Jew/ Gentile

[Lamb]

My points are that we are, as avid believers in the Word of GOD, the spiritual remnant of Israel, and that the law that is written on the hearts of man is to be followed and not put off or ignored.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

God's Law is Holy and we follow it because we love Him. We don't follow it to earn a spot in heaven though. Is there a certain law that you're hinting at that you feel people put off or ignore?

 

[Cassia]

God's Law is Holy and we follow it because we love Him. We don't follow it to earn a spot in heaven though. Is there a certain law that you're hinting at that you feel people put off or ignore?

Paul has said it's like running a race so as not to lose the prize, not shadow boxing but disciplining self.

 

[Cassia]

God's Law is Holy and we follow it because we love Him. We don't follow it to earn a spot in heaven though. Is there a certain law that you're hinting at that you feel people put off or ignore?

Paul has said it's like running a race so as not to lose the prize, not shadow boxing but disciplining self. John says this

1 John 2:5-6
We truly love God only when we obey him as we should, and then we know that we belong to him. If we say we are his, we must follow the example of Christ

 

[popsthebuilder]

God's Law is Holy and we follow it because we love Him. We don't follow it to earn a spot in heaven though. Is there a certain law that you're hinting at that you feel people put off or ignore?

I am very aware that we must not do for reward, nor must we not do solely out of fear of consiquince.

What law?

Matthew: 5. 44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47. And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Romans: 12. 17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

That one.

There is only one other command and it is like unto the other. The rest of the law is accomplished in following/doing the two commands of the Christ in devout love and indentured servitude.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Lamb]

I am very aware that we must not do for reward, nor must we not do solely out of fear of consiquince.

What law?

Matthew: 5. 44. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45. That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47. And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

Romans: 12. 17. Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. 18. If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men. 19. Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. 20. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 21. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

That one.

There is only one other command and it is like unto the other. The rest of the law is accomplished in following/doing the two commands of the Christ in devout love and indentured servitude.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I agree that men do not love their neighbors as they should. None of us can perfectly do that even though we are called to do so. I believe that men are lovers of self more than God and neighbor. We keep getting in our own way.

 

[popsthebuilder]

I agree that men do not love their neighbors as they should. None of us can perfectly do that even though we are called to do so. I believe that men are lovers of self more than God and neighbor. We keep getting in our own way.

I agree that none can attain to perfection in the command but believe we are to strive to until the end of our capacities to do so, by which I mean death.



Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

In Post #30 on Page 3, Pedrito had made reference to a comment he had remembered MoreCoffee making some time ago in this forum:

(That latter thought seems to conflict with a thought previously expressed elsewhere that people from other religions will benefit from Jesus’ death, but Protestants won’t.)

That was in response to MoreCoffee’s statement in Post #23 on Page 3:

...Jesus came to serve and to offer his life as a ransom for many... - and his mission does not include any who do not want to be united with him

Pedrito was asked (quite appropriately) by Cassia (Post #31 on Page 4) for clarification of the source of that comment, and MoreCoffee (Post #32 on Page 4) responded thus:

Pedrito's post contained fragments from one of my posts but he incorrectly attributes views to _somebody_ that I've never seen expressed here in CH. The post he quoted from says the following.

Pedrito has taken some time to respond because he has been trying to find the particular post in the particular thread he was referring to. However, MoreCoffee is such a prolific poster (that is an observation, not a criticism – MoreCoffee’s fertile mind is to be commended) that Pedrito has thus far been unable to locate it. However, Pedrito remembers the comment to be a summation in one of those MoreCoffee posts characterised by long cut-and-paste insertions from Roman Catholic (RCC) sources.

So Pedrito has decided to abandon the search, and go back to original sources and see what they reveal.

In the RCC Catechism* within the sections The Church and non-Christians and "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (encompassing items 839 to 949, with the clarifying statements included therein), we see the following:

“"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.**​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”***​

So, non-Christians have the chance of salvation, but Protestants do not. That was the summary (worded slightly differently), and the basis for it.

(Unless of course, that is somehow overridden by the RCC’s relatively recent recognition as valid, of the baptismal rites performed in some specific non-RCC churches. More on that later.)


* [a href=”URL”]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm[/a]

** (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 14, from the documents of Vatican II))

*** (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 16, from the documents of Vatican II))

Might we now see a way out emerge, based on the premise that not all Protestants would fall into the category of "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ"?

 

[user1234]

(Unless of course, that is somehow overridden by the RCC
’s relatively recent recognition as valid, of the baptismal rites performed in some specific non-RCC
churches. More on that later.)

