Are all Catholics lost?

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Catholic idolatry?

Who is this a picture of?

It is a representation of Christ. If it stopped there, I suppose there could be a debate. But of course thats only the start, you have to go into patron saints, papal authority, relics, images, and Mariology to get to the surface. I think Biblically speaking, you've got pretty solid ground to peg the whole of Catholicism with idolatry, and thats not even considering the cultural syncritism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

It is a representation of Christ. If it stopped there, I suppose there could be a debate. But of course thats only the start, you have to go into patron saints, papal authority, relics, images, and Mariology to get to the surface. I think Biblically speaking, you've got pretty solid ground to peg the whole of Catholicism with idolatry, and thats not even considering the cultural syncritism.

Thank you, welcome to the world of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox iconology. It isn't Jesus Christ. It is the actor Robert Powell.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank you, welcome to the world of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox iconology. It isn't Jesus Christ. It is the actor Robert Powell.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Works everytime.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Thank you, welcome to the world of Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox iconology. It isn't Jesus Christ. It is the actor Robert Powell.

Whew, thanks for the clarification. I thought there for a moment someone snapped that there picture in the Garden of Gethsemane. (I guess you missed the key word "representation").

And my comments were also an allusion to Eastern Orthodoxy, though they're not too relevant here. I'm familiar with the iconology and iconoclastic controversies. I'm somewhat aware of Photius and John of Damascus, and Maximus Confessor affirmative arguments in favor of, but still, seems cut and dry idolatry to me.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Whew, thanks for the clarification. I thought there for a moment someone snapped that there picture in the Garden of Gethsemane. (I guess you missed the key word "representation").

And my comments were also an allusion to Eastern Orthodoxy, though they're not too relevant here. I'm familiar with the iconology and iconoclastic controversies. I'm somewhat aware of Photius and John of Damascus, and Maximus Confessor affirmative arguments in favor of, but still, seems cut and dry idolatry to me.

Still you are in the same boat with them.

Hey, just grab a paddle.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jason B

Whew, thanks for the clarification. I thought there for a moment someone snapped that there picture in the Garden of Gethsemane. (I guess you missed the key word "representation").

And my comments were also an allusion to Eastern Orthodoxy, though they're not too relevant here. I'm familiar with the iconology and iconoclastic controversies. I'm somewhat aware of Photius and John of Damascus, and Maximus Confessor affirmative arguments in favor of, but still, seems cut and dry idolatry to me.

How can idolatry be practiced and one be saved?

[mfblume]

This entire thread should not be entitled "Are all Catholics lost?" because that is not the point of concern. It should be entitled "Are all who disbelieve the Bible lost?" or "Are all who have a misinterpretation of the bible lost?"

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How can a soul who believes standards save them be saved, when the bible demands we believe nothing we do can save us, lest we boast and take the glory to ourselves?

What do you mean by legalistic?

If people think the cross PLUS THEIR WORKS save them, then I am fearful for their souls. If they attribute to salvation something other than the blood, hooboy....

I may have come across some who do, but that is utterly blasphemous. How can God overlook that, brother. Explain it to me. Explain to me how we are not saved by works but by his grace through faith, lets we boast, and yet those who think they are saved by their works can be saved.

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.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Ahh.. here's where I think you're missing something. If someone thinks LACK OF DOING SOMETHING causes them to lose salvation, they are standing on a valid principle.

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.

Originally Posted by mfblume

And if they think the start of something they are avoiding will lose their salvation then it's the same thing. That is valid.

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.

Originally Posted by mfblume

For example, if I start cursing and swearing and hating people, then I lose my salvation. that does not mean refraining from cussing and swearing and hatred saves me. It just means the salvation that THE CROSS ALONE gave me is TOSSED away when I commit sins.

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.

[Jason B]

Originally Posted by mfblume

How can idolatry be practiced and one be saved?

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