rebellion and answerable to God at judgment. That whole system is bogus.

But if we're talking about sin, thats totally different. I think it obvious based on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:6, etc, that there are obviously things a saved person doesn't continually do and cursing and hating people falls under that category. If i say not committing adultery, theft, and drunkeness keep me saved, I'm wrong.

If i start committing adultery, and robbing peoples houses, that may indeed mean i lose my salvation (or more probably never was saved). So Im in agreement there, but i think you jumped from christian liberty and legalism to clearly defined sin to make your point, and because if that I don't see how you avoid the conclusion that those who believe their own obedience/holiness is keeping them saved are not trusting in themselves.

If my salvation depends on my own works and obedience, then I am not trusting in Christ, but in myself, no matter what I confess. This is the oneness pentecostal dilemma.

Again I am oneness pentecostal, but don't think that way.

A segment of OP congregations think that way, not OP in general.

But actually thinking God sees a person believe that they get their ticket to glory by their works of standards is scary scary grounds to stand on. Maybe you're right it's an issue of maturity. I will think about this some more. If God has grace for immaturity like that, it's certainly not our place to say otherwise.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I don't know that I have affirmed that. I dont believe those who are idolaters are saved.

Oh, I thought you did affirm that.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I don't know that I have affirmed that. I dont believe those who are idolaters are saved.

Idolaters?

You said Robert Powell is Jesus Christ!

Seriously?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I don't know that I have affirmed that. I dont believe those who are idolaters are saved.

JB, you are sure tightening that noose and making the circle small. I guess you do a bit of kicking souls into hell yourself. Interesting what comes out in questioning. After a while you see that Swami Vivekananda isn't as inclusive as he first posted.

Don't worry JB I think I like you.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

You speak as though love supersedes the scriptures, a though the scriptures are not the ultimate decision and statement of God. You speak as though whatever the word says, that's not what we should go by as if the word is arbitrary based upon some OTHER standard of God. You say we are being legalistic (when you do not know what legalism even is), and that implies you believe the WORD is useless and cannot be depended upon as the final say in all issues, as though the love of God and His word are not complementary, with the word being less.

For you to accuse us of being lawyers when we state the word says such and such in response to your claims, is for you to believe the Word of God is simply not understood properly without some hocus pocus version of love. Hence, your view of love is skewed.

yet you get flustered when you have quoted some Paul at me, and i quote Christ on the same subject. Doesn't that tell you anything?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

JB, you are sure tightening that noose and making the circle small. I guess you do a bit of kicking souls into hell yourself. Interesting what comes out in questioning. After a while you see that Swami Vivekananda isn't as inclusive as he first posted.

Don't worry JB I think I like you.

I've never been "inclusive", except in respect to those people who have repented of their sins and trusted Christ.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

They paint a picture of an enabler who isn't a father, or even acts as one. He allows his children to do as they very well please without repercussions. Why? Because he loves them? No, he would be actually hating them. Therefore in Eph 4 we are told that ministry is given for the maturing of the saints for the work of the ministry. Jesus states that we are to be mature as God is mature? Not a father who allows his children to do as they want under the structure of his home.

this seems to ignore that one lives with the consequences of their actions, even if they have rebounded from some evil action. Beside which, the children of the Father would not be doing things that involve repercussions in the way you have characterized it. So you are focused on sinning here, naturally, when that foundation has already been established.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

yet you get flustered when you have quoted some Paul at me, and i quote Christ on the same subject. Doesn't that tell you anything?

Flustered? Not at all. lol.

You think Paul and Jesus contradicted one another? the word flows together and is complementary, not contradictory. I just related what the word said.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Flustered? Not at all. lol.
You think Paul and Jesus contradicted one another? the word flows together and is complementary, not contradictory. I just related what the word said.

AMEN!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jason B

I've never been "inclusive", except in respect to those people who have repented of their sins and trusted Christ.

What sins? How does one "trust Christ"?