Callers to my door.

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought you and the RCC held that we are saved, to some extent, by our works.

Why? Do you get your education on Catholicism from the likes of antisceptik?

Matthew 19:20 provides and instruction to do that applies to all Christians, not just Catholics.

Work done for merit carries no merit. It must be unselfish to carry any merit

Ephesians 2:8 is how we are saved but we need be mindful of Matthew 7:21. Unfortunately those who follow sola and wrongfully accuse others of sola labora are well described in Matthew 15:18

They would do well to read Matthew 25:31-46 before making baseless accusations.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Serious question. How does infant baptism fit into what you have posted above?

If I may...?

To those who do not subscribe to infant baptism what do you say to the parents of a child who died before being baptised?

Scripturally they cannot enter Heaven. John 3, 3 and 5

I suppose you could always lie...

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

Serious question. How does infant baptism fit into what you have posted above?

Baptism and its effects are the free and gratuitous gift!

CCC 1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: "Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

And all without the baby having to do any work!

PDN

Festus wrote: »

If I may...?

To those who do not subscribe to infant baptism what do you say to the parents of a child who died before being baptised?

Scripturally they cannot enter Heaven. John 3, 3 and 5

I suppose you could always lie...

When you said, "If I may" I thought you were going to answer my question.

What do I say to the parents of a child whose child died before being baptised? I pray with them and offer them comfort - which is certainly more appropriate in such circumstances than trying to score theological points.

Btw, John 3:3 & 5 don't mention baptism at all. Not unless you're indulging in eisegesis. But those verses, addressed to an adult who was talking about receiving salvation when one is old, certainly tell us that we need to be born again.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

Baptism and its effects are the free and gratuitous gift!



And all without the baby having to do any work!

So the grace is really about whether your parents decide to get you baptised or not? If your parents are obedient Catholics then God gives you the grace of salvation, but if they're Buddhists then He doesn't? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but I'm intrigued by this.

JimiTime

hinault wrote: »

Spare me the lectures, jimi.

Lecture? You mean my rather brief answer to a rather stupid question? Was my assertion of a legalistic mindset offensive? If so, then I'd ask why you actually felt the need to ask the question you did? It indicates to me a very legalistic mindset. Open to correction. Or was the question disingenuous?

Donatello

PDN wrote: »

So the grace is really about whether your parents decide to get you baptised or not? If your parents are obedient Catholics then God gives you the grace of salvation, but if they're Buddhists then He doesn't? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but I'm intrigued by this.

Hence the need to go out and preach the Gospel to all nations. Of course God can save whomsoever He pleases (even without the sacraments which He has initiated as the ordinary means of salvation), but we've been given a mandate, and woe to us if we do not fulfil it.

God gives each person enough grace so that they might be saved. The rainforest indian will have his opportunity just as we do, although it will be much more difficult for him to be saved, but not absolutely impossible. But we need to preach the Gospel, because we've been told.

LG - Vatican II:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.(19*) Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel.(20*) She knows that it is given by Him who enlightens all men so that they may finally have life. But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

Lecture? You mean my rather brief answer to a rather stupid question? Was my assertion of a legalistic mindset offensive? If so, then I'd ask why you actually felt the need to ask the question you did? It indicates to me a very legalistic mindset. Open to correction. Or was the question disingenuous?

As explained to PDN before you decided to chime in, I asked homer the question in order to gain a better understanding for the concept that he was putting forward.

hinault

PDN wrote: »

So the grace is really about whether your parents decide to get you baptised or not? If your parents are obedient Catholics then God gives you the grace of salvation, but if they're Buddhists then He doesn't? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, but I'm intrigued by this.

If a couple are aware of Christ but for their own reasons choose not to have their baby baptised (for whatever reason) and that unbaptised baby dies, the parents have failed in their duty to that unborn baby.

The Buddhist has never heard of Christ. How he can be condemned for not knowing something, isn't Christian in my opinion

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Why? Do you get your education on Catholicism from the likes of antisceptik?

Probably not. But he might have a similar nose for wriggling Catholic apologetics.

Matthew 19:20 provides and instruction to do that applies to all Christians, not just Catholics.

Wolfsbane didn't ask about other Christians he asked whether works contribute to your salvation in Catholicism.

Work done for merit carries no merit. It must be unselfish to carry any merit

You know work of a certain type carries merit. But you are meant to carry out this work with the pureness of heart that would come from your not knowing it carries merit.

This is like been shown the answers to an exam then sitting the exam and answering the questions as if you hadn't seen the answers.



-

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

If a couple are aware of Christ but for their own reasons choose not to have their baby baptised (for whatever reason) and that unbaptised baby dies, the parents have failed in their duty to that unborn baby.

