Are all Catholics lost? - Page 9

Jason B · #81 07-07-2016, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

What sins? How does one "trust Christ"?

I'm not sure it's worth engaging you, but I'll attempt and see what comes of it.

Sins=the besetting sins of the unregenerate. The constant lifestyle of sin that we all live without Christ. A lifestyle of selfishness, idolatry, pleasure seeking (in one way or another) and various sins, not always alike from person to person but the bondage and the wages are the same.

Trusting Christ=realizing that Christ's perfect life, atoning death, and resurrection is the only acceptable sacrifice to God for your sins, being convicted of the same, turning from those sins, and surrendering to the Lordship of Jesus Christ, and seeking follow and obey Him all the days of your life. Hence "trusting Christ".

Esaias · #82 07-07-2016, 04:29 PM

If trusting Christ includes obeying him, as you said, then what about Quakers who refuse to eat the Lord's Supper and refuse baptism?

Where in your list does a catholic come short? I've never known a catholic who would disagree with your definitions. Yet you have put them in the class of "probably lost due to idolatry"?

Does doctrine come into the picture at all?

shazeep · #83 07-08-2016, 08:02 AM

doctrine seems to me to mostly be the way people justify sitting on the fence and participating in the world while purporting to follow Christ.

Quote:

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.

ok, i am beyond going to the list i have of posts between us on the matter, as that would simply be pointless and unkind, so i will just state as fact that it is you who did not seem to take the Christian quotes as complementary with the Pauline ones, going so far as to attempt to reason away 'love your neighbor' as some misguided attempt to follow the law.

So while i understand the difficulty in reconciling Christ and Paul at times, your 'i just related what the Word said' becomes a matter of preference. i just related what the Word said, too. This ends up being code for 'i am right, and you can't argue,' wadr. You can posit that 'the Word flows together' all you like, but this seems to be trying to apologize for the passages that contradict you (or anyone) when one chooses what i would call too firm a position on a matter, for lack of a better characterization, and i suggest that this is Scripture trying to tell you something, which you are free to ignore or deny if you like.

And strictly because this has brought this back to mind, i don't see how women might be saved in childbirth could mean "by the birth of Christ," as that would cover men, too, rendering the syntax there incorrectly imo.

mfblume · #84 07-08-2016, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

doctrine seems to me to mostly be the way people justify sitting on the fence and participating in the world while purporting to follow Christ.

ok, i am beyond going to the list i have of posts between us on the matter, as that would simply be pointless and unkind, so i will just state as fact that it is you who did not seem to take the Christian quotes as complementary with the Pauline ones, going so far as to attempt to reason away 'love your neighbor' as some misguided attempt to follow the law.

So while i understand the difficulty in reconciling Christ and Paul at times, your 'i just related what the Word said' becomes a matter of preference. i just related what the Word said, too. This ends up being code for 'i am right, and you can't argue,' wadr. You can posit that 'the Word flows together' all you like, but this seems to be trying to apologize for the passages that contradict you (or anyone) when one chooses what i would call too firm a position on a matter, for lack of a better characterization, and i suggest that this is Scripture trying to tell you something, which you are free to ignore or deny if you like.

And strictly because this has brought this back to mind, i don't see how women might be saved in childbirth could mean "by the birth of Christ," as that would cover men, too, rendering the syntax there incorrectly imo.

since you won't give straightforward answers, which I thought could change, what's the point? you simply take statements in the worst way they can be taken.

it's also the recent century-old fad that doctrine is a bad word today

but you're idea on women saved by child birth shows you actually don't believe faith in the cross is vital.

by the way, the context was women not teaching, so the idea of Christ come by birth does fit in particular to women, since it's honoring eve after speaking of her cause for women not teaching. women give birth, not men, which is related to eve and the promise. but if you want a way aside from the cross that badly. ..

shazeep · #85 07-09-2016, 09:32 AM

well, i am not a woman, so i doubt there is any escape there for me

i think the verse has a different meaning relating to a mother's sacrifices for their children, but that is just imo.

you seem to mostly be dedicated to gratuitous answers here, but i will keep pretending you are having a conversation for others' sake.

