Are all Catholics lost?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It's not my model. It's what the Lord and apostles taught. The good samaritan was not saved by the works he did. That lesson is not there to show how to be saved, for the umpteenth time. lol. It's there to coincide with everything else the bible says about being good to people since it's profitable to men.

You haven't shown anything thus far, just generalized conclusions. Fulfilling the law is not salvation, because....

Galatians 3:2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Romans 9:32 Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;

Twist anything you wish, but you'll come good for it. Fulfilling the law is not being saved. It's... just fulfilling the law. lol

Good deeds are not even mentioned? What do you think one does in obedience to law if not good deeds? Law is synonymous with good deeds. Why do you think the word WORKS is associated with Law throughout the bible?

I've conclude some folks simply don't read the bible to learn anything, but find what they already believe, resulting in wresting of the scriptures. This has been by far the worst case I ever personally witnessed.... man, it's the search for one's own philosophy in the word..... on steroids. And it's utterly antichrist!

No death of Christ on the cross is needed Goes right along with the Koran's version of Christ, but against the Bible's version of Christ. You done got yourself another Jesus.

Exactly

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

Romans 2:27
A man who is physically uncircumcised, but who fulfills the law, will judge you who are a lawbreaker in spite of having the letter of the law and circumcision.

and Snoopy is funnier than you are too, no offense. So you might examine your premises here, or at least work on your jokes.

The CONTEXT, (there's that nasty word again) is speaking to saved JEWS who rest in the law to show themselves righteous.

Romans 2:17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God,

Did you read that?

Did you see the context of the audience in this particular part of Romans. Romans is written to saved Jewish and gentile Christians in the same church. Rome. And the saved Jewish aspect felt superior to the saved gentile aspect because of the Law they adhered to . It's the same problem Jerusalem had in Acts 15 giving rise to the council there to determine what part of the law the Gentiles must absorb.

Keep reading from that verse...

Romans 2:18-23 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; (19) And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, (20) An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. (21) Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? (22) Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? (23) Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

They were making their boast OF THE LAW. They were resting on imagined laurels of having LAW while gentiles did not. And since they were Christians, Paul had the advantage of appealing to them, which is what he did in Romans 6 by informing them of something they apparently were unaware of -- baptism into Christ mean baptism into His death -- just as they were ignorant of the fact that resting and boasting the law as a Jewish christian was nullified by THEIR DEEDS. That's why he asked them if they taught against adultery since the law they boasted in said to not commit the act, then did they themselves also refrain from it? You ask this only of people who in fact boasted in law but felt that was enough, and did not realize they actually are supposed to keep it and not commit adultery!

So, speaking to CIRCUMCISED Christians -- A.K.A. saved JEWS -- who were a little too dependent on law and not enough aware of GRACE, Paul was saying UNCIRCUMCISED PEOPLE will judge CIRCUMCISED people if they're able to refrain from adultery without even having law.... SHOWING CONTRAST of how useless law is if a person doesn't actually obey it!

He's not talking to the Christian who depends upon the work of the cross for atonement and righteousness, but JEWISH CHRISTIANS who boasted in law and weren't realizing you have to LIVE RIGHT and not just parrot law of Moses and brag about how much you know about it and how heathenish gentile christians are who don't know as much as you do.

Now, is anyone here a Jewish Believer, or proselyte to Judaic law keeping who rests in circumcision and doesn't see how we must live righteously after we are saved, not to get saved, or are you speaking to people who rest in the work of the cross for their righteousness, and look to NO works of themselves to vaunt themselves up beyond everyone else? Are you speaking to people who now that the works of the cross are so much the only things God looks to in order to find hope for our salvation, to move him to remit our sins, while they realize they're so utterly useless and incompetent without the work of the cross so as to make beyond the last thing they think to be they are better than others due to anything about themselves?

It doesn't mean the gentile people who refrain from adultery were saved by their works of not committing adultery, and judge Jewish Christians because they're saved. Have ye never read int eh scriptures how Jesus said SINNERS will stand to JUDGE, or PUT TO SHAME, people who could have done what they did and did not, under even better circumstances to be able to do so than the ones who actually didn't?

EXAMPLE:

Matthew 12:41-42 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. (42) The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here.

This is in no way saying these people are saved and don't need the cross, like you think Muslims don't need the cross to be saved, just because it says the Ninevites and Queen of Sheba will condemn people in the judgment. It simply means the said party will be selected as an example to those condemned for sin by way of being a people who refrained from the very sin that those condemned by them committed. And this is all done in order to show them THAT THEY COULD HAVE refrained like these others did, when the others did not even have the BETTER advantage that the guilty party had but thwarted.

Matt 12 proves people judging others are not necessarily saved themselves, but, ON THE POINT OF THE GUILTY PARTY'S PARTICULAR SIN, they refrained, PROVING the guilty party could have as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

[mfblume]

Notice what Revelation 5 reads:

Revelation 5:6-9 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. (7) And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. (8) And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints. (9) And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;

This blows away every other religious concept of Jesus. Muslim included.

To say Jesus as the LAMB OF GOD "redeemed us to God by his blood," then this is spoken by people who obviously have a distinct understanding of Him that other religious adherents who reference Jesus LACK. No one speaks in these words unless they believe Jesus was killed AS A SACRIFICE. He's NOT JUST a good teacher of morality, who we're to follow like the muslims think he is. He's a SACRIFICE FOR SINS. His DEATH pays for our sins. He redeems us by his blood, which means his death BOUGHT US AND MADE US THE PROPERTY OF GOD.