...and the baby goes to..?

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

God gives each person enough grace so that they might be saved. The rainforest indian will have his opportunity just as we do, although it will be much more difficult for him to be saved, but not absolutely impossible. But we need to preach the Gospel, because we've been told.

More difficult? Are you saying that through accident of birth (or design of God) some people have less a chance of salvation than others?

Baptism and its effects are the free and gratuitous gift!

Wouldn't 'head start' be a better description given the above?

And all without the baby having to do any work!

Being given salvation and having to work to ensure you don't loose it is the other side of the coin that see's you having to work for your salvation in the first place. It's works-based salvation whichever way you toss the coin.

PDN

hinault wrote: »

If a couple are aware of Christ but for their own reasons choose not to have their baby baptised (for whatever reason) and that unbaptised baby dies, the parents have failed in their duty to that unborn baby.

The Buddhist has never heard of Christ. How he can be condemned for not knowing something, isn't Christian in my opinion

Either way, the baby hasn't heard of Chriist - has it? Or is the baby to be punished for the 'sins' of its fathers?

homer911

Donatello wrote: »

Our Blessed Lord said we must do penance or we too would perish. How much penance have you done today? (I've not done any. )

There is a distinct divergence of theology here between Catholics and non-Catholics - I had to look up wiki to and I hope you dont find fault with its definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penance

Contritio is in fact repentance as Protestant theologians understand it,

There is nothing that we can do to earn forgiveness, so performing "penetential acts" serve no purpose. We confess our sins to God, ask for his forgiveness and strength to sin no more. God has promised to forgive us our sins and wipe the slate clean - they are gone, forgotten and aren't coming back. Psalm 103:12 tells us that "as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us." God has done this, its not something we have done other than to repent and accept his forgiveness. There is no catch.



"....penitential acts consist simply of prayers, fasting, charitable work or giving, or a combination thereof."

Festus

PDN wrote: »

When you said, "If I may" I thought you were going to answer my question.

What do I say to the parents of a child whose child died before being baptised? I pray with them and offer them comfort - which is certainly more appropriate in such circumstances than trying to score theological points.

Btw, John 3:3 & 5 don't mention baptism at all. Not unless you're indulging in eisegesis. But those verses, addressed to an adult who was talking about receiving salvation when one is old, certainly tell us that we need to be born again.

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Still no mention of baptism. Unless, of course, you are so intent on reading your own denomination's traditions into the Bible that you think every reference to water refers to a rite of baptism?

There's always a big danger that all of us (Protestants, Catholics and others) read the Bible to find support for our particular beliefs. Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine you were Nicodemus, and the only knowledge you have of Jesus is His words as recorded in the sermon on the Mount etc. But, as a Jew, you are highly familiar with the concept that the Jews were born as a nation when they passed through the red Sea under Moses.

Now, you being Nicodemus, you hear Jesus talking about being born of water and of the Spirit. How would you interpret this? Would you say, "Ah yes, Jesus is saying that my Jewishness is not enough - that something more is required"? Or would you say, "Of course Jesus is referring to a practice that will be instituted in the future whereby Christians in a Church headquartered in Rome will start baptising babies"?

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Still no mention of baptism. Unless, of course, you are so intent on reading your own denomination's traditions into the Bible that you think every reference to water refers to a rite of baptism?

So what does your denomination say this refers to?

I note you removed " and the Holy Spirt" - was that deliberate?

PDN

Festus wrote: »

So what does your denomination say this refers to?

My denomination doesn't dictate to us how we must interpret every verse of Scripture.

My own personal view is that being 'born of water' refers either to natural birth, or, given Nicodemus' own position within Judaism, to being part of the Jewish nation. Context, as always, is vital here.

I note you removed " and the Holy Spirt" - was that deliberate?

I don't think the Third Person of the Trinity is going to be offended if I refer to Him as 'the Spirit' rather than 'the Holy Spirit'.

I said in my previous post "you hear Jesus talking about being born of water and of the Spirit".

So, in addition to his natural birth (or his Jewish identity) Nicodemus needed to be born again, or born of the Holy Spirit.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

My own personal view is that being 'born of water' refers either to natural birth, or, given Nicodemus' own position within Judaism, to being part of the Jewish nation. Context, as always, is vital here.

For me being born of woman refers to natural birth -

Perhaps you personal eisgeisis is leading you to believe that Christ was refering to amniotic fluid, or possibly even the later rise of evolutionary theory.

With reference to Judaeism while "being Jewish" culturally follows the maternal line they are not really Jews in spirit until circumcised at eight days told.