you simply take statements in the worst way they can be taken.

well, there are two sides to every coin, and i certainly don't mean for my "worst way" to necessarily mean you, but simply a broader understanding of the reality of that particular assertion, be what it may. It is you who have asserted "All Catholics are lost," so you might consider how you have casually offended so many while reflecting upon how easily you are offended. It is all well and good to say 'follow Acts 2:38 and be saved," but we all know many who have done so yet do not appear to manifest the gifts of the Spirit; so mentioning these does not discount that some might be saved in this way, eventually, but that it does not appear to be an iron-clad path to salvation as we understand it, and in fact seems to also provide cover for the worst kind of hypocrite, which may be the function of religion anyway, as an example.

it's also the recent century-old fad that doctrine is a bad word today.

man, talk to me about the doctrine that was sufficient for them and we will be agreeing

Scripture denounces the doctrines of men, so i would say that this fad is at least 2000 years old. If it is some doctrine that led you to "All Catholics are lost" imo you need to toss all of your doctrines and start over anyway, as even whores and tax-collectors have something that you do not. This is all unadulterated Scripture, Mike.

shazeep · #86 07-09-2016, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

If trusting Christ includes obeying him, as you said, then what about Quakers who refuse to eat the Lord's Supper and refuse baptism?

Where in your list does a catholic come short? I've never known a catholic who would disagree with your definitions. Yet you have put them in the class of "probably lost due to idolatry"?

Does doctrine come into the picture at all?

if i may, i think the trap there lies in when you made the switch from what is important to you to judging what should be important to someone else, Quakers, etc. Iow, although i am ignorant of why Q's do not do those things, surely it is in an attempt to distance themselves from the world as they understand it, and not distance themselves from God.

mfblume · #87 07-09-2016, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

well, i am not a woman, so i doubt there is any escape there for me

i think the verse has a different meaning relating to a mother's sacrifices for their children, but that is just imo.

You missed my point. He spoke of Eve and her failure. But spoke about child birth in case women get discouraged with Eve and their half of humanity. Eve also was promised the messiah would come through birthing.

Quote:

you seem to mostly be dedicated to gratuitous answers here, but i will keep pretending you are having a conversation for others' sake.

you simply take statements in the worst way they can be taken.

well, there are two sides to every coin, and i certainly don't mean for my "worst way" to necessarily mean you, but simply a broader understanding of the reality of that particular assertion, be what it may. It is you who have asserted "All Catholics are lost," so you might consider how you have casually offended so many while reflecting upon how easily you are offended.

Why is it that explaining what I intended is utterly ignored by your responses? It's not about people. It's not about catholics. It's about belief of what the bible teaches.

Quote:

It is all well and good to say 'follow Acts 2:38 and be saved," but we all know many who have done so yet do not appear to manifest the gifts of the Spirit; so mentioning these does not discount that some might be saved in this way, eventually, but that it does not appear to be an iron-clad path to salvation as we understand it, and in fact seems to also provide cover for the worst kind of hypocrite, which may be the function of religion anyway, as an example.

It is iron clad path to salvation because Peter was asked about salvation and gave that answer. But, as I have stated many many times, it can be faked.

Quote:

it's also the recent century-old fad that doctrine is a bad word today.

man, talk to me about the doctrine that was sufficient for them and we will be agreeing

Scripture denounces the doctrines of men, so i would say that this fad is at least 2000 years old.

We weren't talking about doctrines of men. Just doctrine. And doctrine plays a vital and high part in the bible.

Quote:

If it is some doctrine that led you to "All Catholics are lost" imo you need to toss all of your doctrines and start over anyway, as even whores and tax-collectors have something that you do not. This is all unadulterated Scripture, Mike.

It's not about my belief of who is lost. That's not my focus. My focus is who believes and fulfills the bible's mandates. That's all it's ever been. You agreed that the list of catholic tenets of doctrine was grounds for concern. To me, a catholic is not issue, because a catholic is only a catholic if they believe those tenets. Si, the question should not be if they are all lost, but rather are people lost if they believe those tenets, if not the better question of being lost if one fails to follow the bible.