Are all Catholics lost?

[mfblume]

It's first century Jerusalem, and her daughters are all those who reject Christ as her king and submit to Him, yet claim relationship with God.

[shazeep]

Mike's post here
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep View Post
Quote:
mike:
And YOU and EVERYONE ELSE believes what YOU and EVERYONE ELSE thinks about salvation ought to be believed by everyone else.
shazeep:
if i understand you correctly here, this is exactly what i doubt. There are many mansions in my Father's house.
m
That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

Quote:
Quote:m
But to deal with that statement alone, He simply was telling us to do what the law tried and failed to get us to do.... do everything to others you hoped someone would do to you.
Not sure how anyone can see the error in that.
s
i'm not sure there is any error there, tbh. If there is, it might be in discounting this as salvational.
m
Please confirm. Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

Quote:s
"Fulfilling the law and prophets" is the same language we use to describe Christ and the cross, right?
m
Yes. But that does not mean that other things that fulfill law and prophets save us apart from the cross, just because we read the cross fulfills the law and the prophets. Is that what you suggest?

Quote:s
So granted, it sounds sacrilegious to us to advocate "Be as kind to people as you would want them to be to you" as a means to eternal life without recognizing Christ's sacrifice specifically, but on the other hand it is written this fulfills the law, so one could argue that one is spiritually recognizing Christ when they do this, v legally recognizing Christ via altar works, especially when supporting Scripture--that gives so many lawyers fits--is taken into account.
m
What about remission of sins? With out the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Fulfilling law is not pointing toward that which saves us. Someone who refuses to murder people is someone who fulfils law. But that doesn't mean that one is saved.

Quote:s
But don't get me wrong, i think the one should be done and the other not neglected, ideally;
m
"Ideally" leaves room for salvation without the cross.
s
no, it just serves you to believe that so that you may be perceived as the one with knowledge, perhaps. you do not get to define what the cross means for me.

Quote:s
however, we condemn Muslims for a few verses that we read as "antichrist" when they could rationally be construed as a defense against the RCC of the Dark Ages, and we might condemn apostates, 65 million strong in the US, who have abandoned the est'd church, but this does not mean that they are not seeking Christ, necessarily, so much as it is an indictment of religion, and the churches' tendency to obscure Christ with Law.
m
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.

Quote:s
I think one might at least consider that the point may be to give people someone to condemn out of hand, that hearts may be revealed, but this is just imo.
m
Yeah, I understand you have a unique way of thinking of how the bible offers people to fall.

Quote:s
To answer your Q there--which reads more like another accusation, tbh--yes, i attend a congregation, but not religiously; i volunteer whenever they ask, etc., but i do not consider it "Church" per se.
m
"Church" is a body of believers that is intended by God to be as much of a place for believers to belong as a herd is for cattle. I am not talking about a church building but the genuine fellowship pf true believers. Not a denomination.

Quote:
Quote:m
Polishing the helmet?
s
lol
i would rescind that if i could; apparently there is a connotation of this phrase that i was unaware of. Re-reading your statement, you likely meant no harm, anyway, but just require that you be ascendant in your own mind, same as me, i guess--and my chief complaint @ "They are all lost."
m
Like I said, you took note of that phrase, and all but bypassed all my clarifications about it, to the point you were enraged at me for not answering your question whether' they're lost or not. That hesitation of mine should have shown you my true intent on the whole issue. But I said that before.
s
your hesitation at making a plain statement on the matter tells me more, wadr.

Quote:
Quote:m
God sets spiritual leadership in the church by the same Spirit.
s
or the Church, anyway. I would argue that one might find themselves in the Catholic church, and yet be a living stone in the real Church, or not, and the same goes for an OP church, or any other.
m
Again, catholic in my use of hte term is someone who believes one is lost without belonging in pen-written membership to the catholic church. And that is salvation by works. I believe one could attend a catholic church and be a genuine believer. I don't see why anyone would, though, seeing the blatant presentation of salvation by works.

Quote:s
It is the difference in religion and following Christ; and not being in denial about there being a difference.
m
Of course there's a difference.