What say you of infant circumcision?

My understanding of the Bible is that the Apostles did away with circumcision and replaced it with baptism. That may be a rather loose interpretation but it suffices in this case.
If circumcision of Jews is performed at eight days should not the baptism of Christians not also be allowed to happen at a similar age of the parents so decide?

PDN

Festus wrote: »

For me being born of woman refers to natural birth -

Perhaps you personal eisgeisis is leading you to believe that Christ was refering to amniotic fluid, or possibly even the later rise of evolutionary theory

Perhaps, but I doubt it since I've no vested interested in amniotic fluid or evolutionary theory. Nevertheless I agree that it is better to be aware of our potential biases rather than being overly dogmatic on Scriptural phrases that are somewhat ambiguous.

With reference to Judaeism while "being Jewish" culturally follows the maternal line they are not really Jews in spirit until circumcised at eight days told.

What say you of infant circumcision?

Infant circumcision doesn't seem to do any harm. It is routinely carried out in the US, I understand. And at least one study suggests that it can be beneficial in reducing the incidence of HIV infection.

My understanding of the Bible is that the Apostles did away with circumcision and replaced it with baptism. That may be a rather loose interpretation but it suffices in this case.
If circumcision of Jews is performed at eight days should not the baptism of Christians not also be allowed to happen at a similar age of the parents so decide?

And my understanding of the Bible is that God did away with circumcision and replaced it with the circumcision of the heart - which refers to repentance and faith. And repentance is something we have to do for ourselves, no matter how willing our parents would be to do it for us.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

Apoc. 22:12-15

If you love me, keep my commandments.
- Jn. 14

The context of this discussion is Roman Catholic working-for-your-salvation. Those verses don't mention working for your salvation.

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

Probably because Catholics do not work-for-their-salvation any more than you do

I'm not interested in you saying it. I'm interested in you showing it. You have an earlier post to contend with (gaining merit for work you know gains merit whilst trying to figure out a way to do it for reasons other than to gain meritt)

And for good measure I'll throw in mortal sin. Am I right in assuming that if you don't get forgiven it, you'll perish for it? Going to a priest for absolution is an example of something you have to do btw.

philologos

Donatello - I don't deny that works are involved. Just works don't lead to salvation. When Jesus says He is going to judge according to the works it is more akin to the parable of the talents where each were given a sum of money to work with, one guy hides it and gives it back when the master returns. God prepares us for good works depending on how much we are willing to trust Him and submit to Him, if we don't trust Him and if we aren't willing to submit to Him we won't produce the natural fruits of faith.

See fruits is the best analogy you could use for something that grows naturally. Fruit will grow if the right conditions are there. Fruit in terms of Christianity will grow if the faith and trust in God is there. It's not that problematic as I would see it.

Festus - there seems to be a contradiction between Donatello's posts and your posts that is difficult to resolve.

PDN

philologos wrote: »

Donatello - I don't deny that works are involved. Just works don't lead to salvation. When Jesus says He is going to judge according to the works it is more akin to the parable of the talents where each were given a sum of money to work with, one guy hides it and gives it back when the master returns. God prepares us for good works depending on how much we are willing to trust Him and submit to Him, if we don't trust Him and if we aren't willing to submit to Him we won't produce the natural fruits of faith.

See fruits is the best analogy you could use for something that grows naturally. Fruit will grow if the right conditions are there. Fruit in terms of Christianity will grow if the faith and trust in God is there. It's not that problematic as I would see it.

Festus - there seems to be a contradiction between Donatello's posts and your posts that is difficult to resolve.

I think it was CS Lewis who used the illustration of a murder trial and a flower show.

He said that the idea of salvation being determined by our works is a bit like awaiting the verdict in a murder trial. Life and death hangs on the result and the air is full of tension.

Then Lewis went on to describe the rewards that we will receive in the age to come. He compared this to the awards in a flower show where everyone who gets an award is delighted but no-one gets sentenced to death.

Festus

philologos wrote: »

Festus - there seems to be a contradiction between Donatello's posts and your posts that is difficult to resolve.

Not really. Antisceptik is essentially arguing sola labora.

If you say to him that faith and works are required he ignores faith and says "see - works are required".

If that were true then many handicapped and injured cannot be saved if they cannot do works. for example.
Children who die before they can do work are equally not saved. for example.

Works are required of ALL Christians capable of it. Christ died for us. We must accept that (believe, faith), be baptised, keep the commandments and do His will.

I don't know where antiskeptic gets his ideas from. Probably conspiracy websites.

Bottom line - the Catholic Church he rails against is as ficticious as the Bible feeding his faith.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Not really. Antisceptik is essentially arguing sola labora.

