SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Do Catholics believe they are saved by works?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 Next Page )
PosterThread
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

Appolus,

hmm, I am pretty sure she gave a defense of her beliefs which were more "Christian", but I do not think that she defended Protestantism. I think she was imprisoned because the her teaching were similar to "Christian" and so under suspicion and for some of her beliefs ect. I think though that she wanted to stay within the Church and just reform to some degree. Though I think she somehow became friends with Fenelon. I am not sure though it has been a long time since I read it and the biographer could have been wrong.

I got a little mixed up on what part she wrote and what part you wrote. I think I get the point though. Do you know where this quote is from? She may have just been criticizing this one Priest and honoring her mother.

So here is what I am thinking. I am thinking that you are basically saying the Catholic Church is all external rituals without inner experience or any manner of serious devotion with no hope ect. I would bet the truth is that this is the case among probably most Catholics especially in the west. However, the people I am speaking to are attributing quite opposite things. This can be similar to Evangelical Church where more then half are probably not saved and among those who are probably only 10% are walking in any good degree of victory. They say that they were Protestant ministers for years or brought up in an Evangelical Church and found no rest. Then when they came to the Catholic Church they grew in the spiritual relation to God. That they have hope as long as they continue, and even if they think they will probably go to purgatory for temporary purifying they are not so worried about that since it will soon be over and they will enter heaven ect. And, as for the case I received from them about whether they are saved by works or not I am not so sure. They seem not to be except that they believe baptism is something that must literally be done to receive the reality and grace of it. The argument being on the table as to whether having to be baptized as a sacrament of grace or not is legalism.

 2009/10/3 18:59Profile
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

Jimmy,

Well, yes they are saying that to receive grace you must receive it through literal sacraments of grace. For instance for healing they will note that you must come to the elders of the Church and when they pray in faith you will be healed. This would be an example of having to go through the government of the Church and coming to the Church to get to God since we are the body.

So, you are saying the reason they had no problem making war was because they believed they were going to save people by afterwards baptizing them? of forcefully? I think they say one must be sincere and repentant ect for baptism to have any effect.

As for whether circumcision and baptism are used in the same way I am still not sure. I mean again, circumcision was to make you right before God by your righteousness of doing it. It promised no forgiveness of sins ect. Whereas baptism does promise forgiveness of sins and is not to make oneself righteous before God but to receive the righteousness of God. I again note the woman touching the hem of Jesus not being a work but an "act" of faith not a "work" of the law.

I am not sure if you understood what I was saying. I was saying that I do "not" believe the same views as Calvinists on faith. It is true that faith is received from hearing the word and creation and the conscience ect itself. However, the word must still be mixed with faith. One still has to surrender to believe. Faith is a choice yet still not a work. It is not a choice to earn ones way to heaven but a choice to allow Jesus to earn your way. So, I am saying unlike Calvinist I cannot reject Rome in the sense of saying that we do not receive Rome because they believe faith is a choice or limited atonement ect.

Quote:
The doctrines of Rome never bring one to this point of emptiness and abandon. Instead, it says, "Ok, you believe these things, now get baptized, get confirmed, received eucharist, do this, do that, etc." Part of this is due to the fact that Rome doesn't teach righteousness is imputed to one on the basis of faith. In fact, the idea of a "passive righteousness" that comes as a gift of God is entirely foreign to their theology. Rather, to them righteousness is something you earn. And if you don't earn enough in this life through your own good deeds and devotion to the sacraments, you'll earn while in purgatory as you there purged of your unrighteousness and made fit for eternity.


I am not sure they would agree with this statement though the average lay person mostly probably would, but so would the average Evangelical in other ways. They would say that the sacraments are nothing to you if you are not sincere and broken and have a clinging faith. The righteousness they earn is not one based on works but faith. And all the righteousness are not toward salvation, but toward getting beyond purgatory. Evangelicals would also hold that our works will get us more or less rewards and their view is similar with the exception to a temporal purging place before heaven. We do not hold to a purgatory, but we do believe that our sinful nature cannot enter heaven that our spirits will enter I believe and then our bodies when they are raised and glorified on that day though the view is somewhat differing among Christian as to soul sleep ect.

I understand the Evangelical position on faith alone and the relation of faith and works ect. I will try and check out you article.

 2009/10/3 19:15Profile
anonymity
Member



Joined: 2009/1/16
Posts: 393


 Re:

All again,

here is what I am saying.

It would seem the Catholic Church officially among the devoted presently do not teach salvation by works, but faith alone. That they are not saved by works of the Law. The terminology and ideas may be messed up when they say they are saved by faith and works. But, really they are saying they are saved by faith alone Godward in righteousness but faith will not be alone in the sense that works will result and follow. The only works that they say make them right before God are actually acts toward grace. For instance they say you have to be baptized to be saved. However, this is not an act of trying to make oneself righteous by their own merit but an act of coming to the grace of God through baptism. As the woman who "acted" and broke through the people to touch the hem of his garment to be healed. Was this action attributed to her as a work of the Law? No, it was faith made active faith acted out faith activated faith done faith used. Also, one might say that their way of salvation is external and ritualistic. However, they would say that one would have to be sincere, have faith, and be repentance in order for baptism to effect them. Or one might say that their acts of penance like walking on their knees are works for salvation. However, though these are works they are works by faith and they are works not for salvation but to get passed purgatory sooner which is not a place so much of punishment as it is a place to be made pure before entering heaven in which nothing unholy can enter. Evangelicals have a similar view as they believe that what they do whether good or bad will be recompensed to them as through fire. Some teach that as through fire means a punishment in burning though I do not think so. I think that the punishment is our false works being burned not us. And whatever we do whether good or bad will effect how much blessing we have after we have already been saved and these acts do not effect our salvation, but our state within salvation to as much blessing we will have in eternity and not whether we will enter but how much blessing after we have entered. Also, the views of the Roman Church and the practices can often be judged by the state of the average lay person. However, if the Evangelical Church were judged in the same way it would be pretty bad as well though in different ways.