Quote:s
I was prepared to admit that a legal understanding and acceptance of Christ might involve crowns or other rewards at one time, but i'm not so sure now.
m
Again, the term LEGAL does not fit into this concept. A legal understanding of Christ CAN ONLY mean one thinks salvation by works is related to Christ. You really are wrong in your use of the term. Research it and see for yourself.

Quote:s
If you have Grace, why bother with Law?
m
That's what I have been trying to say. lol. Grace is salvation by faith and law is salvation by works. You cannot have both at once.


Quote:s
Why insist people go through all these altar works if they are just going to drift away because they cannot find any Grace?
m
You again again again speak as though I think altar activity saves.

And I have distinctly said otherwise and refuted that concept many times. SO, what other words will I waste presenting to you to see you write as though I never wrote them?

Quote:s
Or, more likely, because they are confronted again with Law?
m
Confronted with salvation by works? Hardly.

Quote:
Quote:m
Not sure what difference in the golden rule you think I have. But I see you sunk into insulting again, making this personal. All the golden rule, love, and good fruit words you spoke really are moot in this light.
s
well, i tried my best to not be insulting there, and re-reading it i find none;
m
Polishing my helmet was insulting.
s
you are not going to do well in a count, Mike.



Quote:s
"But to answer your Q, i have no interest in where you got your version of the Golden Rule, no." but perhaps i am quoting the wrong passage or something? Anyway, i def agree with part b there, and suggest that you might extend this to people who identify as Catholics, as well as Catholicism, and see how if you were to extend this to Muslims as well you would change the tone of at least your immediate society, surely with ripple effects.
m
I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them. But the golden rule does not save. I stand by that last sentence, too. If salvation comes b the golden rule then salvation is by works.

Quote:s
Again, the damage--which is incalculable; likely it defines the bulk of it--to holding opinions such as "they are all lost" is the damage to yourself and your peers, and not to any Catholics or Muslims.
m
As you repeat this incomplete phrase over and over, and just as many times ignore the detailed meaning and use of terms I used, I will keep reminding you of what I am currently saying... you focus on that line and ignore all my explanations about it.

Quote:s
Are they in fact lost? Anyone who has not fulfilled the Law is, surely.
m
Incorrect. Anyone who has not received God's righteousness via the cross is lost.

Quote:s
Why include yourself in that group by judging?
m
I am not judging, for the umpteenth time. the bible already judged that, long before I was around, and I merely presented what the bible said when it cast that judgment.
s
ignoring much other Scripture in the process, ya.

Quote:s
Which i really don't care about, there are lots of judgemental people, but to teach this to other people as a pastor?
m
I teach no one to judge. I teach them to read the bible and see where it made the judgment call.
s
me too, and it's on you, buddy.

Quote:s
If there is a single Scripture that can even be construed as being against judging others, why not just say that you don't know?
m
I outlined several references that deal with judging, especially Matthew 7, which you ignored. Again, the context is not saying do not judge. It is saying do not judge something over what you lack yourself. This is another example of writing something that is ignored as if I never wrote it.

Shazeep, here's an etiquette to take note of. When a person explains their position about an issue, like judging, we keep that in mind when responding about such an issue, and not speak to the person as though they never said anything about it. That's downright rude. Like the example I gave: "

Shazeep: "It's not black, it's white."

Mike: "I know it's white. I never said it's black."

SHazeep: "But why do you insist it's black?"

This has been what it;s like talking to you.

Quote:s
You cannot be proven wrong in this last case,
m
lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

Quote:s
whereas you are forced to defend a position against Scripture in the other, and "be sure in your own mind," which is a euphemism for denial imo.
m
lol. I do not believe what you accuse me of believing. It's not black.

Quote:
Quote:m
A cross-is-not-necessary-if-one-has-agapé-love theology.... strange ideas of law and legalism... no spiritual leadership....
s
these are what you have read, but we both demonstrate here that agape love is pretty hard, perhaps, and i am not the first to equate agape with the cross, am i?
m
It is not equal to agape love. It is the highest form of agape love. And it is so high, that no human on earth can rise to that level. Therefore, nobody can be saved by having agape love in their hearts without the work of Jesus' cross, where he manifested that love beyond the degree we can.

Quote:s
I genuinely doubt it. As to legalism, of course someone brought up from the crib on the legal requirements for salvation would not view these as legalistic, so you might see it this way;
m
There are no legal requirements for salvation. That;'s like saying salvation without works requires works for salvation. Again, you are way off in your use of the term.

Quote:s
do you have some requirements that i must fulfill in order to be considered "saved" by you?
m
I have NONE! The Bible says obey Acts 2:38, though. But that's the bible not me.

Quote:s
Do you know for a fact that God has these same requirements?
m
They're his words, not mine.

Quote:s
Is there any Scripture that can even be construed as mitigating against this?
m
His word does not contradict itself.

Quote:s
Is it at all possible that one might get some personal advantage in claiming that they know something even if they do not know, viv a vis other people?
m
I do not know what you are asking here.
s

Quote:s
As to 'no spiritual leadership,' how do i not take this as denigrating?
m
Because it's not meant to be. One either has it or doesn't. And by spiritual leadership, I mean FROM A HUMAN BEING... which the bible demands we have.

[shazeep]

Mike post 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by shazeep View Post
m
You started to deal with the discrepancy in our definition of terms right there, and then suddenly stopped again.

In your mind are catholics those who adhere to that list of doctrines YOU ADMITTED you were concerned with, or not? I am asking this over and over again.

s
ya, this is my fault, and stems from the belief that what people say is pretty much irrelevant, and what they do is all that matters. Catholic doctrine is satanic, imo, but individual Catholic people might easily be more righteous than either of us. I perceive your doctrine as satanic now, too, but that doesn't mean "All OPs are lost."
m
It;'s what they actually belies that's the issue. If they adhere to demand to belong to the catholic church or be lost, that's actual legalism. And ironically, you forgive them, and muslims, for something you claim I say and call my view satanic for saying it.

Why do you excuse muslims who believe those who are not muslims are all lost?

Why do you excuse catholics when they say all non-catholics are lost?
s
those might be considered to be condemning themselves, also; i speak for the one who is not. you are not going to prove your point in that poll, either
m
It seems when three people say the same thing, and one is condemned to hell and the others are not, there is am obvious bias against the one.
s
perhaps, but you have no proof that your interpretation is literally true here; you are merely presuming to know how God will judge, and making it the more obvious that you do not know. No one knows where they go when they die.

[mfblume]

Shazeep,. please learn to format the posts. #182 is almost impossible to follow.

[shazeep]

That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

no, i would agree that there is only one way, but as we can witness, the cross is defined differently by different people, and i think Scripture gives plenty of clues besides the "fulfills the law and prophets" allusion, from referring to those who will try to appropriate the message for their own agenda to the many parables that paint a different picture of salvation. Seek your own salvation. If you feel compelled to insist upon some procedures, due to your interpretation of Scripture, then by all means do so, I can't stop you, but see how this will define you, and be sure in your own mind. You will reap what you sow.

Do you believe loving each other as we would have others love us saves us without the work of the cross of Jesus involved to remit our sins?

i think the wording indicates that the one is the other in a vital regard; at the very least, they both fulfill the law. This is a powerful statement. I think a more spiritual view of the work of the cross demands this, personally. Paul is not negated if he is read in this light, but i notice that Christ is negated if you try it the other way around imo. gotta run for now.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Shazeep,. please learn to format the posts. #182 is almost impossible to follow.

ya, i'll fix it

[shazeep]

i inserted a reply or two, and i think i'm done here, absent some fresh perspective. good night

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

That does mean there are many roads to God other than the cross, though.

no, i would agree that there is only one way, but as we can witness, the cross is defined differently by different people,

But it matters not how we think we should define it, but learn how it's supposed to be defined. We just have to make sure how we define it is God's intended definition. That's why He told us to pray "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." That corresponds to His words about false prophets.

and i think Scripture gives plenty of clues besides the "fulfills the law and prophets" allusion, from referring to those who will try to appropriate the message for their own agenda to the many parables that paint a different picture of salvation.

Your examples of aparables of salvation I found to not be about salvation at all, though.

Seek your own salvation. If you feel compelled to insist upon some procedures, due to your interpretation of Scripture, then by all means do so,

I do not even look at it like my list. Acts 2:38 is Acts 2:38. We eitehr obey it or we don't.

I can't stop you, but see how this will define you, and be sure in your own mind. You will reap what you sow.

i think the wording indicates that the one is the other in a vital regard;

How? Either the cross is necessary or not. If one thinks loving others as we woudl wish to be loved is the same thing as the cross, then that's salvation by works to not have the cross. The bible has no other way around it as far as I can see. the cross has to be involved and nothing can equate or replace it. His agape love is too far beyond any we could have.

at the very least, they both fulfill the law.

Fulfiling the law is not salvation, though. Why do you think it is?

It's like saying Toronto is in Ontario, and Ottawa is also in Ontario, so Toronto Is Ottawa.

I think there's too much of a disparity between our views if you think fulfilling the law is salvation, and agape love without the actual cross of Jesus is equal to faith in the cross. So, to get to the core issues, you must show form the Word why fulfilling law equals salvation. Sin is not remitted by fulflling law, and the sin issue is not resolved by love.

[shazeep]

my meaning @ "it's you" is that your views reflect upon you, not them, just to clarify.

It is saying do not judge something over what you lack yourself. This is another example of writing something that is ignored as if I never wrote it.

ya, sorry about that; i am trying to do you a favor, as imo your interpretation of these are symptoms, and i am looking for the cause, which is at the bottom of this post imo.

I extend the golden rule to muslims, catholics and anyone else who truly does to others what they want done to them.

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

Your examples of aparables of salvation I found to not be about salvation at all, though.

then believe that, if that is what you believe. I am not trying to change your beliefs. However, you might address God allows all to be deceived now, that all can be saved in the end paraphrased; your position sounds a lot like "I am not deceived, and all cannot be saved." And i have about like 50 others, Mike.

the cross has to be involved and nothing can equate or replace it.

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

So, to get to the core issues, you must show form the Word why fulfilling law equals salvation. Sin is not remitted by fulflling law, and the sin issue is not resolved by love.

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?

His agape love is too far beyond any we could have.

? Believe what you will, then, but i would say this is a good focal point. This is like my 5th try at an answer here--specifically, in this spot--and the other 4 would not serve you, i don't think, so maybe someone else might weigh in on this.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

my meaning @ "it's you" is that your views reflect upon you, not them, just to clarify.

Your examples of aparables of salvation I found to not be about salvation at all, though.


then believe that, if that is what you believe. I am not trying to change your beliefs. However, you might address God allows all to be deceived now, that all can be saved in the end paraphrased; your position sounds a lot like "I am not deceived, and all cannot be saved." And i have about like 50 others, Mike.

I never once said I cannot be deceived, and nothing I stated implies that. All I have ever stated is the word of God is the judge and when plain statements are made, like faith in the cross being an absolute for salvation, and that faith lacks, that has nothing to do with me being deceived or not. Why keeping making it about me? That puzzles me more than anything.

the cross has to be involved and nothing can equate or replace it.

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

It's so much more simpler than what makes you ask that. If one has no faith in anything one could do, and solely trusts God's efforts of the cross to remit sins and free us of the debt of sin, which is death, then that's it. Apply that the way the apostles taught people to apply it in Acts, and, voila! Done!

His agape love is too far beyond any we could have.

? Believe what you will, then, but i would say this is a good focal point. This is like my 5th try at an answer here--specifically, in this spot--and the other 4 would not serve you, i don't think, so maybe someone else might weigh in on this.

It is precisley the focal point of our differences, now that' we've discussed more.

My view, and I know you aren't trying to change it (and it's moot to say you are or aren't, so you don't have to do so), is that God's love through the cross cannot be equated to anything else, so nothing else can save us. Any inkling that it can is salvation by works.

You call them "clues" when you see a chance for crossless salvation. And when really pinned about certain verses, you say you do not know. That's fine, but you cannot make a dogma out of the concept that there is a crossless salvation as you seemingly have. Not only that, it can, and I think it has, stopped you from reaching out to people like muslims about the cross. That's the danger I see here.

Put it this way, if God saves someone aside from the cross, His word simply doesn't give indication of it. And all your attempts at scriptures to indicate He might, simply are not even talking about salvation, as I have emphasized quite a lot. And He's certainly able to do what He feels to do.

You never answered how fulfilling law means salvation.