Thought I would attempt to post, since it's been a while, maybe things are cool now.
This was an interesting statement and I look fwd to the expansion of it, what specific non-RCatholic churches is Pedrito referring to and how did they determine which are okay and which are not, and why did they decide to do that.
Thanks.

 

[Cassia]

In Post #30 on Page 3, Pedrito had made reference to a comment he had remembered MoreCoffee making some time ago in this forum:

That was in response to MoreCoffee’s statement in Post #23 on Page 3:


Pedrito was asked (quite appropriately) by Cassia (Post #31 on Page 4) for clarification of the source of that comment, and MoreCoffee (Post #32 on Page 4) responded thus:


Pedrito has taken some time to respond because he has been trying to find the particular post in the particular thread he was referring to. However, MoreCoffee is such a prolific poster (that is an observation, not a criticism – MoreCoffee’s fertile mind is to be commended) that Pedrito has thus far been unable to locate it. However, Pedrito remembers the comment to be a summation in one of those MoreCoffee posts characterised by long cut-and-paste insertions from Roman Catholic (RCC) sources.

So Pedrito has decided to abandon the search, and go back to original sources and see what they reveal.

In the RCC Catechism* within the sections The Church and non-Christians and "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (encompassing items 839 to 949, with the clarifying statements included therein), we see the following:

“"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.**​

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.”***​

So, non-Christians have the chance of salvation, but Protestants do not. That was the summary (worded slightly differently), and the basis for it.

(Unless of course, that is somehow overridden by the RCC’s relatively recent recognition as valid, of the baptismal rites performed in some specific non-RCC churches. More on that later.)


* [a href=”URL”]http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm[/a]

** (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 14, from the documents of Vatican II))

*** (The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, “Lumen Gentium,” 16, from the documents of Vatican II))

Might we now see a way out emerge, based on the premise that not all Protestants would fall into the category of "knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ"?

Hi Peditro. Because you had posted this in answer to a question that I asked I thought it necessary to answer with my opinion on the above statements/dogma/whatever of views expressed and what I see to be used from scripture to obtain that view.

The Church/Body is not a building or a group of people affiliated with any human organization. The church visable is made up of wheat and tares. The tares are not Protestants any more than the wheat is RCC. Visable to the world is a huge mustard tree that has devils nesting in it. An abomination of nature since the mustard seed only grows into a small bush by nature.
The Church invisable is made up of those who are in the dwelling of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. That is the true Church/Body from all those who love, are led, abiding in Him, therefore hidden by God in Christ.

Scripturally where ever 2 or more are gathered in His Name He is there in the midst of them. What does it mean to be gathered in His Name? Whatever it is it is not in vain. We pray in His Name. To me they are those who come to Him at the throne of grace to receive what He has to offer, a daily refreshing that allows them to move thru this world in communion with the Son. ie: being in the same nature, not of that nature of sin and death
1 Corinthians 1:9
GOD is faithful, by whom ye were called into the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord.

Who then are those to whom the word has not come that get in anyway according to ECF teachings? The angels rejoice when the Shepard leaves the 99 and goes in search of the one lost lamb and brings him home. To me that means that He has given to His body sufficient for them to carry on in His absence and like the good samaritan has also paid the price to bring the wounded to the inn to be cared for so are also those with a responsibility to carry out in His absence.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Thank you for reminding me of the good shepard. It will be of use elsewhere.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Cassia]

np. Tho He has gone we're still told to be where He is. Actually I think that whole analogy is loving God wholeheartedly and also neighbour as oneself but the way the ECF voiced it is much too coded.

 

[popsthebuilder]

np. Tho He has gone we're still told to be where He is. Actually I think that whole analogy is loving God wholeheartedly and also neighbour as oneself but the way the ECF voiced it is much too coded.

Ecf?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Cassia]

Ecf?

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Early church fathers. Perhaps what was posted was from a later date than that, I don't know.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Early church fathers. Perhaps what was posted was from a later date than that, I don't know.

Oh....you find the writings of the ecf to be too cryptic? Or am I wholly confused again?

I personally find them edifying.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Cassia]

Oh....you find the writings of the ecf to be too cryptic? Or am I wholly confused again?

I personally find them edifying.

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I found the articals that Pedrito posted cryptic to the more simplified interpretation that I offered. Does it make more sence to you in a different way than what i posted?

 

[popsthebuilder]

I found the articals that Pedrito posted cryptic to the more simplified interpretation that I offered. Does it make more sence to you in a different way than what i posted?

