The System of Salvation

mica

Well-known member
Yes, but if one is going to invoke a scripture that says not to associate with certain kinds of people, then they should heed those words and not associate with certain kinds of people. It's called hypocrisy.
there are lots of people I'm careful not to associate with. I don't run with drug users or gangs, I even try to stay away from those who use bad words - even former friends, classmates, and family. I stay away from their websites. otoh, I'm willing to talk with an unbeliever, even those living a life of sin because just being an unbeliever puts them in that category. Common sense and knowledge of scripture goes a long way in understanding that. Paul was a major 'sinner' but God called him out of that for a purpose - His purpose. I know of several ministers of the gospel who were once in major sin, some even in prison. Paul ended up in prison... I often wondered why I didn't know of any Christians prior to that lone young man who came into my family's life (he hired my then husband to do photos for his bz). He came to our house often over the following 2 yrs or so. I 'spect he was always glad to leave and get home to take a shower. otoh, we were rather tame for the lost. There are lots of nice people in the world but they are still lost. I am forever grateful to God for leading that young man (who was also raised catholic) into my life.
 

mica

Well-known member
Yes, but if one is going to invoke a scripture that says not to associate with certain kinds of people, then they should heed those words and not associate with certain kinds of people. It's called hypocrisy.
It sounds like you'd be for shutting down prison ministries and homes for unwed mothers etc.
 

Maxtar

Active member
Hmm an area that the RCC excels in. I meant it says it is the pillar and foundation of truth and morals and then allows children to be abused. As I say experts in hypocrisy is the RCC.
So then you do the same? I thought you were against following anything the Catholic Church does. Oh well, it is what it is.
 

Maxtar

Active member
It sounds like you'd be for shutting down prison ministries and homes for unwed mothers etc.
No, not at all. None of that has anything to do with what we are talking about here - and that would be acting like a hypocrite.
 

mica

Well-known member
When someone claims that they know what is in a person's heart and cannot know the Lord unless they experience Him as they do, the word fits perfectly.
here's what you actually wrote in post 77 (below) - but again, 'the same relationship'? no, every believer has their own relationship with Christ, but yes to the requirement of being born again - which is not by the RCC type water baptism.

still waiting to see where I said that one can never know God (if still alive in this world).
be sure to post it for me.

That's all you will ever get from that poster. Someone who claims to know what is in the hearts of people and what God means as He speaks through the scriptures. If you don't have the same relationship with God as the poster has, then you don't know and can never know God. It's the same broken record over and over again. There's a word called hubris that fits perfectly.
catholics claiming the RCC is His church, the pope is infallible, water baptism saves anyone, Peter was a pope, one needs works to be saved, Mary is a queen, sinless and EV, needed for salvation etc - are the same broken record over and over, with no scripture to support any of those things.
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
1. That's called worship and doing what the scriptures tell us to do.
2. Yep, we call our ministers Priests, and they are a vital part in the lives of the faithful.
3. It is good for the soul that we confess our sins as per the scriptures.
4. It is good to atone for what we have done. Fasting for instance could be a penance, something that is done to bring us closer to God.
5. The source and summit of the Christian life and is the most important thing that Jesus instructed us to do in order to worship correctly.
6. Yep, another sacrament in which the person (soul) enters the Christian life.

You can call it "a system" or anything you want, we just call them all instructions from the scriptures that exist to unite us with God while here on earth.
And where does does any self-sacrificing come in within Roman Catholicism?
 

RayneBeau

Well-known member
What church is that? The RCC isn't about Christianity, it's about catholicism.


wrong. it's found in scripture. catholics don't know or understand scripture.

what the RCC teaches is not from scripture, nor is what is found in the ccc from scripture.
Not only do most RC's not know and understand Scripture, but they think that "self-sacrificing" is basically all in the mind -
'I intend to do this and that,' in other words what they are saying 'I will first estimate what it is going to cost me.'
 
Last edited:

Nic

Well-known member
According to who, you and Martin Luther? Marriage has been taught as being a sacrament by Christian orthodoxy since the beginning of the One Universal Christian Church and such a thing has not changed in over 2000 years. It is a Holy union between a man and a woman and is deserving of the highest accolades and respect and it belongs right with the other 6 sacraments. This stuff that you believe that was taught to you post 1500 is a falsehood, a complete falsehood.
Hi Maxtar, it depends on how one defines a sacrament as to what is and what isn't. The 7 sacraments in RC'cism were not always 7, the number first bounced around a bit before 7 was decided. In my view, a sacrament is an earthly element with the word of God comprehended with the promise of forgiveness of sins attached to it, what's your definition?
 

Tertiumquid

Active member
The 7 sacraments in RC'cism were not always 7, the number first bounced around a bit before 7 was decided.

"There was no intention during early centuries to limit the number of sacraments to seven. Any ritual that celebrated a divine saving action was considered a mystery or sacrament: feasts days such as Easter and Pentecost, actions such as ritual washing of feet and imposition of blessed ashes, along with the more major ones we would come to know as "the seven." Some lists of sacraments were very short, others had as many as thirty. In the mid-13th century the number was finally set at seven. Other holy rituals came to be called sacramentals." [Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions (revised edition, 2007) (New London: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007)] pp.145-146].

"Only in the seventeenth century, when Latin influence was at its height, did this list [of seven sacraments] become fixed and definite. Before that date Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments: John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten; and those Byzantine theologians who in fact speak of seven sacraments differ as to the items which they include in their list. Even today the number seven has no particular dogmatic significance for Orthodox theology, but is used primarily as a convenience in teaching." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 275].
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nic

Nic

Well-known member
"There was no intention during early centuries to limit the number of sacraments to seven. Any ritual that celebrated a divine saving action was considered a mystery or sacrament: feasts days such as Easter and Pentecost, actions such as ritual washing of feet and imposition of blessed ashes, along with the more major ones we would come to know as "the seven." Some lists of sacraments were very short, others had as many as thirty. In the mid-13th century the number was finally set at seven. Other holy rituals came to be called sacramentals." [Greg Dues, Catholic Customs & Traditions (revised edition, 2007) (New London: Twenty-Third Publications, 2007)] pp.145-146].

"Only in the seventeenth century, when Latin influence was at its height, did this list [of seven sacraments] become fixed and definite. Before that date Orthodox writers vary considerably as to the number of sacraments: John of Damascus speaks of two; Dionysius the Areopagite of six; Joasaph, Metropolitan of Ephesus (fifteenth century), of ten; and those Byzantine theologians who in fact speak of seven sacraments differ as to the items which they include in their list. Even today the number seven has no particular dogmatic significance for Orthodox theology, but is used primarily as a convenience in teaching." Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church (New York: Penguin Books, 1997), p. 275].
Thanks James, that's much later than I realized.
 
Top