In this book called the REVELATION OF JESUS, we find His death was the all important factor that PAYS FOR OUR SINS AND PURCHASES US AS GOD'S PROPERTY!

Hello out there? Can I get a witness!?

Any JESUS referred to as Christ who is NOT PINPOINTED as the one whose death was a sacrifice for our sins to allow us to be saved IS ANOTHER JESUS APART from the actual Jesus Christ of the Bible.

And the ONES CRYING OUT that He redeemed by His blood ARE IN HEAVEN, informing us we can forget about entering glory in salvation from sin if we likewise do not have the faith in that which they cried! HE REDEEMED US TO GOD BY HIS BLOOD!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Hello out there? Can I get a witness!?

[shazeep]

what i witness, though, is a complete repudiation of Christ, when you start condemning people who do anything differently from you, that you have not even met, and therefore cannot possibly be judging righteously. i witness pride, iow.

i also witness that anything Christ says must be conditioned, filtered, or otherwise explained away, justified with Paul, yet when even Paul agrees with Christ, this must be further qualified. Anyone seeking Christ on His terms, Agape, is made into "confused," and Paul was now, what, talking about something completely different, right?

So now, some kind of way, the man who fulfills the law will not judge the man who has the letter of the law, and i am completely misunderstanding what Paul meant, right? You, who have dismissed those who fulfill the law as "confused" and "not saved" have somehow become those who "fulfill the law" because you are not a Jew, but say Lord, Lord?

That can only be applied to Jews, since we have no letter of the law now, and that verse is no longer in effect, or cannot possibly apply to anyone but a Jew.

"And the saved Jewish aspect felt superior to the saved gentile aspect because of the Law they adhered to."

gee, ya think? Then i'm curious then, how can all Catholics be definitively lost in your mind?

[shazeep]

And i'm sure you have some ready answer, or handy deflection, but understand that you are not really replying to me, but to your congregations--if you still have any--and to your posterity. It will not serve me to "win" some silly argument on some obscure fundie page. i have absolutely nothing to gain here, and nothing to lose--but you do.

So, although it is not even my place, i would suggest that you consider the crucifix you are wearing v the Cross you are commanded to be carrying, and whether this "crossless gospel," the one that listens to Christ, and interprets everything through Christ, might be worth pursuing. Sure, most everyone in the OP church will tell you that you are going to hell for it, but so what, they are saying that about pretty much everyone anyway--the leadership, at least. God will not forsake you!

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

what i witness, though, is a complete repudiation of Christ, when you start condemning people who do anything differently from you, that you have not even met, and therefore cannot possibly be judging righteously. i witness pride, iow.

That's what you want to see. By this time you've conditioned yourself to see this everywhere we write. The fact is you're taking what the bible says about what it takes to be saved, not what we're saying it takes, and not wanting it to be restricted to those conditions since the cross has become a stumblingblock, and making yourself they're it's our thoughts and twisting them into some pride thing. In reality, no proud has room in this view. I';m no better than anyone, muslims included. Jesus and His works alone are worth any merit. There's no room for pride.

i also witness that anything Christ says must be conditioned, filtered, or otherwise explained away, justified with Paul, yet when even Paul agrees with Christ, this must be further qualified. Anyone seeking Christ on His terms, Agape, is made into "confused," and Paul was now, what, talking about something completely different, right?

Nope. Paul and Jesus agreed. There's twsiting alright. You're twisitng everything they say away from their actual words.

So now, some kind of way, the man who fulfills the law will not judge the man who has the letter of the law, and i am completely misunderstanding what Paul meant, right?

You never read the context. "Thou art a Jew who makes his boast of the law." Just chjop that stuff out and twist it to us here who donb'
t fit the context at all, and blast us as gutless hellions.

You, who have dismissed those who fulfill the law as "confused" and "not saved" have somehow become those who "fulfill the law" because you are not a Jew, but say Lord, Lord?

That can only be applied to Jews, since we have no letter of the law now, and that verse is no longer in effect, or cannot possibly apply to anyone but a Jew.

"And the saved Jewish aspect felt superior to the saved gentile aspect because of the Law they adhered to."

gee, ya think? Then i'm curious then, how can all Catholics be definitively lost in your mind?

So once again, you've demonstrated that you don't want to look at the actual context, or you would have laid it out in your defense, and you don't want to analyze the actual verse. You just stick to your generalities that never speak about context and never show the words and indicated how they're in the context you see, and maintain a hate toward us.

When you actually talk verses by verses, and agree to share what context is from one verse leading to another, to set the particular verse in question in its proper light, LET US KNOW for goodness' sake! Meanwhile we're not interested in your generalities that are as vague as a horoscope.

[mfblume]

See? No actual scriptural discussion yet! I did not want to see this response from you with all its generalities and nothing specific about context and meaning of a verse, but I have to say I did expect it.

[shazeep]

well of course, Mr B, that is a foregone conclusion; i failed to check with you. i am impressed how fast you cranked all that out tho, yikes, i'm still editing have a good one

i mean yikes, please tell me that you can see how you are claiming to have the letter of the law here at least