Oh...yeah......no, I was confused. I thought you were talking about the writings ascribed to the ecf that aren't found in the standard issue bible.

As far as him being cryptic; I generally find his style to the point and with minimal bias, but i don't really follow the divisions of particular sects too much. So I'm not really in a position to comment on the substance of his post.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Pedrito]

In his previous post (Post #47 on Page 5) Pedrito presented information from Roman Catholic (RCC) sources, showing that RCC teaching does include the concept that non-Christians have the chance of salvation, but Protestants do not.

However, by way of contrast, it may be interesting to note that in various places around the world, local “sub-branches” (archbishoprics, bishoprics? (even cardinals)) have recognised the baptism of some non-RCC churches. (A Google search will identify the relevant reference pages.)

The problem is that the recognitions are inconsistent.

The recognition in say, the USA, conflicts with the recognition in say, Australia. Let alone various European recognitions.

==============================================================================================

Some obvious and sensible questions naturally come to mind.

1. Do those agreements invalidate the statement made in the RCC Catechism?

2. If members of non-RCC churches having acceptable baptismal rites in one region, qualify for salvation, what is the fate of members of those same churches in areas where their baptismal rites are still considered unacceptable?

3. Does the inconsistency with respect to baptismal rite recognition, actually show that those regional proclamations lack validity? Especially since their implication conflicts with the official RCC Catechism?

==============================================================================================

The above questions are indeed relevant with respect to God’s redemptive provision and operation with respect to both Jews and Gentiles.

The veracity of any religious organisation (with respect to any claim it may make to represent the true Gospel, the true mechanism of salvation set in place by God) is thrown into serious doubt if inconsistency, imprecision, and/or variation of doctrine and practice over time, are evident.

==============================================================================================

How do various individual religious organisations represented this forum, measure up in that regard?

And just what was the original Gospel – the original Gospel that has diverged into so many conflicting variations?

==============================================================================================

For Snerfle. A few links out of many:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-te...an-Catholic-Reformed-Church-Dialogue-2011.pdf

https://www.oikoumene.org/en/press-...-recognized-in-european-and-american-churches

http://www.ucc.org/catholic-bishops-approve

http://www.qct.org.au/index.php?opt...nd-american-churches&catid=1:latest&Itemid=39

https://www.catholic.org.au/acbc-me...handbook-1/1389-recognition-of-baptism-1/file

 

[Cassia]

Oh...yeah......no, I was confused. I thought you were talking about the writings ascribed to the ecf that aren't found in the standard issue bible.

As far as him being cryptic; I generally find his style to the point and with minimal bias, but i don't really follow the divisions of particular sects too much. So I'm not really in a position to comment on the substance of his post.

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

I was. Fwiw the ecf are not part of RCC exclusively. The writings belong to the church in common.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Okay people; I'm hearing some really strange things lately ( from professing Christians) and would like to speak about them here because they are relevent and I do find that those here are seemingly genuine in their faith.

I'll keep it to the point until questions or comments are made in response.

1) two separate gospels for two sets of people. I find this wholly wrong, but welcome leveled civil conversation about it.

2)the Christ of GOD had two agendas; neither of which was the salvation of All. Same as #1

3)the utter judgement/condemnation, and total degradation of fellow Christians is not only okay, but is righteous; condemning any who may seek yet be ignorant. Also allowing for a hierarchy though All are sinners. My sentiment towards this this issue is the same as it is for the first and second.

Any input would be very welcome. I will not be attacking anyone here regardless of their position and do look to help the understanding of myself and others elsewhere.

Thank you all,

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

 

[Cassia]

Okay people; I'm hearing some really strange things lately ( from professing Christians) and would like to speak about them here because they are relevent and I do find that those here are seemingly genuine in their faith.

I'll keep it to the point until questions or comments are made in response.

1) two separate gospels for two sets of people. I find this wholly wrong, but welcome leveled civil conversation about it.

2)the Christ of GOD had two agendas; neither of which was the salvation of All. Same as #1

3)the utter judgement/condemnation, and total degradation of fellow Christians is not only okay, but I righteous; condemning any who may seek yet be ignorant. Also allowing for a hierarchy though All are sinners. My sentiment towards this this issue is the same as it is for the first and second.

Any input would be very welcome. I will not be attacking anyone here regardless of their position and do look to help the understanding of myself and others elsewhere.

Thank you all,

peace

Sent from my Alcatel_6055U using Tapatalk

Is that directed at me? You need to be much more specific on 1,2,3