If you say to him that faith and works are required he ignores faith and says "see - works are required".

Works aren't required in so far as they are God's to give to us. Works arise through faith.

Diagrammatically - Faith => Works not Works => Faith, or Works <=> Faith

I can see where antiskeptic is coming from in part. It is only by God's grace through Jesus Christ that I am even able to do good deeds in His name.

Festus wrote: »

If that were true then many handicapped and injured cannot be saved if they cannot do works. for example.
Children who die before they can do work are equally not saved. for example.

This makes you think that good deeds are restricted to the able bodied. There are disabled people who give a better witness to Jesus than many able bodied people. I'm not sure if you've heard of Nick Vujicic, but here's a video of him that was quite big on youtube a few years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4uG2kSdd-4

I think he's a better witness to Christ because of his disability than I am despite being able-bodied. Didn't Paul say that ultimately our weakness is our strength? (2 Corinthians 12)

Festus wrote: »

Works are required of ALL Christians capable of it. Christ died for us. We must accept that (believe, faith), be baptised, keep the commandments and do His will.

Works arise in all Christians naturally by faith and conviction in Jesus.

Festus wrote: »

Bottom line - the Catholic Church he rails against is as ficticious as the Bible feeding his faith.

Eh? Can we not cut out the vitriol Festus? I'm just interested in having a good discussion.

homer911

Festus wrote: »

I don't know where antiskeptic get's his ideas from. Probably conspiracy websites.

LOL - your crazy retorts brighten up my day

On an aside, I'm pretty sure your new signature contravenes Boards rules, either way it comes across as a bit childish

Festus

homer911 wrote: »

LOL - your crazy retorts brighten up my day

On an aside, I'm pretty sure your new signature contravenes Boards rules, either way it comes across as a bit childish

Can't see why the sig might offend any other than sinners but I have taken your borderline back seat modding on board and amended accordingly.

Festus

philologos wrote: »

Works aren't required in so far as they are God's to give to us. Works arise through faith.

Disagree. We do works unselfishly. Yes it is in Gods power through the Holy Spirit to direct us towards good works but ultimately it is our decision.
Equally those with no faith can do good works.
All will be judged according to their works and all includes those with no faith.

philologos wrote: »

I can see where antiskeptic is coming from in part. It is only by God's grace through Jesus Christ that I am even able to do good deeds in His name.

See above. If you did not know His name you could still do good works and you will be judged accordingly.

philologos wrote: »

This makes you think that good deeds are restricted to the able bodied. There are disabled people who give a better witness to Jesus than many able bodied people. I'm not sure if you've heard of Nick Vujicic, but here's a video of him that was quite big on youtube a few years ago:

I think he's a better witness to Christ because of his disability than I am despite being able-bodied. Didn't Paul say that ultimately our weakness is our strength? (2 Corinthians 12)

Consider those in a vegetative state. Those with lost minds.

philologos wrote: »

Works arise in all Christians naturally by faith and conviction in Jesus.

Agreed. It comes from wanting to please God. but works alone will not save you.

philologos wrote: »

Eh? Can we not cut out the vitriol Festus? I'm just interested in having a good discussion.

No vitriol, merely an observation. I too am interested in a good discussion. If someone wants to know why Catholics do certain things or hold certain beliefs and want to explore them that's fine.

Dismissing Catholicism as a works-for-salvation based faith simply because of some personal anti-catholic contempt is not acceptable. Making statements that going to confession is a work is derogatory. The discussion would be better served by exploring why Jesus gave the power to forgive sins to the Apostles and that the power He gave still resides in the world today.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

Disagree. We do works unselfishly. Yes it is in Gods power through the Holy Spirit to direct us towards good works but ultimately it is our decision.
Equally those with no faith can do good works.
All will be judged according to their works and all includes those with no faith.

It is our decision to believe in Christ. Those of a more Calvinist presuasion may disagree with me in that they would believe that God predestined for this person to believe in Christ. I don't know how God's foreknowledge works so out of pragmatism I would argue that it is our choice to believe. I may well be wrong. However once we give our lives over to Christ it is God that inclines and brings us to do good works in His name. By believing this naturally follows.

Festus wrote: »

See above. If you did not know His name you could still do good works and you will be judged accordingly.

I personally believe that one has to believe in Christ to be saved.

Festus wrote: »

Consider those in a vegetative state. Those with lost minds.

I can only trust God in respect to His judgement.

Festus wrote: »

Agreed. It comes from wanting to please God. but works alone will not save you.

Faith saves. Works don't. Works follow from faith. At least in how I would see it.