So I think the bottom line comes down to on this issue is. Is baptism a work like circumcision or is it different? Are all these things I have heard really official Catholic teachings? and these are only the beginning of the questions, but on this topic of faith and works I think they are the main ones left.

 2009/10/3 19:27Profile









 Re:

HI we may be getting our wires crossed. The story about the priest was my story not Guyon's :) She did lay her defence of Christianity out and presented it to the Catholic King of France. She was imprisoned at the behest of the Catholic church. She did have frineds within the Catholic church.

I believe that a vast swath of "Evangelicals," know nothing of the new birth. Ravenhill thought about 2% of Americans were actually Christians. Not sure if that is the number but probably pretty close.

Being a member in good standing of any denomination cannot and will not save. Just because one may be an unsaved Evangelical, and then moves to the Catholic church simply now makes that one an unsaved Catholic convert. Unless a man is born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. It does not matter what cult you belong to, whether the Mormons or the JWs or the Catholic church, they all deny the essential truths of the Gospel and that would simply make it harder for one of their own to be saved, but of course not impossible. There are millions of Catholics over the centuries , that have come out from her and found Salvation, praise God. One large church I used to attend had a high proportion of ex-Catholics in their congregation, including ex-nuns who had found the Truth and had been set free, again, praise God. Catholic numbers all over the world are in serious decline and this is a good thing. The expose of child abuse on a grand scale in every corner of the world in the Catholic institutions was also very hurtful to the Catholic Church. I just pray that every Catholic seeks and finds the truth before they leave this planet. God will be found by those who seek Him...........Frank

 2009/10/3 19:35









 Re:

"However, they would say that one would have to be sincere, have faith, and be repentance in order for baptism to effect them."

One could debate Catholic issues until the cows come home but just consider the above statement in light of the fact that Catholics are baptized as babies. How sincere is a baby? How much faith soes a baby have? Does a baby have a repentant heart? One of the greatest problems my very Catholic grandma had after I was set free by the Lord Jesus at the age of 26 was when I was baptized a few months later. She was stabbed in the heart by this because by doing this I was publicly saying, and she was correct, that my first Baptism was meaningless and of course it was............Frank

 2009/10/3 19:42
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3395
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re:

Quote:
appolus wrote:
I believe that a vast swath of "Evangelicals," know nothing of the new birth. Ravenhill thought about 2% of Americans were actually Christians. Not sure if that is the number but probably pretty close.

Being a member in good standing of any denomination cannot and will not save. Just because one may be an unsaved Evangelical, and then moves to the Catholic church simply now makes that one an unsaved Catholic convert. Unless a man is born again he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven.


I believe in the baptism of the Spirit and all the gifts. When my dad was still alive, he and his wife took me to an evening spirit-filled Catholic church service. The only different between a pentecostal church service and theirs was the communion. They anointed and laid hands on people, spoke in tongues, prophesied and praised the Lord.

There are many Christians who take communion every day in their homes, so communion cannot be the issue. And I did not enter this to argue with anyone.

I think outside the box and I'm going to present a scenario to you. If that's all they know and they have lived faithful to it (and no Christian has ever presented the true gospel to them only judged them), then I believe they will be judged [b]BETTER[/b] than some Protestant Christians who [b]knew the truth and did NOTHING with the talent they were given[/b]. But I also know that's just me and my scenario, it's not the gospel.


_________________
Lisa

 2009/10/4 8:25Profile









 Re:

HI Lysa

Unless a man is born-again he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. On that I am sure we could agree. What if I changed your scenario to , say, Mormons or Jehovah's Witness's or even Muslims, and they lived faithful to what they believed, will they be "judged better?" Just interested in how far you are willing to take the logic of your scenario and what "judged better ," means to you......Frank

 2009/10/4 8:46
Lysa
Member



Joined: 2008/10/25
Posts: 3395
This world is not my home anymore.

 Re: appolus

Quote:
appolus wrote:
HI Lysa

Unless a man is born-again he cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. On that I am sure we could agree. What if I changed your scenario to , say, Mormons or Jehovah's Witness's or even Muslims, and they lived faithful to what they believed, will they be "judged better?" Just interested in how far you are willing to take the logic of your scenario and what "judged better ," means to you......Frank



I'm not willing to take it that far!! So I concede! Uncle uncle! :-D


_________________
Lisa

 2009/10/4 10:23Profile









 Re:

:-)

 2009/10/4 10:57









 Re:

You are ignorant of your own Christian history. Baptism replaced Circumcision. Consider this:

A Hebrew baby could not have faith, repent, or even pray. Yet that baby was received into the saving covenant community on the eighth day. That baby's father gave it it's faith. When it was old enough it could throw off that faith through an act of free will.

It was the same for the early Christian community. When baptism replaced circumcision and the Spirit of God was poured out upon your sons AND DAUGHTERS baptism was received by whole families...babies included.

In fact I challenge you to find ONE single dispute in early church history about infant baptism other than "should Christians have to wait until the third day to baptize their children?"

I dare you.

 2009/10/7 21:29





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy