Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    Eric,
    
     I wish I could get it.  It sounds very interesting.
    
    
     >but better late than never.
    
    better never late. :-)

    Eric:
    
    This sounds interesting.  I just might give them a call, not with the
    attitude of trying to stump them so much, but challenging a brother in
    their walk with Christ!!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

    This is a very sensitive issue, but one I feel the need to address.  Mods, 
    if this is the wrong topic, feel free to move it.

In studying the book of Romans, it is interesting to note the great respect Paul
had for the Church of Rome in that day.  The entire book is the pinnacle of the
Gospel according to the Grace of God!  However, in chapter 16, Paul finishes
with some warnings to the Church of Rome.  In verses 17-18, Paul provides the
strongest warnings to the Roman church.  Couple this with 1 Timothy 4:1-6, and
you see how prophetic Paul's warnings were and how the Church of Rome ignored
his warnings.

Recently, you read of the historic agreement between the Catholic church and
evangelical Christians including Pat Robertson and Chuck Colson.  In this
agreement, the evangelical Christians promised to join forces with Catholics to
fight the moral decline of society.  They also promised to no longer share
their faith with Catholics to prevent any more people from leaving the Church
of Rome.  As a Christian, I will continue to support my Catholic brothers and
sisters in fighting issues that are common to us, but I cannot agree to
everything that Pat Robertson and Chuck Colson have agreed to.  You may be
asking "Why not?", but I assure you the reasons are simple.  You can be sure
that I will continue to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and God's Word with
members of the Church of Rome.

First of all, the Council of Trent declared Anathema on every evangelical
doctrine (~100 doctrines), and their supporters.  All of these were upheld by
Vatican II.  These doctrines include crucial doctrines such as salvation by
grace instead of works and assurance of salvation.

Secondly, the Church of Rome has gradually departed from the Word of God to a
point that they are too drastically doctrinally different from the evangelical
Christian church.  Here are examples of what I'm talking about (all dates AD):

310 - Prayers for the dead introduced.
375 - Worship of saints.
394 - The Mass adopted.
432 - The worship of Mary began to develop.
500 - Priests began to assume distinctive robes.
593 - The doctrine of Purgatory introduced.
606 - Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm root.
650 - Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary introduced.
788 - The worship of images and relics authorized.
850 - Invention of Holy Water.
993 - The canonization of saints formalized.
1074 - Celibacy of the priesthood declared.
1076 - The dogma of Papal infallibility announced.
1090 - Prayer beads (Rosary) introduced.
1215 - Transubstantiation adopted.
1215 - Confession instituted.
1220 - Adoration of the wafer.
1316 - The Ave Maria introduced.
1415 - The cup taken from the laity.
1439 - Purgatory decreed.
1546 - Roman tradition placed on the same level as Scripture.
1546 - The Apocrypha received into the Canon.
1854 - Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary announced.
1950 - The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven.

I'm really not sure why you would post the claim that Catholics "worship"
Mary.  That has been pointed out time and time again to be false.  Honor,
yes.  Worship, no.  Worship is due to God alone.

/john

    Also, Transubstantiantion and Confession were instituted by Jesus
    Christ.

    See Matthew 26 & John 20:22-23


    Jim

I have a more detailed reply, refuting the errors of this bogus list which 
was posted, but first I will post my own version of events in Christian 
history. 

200-400 B.C.? Judas Maccabeus, leader of the Jews fighting pagan influence
  of the Greeks, writes about purgatory, prayer to saints, and prayer for
  the dead in his accounts, 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees.
1st century - Josephus, Jewish historian, writes about Purgatory in his 
      Discourse on Hades.

 33 - Jesus Christ establishes the Catholic Church.
 80 - Pope St. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians to rebuke them for
      disobeying their presbyters.
    - Pope St. Clement of Rome explains the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.
 90?- St. John the Evangelist dies.
110 - Earliest known reference to "the Catholic Church" by St. Ignatius of
      Antioch.
    - St. Ignatius of Antioch rebukes as unorthodox those who deny that the
      Eucharist is truly the Body and Blood of Christ, which was born of the
      Virgin Mary and suffered and died for our sins.
    - St. Ignatius of Antioch praises the Church of Rome for its infallibility
      and supreme authority.
    - St. Ignatius of Antioch urges that nothing be done without the bishop,
      who stands in the place of God, and urges obedience to the presbyters 
      and deacons as well.
    - St. Ignatius of Antioch says that the Eucharist is only valid when
      "celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints."
120 - The Didache calls the Eucharist a "sacrifice", alludes to Purgatory,
      and urges Christians to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays.
150 - St. Justin Martyr explains the Mass and transubstantiation, and 
      identifies water baptism as the meaning of "born again" in John 3:3.
155 - The Martyrdom of Polycarp explains why Christians venerate the bones 
      (relics) of the martyrs.
180 - St. Irenaeus of Lyons, in his work Against Heresies, says that all
      churches must agree with the Church of Rome "because of its superior
      origin".
      St. Irenaeus says that the Apostles instructed that successors
      to them be appointed, and warns that those Christians who assemble
      wherever they wish and do not have apostlic succession "must be held
      in suspicion."
      St. Irenaeus explains the Sacrifice of the New Covenant, the
      Eucharist, referring to Mal 1:11, and affirms transubstantiation.
      St. Irenaeus explains that Scripture and Tradition are both part of
      the true doctrine of the Apostles.
202 - The martyrdom Sts. Perpetua and Felicity demonstrates that prayer for
      the dead and Purgatory were believed by the early Christians.
230 - Tertullian explains that Christian truth is that which does not deviate
      from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.
244 - Origen discusses verbal confession to priests.
251 - St. Cyprian of Carthage says that there is one priesthood, one Church,
      and one Chair of Peter in Rome on which the whole church is founded.
      St. Cyprian discusses the reconciliation of serious sinners to the church
      by their doing penance, verbal confessing to priests and laying on of
      hands.
252 - St. Cyprian of Carthage says that the Church of Rome cannot fall into
      error and is the source of the unity of the Christian priesthood.
258 - St. Cyprian of Carthage explains the Christian sacrificial priesthood
      and the theology of Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
311 - *** CHRISTIANITY IS LEGALIZED; ROMAN PERSECUTION ENDS ***
325 - *** COUNCIL OF NICEA DEFINES THE DOGMA OF THE TRINITY AND DEITY OF
      CHRIST ***
350 - St. Cyril of Jerusalem explains in detail the theology of 
      transubstantiation.
382 - Pope St. Damascus promulgates the same Canon of the Old Testament that
      the Council of Trent declared as dogmatic.
383 - St. Jerome defends the perpetual virginity of Mary against an Arian.
388 - St. Ambrose of Milan says that Mary is undefiled, inviolate, and free of
      every stain of sin.
392 - Council of Hippo includes "apocryphal" books in the canon of the OT.
395 - St. Augustine includes "apocryphal" books in the canon of the OT.
397 - Council of Carthage includes "apocryphal" books in the canon of the OT.
397?- *** COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE DEFINES THE DOGMA OF THE DEITY OF THE HOLY
      SPIRIT ***
400 - St. Augustine of Hippo claims that we honor and ask the Saints in heaven
      to pray for us, but we do not give them the worship due God alone.
      St. Augustine says that not only do we worship the Eucharist, we would
      sin if we did not do so.
405 - St. Innocent I includes "apocryphal" books in the canon of the OT.
406 - St. Jerome rebukes Vigilantius for denying that the Saints who are in
      heaven cannot pray for us and we cannot benefit from their prayers.
410 - St. Jerome denies that we worship martyrs and relics, but that we
      venerate them "in order the better to adore Him whose martyrs they are."
417 - Pope St. Innocent I asserts his "total authority" and his position as
      the supreme [earthly] leader of the Christian Church to the bishops at 
      the Council of Carthage.
422 - Pope St. Boniface I dies, but not before having written that the Roman 
      Church is the visible head of the Catholic Church and anyone who 
      separates himself from it becomes an "exile from the Christian religion."
425 - ** THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IS PROMULGATED AND FINALIZED ***
      Before this point, the canon of the NT was in a large state of flux, and
      it took many years after this for all the churches to accept the defined
      canon.
426 - St. Augustine explains the theology of purgatory.
429 - St. Cyril of Alexandria explains the use of images: "Even if we make
      images of pious men it is not so that we might adore them as gods but
      that when we see them we might be prompted to imitate them; and if we
      make images of Christ, it is so our minds might wing aloft in yearning
      for Him." 
431 - The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned those who denied Mary the
      title "Mother of God."
434 - St. Vincent of Lerins explains that it is necessary to believe Tradition 
      as well as Scripture because of all the distorted meanings which heretics
      ascribe to the Sacred Scriptures.
496 - Pope St. Gelasius dies, but not before having written that the Church 
      of Rome has universal jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church.

> In studying the book of Romans, it is interesting to note the great respect
> Paul had for the Church of Rome in that day.  The entire book is the pinnacle
> of the Gospel according to the Grace of God!  However, in chapter 16, Paul
> finishes with some warnings to the Church of Rome.  In verses 17-18, Paul
> provides the strongest warnings to the Roman church.  Couple this with 1
> Timothy 4:1-6, and you see how prophetic Paul's warnings were and how the
> Church of Rome ignored his warnings.

As a matter of fact, most of these same doctrines which you claim are errors of
Rome are not only doctrines of the Church of Rome, but also doctrines of the
Church of Antioch, the Church of Assyria, the Church of Alexandria, the Church
of Constantinople, the Church of Babylonia, the Church of Armenia, the Church
of Moscow, the Church of L'vov, the Church of Kiev, and on and on.  Yes, these
are churches, and they exist to this day: some are in communion with the Church
of Rome, some are not.

I am a member of the Church of L'vov, more commonly known as the Ukrainian
Church. 

But you will notice that while these churches, over the years, have had various
disputes with the Church of Rome, and in some cases separated fully from her,
they have shared with the Church of Rome virtually all of the doctrines which
you claim were corrupted in the Church of Rome alone.  What you believe to be
errors of the Church of Rome are actually beliefs universal to all ancient
Christian churches since Pentecost.

> You can be sure that I will continue to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ and
> God's Word with members of the Church of Rome.

If yours is the true Gospel and the gospel of the Church of Rome is false, then
why is there no record of the unique doctrines of your Gospel being taught,
except some of them by small groups of heretics, prior to the Reformation?  Why
is it true that anyone who makes a historical investigation will find that your
Gospel, where it differs from the Catholic Gospel, had no existence in the
early church?

> First of all, the Council of Trent declared Anathema on every evangelical
> doctrine (~100 doctrines), and their supporters.  All of these were upheld by
> Vatican II.  These doctrines include crucial doctrines such as salvation by
> grace instead of works and assurance of salvation.

Number one, Trent did not condemn salvation by grace, but upheld it:

Can. 1.  If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works,
whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,
without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Can. 2. If anyone says that divine grace through Christ Jesus is given for this
only, that man may be able more easily to live justly and to merit eternal
life, as if by free will without grace he is able to do both, though with
hardship and difficulty, let him be anathema.

(from the Sixth Session on justification). I can also quote from numerous
sources, both before and after Trent, that prove that the Catholic Church has
never believed the salvation was by works, but has always believed it is by
grace.

But in general, the issue of "salvation by grace instead of works" is a loaded
issue, because different people understand this in different ways.  Luther, for
example, understood it to mean that no matter how much someone may sin, even
if they commit adultery a thousand times a day (his own example), as long as
they believe, they are saved.  Not too many evangelicals take this viewpoint
today.  The Catholic understanding of this says that we are saved by grace
through faith, but through faith working in love; it also affirms, with St.
James (chapter 5), that faith without works is dead.  The Catholic will
certainly agree that salvation is by grace and not through works, for there is
nothing we can do to earn our salvation or grace; but he will not affirm that
faith without works can save, but that the believer must cooperate with God:

Can. 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning
that nothing else is required in order to cooperate in order to obtain the
grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be
prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Justification)

Luther insisted that man is unable to cooperate with God at all.  The Catholic
Church teaches that God's unmerited grace enables man to cooperate with God and
respond to His grace.

Number two, you are naive to think that the evangelicals all agree universally
on the same doctrines, whether it is assurance of salvation or the doctrines
condemned by Trent.  Protestants began disagreeing on many of these doctrines
at the Reformation and it is has only gotten worse.  To portray evangelicals as
a monolithic, united faith is fallacious.

> Secondly, the Church of Rome has gradually departed from the Word of God to a
> point that they are too drastically doctrinally different from the
> evangelical Christian church.  Here are examples of what I'm talking about
> (all dates AD):

What you have quoted (lifted, by the way, it appears, from Loraine Boettner's
_Roman Catholicism_), is, like Boettner's books, full of distortions and
outright lies.  And I will prove it to you. (You will note, by the way, that
there are no references to back up these assertions.)  Also see the Catholic
Answers refutation of these lies in the HASTUR::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY conference,
notes 1047.16 and 1047.33.

While these items talk of things being "introduced", this is really fallacious,
because it suggests that they did not exist before this point in any form, and
were in some way invented and foreign to the Christian faith.  In reality, you
cannot prove that any of them were "invented" at a particular point; the best
you can do is find the earliest known reference to the given belief.

These so-called "facts" can be easily disproved by finding examples of the
supposed invention in the writings of the early Christians which precede the
given date.

> 310 - Prayers for the dead introduced.

In the Christian era, one need only to go to the Passion of Saints Perpetua and
Felicity, 202 A.D., to see an example of both a strong belief in Purgatory and
in prayers for the dead.  But one need not even go this far; one can see the
teaching of prayers for the dead in the Jewish writing 2 Maccabees, which
Protestants do not consider canonical, but they at least agree that it was
written several hundred years before Christ by a Jew.

> 375 - Worship of saints.

Catholics don't worship saints and never have.  St. Augustine refuted this very
nonsense shortly after this date.  However, Catholics have asked saints for
their prayers and intercessions, according to 2 Maccabees and the model of
Revelation 5:8, long before this; one can find such prayers in the catecombs
inscribed by Christians under persecution before the 4th century.

> 394 - The Mass adopted.

This begs the question: what do you mean by "Mass"?  Christians have always 
worshipped liturgically: after all, they were originally Jews, and thats how
the Jews worshipped, since God told them to do it that way!  The form of the
Roman Rite liturgy, which we call today the Mass, has roots long before 394 and
some of the prayers have remained the same.  The liturgies of other Rites even
have Apostolic roots: it is said that St. Mark's liturgy forms the basis of the
liturgy of the Church of Alexandria and that St. James's liturgy forms the
basis of the liturgy of the Church of Constantinople and other Byzantine
churches.

From the very beginning, Christian liturgy has centered around the Sacrifice of
the Eucharist: I would point you to the 1st-century Didache and the letter of
St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians chapter 40 (80 A.D.).  St. Justin Martyr
in around 150 A.D. gives us our earliest known description of the Mass, and it
bears close resemblance to the Catholic liturgy of today.

> 432 - The worship of Mary began to develop.

Again, Catholics don't worship Mary and never have. But it is interesting to
note that Constantine (early 4th century) dedicated Constantiple to her.

> 500 - Priests began to assume distinctive robes.

Actually what the priest wears is based on garments worn in ancient Rome.  What
changed was not what the priest wore, but what the laity wore; what the priests
wore remained the same.

> 593 - The doctrine of Purgatory introduced.

As I have already explained, this doctrine already existed by 202 A.D.  It is
found in the pre-Christ Jewish writing of 2 Maccabees, and is also found in the
writings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus. But I believe that
Purgatory is at least implied by Scripture.

> 606 - Claims to Papal Supremacy took firm root.

Ah, so he backs off here a little bit now: "took firm root." Well, in 80 A.D.,
the Pope of Rome, St. Clement, the fourth successor to St. Peter (the early
Christians kept track of these things), wrote a letter to the Corinthians
rebuking them.  In 110 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the
Church of Rome and praised her for her infallibility and supremacy:

St. Ignatius of Antioch, To the Romans, Introduction, 110 A.D.:

Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in
the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His
only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the
will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards
Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the
country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of
honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the
law of Christ and bearing the Father's name; which church also I
salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them
that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being
filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear
from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God
in blamelessness.

And also:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 180 A.D., 3,3,2

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the
successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever
manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness
and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out
here the succsssions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church
known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles,
Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and faith which comes
down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.  For with this
Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all
the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere
have maintained the Apostolic tradition.

Letter of St. Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome, A.D. 252 59 (55), 14

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set
sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter
and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did
they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the
preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have
entrance.

St. Opatatus of Milevis, The Schism of the Donatists, ca. A.D. 367, 2,2:

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair
was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was
head--that is why he is also called Cephas--of all the Apostles; the one chair
in which unity is maintained by all.  Neither do other Apostles proceed
individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in
opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, but a schismatic and
a sinner. . . .  I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who
wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.

Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, A.D. 374-379, 15,2
I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your
Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter.  I know that this is the rock on
which the Church has been built.  Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is
profane.  Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood
prevails.

16,2
The Church here is split into three parts, each teacher to seize me for its
own.  . .  Meanwhile I keep crying: "He that is joined to the chair of Peter
is accepted by me!"  Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus each claims to be loyal
to you, which I could believe did only one make the claim.  As it is, either
two of them are lying, or else all three.  Therefore I implore Your
Blessedness by the cross of the Lord, by the necessary glory of our faith, the
Passion of Christ -- that as you follow the Apostles in dignity may you follow
them also in worth,-- . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should
communicate in Syria.  Despise not a soul for whom Christ died!

Letter of Pope St. Innocent I to the Fathers of the Council of Carthage,
417 A.D. 29,1

In seeking the things of God, . . . . following the examples of ancient
tradition, . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with
true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us,
and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us
placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself from whom
the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged.
Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to
approve what is laudable.  Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what
the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human
but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on.  They did not regard
anything as finished even though it was the concern of distant and remote
provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just
pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See, and thence
other Churches,--just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and,
through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an
uncorrupted head,--might take up what they ought to teach, whom they ought to
wash, whom the water worthy of clean bodies would shun as being soiled with a
filth incapable of being cleansed.

St Augustine, Sermon 15 on the Saints:
Our forefathers gave the name `Chair' to this feast so that we might remember
that the Prince of the Apostles was entrusted with the `Chair' of the
episcopate ...  Blessed be God, who deigned to exalt the apostle Peter over
the whole Church.  It is most fitting that this foundation be honoured since
it is the means by which we may ascend to Heaven.

St. Ephraim (d. 373), Homilies, 4,1:
Simon, My follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I
betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are
the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for Me. If they should
wish to build that is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are
the head of the fountain from which My teaching flows, you are the chief of My
disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that
life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were,
the first-born in My institution, and so that, as the heir, you may be executor
of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given
you authority over all my treasures!

> 650 - Feasts in honor of the Virgin Mary introduced.

This is possibly the most accurate statement given so far.  But so what if it
is true?  Christmas was not introduced for several centuries, either.

> 788 - The worship of images and relics authorized.

<sigh> here we go again.  We do not and never have worshipped relics or
images.  An example of the veneration Christians have given to the bones of the
martyrs can be found in the acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 155 A.D.  The
date 788 comes most likely from the date of the 2nd Council of Nicea
which resolved the Iconoclast heresy, where Christians, inspired by the
Muslims, started attempting to destroy icons.

> 850 - Invention of Holy Water.

Hardly.  You can find Holy Water in the Old Testament, and Holy Oil too.

> 993 - The canonization of saints formalized.

"Formalized"?  What does that mean?  Of course, elevating certain people 
asleep in the Lord to the status of "Saint" goes back at least to the 4th
century if not earlier.

> 1074 - Celibacy of the priesthood declared.

"Declared"?  What does this mean?  After all, Christ was celibate, as was
St. Paul.  Both of them regarded celibacy as the higher state according to
Scripture.  Clerical celibacy was a practice long before it was legislated in
the Western part of the church, but even today, it is not universally mandatory
in the church.

> 1076 - The dogma of Papal infallibility announced.

Wrong; it was 1870.  But as I have mentioned, earlier, it was believed long
before this.

> 1090 - Prayer beads (Rosary) introduced.

As if this would make a difference, even if it were true!

> 1215 - Transubstantiation adopted.

Ignatius of Antioch, Smyrnaeans, Chapter 6, 110 A.D.:

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ
which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of
God ... They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not
confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh
which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up
again.  They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes.

Justin Martyr, Apology, I.66-67, 150 A.D.:

Communion in the Body and Blood of Christ

It is allowed to no one else to participate in that food which we call
Eucharist except the one who believes that the things taught by us are true,
who has been cleansed in the washing unto rebirth and the forgiveness of sins
and who is living according to the way Christ handed on to us.  For we do not
take these things as ordinary bread or ordinary drink.  Just as our Savior
Jesus Christ was made flesh by the word of God and took on flesh and blood for
our salvation, so also were we taught that the food, for which thanksgiving
has been made through the word of prayer instituted by him, and from which our
blood and flesh are nourished after the change, is the flesh of that Jesus who
was made flesh.  Indeed, the Apostles, in the records left by them which are
called gospels, handed on that it was commanded to them in this manner: Jesus,
having taken bread and given thanks said, ``Do this in memory of me, this is
my body.''  Likewise, having taken the cup and given thanks, he said, ``This
is my blood'', and he gave it to them alone.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Discourses (A.D. 350):

The bread and the wine of the Eucharist before the holy invocation of the
adorable Trinity were simple bread and wine, but the invocation having been
made, the bread becomes the body of Christ and the wine the blood of Christ
...  Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that; for they
are, according to the Master's declaration, the body and blood of Christ.
Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm.  Do
not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by the faith, not
doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ ...
[Since you are] fully convinced that the apparent bread is not bread, even
though it is sensible to the taste, but the body of Christ, and that the
apparent wine is not wine, even though the taste would have it so, ... partake
of that bread as something spiritual and put a cheerful face on your soul.
-----
What happen in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council was that the traditional
Christian doctrine all the way back to St. Ignatius of Antioch was dogmatically
defined and formally given the name "transubstantiation."  But as you can see,
it was believed long before then.

> 1215 - Confession instituted.

Wrong again; see the Shepherd of Hermas, 155 A.D.; St. Cyprian, 251 A.D.;
Origen, 244 A.D.; and many others.  What happened in 1215 was simply that it
was declared -- again, by the Fourth Lateran Council -- that everyone was
bound to confess their sins at least once a year.

> 1220 - Adoration of the wafer.

The "wafer", of course, refers to the Body of Christ, the Eucharist.

St. Augustine, "In Ps." 98, 9; P.L. 37, 1264, c. 400 A.D.:

"It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He
has given us to eat for our salvation.  No one, however, eats of this without
having first adored [=worship] it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus
adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so."

> 1316 - The Ave Maria introduced.
> 1415 - The cup taken from the laity.

Irrelevant.  I might add that it was only in the Western world that the
reception of communion under the form of wine was withheld from the laity;
in the East it continued uninterrupted until this day.

> 1439 - Purgatory decreed.

I have already explained how this doctrine existed in Judaism before Christ,
and was believed by the early church.  Assuming the date is correct, the
Council of Trent at this time simply defined it dogmatically; but even then,
it was defined dogmatically already around the 13th century.

[tradition in next note]

> 1546 - The Apocrypha received into the Canon.

Hardly; the Pope, and various councils throughout the years, had already
included them as canonical around the same time that the New Testament canon
was created, that is, the 4th/5th century.

Given that the Christians have always used the larger canon, I think that it is
more accurate to say that the Protestants REMOVED by deuterocanonical books,
and I can prove this historically.  Can you?

> 1854 - Immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary announced.

Again, a doctrine believed long before it was formally declared dogmatic.

St. Ephraim, Nisibene Hymns 27,8 (c. 370 A.D.)
You alone and your Mother 
  are more beautiful than any others; 
For there is no blemish in you,
  nor any stains upon your Mother.
Who of my children
  can compare in beauty to these?

St. Ambrose of Milan, On Psalm 118, 22, 30 (circa 388 A.D.)
Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men,
but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in
Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but
a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.

St. Augustine of Hippo, Nature and Grace, 36, 42 circa 415:
Having excepted the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom, on account of the honor
of the Lord, I wish to have absolutely no question when treating of sins,--for
how do we know what abundance of grace of the total overcoming of sin was
conferred upon her, who merited to conceive and bear Him in whom there was no
sin? --so, I say, with the exception of the Virgin, if we could have gathered
together all those holy men and women, whoen they were living here, and had
asked them whether they were without sin, what do we suppose would have been
their answer?

St. Ephraim, Op. syr. II 327:
Mary and Eve, two people without guilt, two simple people, were identical.
Later, however, one became the cause of our death, the other the cause of our
life.

> 1950 - The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven.

Funny, what about all those various written legends, dating from at least
the 4th or 5th century, of her Assumption?  And the celebration of this event
goes back to the 7th century.

> 1546 - Roman tradition placed on the same level as Scripture.

I might point out 2 Thes 2:15, but in addition to that:

Tertullian, The Fundamental Doctrines, 220-230 A.D., 1, Preface, 2:

Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings
of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their
predecessors.  The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through
an order of succession from the Apostles, and remains in the Churches even to
the present time.  That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way
at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.

Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, 19,3:

Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith
are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and of their
explanation, and of all the Christian traditions.

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180-199, 4, 33, 8:

The true gnosis [knowledge] is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient
organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation
of the body of Christ according to the successions of bishops, by which
successions the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere;
and the very complete tradition of the Scriptures, which have come down to us
by being guarded against falsification, and which are received without
addition or deletion; and reading without falsification, and a legitimate and
diligent exposition according to the Scriptures, without danger and without
blasphemy; and the pre-eminent gift of love, which is more precious than
knowledge, more glorious than prophecy, and more honored than all the other
charismatic gifts.

"But the custom which is opposed to Cyprian may be supposed to have had its
origin in apostolic tradition, as there are many things which the universal
Church holds, and therefore are fairly believed to have been enjoined by the
apostles, which do not appear in their writings" St. Augustine, _De Baptismo
contra Donatistas_ Book 5: 31.

St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitoria [2, 1] circa 434 AD
With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently
inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I
might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way,
distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of
heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all
of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and
escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact
and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of
the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course,
by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the
Catholic Church.

[2] Here, perhaps, someone may ask: "If the canon of the Scriptures be
perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it
necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be
joined to it?" Because, quite plainly, Sacred Scripture, by reason of
its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same
meaning. The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in
another by others, so that it can almost appear as if there are as
many opinions as there are men. Novatian explains a passage in one
way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another; Arius, Eunomius,
Macedonius in another; Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian in another;
Jovinian, Pelagius, Caelestius in another; and afterwards in still
another, Nestorius.  And thus, because of so many distortions of such
various errors, it is highly necessary that the line of prophetic and
apostolic interpretation be directed in accord with the norm of the
ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning.

[3] In the Catholic Church herself every care must be taken that we
may hold fast to that which has been believed everywhere, always, and
by all (1). For this is, then, truly and properly Catholic. That is
what the force and meaning of the name itself declares, a name that
embraces all almost universally (2). This general rule will be
correctly applied if we pursue universality, antiquity, and agreement.
And we follow universality in this way, if we confess this one faith
to be true, which is confessed by the whole Church throughout the
whole world; antiquity, however, if we in no way depart from those
interpretations which, it is clear, our holy predecessors and fathers
solemnized; and likewise agreement, if, in this very antiquity, we
adopt the definitions and theses of all or certainly of almost all
priests and teachers.

St. John Chrysostom, _Homilies on the second ep. to the Thessalonians_ 
(5th century):

'Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been
taught, whether by word or by our letter' (2 Thes 2:15). From this it is clear
that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that
was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of
belief. So let us regard the tradition of the Church also as worthy of
belief. Is it a tradition? Seek no further.

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that you have been fed a lot
of nonsense.  And I am sure that you are surprised that all of these doctrines
you regard as heretical were believed long before the New Testament canon was
even settled, before the definition of the Trinity, even in many cases before
the legalization of Christianity.

The truth is, my friend, that your Gospel is not the true Gospel which you
think it is. It is not the Gospel of the early church, but was invented at
the Reformation.  While it appears on the surface to be Scriptural, it is not.
Scripture can be twisted to support anyone's doctrines, and the thousands of
sects with their many thousands of conflicting "Scriptural" doctrines which 
have arisen since the Reformation ought to prove that.

There is only one reason why someone would lie so fully yet so poorly: out
of desparation and out of a hatred for Gospel truth.  Whoever wrote these
silly items you quoted is a liar and a deceiver, and the truth is not in him.

The true inventions are those introduced at the Reformation. This becomes
plainly clear when one examines the history of the Christian Church and the
beliefs, practices, and writings of the early Christians.

"[Paul's] letters contain some things which are hard to understand, which
ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their
own destruction." (2 Peter 3:16)

"Hold fast to the traditions which you received, whether by word of mouth or
by letter" (2 Thes 2:15).

"Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are
contrary to the teaching you have learned." Romans 16:17

"Keep away from every brother who does not live according to the teaching you
received from us." 2 Thess. 3:6

"And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God,
which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it
actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe." (1 Thes
2:13) 

Eric

    Lots of replies to address here, but I'll try to get to them all as I
    have time.
    
>I'm really not sure why you would post the claim that Catholics "worship"
>Mary.  That has been pointed out time and time again to be false.  Honor,
>yes.  Worship, no.  Worship is due to God alone.
    
    John, that is correct and I wholeheartedly agree that only God is
    worthy of our worship.  John 2:4 shows Jesus didn't take advice on
    faith matters from Mary.  Can you honestly say that is the case with all 
    your Catholic brothers and sisters?  Consider the Pope's prayer for the 
    Marian Year (1988).  John Paul II doesn't ask Mary to PRAY for Catholics, 
    he asks her to DO what only God can do: to comfort, guide, strengthen and 
    protect "the whole of humanity..."  His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin 
    Mary, on our journey of faith and OBTAIN FOR US THE GRACE OF ETERNAL 
    SALVATION."  There are hundreds of prayers to Mary, such as: "In thy hands 
    I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul...  for, if 
    thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because 
    thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them... nor even Jesus, my Judge 
    himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased..."  This is 
    blasphemy!  Read I Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator 
    between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
    
    In regards to saints, Paul writes in I Corinthians 1:2 (and in many other 
    of his epistles) that all that are saved through Christ are saints.  "Unto 
    the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in 
    Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon 
    the  name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:"  Why should we 
    petition the statues/saints when they are on our own level as believers?  
    Sure they were great men, but no greater than us.

    Another key issue is salvation.  The apparition at Fatima (surely not Mary!)
    said: "many souls go to Hell because they have no one to make sacrifices..."
    For Catholics, Christ's sacrifice is not enough.  Salvation is in the 
    Church, its sacraments, one's personal suffering, and good deeds.  In 
    "Unam Sanctam", Pope Boniface VIII declared: "There is one holy Catholic 
    and apostolic church, outside of which there is NO SALVATION...it is 
    altogether NECESSARY FOR SALVATION for every creature to be subject to the 
    Roman Pontiff."  This was confirmed by Vatican Council I.  Vatican II 
    declared: "The Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the 
    return of ALL HUMANITY AND ALL ITS GOODS under [Rome]...this holy Council 
    teaches...that the church...is NECESSARY FOR SALVATION." (Vatican Council 
    II, Costello Publishing, Austin Flannery. O.P., General Editor, vol 1, pp 
    364-5).

    While all Catholics believe Christ died for their sins, much more is 
    required.  Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, "accepting Jesus' has 
    nothing to do with turning a spiritually dead soul into a soul alive with 
    sanctifying grace... we are all redeemed - Christians, Jews, Moslems, 
    animists...but our salvation is conditional...you must work to earn your 
    salvation."  What a particular Catholic may believe is not the issue, but 
    rather the official teaching of Roman Catholicism.  That is found in The 
    Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-64) and Vatican II 
    (1962-5).  Trent denied every Reformation doctrine (Martin Luther), from 
    Sola Scriptura to salvation by grace through faith alone.  It pronounced 
    125 anathemas (eternal damnation) upon anyone believing what evangelicals 
    believe and preach today.  "No one can know with the certainity of 
    faith...that he has obtained the grace of God [anathema to all who claim 
    they know]" (Trent, 6th Ses., Chap. IX).  "If anyone says that the 
    sacraments of the new law are not NECESSARY FOR SALVATION...but that 
    without them...men obtain from God through faith alone the grace of 
    justification...LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Trent, 7th Ses., Canon 4).  Vatican 
    II far from making changes, reaffirmed Trent: "This sacred council...
    proposes again the decrees of...the Council of Trent" (Vol 1, p 412).  As 
    for the "sacraments of the new law," which Trent said were "necessary for 
    salvation," Vatican II declared: "For it is the liturgy through which, 
    especially in the divine SACRIFICE of the Eucharist, the WORK OF OUR 
    REDEMPTION IS ACCOMPLISHED" (Vol 1, p 1).

    Here are a few more quotes from Vatican II:  "Sins must be expiated...
    through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life...otherwise...in the 
    next life through fire and torments...[because] our souls need to be 
    purified...in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God 
    and truly repentant but who had not made satisfaction with adequate 
    penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with 
    punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vol 1, pp 63-4).
    First of all, you will not find a single reference to Purgatory in the 
    entire Bible.  The Bible declares: "When he [Christ] had by himself PURGED 
    our sins (Hebrews 1:3)...by his own blood he entered in ONCE in the holy 
    place, HAVING OBTAINED ETERNAL REDEMPTION for us (Hebrews 9:12)...without 
    the shedding of blood is no remission [of sin] (Hebrews 9:22 - suffering 
    in purgatory won't do it!)...now where remission of these is there is NO 
    MORE OFFERING (SACRIFICE) for sin (Hebrews 10:18)...we are sanctified 
    through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ ONCE FOR ALL (Hebrews 
    10:10)...for by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected FOR EVER them that are 
    sanctified" (Hebrews 10:14).  Catholcism denies this Biblical Gospel 
    written by Paul!  Read Ephesians 2:8-9 "For by grace are ye saved through
    faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  Not of works, 
    lest any man should boast."

    regards,
    Mike

Mike,

Unfortunately you are guilty of distorting Catholic doctrine.  You love to
quote the part that appears to condemn us, but you neglect to quote the parts
that vindicate us.  You are also ascribing meaning to statements that were not
there.

    John, that is correct and I wholeheartedly agree that only God is
    worthy of our worship.  John 2:4 shows Jesus didn't take advice on
    faith matters from Mary.  Can you honestly say that is the case with all 
    your Catholic brothers and sisters?  Consider the Pope's prayer for the 
    Marian Year (1988).  John Paul II doesn't ask Mary to PRAY for Catholics, 
    he asks her to DO what only God can do: to comfort, guide, strengthen and 
    protect "the whole of humanity..."  His prayer ends: "Sustain us, O Virgin 
    Mary, on our journey of faith and OBTAIN FOR US THE GRACE OF ETERNAL 
    SALVATION."  There are hundreds of prayers to Mary, such as: "In thy hands 
    I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul...  for, if 
    thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because 
    thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them... nor even Jesus, my Judge 
    himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased..."  This is 
    blasphemy!  Read I Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator 
    between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;"
    
A few notes.  Comforting, guiding, strengthening, and protecting is not
something that only God can do.  When we say this of Mary, we mean that she
accomplishes it through prayer: when John Paul asks Mary to obtain for us the
grace of eternal salvation -- note that he does NOT say GRANT us the grace of
eternal salvation, for she is not the source of that grace -- he means it in
the sense of, pray for us, that we might receive God's grace and be saved.

When we talk about Mary's role in our salvation, we refer to her prayers for
us.  Just as you would pray for an unbelieving friend of yours, that they might
be saved, and in fact you might even pray for yourself, that you might be
saved, so Mary can pray for us that we might be saved.   We pray that people
might be forgiven and pardoned of their sins.  So it is with Mary.

Regarding 1 Timothy 2:5, note that the word "one" in "one meditator" does not
mean "only" or "exclusive" but rather means "first" or "primary".  We believe,
as Colossians 1:24 says ("Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I
fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions,
for the sake of his body, which is the church") that we can make sacrifices
for others -- not to merit the forgiveness of their sins, but in the sense that
Paul suffered for his people, so that God would hear his prayer and bring them
to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and to grace and perseverence, by his
grace.  Please note that we believe that ALL Christians play a role in sharing,
in this way, in Christ's mediatorship, and that all of us play a role in
bringing people to salvation, by our prayers and witness.  We don't believe
that Mary is capable of anything different than the rest of us are: we can all
pray for one another's salvation.

Since you seem to be so up on Vatican II, perhaps you have run across this
quote:

60. In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: "for there is 
but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who 
gave himself a redemption for all" (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary's function as 
mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of 
Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin's salutary 
influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the 
disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits 
of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all 
its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of 
the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it. (Lumen Gentium)

    In regards to saints, Paul writes in I Corinthians 1:2 (and in many other 
    of his epistles) that all that are saved through Christ are saints.  

This is true, as anyone who reads the Apostle's Creed knows.  This is why we
call the canonized saints "Saints."  After all, "saint" simply means "holy
one."  We can ask anyone to pray for us: either the saints here on earth, the
saints who are in heaven, or those canonized Saints recognized by the church.

    Why should we petition the statues/saints when they are on our own level as
    believers?  Sure they were great men, but no greater than us.

First of all, no one petitions statues: that would be stupid if not idolatrous.
Second of all, the reason we ask the Saints to pray for us is because James
5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  You have
no basis for stating that the saints in heaven are "no greater than us."  It is
quite clear from Scripture that believers vary in righteousness and holiness,
and will receive varying degrees of reward.

[continued]

[continued from previous]

    Another key issue is salvation.  The apparition at Fatima (surely not
    Mary!)  said: "many souls go to Hell because they have no one to make
    sacrifices..."  For Catholics, Christ's sacrifice is not enough.  Salvation
    is in the Church, its sacraments, one's personal suffering, and good deeds.

You are confusing Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins with the
sacrifices we make to bring people to Christ.  We make sacrifices for one
another not to merit forgiveness of sins, but in petition to God to bring them
to salvation.  Do you not pray for your friends to be saved?  Are you, by
doing this, admitting that Christ's sacrifice is "not enough"?  Of course not!
You know that unless they believe, Christ's sacrifice, though infinite, will be
of no advantage to them.  Therefore you pray that they might come to believe.
So we make sacrifices to God in petition to Him so that the world might
believe. This is, again, what Paul did by "filling up in his own flesh what is
still lacking in the sufferings of Christ" -- not that Christ's sacrifice was
not totally efficacious, but that we must pray for people to believe before
Christ's sacrifice can be of any benefit to them.

We also believe that people can lose their salvation through committing serious
sin, and so we pray for one another that we might have the grace not to sin and
thus reject this salvation: "If anyone see his brother commit asin that does
not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life."  (1 John 5:16)

Salvation is not so much IN the church or IN the sacraments, but rather we
believe that Christ established the church and the sacraments as a means of
receiving his grace and his gift of salvation.

    While all Catholics believe Christ died for their sins, much more is 
    required.  Catholic apologist Karl Keating says, "accepting Jesus' has 
    nothing to do with turning a spiritually dead soul into a soul alive with 
    sanctifying grace... we are all redeemed - Christians, Jews, Moslems, 
    animists...but our salvation is conditional...you must work to earn your 
    salvation."  

Ah, but you are twisting Karl's words. First of all, that last sentence is many
paragraphs removed from the first, and in fact it is in a quote from Scripture!
Let's look at the whole context:

       Ewin cites Heb. 9:12, which states that "Nor by the blood of goats and
    calves, but by his own blood he entered the most holy place once and for
    all, having obtained eternal redemption."  "To deny the assurance of
    salvation would be to deny Christ's perfect redemption," argues Ewin, and
    this is something he can say only because he confuses redemption and
    salvation.  The truth is that we are all redeemed--Christians, Jews,
    Moslems, animists in the darkest forests--but our salvation is conditional.

       Ewin says that "no wrong act or sinful deed can ever affect the
    believer's salvation.  The sinner did nothing to merit God's grace and
    likewise he can do nothing to demerit grace.  True, sinful conduct always
    lessens one's fellowship with Christ, limits his contribution to God's work
    and can result in serious disciplinary action by the Holy Spirit."  (But
    how serious can this disciplinary action be, since the loss of heaven is
    not part of it?)

[many, many paragraphs]

       Besides, there are verses that call the whole notion of the assurance of
    salvation into question.  "I buffet my own body, and make it my slave; or
    I, who have preached to others, may myself be rejected as worthless," says
    Paul (1 Cor. 9:27).  This follows the well-known verses that speak of
    running a race, and the race, of course, is the race of life, the finish
    line being entrance into heaven.  The author of the Radio Bible Class
    booklet says that Paul "did not want to lose the reward for service through
    failing to satisfy his Lord; he was not afraid of losing his salvation."
    While that interpretation seems to strain the passage a bit (read the whole
    of chapter 9 yourself), it is not entirely unreasonable, but the passage
    can't be read in isolation.

        Compare it to Phil. 2:12: "Beloved, you have always shown yourselves
    obedient; and now that I am at a distance, not less but much more than when
    I am present, you must work to earn your salvation, in anxious fear."
    Other translations say "work out your own salvation in fear and trembling."
    This is not the language of self-confident assurance.

So you are taking his words out of context.

    What a particular Catholic may believe is not the issue, but 
    rather the official teaching of Roman Catholicism.  That is found in The 
    Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-64) and Vatican II 
    (1962-5).  Trent denied every Reformation doctrine (Martin Luther), from 
    Sola Scriptura to salvation by grace through faith alone.  

And rightly it did: Scripture does not teach salvation by grace through faith
alone.  The only place where "faith alone" occurs with respect to salvation is
in James, where the idea of salvation through faith alone is CONDEMNED!

    It pronounced 125 anathemas (eternal damnation) 

Anathemas have nothing to do with "eternal damnation."  The word means, "to be
separated", and it is the same word used by St. Paul in Galations 1:8.

    upon anyone believing what evangelicals believe and preach today.

No, it pronounced it upon various doctrines proposed by the Reformers, not all
of which are doctrines taught by evangelicals today.

[continued]

    "No one can know with the certainity of faith...that he has obtained the
    grace of God [anathema to all who claim they know]" (Trent, 6th Ses.,
    Chap. IX).  "If anyone says that the sacraments of the new law are not
    NECESSARY FOR SALVATION...but that without them...men obtain from God
    through faith alone the grace of justification...LET HIM BE ANATHEMA"
    (Trent, 7th Ses., Canon 4).

I have these at home, and given your track record for accuracy and my 
recollection of these canons, I would guess that you're trying to distort what
they say for your own causes, just as you do Scripture, to your own destruction.

What Trent _does_ say is that no one can know with infallible certainty, 
without a private revelation, that they are going to persevere to the end and
be saved.  And it is manifestly false that the Catholic Church teaches that
grace of God is not available outside of the Sacraments.

    As for the "sacraments of the new law," which Trent said were "necessary
    for salvation," Vatican II declared: "For it is the liturgy through which,
    especially in the divine SACRIFICE of the Eucharist, the WORK OF OUR
    REDEMPTION IS ACCOMPLISHED" (Vol 1, p 1).

That is correct, because the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is ONE IN THE SAME with
and IDENTICAL WITH the Sacrifice of Calvary:

  Synod in Constantinople (Jan. 1156-May 1157):

  "Today's sacrifice is like that offered once by the Once-begotten Incarnate
  Word; it is offered by him (now as then), since it is one and the same
  sacrifice."

  Council of Trent: "In the sacrifice of the Mass, Christ's sacrifice on the 
  cross is made present, its memory is celebrated, and its saving power is 
  applied."

  Vatican II (Lumen Gentium): "However, it is in the eucharistic cult or in the
  eucharistic assembly of the faithful (synaxis) that they exercise in a
  supreme degree their sacred functions; there, acting in the person of
  Christ[67] and proclaiming his mystery, they unite the votive offerings of
  the faithful to the sacrifice of Christ their head, and in the sacrifice of
  the Mass they make present again and apply, until the coming of the Lord
  (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26), the unique sacrifice of the New Testament, that namely of
  Christ offering himself once for all a spotless victim to the Father
  (cf. Heb. 9:11-28).[68]"

You see, in the Eucharist, we make this ONE SACRIFICE of Christ present to us
again: the sacrifice is not being repeated, nor is it another sacrifice, but
through God's grace, he makes the fruits of the Cross present to us again in
the Eucharist, so that we might receive the benefits of his Sacrifice every
time we receive this sacrament.

    Here are a few more quotes from Vatican II:  "Sins must be expiated...
    through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life...otherwise...in the 
    next life through fire and torments...[because] our souls need to be 
    purified...in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God 
    and truly repentant but who had not made satisfaction with adequate 
    penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with 
    punishments designed to purge away their debt" (Vol 1, pp 63-4).

    First of all, you will not find a single reference to Purgatory in the 
    entire Bible.  

You won't see a single reference to Trinity, or Incarnation, or "personal Lord
and Savior" either.  But what about these verses:

Matthew 18:32: "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he
said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to.  Shouldn't
you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his
master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back
all that he owed.  THis is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless
you forgive your brother from your heart."

Matthew 5:25: "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to
court.  Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over
to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be
thrown into prision.  I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have
paid the last penny." 

James 5:3: "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wait because of the misery
that is coming upon you.  Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your
clothes.  Your gold and silver are corroded.  Their corrosion will testify
against you and eat your flesh like fire."

Romans 2:1-9: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone
else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself,
because you who pass judgment do the same things.  Now we know that God's
judgment against those who do such things is based on truth.  So when you, a
mere man, pass judgment on theem and yet do the same things, do you think you
will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his
kindness, tolerance and pattience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you
toward repentance? But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart,
you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his
rigtheous judgment will be revealed.  God 'will give to each person according
to what he has done.'  . . . for those who are self-seeking and who reject the
truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.  There will be trouble
and distress for every human being who does evil..."

But in any case, you are failing to make the distinction, as the Catholic
Church does, between the eternal punishment that Christ's sacrifice remitted
for us and the temporal punishment that remains.  We teach that sin brings upon
us two punishments: one is eternal separation from God, the other is temporal
chastisement. "The Father chastises those whom he loves."  When "expiation of
sin" is spoken of with respect to purgatory, the reference is not to the
eternal punishment -- which I can show you, probably from Trent, we teach is
completely remitted by Christ's merits alone -- but to the temporal punishment,
which, according to Scripture, we must undergo for our sins.  It is this
punishment that Vatican II is referring to.

Compare this to David, who although God forgave his sins, still had to suffer
the death of his son.

St. Augustine wrote a few things on the topic:

Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some
after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before
that last and strictest judgment (35). But not all who suffer temporal
punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to
follow after that judgment.

    St. Augustine, The City of God, [21, 13]
    between 413 and 426 AD

"Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger
(7)." . . . In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I
have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved,
but as if by fire.... For it is said: "He shall be saved, but as if by
fire (8)." And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is
thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that
fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life.

    St. Augustine, Explanations of the Psalms, [37, 3]
    between 392 and 418 AD

So you are really attacking a straw man.  Purgatory has nothing to do with
salvation, but with chastisement.

Eric

>    Also, Transubstantiantion and Confession were instituted by Jesus
>    Christ.
>
>    See Matthew 26 & John 20:22-23
    
    Matthew 26 is the institution of the Lord's Supper, not
    Transubstantiantion.  I don't believe God's Word presents the 2 as the
    same thing.  As for John 20:22-23, who is righteous and just enough, and 
    has paid the price and is in the position to forgive our sins?  I can only 
    think of one.  We have the power to forgive each other for wrong that we 
    may do to each other, but only one can forgive us of our sins.
    
    Mike

    Eric, 
    
    > 33 - Jesus Christ establishes the Catholic Church.
    
    Paul wrote that the Body of Christ (His Church) consists of all believers 
    in Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13,27).  Christ promised that the true 
    church would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul 
    warned that any gospel apart from the Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ 
    which he preached was not true (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:22-24).  
    
    >383 - St. Jerome defends the perpetual virginity of Mary against an Arian.
    
    In Mark 3:31-35, you'll see she was not a virgin her entire life.  Jesus 
    had brothers.
    
>388 - St. Ambrose of Milan says that Mary is undefiled, inviolate, and free of
>      every stain of sin.
    
    Romans 3:23
    
>406 - St. Jerome rebukes Vigilantius for denying that the Saints who are in
>      heaven cannot pray for us and we cannot benefit from their prayers.
    
    Is there a Biblical premise for praying to anyone but God or that a
    Christian cannot effectively pray for their own needs?  You mentioned
    the Scripture about the effectiveness of the prayers of a righteous
    man.  God's Word says that, as believers, we have obtained Christ's
    righteousness and God sees us through His righteousness.  Because of
    Jesus Christ, we can pray directly to God.
    
>422 - Pope St. Boniface I dies, but not before having written that the Roman 
>      Church is the visible head of the Catholic Church and anyone who 
>      separates himself from it becomes an "exile from the Christian religion."
    
    does this mean that every non-Catholic Christian can't be saved?
    
>431 - The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned those who denied Mary the
>      title "Mother of God."
    
    God and Jesus Christ pre-existed.  If they have a mother (which I don't
    believe), Mary wouldn't be it.  Christ is the Eternal God, not the
    product of a conception (John 1:1-2, 17:5, Isaiah 42:8, 9:6, Colossians
    1:16-17, 2:9).  
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

�> finishes with some warnings to the Church of Rome.  In verses 17-18, Paul
�> provides the strongest warnings to the Roman church.  Couple this with 1
�> Timothy 4:1-6, and you see how prophetic Paul's warnings were and how the
�> Church of Rome ignored his warnings.
�
�As a matter of fact, most of these same doctrines which you claim are errors of
�Rome are not only doctrines of the Church of Rome, but also doctrines of the
�Church of Antioch, the Church of Assyria, the Church of Alexandria, the Church
    
    I didn't say they were wrong, Paul did under the divine inspiration of
    God.  I'm sure we're wise enough to know that popularity doesn't equal
    correctness, especially in today's world.
    
>If yours is the true Gospel and the gospel of the Church of Rome is false, then
>why is there no record of the unique doctrines of your Gospel being taught,
>except some of them by small groups of heretics, prior to the Reformation?  Why
>is it true that anyone who makes a historical investigation will find that your
>Gospel, where it differs from the Catholic Gospel, had no existence in the
>early church?
    
    As I said, the Church of Rome was one that Paul highly respected at one
    time (when he wrote Romans).  However, they unheeded his warnings and
    have strayed from God's Word in some areas.
    
>issue, because different people understand this in different ways.  Luther, for
>example, understood it to mean that no matter how much someone may sin, even
>if they commit adultery a thousand times a day (his own example), as long as
>they believe, they are saved.  Not too many evangelicals take this viewpoint
    
    I don't believe this either.  Such a person, to me, was never saved to
    begin with (i.e., not a true/sincere change of heart).
    
>Number two, you are naive to think that the evangelicals all agree universally
>on the same doctrines, whether it is assurance of salvation or the doctrines
>condemned by Trent.  Protestants began disagreeing on many of these doctrines
>at the Reformation and it is has only gotten worse.  To portray evangelicals as
>a monolithic, united faith is fallacious.
    
    Probably true where fallible man is in charge, but I believe we agree
    on the essential doctrines for salvation.  I think the Christian members 
    of this conference are a good snapshot on how the Protestant church
    agrees.  However, I tend to take God's Word more literally than most.
    FWIW - I am glad that you believe, as a Catholic, in Ephesians 2:4-9.
    
    Mike

>there are no references to back up these assertions.)  Also see the Catholic
>Answers refutation of these lies in the HASTUR::CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY conference,
>notes 1047.16 and 1047.33.
    
    I will make a point to check these some time.  I'm assuming that's an
    invitation ;-)

>While these items talk of things being "introduced", this is really fallacious,
>because it suggests that they did not exist before this point in any form, and
>were in some way invented and foreign to the Christian faith.  In reality, you
>cannot prove that any of them were "invented" at a particular point; the best
>you can do is find the earliest known reference to the given belief.
    
    Eric, I'm only concerned with what God's Word says and how earthly
    doctrines stand up against it.

>In the Christian era, one need only to go to the Passion of Saints Perpetua and
>Felicity, 202 A.D., to see an example of both a strong belief in Purgatory and
>in prayers for the dead.  But one need not even go this far; one can see the
>teaching of prayers for the dead in the Jewish writing 2 Maccabees, which
>Protestants do not consider canonical, but they at least agree that it was
>written several hundred years before Christ by a Jew.
    
    Sheol is Scriptural, Purgatory is not.  The saints in Sheol were freed
    when Christ resurrected.

>Catholics don't worship saints and never have.  St. Augustine refuted this very
>nonsense shortly after this date.  However, Catholics have asked saints for
>their prayers and intercessions, according to 2 Maccabees and the model of
>Revelation 5:8, long before this; one can find such prayers in the catecombs
>inscribed by Christians under persecution before the 4th century.
    
    I don't believe Revelation 5:8 is such a model.  I take it literally in
    that it describes an eschatological event.  Bottomline is that it
    doesn't make sense to me to pray to someone else when I have a direct
    line into the Almighty God.

�> 432 - The worship of Mary began to develop.
�
�Again, Catholics don't worship Mary and never have. But it is interesting to
�note that Constantine (early 4th century) dedicated Constantiple to her.
    
    That may be true for John and yourself, but is not the case for most
    Catholics I know - and this comes from someone who attended Catholic
    high school for 4 years.  I witnessed an extreme emphasis on Mary and
    the Saints, rather than God and Jesus Christ.

>> 593 - The doctrine of Purgatory introduced.
>
>As I have already explained, this doctrine already existed by 202 A.D.  It is
>found in the pre-Christ Jewish writing of 2 Maccabees, and is also found in the
>writings of the first century Jewish historian Josephus. But I believe that
>Purgatory is at least implied by Scripture.
    
    As I said, Sheol is there, but not Purgatory and Christ's resurrection
    made Sheol obsolete.

    In Christ,
    Mike

�> 788 - The worship of images and relics authorized.
�
�<sigh> here we go again.  We do not and never have worshipped relics or
�images.  An example of the veneration Christians have given to the bones of the
�martyrs can be found in the acts of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, 155 A.D.  The
�date 788 comes most likely from the date of the 2nd Council of Nicea
�which resolved the Iconoclast heresy, where Christians, inspired by the
�Muslims, started attempting to destroy icons.
    
    I know that statues are a big revenue generator for the Catholic
    church.  Why are they necessary if they are not worshipped?

�> 850 - Invention of Holy Water.
�
�Hardly.  You can find Holy Water in the Old Testament, and Holy Oil too.
    
    I'm assuming the water is used for baptism.  I don't recall any such
    water in the OT, do you have a location (passage) that supports this?

�> 993 - The canonization of saints formalized.
�
�"Formalized"?  What does that mean?  Of course, elevating certain people 
�asleep in the Lord to the status of "Saint" goes back at least to the 4th
�century if not earlier.
    
    Paul writes that all believers are saints.

�> 1074 - Celibacy of the priesthood declared.
�
�"Declared"?  What does this mean?  After all, Christ was celibate, as was
�St. Paul.  Both of them regarded celibacy as the higher state according to
�Scripture.  Clerical celibacy was a practice long before it was legislated in
�the Western part of the church, but even today, it is not universally mandatory
�in the church.
    
    1 Timothy 4:1-6

    Mike

>"It was in His flesh that Christ walked among us and it is His flesh that He
>has given us to eat for our salvation.  No one, however, eats of this without
>having first adored [=worship] it . . . and not only do we not sin in thus
>adoring it, but we would sin if we did not do so."
    
    Do you really believe you have to eat it for salvation?  When I was in
    high school, I can assure you that the majority did not adore or
    worship the wafer.

�> 1950 - The personal corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven.
�
�Funny, what about all those various written legends, dating from at least
�the 4th or 5th century, of her Assumption?  And the celebration of this event
�goes back to the 7th century.
    
    There is no Bibilical basis for Mary ascending into heaven.
    
    Mike

�> 1546 - Roman tradition placed on the same level as Scripture.
�
�I might point out 2 Thes 2:15, but in addition to that:
    
    ...but God never contradicts His word and true believers wouldn't
    either.
    
    Mike

>you regard as heretical were believed long before the New Testament canon was
>even settled, before the definition of the Trinity, even in many cases before
>the legalization of Christianity.
    
    going even further, the OT also presents the Gospel of the Messiah and
    the NT confirms it.  

>The truth is, my friend, that your Gospel is not the true Gospel which you
>think it is. It is not the Gospel of the early church, but was invented at
>the Reformation.  While it appears on the surface to be Scriptural, it is not.
    
    Sorry Eric, the Word of God goes back thousands of years.
    
>Scripture can be twisted to support anyone's doctrines, and the thousands of
>sects with their many thousands of conflicting "Scriptural" doctrines which 
>have arisen since the Reformation ought to prove that.
    
    As I've outlined in my presentation on Bible Study, proper
    interpretation and doctrine will not contradict other portions of God's
    Word.

>There is only one reason why someone would lie so fully yet so poorly: out
>of desparation and out of a hatred for Gospel truth.  Whoever wrote these
>silly items you quoted is a liar and a deceiver, and the truth is not in him.
    
    That's possible, but we need to hold up God's Word as the Final
    Authority on these matters.

>"Watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are
>contrary to the teaching you have learned." Romans 16:17
    
    Exactly what I mentioned earlier.  I don't believe these R.C. doctrines
    were in place when Paul wrote this.

    Mike

>A few notes.  Comforting, guiding, strengthening, and protecting is not
>something that only God can do.  When we say this of Mary, we mean that she
>accomplishes it through prayer: when John Paul asks Mary to obtain for us the
>grace of eternal salvation -- note that he does NOT say GRANT us the grace of
>eternal salvation, for she is not the source of that grace -- he means it in
>the sense of, pray for us, that we might receive God's grace and be saved.
    
    Sorry, I took it exactly as he said it.

>When we talk about Mary's role in our salvation, we refer to her prayers for
>us.  Just as you would pray for an unbelieving friend of yours, that they might
>be saved, and in fact you might even pray for yourself, that you might be
>saved, so Mary can pray for us that we might be saved.   We pray that people
>might be forgiven and pardoned of their sins.  So it is with Mary.
    
    1 Timothy 2:5 says that Christ is our mediator.  Why not just pray
    directly to God through Him?
    
>Regarding 1 Timothy 2:5, note that the word "one" in "one meditator" does not
>mean "only" or "exclusive" but rather means "first" or "primary".  We believe,
    
    I don't believe it's saying that.
    
>as Colossians 1:24 says ("Now I rejoice in what was suffered for you, and I
>fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions,
>for the sake of his body, which is the church") that we can make sacrifices
>for others -- not to merit the forgiveness of their sins, but in the sense that
>Paul suffered for his people, so that God would hear his prayer and bring them
>to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, and to grace and perseverence, by his
>grace.  Please note that we believe that ALL Christians play a role in sharing,
>in this way, in Christ's mediatorship, and that all of us play a role in
>bringing people to salvation, by our prayers and witness.  We don't believe
>that Mary is capable of anything different than the rest of us are: we can all
>pray for one another's salvation.
    
    I agree with this.  This is known as intercessory prayer.
    
>First of all, no one petitions statues: that would be stupid if not idolatrous.
>Second of all, the reason we ask the Saints to pray for us is because James
>5:16 says "The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective."  You have
>no basis for stating that the saints in heaven are "no greater than us."  It is
>quite clear from Scripture that believers vary in righteousness and holiness,
>and will receive varying degrees of reward.
    
    True there are varying degrees of reward, but no varying degrees of
    salvation.  As believers we are all saints and God is no respector of
    persons.  This is Biblical and is basis enough.  Paul wrote that
    the Body of Christ consists of all believers in Christ (I Corinthians
    12:12-13,27).  All through the tribulation, "saints" are being killed 
    on a massive scale (see Revelation 6:9-11, 11:7, 12:30,17, 13:7,10,15, 
    14:13, 17:6, 18:24).  These are people who are alive in Christ at that
    time.  The term saints can refer to people saved in the Old Testament,
    under the Old Covenant (Psalms 34:9, 89:5,7) as well as those who are 
    redeemed by the Lord Jesus Christ in the New Covenant (I Corinthians 1:12).
    
    Mike

>You are confusing Christ's sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins with the
>sacrifices we make to bring people to Christ.  We make sacrifices for one
>another not to merit forgiveness of sins, but in petition to God to bring them
>to salvation.  Do you not pray for your friends to be saved?  Are you, by
>doing this, admitting that Christ's sacrifice is "not enough"?  Of course not!
>You know that unless they believe, Christ's sacrifice, though infinite, will be
>of no advantage to them.  Therefore you pray that they might come to believe.
>So we make sacrifices to God in petition to Him so that the world might
>believe. This is, again, what Paul did by "filling up in his own flesh what is
>still lacking in the sufferings of Christ" -- not that Christ's sacrifice was
>not totally efficacious, but that we must pray for people to believe before
>Christ's sacrifice can be of any benefit to them.
    
    We can pray for unbelievers, but I don't view that as a sacrifice. 
    They can be saved through their own prayers as well.  Jesus Christ
    doesn't need any help from us to save anyone.  Christ's shed blood
    would be the final sacrifice and cleansing for sin (I John 1:7). 
    
>And rightly it did: Scripture does not teach salvation by grace through faith
>alone.  The only place where "faith alone" occurs with respect to salvation is
>in James, where the idea of salvation through faith alone is CONDEMNED!
    
    Ephesians 2:4-9, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:15, Romans 11:6,
    Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, to name a few.
    
>Anathemas have nothing to do with "eternal damnation."  The word means, "to be
>separated", and it is the same word used by St. Paul in Galations 1:8.
    
    Galatians 1:8 is pretty strong language.  Neither the KJV or NAS
    translate it that way and they're 2 of the more reputable English
    versions.
    
    Mike

>What Trent _does_ say is that no one can know with infallible certainty, 
>without a private revelation, that they are going to persevere to the end and
>be saved.  And it is manifestly false that the Catholic Church teaches that
    
    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9). The
    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God 
    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
    (John 3:16).  Biblical salvation comes by grace through personal faith
    in Christ as Savior disregarding all works (Ephesians 2:4-9).  It simply 
    consists of receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 1:12-13, 
    I John 5:9-13).  The Bible teaches that our righteousness is found in 
    Christ (II Corinthians 5:21), and that we are saved through grace, love 
    and mercy of God (Ephesians 2:4-9; John 3:16).  Our acceptance by God is 
    based solely on our accepting His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).  By 
    accepting Jesus Christ, you too can be born again into the family of God 
    (John 3:3-6, Romans 8:16-17).  Do it now, for today is the day of 
    salvation (II Corinthians 6:2).
    
>You won't see a single reference to Trinity, or Incarnation, or "personal Lord
>and Savior" either.  But what about these verses:
    
    but you will see evidences for these claims.  For example, see John 20:28.
    
Matthew 18:32: "Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he
Matthew 5:25: "Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to
James 5:3: "Now listen, you rich people, weep and wait because of the misery
Romans 2:1-9: "You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone

    God's wrath will be poured out on the unbelievers.  I'm not sure how
    these verses of punishment apply to the believer, other than we should
    be careful on paying our debts and judging righteously.
    
>But in any case, you are failing to make the distinction, as the Catholic
>Church does, between the eternal punishment that Christ's sacrifice remitted
>for us and the temporal punishment that remains.  We teach that sin brings upon
>us two punishments: one is eternal separation from God, the other is temporal
>chastisement. "The Father chastises those whom he loves."  When "expiation of
>sin" is spoken of with respect to purgatory, the reference is not to the
>eternal punishment -- which I can show you, probably from Trent, we teach is
>completely remitted by Christ's merits alone -- but to the temporal punishment,
>which, according to Scripture, we must undergo for our sins.  It is this
>punishment that Vatican II is referring to.
    
    Okay, I understand your position now, but I don't agree that it's
    Biblical.  The Bible only presents separation from God in the form of
    eternal damnation for the unbeliever only.  In Eden, man fell by
    disobedience; henceforth all men are conceived in sin with a depraved
    nature destined for damnation unless they are spiritually reborn 
    (John 3:3).  More supportive Scriptures can be found in Jeremiah 17:9, 
    Romans 5:12, Romans 5:19, Psalm 51:5, Romans 1:21.

>Compare this to David, who although God forgave his sins, still had to suffer
>the death of his son.
    
    this was because he reaped the consequences of his sin.  The laws of
    sowing and reaping are universal.  I wouldn't necessarily associate
    this with temporarl punishment.  If you break a civil law, you'll pay
    the price for it.  If you break a supernatural law, there will be a
    price to pay according to God's Word.  David broke one of the 10
    Commandments in this case.

>Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some
>after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before
>that last and strictest judgment (35). But not all who suffer temporal
>punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to
>follow after that judgment.
    
    Hebrews 9:27

    Mike

>    I know that statues are a big revenue generator for the Catholic
>    church.  Why are they necessary if they are not worshipped?

This has to be one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read.

It's as absurd as

	"I know that hymnals are a big revenue generator for
	 the Baptist Church.  Why are they necessary if they
	 are not worshipped."

What does "necessary" mean?  Statues serve to remind people of the lives
of important persons in the bible and in Church history.  They are not
worshipped, and claiming that they are is either extreme ignorance or
deliberate malice.

/john

    I have a question... why do I see people putting prayers into the hand
    of a statue here in Santa Clara... the Statue is of Mary??????
    
    

Why not?

Can't God read them if they are on a piece of paper in a statue's hand?

/john

>    Paul wrote that the Body of Christ (His Church) consists of all believers 
>    in Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13,27).  Christ promised that the true 
>    church would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul 
>    warned that any gospel apart from the Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ 
>    which he preached was not true (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:22-24).  

What you say is not what Paul wrote; first of all, he says explicitly that
we enter the Body of Christ through baptism, not simply through belief. 
Baptism inherently implies a church, and implies that the church is a physical
entity, not merely an invisible mass of all who believe.

If Christ promised that the true church would never disappear from the earth,
then what do you claim happened between the alleged corruption of the whole
Christian church and the Reformation?

Your point about Galatians is a good one -- but note that he says that any
Gospel other than that which he _preached_, not any Gospel other than that
which he wrote in _Scripture._  Note that what Paul believes is important is
the message he preached, not the letters he wrote.
   
>   >383 - St. Jerome defends the perpetual virginity of Mary against an Arian.
    
>    In Mark 3:31-35, you'll see she was not a virgin her entire life.  Jesus 
>    had brothers.

This evidence is inconclusive.  The Jews used the term "brother" for close kin,
not merely brothers german; besides which, Jesus obviously had no "brothers",
for there is only one begotten Son of God.  And if he did have brothers, he
would have had no need to commend his Mother to the care of St. John (John
19:26). 
    
>>388 - St. Ambrose of Milan says that Mary is undefiled, inviolate, and free of
>>      every stain of sin.
    
>    Romans 3:23

Does Romans 3:23 also mean that Jesus sinned?  Hey, it says all, that must
include Jesus if it must include every other human being!

Obviously Rom. 3 is a general, ordinary principle, and is not intended to
exclude specific exceptions. Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, your heroes,
believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.
    
>    Is there a Biblical premise for praying to anyone but God or that a
>    Christian cannot effectively pray for their own needs?  You mentioned
>    the Scripture about the effectiveness of the prayers of a righteous
>    man.  God's Word says that, as believers, we have obtained Christ's
>    righteousness and God sees us through His righteousness.  Because of
>    Jesus Christ, we can pray directly to God.

Of course we can, and should, pray directly to God. But even Protestants ask
others to pray for them!

The point of James 5 is that believers have varying degrees of righteousness,
and that not all believers are equally righteous.  God rewards each man 
according to his work (Rom 2:5, Col 3:25, cf. the Parable of the Unmerciful
Servant).  If you wish to deny this, prove it from Scripture.
    
>    does this mean that every non-Catholic Christian can't be saved?

"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 many achieve eternal salvation.[19] Nor shall
divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who,
without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of
God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life." (Vatican II,
Lumen Gentium, #16)

"He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism
(cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), 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." (Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, #14)

>    God and Jesus Christ pre-existed.  If they have a mother (which I don't
>    believe), Mary wouldn't be it.  Christ is the Eternal God, not the
>    product of a conception (John 1:1-2, 17:5, Isaiah 42:8, 9:6, Colossians
>    1:16-17, 2:9).  
    
oooooo!  We have a basic heresy here that even evangelicals would condemn!

So you deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and deny that he was human?

>    agrees.  However, I tend to take God's Word more literally than most.
>    FWIW - I am glad that you believe, as a Catholic, in Ephesians 2:4-9.

Well, as a Catholic, I believe that all of Scripture is inspired, infallible,
and inerrant, and I believe this because the Catholic Church tells me I 
should and must believe it.

Why do you believe it?

`If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel,
what would you answer him when he says: "I do not believe"? Indeed, I
would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the
Catholic Church did not influence me to do so.'

    St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation", [5, 6]
    397 AD

>    Eric, I'm only concerned with what God's Word says and how earthly
>    doctrines stand up against it.

I believe that this is a right attitude.  But first of all, you have to
identify and know what God's word is, and second, you have to understand it in
the way it was intended to be understood -- that is, the way the Apostles
preached it -- which necessarily requires Tradition.

Without Tradition to properly understand Scripture, one is tossed about by
every wave of doctrine.

>    Sheol is Scriptural, Purgatory is not.  The saints in Sheol were freed
>    when Christ resurrected.

You are correct that the saints in Sheol were freed by Christ, 

>    I don't believe Revelation 5:8 is such a model.  I take it literally in
>    that it describes an eschatological event.  

Well, Rev 5:8 is before the eschatological stuff. We believe this first part
represents a Mass as viewed from heaven: there are the saints worshipping,
the slaim Lamb, the altar, the angels, the incense, and so forth.

> Bottomline is that it doesn't make sense to me to pray to someone else 
> when I have a direct line into the Almighty God.

So you don't believe in intercessory prayer?  Pity.  I know I have a direct
line to God, but I also know that the more people I have praying for me, the
better!

>> Again, Catholics don't worship Mary and never have. But it is interesting to
>> note that Constantine (early 4th century) dedicated Constantiple to her.
    
>    That may be true for John and yourself, but is not the case for most
>    Catholics I know - and this comes from someone who attended Catholic
>    high school for 4 years.  I witnessed an extreme emphasis on Mary and
>    the Saints, rather than God and Jesus Christ.

Granted there are abuses.  But I would ask you: When you went to Mass, to whom
was the sacrifice offered?  How many times were Mary and saints mentioned,
versus the number of times God and Christ were mentioned?  Was there doubt as
to whom you were worshipping?

Regarding Purgatory, I would simply point this out.  Scripture says that each
one of us will be rewarded according to his works, both good and bad, and that
we will be afforded mercy insofar as we are merciful. Paul says in Col 3:25
that everyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong; Jesus said, a man
reaps what he sows.  I don't suppose you believe that this reward for our
wrong doings -- for even believers can be punished for their wrongdoings --
will occur in heaven.  I believe 1 Cor 3:21 describes Purgatory, even though
it does not name it, just as John 1 describes the Incarnation without naming
it, and various verses of Scripture describe the Trinity without naming it.

Col 3:25: "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no
favoritism."

Matthew 6:15: "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not
forgive your sins."

>    I know that statues are a big revenue generator for the Catholic
>    church.  Why are they necessary if they are not worshipped?

I am not aware of the Church itself selling statues; usually they are sold
by private individuals.

I might ask you why people put pictures of their relatives and loved ones in
their wallets if they are not worshipped.  I might also ask why God asked for
the Israelites to cast a bronze serpent if he did not intent them to worship
it, or why he asked them to form Seraphim statues for the Ark of the Covenant
if he did not intent them to worship them.

>    I'm assuming the water is used for baptism.  I don't recall any such
>    water in the OT, do you have a location (passage) that supports this?

>> "Formalized"?  What does that mean?  Of course, elevating certain people 
>> asleep in the Lord to the status of "Saint" goes back at least to the 4th
>> century if not earlier.
    
>    Paul writes that all believers are saints.

I suppose the next thing you are going to accuse us of is denying that we
believe that male parents cannot be called "fathers" because we call our 
priests "Father".

Simply because we have "Saints" does not mean we do not believe that believers
are saints.

>> "Declared"?  What does this mean?  After all, Christ was celibate, as was
>> St. Paul.  Both of them regarded celibacy as the higher state according to
>> Scripture.  Clerical celibacy was a practice long before it was legislated 
>> in the Western part of the church, but even today, it is not universally 
>> mandatory in the church.
    
>     1 Timothy 4:1-6

The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from marrying; priests take a
voluntary vow of celibacy, and it is their voluntary vow that binds them.

>    Do you really believe you have to eat it for salvation?  

Jesus said it himself in John 6:53-58.  The Eucharist is the sacrifice of
Christ on Calvary, and the means by which Christ established for us to receive
His blood and body for the remission of our sins. "This is the blood of the New
Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins."
Obviously, the blood of Christ washes away our sins; how can we have salvation
while refusing to wash our sins away in the blood of Christ's one sacrifice?

Of course, those who have never had the opportunity to be washed in the blood
of the Lamb God will judge differently.

> When I was in high school, I can assure you that the majority did not adore 
> or worship the wafer.

You knelt during the Consecration (and possibly at Communion too), didn't you?
Did you not genuflect in church?

>    There is no Bibilical basis for Mary ascending into heaven.

There is no Biblical basis for sola Scriptura, either, nor even for your
canon of the New Testament, nor for your canon of the Old Testament.

>    Sorry Eric, the Word of God goes back thousands of years.

You are right, I'm not sure I denied this.
    
>    As I've outlined in my presentation on Bible Study, proper
>    interpretation and doctrine will not contradict other portions of God's
>    Word.

Yes, but it is not necessarily true that just because an interpretation is
consistent with Scripture and does not contradict other portions of it, that
it is what the sacred author meant when he wrote it.  There are many different
interpretations which are consistent with Scripture, but not with each other.
For example, some will argue that absolute predestination is consistent with
all of Scripture; others argue that free will is, but the doctrines of free
will and absolute predestination contradict each other.

>    That's possible, but we need to hold up God's Word as the Final
>    Authority on these matters.

Three questions:

1) Where in Scripture is "God's Word" identified with and restricted to the
Sacred Scriptures (much less the sixty six books of your canon)?
2) By what evidence to you conclude that Scripture is the final authority?
3) How do you rightly interpret God's Word, such that there is no doubt as
to what the Apostolic teaching is?

You see, I believe that all Catholic doctrines are consistent with God's
written (and spoken) Word, and that there is nothing in them which contradicts
Scripture.  I have concluded this after a very thorough and careful study of
God's Word, of history, of the early church, and of Catholic doctrine.  I know
not a few zealous anti-Catholic Protestant ministers who came to the same
conclusion and entered the Catholic Church.

>>Regarding 1 Timothy 2:5, note that the word "one" in "one meditator" does not
>>mean "only" or "exclusive" but rather means "first" or "primary". 
    
>    I don't believe it's saying that.

It is, because that is what the Greek word used means, "heis".  The Greek word
for "only", "sole", or "exclusive" is "monos", which was not used.
    
>    I agree with this.  This is known as intercessory prayer.

Well, since you object so much to asking folks to pray for you, I'm not so
sure.
    
>    True there are varying degrees of reward, but no varying degrees of
>    salvation.

I think we can agree on this, although the key issue may not be whether there
are varying degrees of reward or varying degrees of salvation, but rather
whether there can be varying degrees of righteousness or justification.

>    We can pray for unbelievers, but I don't view that as a sacrifice. 

Well, actually, verbal prayer is only part of it.  We believe that suffering is
also a form of prayer (this is the essence of fasting), which is what Paul
spoke of when he said "I fill up in my own flesh what is still lacking in the
sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the Church."  By accepting
suffering in the flesh for the sake of our brethren, we believe we can more
effectively entreat God to save them.

>    They can be saved through their own prayers as well.  

True, but that's assuming they want to pray, that they know how to pray, and
that they will pray.

> Jesus Christ doesn't need any help from us to save anyone.  

We would fully agree.

> Christ's shed blood would be the final sacrifice and cleansing for sin (I 
> John 1:7). 

Agreed.
    
>>And rightly it did: Scripture does not teach salvation by grace through faith
>>alone.  The only place where "faith alone" occurs with respect to salvation is
>>in James, where the idea of salvation through faith alone is CONDEMNED!
    
>    Ephesians 2:4-9, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:15, Romans 11:6,
>    Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, to name a few.

All of these talk about salvation through faith, but none about salvation
through faith ALONE, apart from anything else whatsoever.
    
>>Anathemas have nothing to do with "eternal damnation."  The word means, "to 
>>be separated", and it is the same word used by St. Paul in Galations 1:8.
    
>    Galatians 1:8 is pretty strong language.  Neither the KJV or NAS
>    translate it that way and they're 2 of the more reputable English
>    versions.
    
I think the usual wording is "Let him be condemned", but this is not 
necessarily the same as delivering someone into eternal damnation.  There is
a distinction between condemning the person and condemning a person's 
doctrine.

    When I asked a lady who was doing this there, her response was
    because Mary intercedes for us and has influence with God to answer our
    prayers.
    
    Does Mary answer your prayers?  Yes.. er, uh No, well, she intercedes
    for us.
    
    Do you pray to Mary?
    
    Yes.
    
    Since I work so close to our Lady of Peace, I've often driven there to
    watch the people, just to try and ascertain what is actually happening. 
    The conversation was with a woman who spoke to me out of concern for
    me... she was very sweet and willing to answer my questions.
    

    I am usually a "read-only", but after reading all of the replies
    here I had to put in my $.02.
    
    I have been a Catholic all my life and I will always be a Catholic.
    I am a Christian just like everyone else in this file. But for some
    reason Catholics are looked at as being non-christian (not by all 
    but by some people). We are constantly criticized and put-down.
    
    My suggestion for those that don't understand the Catholic Religion
    or those that continue to believe some of the nonsense that is written
    is to take one of the many courses that are offered about the Catholic
    faith. You would hear first hand the truths about Catholics and not
    half-truths or lies.
    
    It used to bother me in the past to read reply's like some of these.
    But I have grown so much in my faith that I have learned not to let
    this upset me.
    
    Again, I realize that this is not that opinion of all but a small few.
    (I hope!)
    
    Terri
    

    Terri,
    
    Every catholic I have ever met [in person, not in this file], save one
    has been unsaved.  
    
    Does catholicism believe in eternal security?

    Re: .42
    
    When you say they were unsaved what do you mean?
    
    We believe and you do that Jesus died for our sins and we accept
    Him as our Saviour.
    
    Terri
    

    I mean that when I asked the question if you were to die would you go
    to heaven or hell or don't you know? 
    
    The answer was, I *hope* I go to heaven.
    
    Do you believe God only gives us a hope of salvation or gives us
    salvation.
    
    

    Sorry I misunderstood.
    
    Yes I hope to go to heaven some day. I do believe we will all be 
    judged and it takes more than just doing good works here on earth.
    We need to know Jesus and accept Jesus and live by God's word.
    
    I believe that most (or all) the Christian faiths believe that
    Jesus was born, died, and rose from the dead.
                                                            
    I just finished a Scripture Course at St. Bernadetts in Northboro Ma.
    I was amazed how the first church branched off into so many different
    variations of religions. The reasons why amazed me. Some reasons were
    as simple as difference of opinion. 
    
    That is why I would recommend these courses or seminars to everyone.
    I'm not trying to convert anyone but it is a suggestion to anyone
    that has questions or misunderstandings about Catholics.

Nancy,

You seem to claim that Catholics are unsaved because they, like Terri,
say, "I hope to go to heaven"

You probably don't like the fact that the Catholic Church teaches, as the
bible does, that we can only know that we will go to heaven if we keep God's
commandments.

What we cannot know today is that we will persevere in the faith, keeping
ourselves free from sin, until the day we die.

You cannot know that either.  You can have faith that God will help you to
do so, but you know that you still have free will, that you are constantly
tempted, and that you must constantly pray for God to keep you from giving
in to that temptation.

But you can only hope that you will go to heaven, because you can only hope
that you will not fall into a future temptation.

/john

    Nancy,
    
    How do you know that all but one of the RCs you've met were unsaved? 
    
    Hasn't it been clearly established in the question of Salvation &
    Inerrancy that man is saved by faith, not by doctrine?
    
    I'm not prepared; nor do I think any believer should be prepared, to
    judge that which is not in our realm to judge.  What I think we
    *should* do is test the fruit of all who claim to be believers; learn,
    provide correction where necessary, and leave the rest to Him.
    
    I know many RCs who profess faith in the L-rd; they are my brothers and
    sisters.  We debate doctrine a LOT - but that's healthy I think.   
    Conversely, I know many protestants (of differing labels) who may be 
    well versed in theology, but don't know the L-rd; let alone even 
    profess having put their trust in Him for their salvation.  And we 
    all know "pew-warmers" from every denomination.
    
    Thankfuly, doctrine is not what saves or none of us would have a 
    chance (methinks ;-).
    
    Steve

 Recently, on a Friday morning, a man who had been a Catholic all of his
 life walked in to our church office and asked to speak to the pastor..he
 said "I have doubts about the Catholic church and its teachings..I raise
 questions regarding the Bible to the priest(s) and am met with hemming and
 hawing and skipping over and around the questions..can you tell me (or direct
 me to someone who can) what I need to know to be absolutely sure I'm saved
 and going to Heaven?"


 Romans 10:9 says "That if thou shalt confess with they mouth the Lord
                   Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised
                   Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved"


 Romans 10:13      "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL
                    be saved"


 Neither of those verses mention remaining sin free (addressed in 1 John) or
 anything but calling upon the name of the Lord, confessing Him and they
 SHALL (not maybe, not perhaps, not based on any condition) be saved.



 One can know, without a doubt, that they are going to heaven upon their
 death.




 Jim

    Steve,
    
    I happen to believe by God's Holy Word that you can KNOW you are going
    to heaven.  When one states hope, they are not fully trusting in God's
    saving power, but on their own ability to not sin.. which is
    impossible.
    
    BTW, these folks include personal friends of mine who have since come
    to know Christ as Savior and they themselves say they were lost and on
    their way to hell, caught up in catholic dogma.
    
    Also, contrary to your personal likes, the only doctrine which I
    believe is undisputable is the doctrine of salvation.
    
    
    1John 5:13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the
    name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and 
    that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
    
    John 10:28  And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never
    perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
     29  My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is
    able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
    
    Eph 2:
     18  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
     19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
    fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
     20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
    Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
     21  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an
    holy temple in the Lord:
     22  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God
    through the Spirit.
    
    Ephesians 2:8  For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
    yourselves: it is the gift of God:
      9  Not of works, lest any man should boast.
                                                                           
    

Jim,

Do you know, without a doubt, that you will not ever give into a temptation
to commit the unforgivable sin?

Do you know, today, without a doubt, that you will not have a tribulation at
some time in your life that will get you so angry that you will deny God?

Did Jesus not say that God will separate the sheep from the goats?

Just what does Jesus say in Matthew 25:41-46?

/john

    .50
    
    John,
    
    There is a big difference between OSAS camp and those who believe you
    can lose your salvation.
    
    The difference is the agreement of salvation.  In the catholic church
    there is no agreement on salvation.
    
    I personally believe that this lack of assurance is a control issue
    with the church.  Please note, I said *I* *personally* believe.

    Nance - I don't know what the "personal likes" thing was about...
    
    I'm not arguing with you re: salvation; simply asking, if you really
    believe the quotes you included, how you can judge the salvation of
    another?
    
    Is it not possible for someone to be trusting in the L-rd for
    salvation, and yet hope they don't screw up?  Is that person saved or
    not?  How do you know?
    
    Frankly, I think it's poor doctrine to think that once you are saved,
    you need the spend the rest of your life worried about whether you're
    going to do or say something that will make G-d change His mind about
    you (it shows a direct opposite view of G-d's character than that He
    presents in His Word).   I think it's equally poor doctrine to think 
    you can live a pure life in the flesh (as opposed to trusting Him to 
    live His pure life out through you).  I'm a fan of OSAS (which some here 
    probably find to be poor doctrine).
    
    So?
    
    The point is - people aren't saved by doctrine; and I'm not trying to
    change the doctrine of salvation (which I hope you're neither implying
    or infering).  We are save by G-d's grace through faith, and even that
    not of ourselves, it is G-d's gift lest any man should boast...we're
    save by grace through faith - not our own works.  That's it.  Many
    people (catholics, protestants, jews, gentiles, men, women, etc.)
    believe this Truth and are trusting Him for their salvation.  Many of
    these same people (catholics, protestants, jews, gentiles, men, women,
    etc.) have some pretty funky theology that sometimes doesn't square
    with the Bible.  That's all open for debate and should be corrected
    (with the Word).
    
    Steve (who knows he's going to spend eternity with the L-rd, in spite
    of his sometimes wacky views, because he knows salvation isn't about
    what I can do for or say about or think about Him, but it is about what
    He did, says, and thinks about me *in Him*)
    

    Just for clarity's sake...  I don't have an axe to grind with
    Catholics.  Some of my best friends, and even some family members are
    members of that faith.  I also believe that I will see some of these
    people in heaven.  What I don't believe is that the majority of
    Catholics believe and live their lives as those close to me as well as
    John, Terri, and Eric.
    
    As for the rest of the replies, I'll try to get to them shortly.
    
    Mike

>Do you know, without a doubt, that you will not ever give into a temptation
>to commit the unforgivable sin?
    
    John, we probably have differing views on exactly what the unpardonable
    sin is.  The Bible tells us that God will forgive us of *all* our sin
    when we accept His Son as Lord and Savior.  What is the only sin that
    could keep us out of heaven?  What sin will every member of hell have
    in common?  That sin is the rejection of Jesus Christ as God's Son and
    His atonement for our sins.  That is the only sin that will keep you
    out of heaven and when you do this, it blasphemes the Holy Spirit
    (i.e., God).
    
    Mike

    >  Is it not possible for someone to be trusting in the L-rd for
    >  salvation, and yet hope they don't screw up?  Is that person saved
    >  or not?  
    
    They key word here is "trusting in the Lord"... the catholics that I
    know personally, other then one, trusts in their works as getting them
    on the path to salvation through Christ which is their hope.
    
    How do you know?
    
    Because they told me.
    

    Re:.55
    You may know some Catholics that believe that their works will get them
    into Heaven. Well, they are wrong.
    
    Reply .54 is what a believing Catholic lives by.
    
    I am not suggesting that all Catholics live and believe what is right.
    I know PLENTY that either just go through the motions of attending 
    church or don't practice at all. There are many, many luke warm 
    Catholics. I hope that I will never fall into that category.
    
    Terri
    

RE:             <<< Note 287.50 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
        -< To go to heaven, we must persevere in the faith to the last >-


>Do you know, without a doubt, that you will not ever give into a temptation
>to commit the unforgivable sin?

 And what is that sin?


>Do you know, today, without a doubt, that you will not have a tribulation at
>some time in your life that will get you so angry that you will deny God?

Yes.



Did Jesus not say that God will separate the sheep from the goats?

who are the sheep and who are the goats?


Jim

    Thanks for answering the question.  I couldn't tell from what you had
    originally written exactly how you knew these people weren't saved.
    You're answer indicates one sure way of knowing whether one is a believer 
    or not.  If someone tells you s/he is trusting that her/his works are 
    earning salvation; that's a different gospel than that which is taught in 
    the Bible (as I understand the Bible).  That's an area that I do not
    believe is open to debate.
    
    If however, they tell you they're trusting in Him, and hoping they can
    continue in a life of good works to be pleasing to Him; I think that's
    a rather noble ideal, but short of the acceptance and freedom the L-rd
    has for all who believe in Him.  Such a person would be a believer
    (i.e., their trust is in Him, they are believing what He said about His
    work on their behalf) and be saved.  But their doctrine could use some
    help (and FWIW, how many believers do you know who have their doctrine
    down 100%?).
    
    Do you remember the Michael Card song (I think Amy Grant recorded it)
    that goes like this....
    
    
    		I have decided - I'm gonna live like a believer
    		turn my back on the deceiver, I'm gonna live what I believe
    		I have decided - being good is just a fable
    		I just can't, 'cause I'm not able,
    		I'm gonna leave it to the L-rd....
    
    That's evidence not only of faith in Him for salvation, but also having
    faith in Him for sanctification, His living *His* holy and good life
    through you (2Cor 5:17, Eph. 2:10, Gal 2:20, etc.).
    
    
    Steve

re.45

Hi,

> That is why I would recommend these courses or seminars to everyone.

How much to they cost?

ace

    One more thing and then I think I should go back to being a read-only.
    
    To expand on .54, I teach CCD (high school level) and one of the
    students asked the question directly to our priest, "what sin would
    keep us out of Heaven". He replied, "All your sins have been forgiven
    when Jesus died on the cross, however, if you reject God, this sin is
    unforgivable.
    
    Nancy, have I answered your question from the previous reply? It's
    difficult to write down what I want to say especially when I'm late
    for a meeting.
    
    Gotta run!
    
    Terri
    
    

    Thanks Terri!
    
    No, don't go back to read-only, I like your ability to help me
    understand things that bother me about catholicism without
    condescension.
    
    Secondly, if .54 is accurate, why do you use the word hope for
    salvation?

    .58
    
    You took *my* number! :-) 
    
    We are in agreement.

    Nancy,
    
    My meeting was cancelled....anyway, A true Catholic does believe in
    their heart what reply .54 stated. I think the problem is that
    Catholics, and maybe others also, don't like to assume anything. Maybe
    walking around saying "I'm going Heaven" doesn't seem very humble.
    In my heart, I believe I will get there. Maybe its a confidence thing
    with some people but yes I think your beliefs and mine do overlap and
    in spite of the different ways we might worship, the end result seems
    to be the same.
    
    The Catholic church has probably one of the largest numbers of people.
    There are, like I said, true Catholics, luke warm, those that go
    thru the motions, those that go to church on Christmas and Easter and
    those that don't practice at all. With the poplulation size I'm not
    surprised that there are misunderstandings and confusion around the
    doctrine. What gets me upset are Catholics that try to defend their
    faith, in a general conversation, and haven't got a clue what their
    talking about.
    
    The seminiars I was talking about are held at different parishes
    throughout the year. Most cost only the price of the book.
    
    The one I just attended at two Protestants there that went for
    informational reasons only.
    
    I'll see if I can find out whats going on in the Mass area.
    
    See you in Heaven
    
    Terri
    

The reason a Christian can only _hope_ to go to heaven, is, as I have said,
that we can only _hope_ to persevere in the Faith.

We don't _know_ that we will not reject God at some time in our life.

We hope.

We know God's grace, poured out to us in faith, is strong enough to keep
us in the faith.

What we don't know is that we will always accept that grace, that we will
not fall into sinful ways and reject God's grace and His salvation.

God gives us strength -- we have to accept it, every day.

/john

    John, Romans 6 says otherwise.

    sorry for the length, but I caught up and consolidated everything into
    one note.
    
>Note 287.29           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              29 of 39
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      17 lines  28-APR-1994 19:46
>
>What does "necessary" mean?  Statues serve to remind people of the lives
>of important persons in the bible and in Church history.  They are not
>worshipped, and claiming that they are is either extreme ignorance or
>deliberate malice.

/john, whenever I see a Catholic praying to one of these instead of turning
directly to God through Jesus Christ, I have a major problem with it.  I still
claim that you and Eric are exceptions.

>Note 287.31           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              31 of 39
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       5 lines  28-APR-1994 20:06
>Why not?
>
>Can't God read them if they are on a piece of paper in a statue's hand?

/john, that is not how Jesus Christ told us how to pray in God's Word.

�Note 287.32           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              32 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       84 lines  28-APR-1994 20:18
�                                  -< reply 2 >-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�>    Paul wrote that the Body of Christ (His Church) consists of all believers 
�>    in Christ (I Corinthians 12:12-13,27).  Christ promised that the true 
�>    church would never disappear from the earth (Matthew 16:18), and Paul 
�>    warned that any gospel apart from the Gospel of faith in Jesus Christ 
�>    which he preached was not true (Galatians 1:6-9, 3:22-24).  
�
�What you say is not what Paul wrote; first of all, he says explicitly that
�we enter the Body of Christ through baptism, not simply through belief. 
�Baptism inherently implies a church, and implies that the church is a physical
�entity, not merely an invisible mass of all who believe.

Eric, he's talking about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, that which unifies us
all in Jesus Christ.  Every believer is sealed with God's Spirit when accepting
His Son as Lord and Savior.

�If Christ promised that the true church would never disappear from the earth,
�then what do you claim happened between the alleged corruption of the whole
�Christian church and the Reformation?

When Jesus talked of the Church, we was talking about true believers.  Even in
our darkest times, true Christians were always there.

�Your point about Galatians is a good one -- but note that he says that any
�Gospel other than that which he _preached_, not any Gospel other than that
�which he wrote in _Scripture._  Note that what Paul believes is important is
�the message he preached, not the letters he wrote.

It's unreasonable to believe that Paul didn't preach as he wrote.  Read Acts 17
(and probably the rest of the book from that point).  Paul preached the same
Gospel of Jesus Christ that he wrote about.
   
�>   >383 - St. Jerome defends the perpetual virginity of Mary against an Arian.
�>    In Mark 3:31-35, you'll see she was not a virgin her entire life.  Jesus 
�>    had brothers.
�
�This evidence is inconclusive.  The Jews used the term "brother" for close kin,
�not merely brothers german; besides which, Jesus obviously had no "brothers",
�for there is only one begotten Son of God.  And if he did have brothers, he
�would have had no need to commend his Mother to the care of St. John (John
�19:26).

You're taking this out of context, it couldn't be more obvious.  Even later
manuscripts had "brothers and sisters" in verse 32.  Additionally, if Jesus
asked John to care for Mary, it's not impossible to think Jesus trusted John
more for the task.  Mary could still have other children and Jesus could still
be the only begotten Son of God.  Jesus was conceived through God's Spirit.  Any
other children would come from the seed of Joseph, not from the "seed of a
woman" as in Jesus' case.
    
�>>388 - St. Ambrose of Milan says that Mary is undefiled, inviolate, and free of
�>>      every stain of sin.
�>    Romans 3:23
�
�Does Romans 3:23 also mean that Jesus sinned?  Hey, it says all, that must
�include Jesus if it must include every other human being!

Jesus did take on all the sins of the world upon the cross.  In addition, He was
able to do this because He was fully God and fully man, the God-man.  Nobody who
is just a man could do what Jesus did.

�Obviously Rom. 3 is a general, ordinary principle, and is not intended to
�exclude specific exceptions. Even Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, your heroes,
�believed that Mary was a perpetual virgin.

Being undefiled does not mean she's "free from every stain of sin."  We are born
with a sinful nature because of the fall of man, and we have God to answer to
because of it - Romans 6:23.
    
�>    Is there a Biblical premise for praying to anyone but God or that a
�>    Christian cannot effectively pray for their own needs?  You mentioned
�>    the Scripture about the effectiveness of the prayers of a righteous
�>    man.  God's Word says that, as believers, we have obtained Christ's
�>    righteousness and God sees us through His righteousness.  Because of
�>    Jesus Christ, we can pray directly to God.
�
�Of course we can, and should, pray directly to God. But even Protestants ask
�others to pray for them!

There is a difference between receiving supporting prayers from living Christian
brothers and sisters, than from those who have died in Christ.  Jesus said to do
this in Matthew 18:19-20.  The Bible also says that man is above the angels.
You'll notice that whenever an angel appeared to someone in the Bible, if the
man worshipped the angel, the angel always made a point to say not to do that
(Dt 26:10, 2Ki 17:36, 1Ch 16:29, Ps 29:2, 95:6, 96:9, 99:5, Zec 14:17,
Mt 4:10, Jn 4:24, Rev 14:7, 15:4, 19:10, 22:9).

�The point of James 5 is that believers have varying degrees of righteousness,
�and that not all believers are equally righteous.  God rewards each man 
�according to his work (Rom 2:5, Col 3:25, cf. the Parable of the Unmerciful
�Servant).  If you wish to deny this, prove it from Scripture.

...but this is beyond the point of salvation.  We are all under Christ's
righteousness.  We also know that faith without works is dead.  It should be a
joy to serve the Lord after all He has done for us.
    
�>    God and Jesus Christ pre-existed.  If they have a mother (which I don't
�>    believe), Mary wouldn't be it.  Christ is the Eternal God, not the
�>    product of a conception (John 1:1-2, 17:5, Isaiah 42:8, 9:6, Colossians
�>    1:16-17, 2:9).  
�    
�oooooo!  We have a basic heresy here that even evangelicals would condemn!
�So you deny that Jesus came in the flesh, and deny that he was human?

No, I don't deny that at all, you took me out of context.  As I said, God and
Jesus Christ pre-existed, Mary did not.  Jesus Christ has always been, Mary has
not.  Mary was just a vehicle to bring Jesus Christ into the world in human
form, but Jesus Christ did not originate from Mary.

�Note 287.33           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              33 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       16 lines  28-APR-1994 20:22
�                       -< I believe in ALL of Scripture >-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�>    agrees.  However, I tend to take God's Word more literally than most.
�>    FWIW - I am glad that you believe, as a Catholic, in Ephesians 2:4-9.
�
�Well, as a Catholic, I believe that all of Scripture is inspired, infallible,
�and inerrant, and I believe this because the Catholic Church tells me I 
�should and must believe it.
�
�Why do you believe it?

I'm glad you asked that.  I believe the Bible to be God's holy, inspired,
infallible, and inerrant Word because it has proven itself to me, not because
somebody told me I should believe that way.  The testimony of the Word is
prophecy and the Bible has proven itself in the 400+ prophecies that have been
fulfilled throughout history.  Most importantly, it has changed my life and made
me a new person.  When I accepted Christ as my Savior, I knew absolutely
*NOTHING* about the Bible.  It was God's love and grace that drew me to Him.
When I started studying God's Word, the pages came alive, the words leapt off
the pages and ministered to me.  It is a constant source of guidance and
strength in my life.

�Note 287.34           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              34 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       58 lines  28-APR-1994 20:37
�                                  -< reply 3 >-
�--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�>    Eric, I'm only concerned with what God's Word says and how earthly
�>    doctrines stand up against it.
�
�I believe that this is a right attitude.  But first of all, you have to
�identify and know what God's word is, and second, you have to understand it in
�the way it was intended to be understood -- that is, the way the Apostles
�preached it -- which necessarily requires Tradition.

I've just posted over 600 lines of text on how to study the Bible - God's Word.
Tradition is okay only if it meshes with the whole of God's Word.

�Without Tradition to properly understand Scripture, one is tossed about by
�every wave of doctrine.

I disagree.  The Word of God - the Bible - stands on its own.

�>    I don't believe Revelation 5:8 is such a model.  I take it literally in
�>    that it describes an eschatological event.  
�
�Well, Rev 5:8 is before the eschatological stuff. We believe this first part
�represents a Mass as viewed from heaven: there are the saints worshipping,
�the slaim Lamb, the altar, the angels, the incense, and so forth.

I understand your view.  I just wanted to make it known that Rev 5:8 is really a
description of an event that is unfolding in Heaven.  Go back to verse 1 or even
to chapter 4:1 for the full context of Who? What? When? Where? Why? and How? and
you'll see that Heaven is the setting.  The Book of the 7 Seals in chapter 5 is
the precursor to the 7 Seals being released from Heaven in chapter 6.

�> Bottomline is that it doesn't make sense to me to pray to someone else 
�> when I have a direct line into the Almighty God.
�
�So you don't believe in intercessory prayer?  Pity.  I know I have a direct
�line to God, but I also know that the more people I have praying for me, the
�better!

That's not what I said, I firmly believe in intercessory prayer.  That is the
job of living saints and the Holy Spirit.  We are never called to pray to those
dead in Christ.

>Granted there are abuses.  But I would ask you: When you went to Mass, to whom
>was the sacrifice offered?  How many times were Mary and saints mentioned,
>versus the number of times God and Christ were mentioned?  Was there doubt as
>to whom you were worshipping?

Jesus Christ.  Several vs. few.  Yes.

>will occur in heaven.  I believe 1 Cor 3:21 describes Purgatory, even though
>it does not name it, just as John 1 describes the Incarnation without naming
>it, and various verses of Scripture describe the Trinity without naming it.

Sorry Eric, maybe you posted the wrong passage location, but I just don't see it
that way.  

>Col 3:25: "Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no
>favoritism."

How do you reconcile this with verses 23 and 24?  

>Matthew 6:15: "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not
>forgive your sins."

In the context of the Lord's Prayer just prior, Jesus is talking about forgiving
those who trespass against us or those that offend us.  This is not the same as
saying we have the power to forgive men of their sins.  I also don't see what
this has to do with Purgatory.

�Note 287.35           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              35 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       38 lines  28-APR-1994 20:46
�>    I know that statues are a big revenue generator for the Catholic
�>    church.  Why are they necessary if they are not worshipped?
�
�I am not aware of the Church itself selling statues; usually they are sold
�by private individuals.

fwiw, I've see a video from Jeremiah films where Catholic priests and officials
state that the church does do this.

�I might ask you why people put pictures of their relatives and loved ones in
�their wallets if they are not worshipped.  I might also ask why God asked for
�the Israelites to cast a bronze serpent if he did not intent them to worship
�it, or why he asked them to form Seraphim statues for the Ark of the Covenant
�if he did not intent them to worship them.

Exodus 20:1-6.  You have to put this in context of the whole Word - Bible.

�>> "Formalized"?  What does that mean?  Of course, elevating certain people 
�>> asleep in the Lord to the status of "Saint" goes back at least to the 4th
�>> century if not earlier.
�    
�>    Paul writes that all believers are saints.
�
�I suppose the next thing you are going to accuse us of is denying that we
�believe that male parents cannot be called "fathers" because we call our 
�priests "Father".

No but I have a real problem with calling the pope - "Holy Father."  To me there
is only one deserving of that title - God.  By the way, do you know the
translation of the title "Pontificus Maximus"?  In one of his commentaries,
Ironsides states that it is "High Priest of the Heathen" and I wanted to confirm
this.

>Simply because we have "Saints" does not mean we do not believe that believers
>are saints.

Okay.

>The Catholic Church does not forbid anyone from marrying; priests take a
>voluntary vow of celibacy, and it is their voluntary vow that binds them.

Why must they do that?  It is not forbidden in the Bible, and in some cases it
is encouraged.  I would be surprised if none of the apostles were married.
Celibacy would not prevent one from serving God to any lesser degree.

�Note 287.36           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              36 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       22 lines  28-APR-1994 20:54
�                                  -< reply 5 >-
�>    Do you really believe you have to eat it for salvation?  
�
�Jesus said it himself in John 6:53-58.  The Eucharist is the sacrifice of
�Christ on Calvary, and the means by which Christ established for us to receive
�His blood and body for the remission of our sins. "This is the blood of the New
�Covenant, which is poured out for you and for many for the remission of sins."
�Obviously, the blood of Christ washes away our sins; how can we have salvation
�while refusing to wash our sins away in the blood of Christ's one sacrifice?

I'm glad you ended with that last sentence.  It is the blood of Jesus Christ,
and His atonement, that pays for the price of our sin.  That is what saves us,
nothing else.  The communion elements are just symbols of that propitiation,
nothing more.  Communion does not save us.  Read 1 Corinthians 11:23-29.  This
is why we must come to the Lord with the proper attitude, state of heart and
mind, and respect.  I'm sure you probably have confession before communion.  I
ask the Lord for forgiveness of my sins as well before communion.  Because of
Paul's warnings in this passage, I make sure I remember the Lord's Supper with a
pure heart and utmost respect.  But to restate, this is not what saves me, but a
symbol of what really saves me.

�> When I was in high school, I can assure you that the majority did not adore 
�> or worship the wafer.
�
�You knelt during the Consecration (and possibly at Communion too), didn't you?
�Did you not genuflect in church?

Nope, never.

�>    There is no Bibilical basis for Mary ascending into heaven.
�
�There is no Biblical basis for sola Scriptura, either, nor even for your
�canon of the New Testament, nor for your canon of the Old Testament.

yes there is.  God has said so through His Word.  The Word of God in scriptural
canon is inspired (God-breathed), inerrant, complete (Revelation 22:18-19,
Proverbs 30:5-6), and the only infallible rule of faith.  It reveals the
origin and destiny of all things; records God's dealings with mankind in the
past, present, and future; and focuses on the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
The Bible inspires faith (Romans 10:17) and will make men "wise unto salvation"
(II Timothy 3:15).  More supportive Scriptures can be found in II Timothy
3:16, II Peter 1:21, Psalm 119:105, Isaiah 40:8, Hebrews 4:12.

�Note 287.37           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              37 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       38 lines  28-APR-1994 20:46
�    
�Yes, but it is not necessarily true that just because an interpretation is
�consistent with Scripture and does not contradict other portions of it, that
�it is what the sacred author meant when he wrote it.  There are many different
�interpretations which are consistent with Scripture, but not with each other.
�For example, some will argue that absolute predestination is consistent with
�all of Scripture; others argue that free will is, but the doctrines of free
�will and absolute predestination contradict each other.

I think this is a stretch.   As I said in 460.*: "Remember that Scripture will
never contradict Scripture.  The best interpretation of Scripture is Scripture.
Remember, all Scripture is inspired by God, it is God-breathed.  Therefore,
Scripture will never contradict itself.  The Bible contains all the truth you
will ever need for any situation in life.  Sometimes you may find it difficult
to reconcile 2 seemingly contradictory truths taught in Scripture.  An example
of this would be the sovereignty of God, and the responsibility of man.  When
2 or more truths that are clearly taught in the Word seem to be in conflict,
remember that we as humans have finite minds.  Don't take a teaching to an
extreme that God doesn't.  Simply humble your heart in faith and believe what
God says, even if you can't fully understand or reconcile it at the moment.

What I've found in such issues is that a delicate balance, more often than not,
will be in greater support while in the context of the whole Word.

�>    That's possible, but we need to hold up God's Word as the Final
�>    Authority on these matters.
�
�Three questions:
�
�1) Where in Scripture is "God's Word" identified with and restricted to the
�Sacred Scriptures (much less the sixty six books of your canon)?

Proverbs 30:5-6 and Revelation 22:18-19 to name a couple.

�2) By what evidence to you conclude that Scripture is the final authority?

II Timothy 3:16-17

�3) How do you rightly interpret God's Word, such that there is no doubt as
�to what the Apostolic teaching is?

Topic 460.*

�You see, I believe that all Catholic doctrines are consistent with God's
�written (and spoken) Word, and that there is nothing in them which contradicts
�Scripture.  I have concluded this after a very thorough and careful study of
�God's Word, of history, of the early church, and of Catholic doctrine.  I know
�not a few zealous anti-Catholic Protestant ministers who came to the same
�conclusion and entered the Catholic Church.

Your study is to be commended, Eric, but your last sentence isn't proof.  I
could state the same for the opposing direction.  

�Note 287.38           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              38 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       19 lines  28-APR-1994 21:08
�>>Regarding 1 Timothy 2:5, note that the word "one" in "one meditator" does not
�>>mean "only" or "exclusive" but rather means "first" or "primary". 
�    
�>    I don't believe it's saying that.
�
�It is, because that is what the Greek word used means, "heis".  The Greek word
�for "only", "sole", or "exclusive" is "monos", which was not used.

Well in that context, the Holy Spirit more than qualifies and is also supported
in Scripture - Romans 8:26.  However, Jesus Himself tells us to pray in His name
to the Father - Matthew 18:19-20 (one of several locations).  This may be why
"heis" is used because Jesus is the primary mediator in the Trinity.  
    
�>    I agree with this.  This is known as intercessory prayer.
�
�Well, since you object so much to asking folks to pray for you, I'm not so
�sure.

No the problem is praying to those that are dead in Christ when there is no
support for this in God's Word.  This is completely different from intercessory
prayer.
    
�>    True there are varying degrees of reward, but no varying degrees of
�>    salvation.
�
�I think we can agree on this, although the key issue may not be whether there
�are varying degrees of reward or varying degrees of salvation, but rather
�whether there can be varying degrees of righteousness or justification.

No there are not varying degrees of righteousness or justification.  It's like
being pregnant, either you are or aren't.  Throughout God's Word, the emphasis
is on whether you are saved or you aren't.  Jesus Christ was our justification
for salvation, and He paid it ALL for EVERYONE!

�Note 287.39           Catholic Forum: 950 AM, 6pm weekdays              39 of 39
�KOLBE::eje "Eric James Ewanco"                       44 lines  28-APR-1994 21:16
�>    We can pray for unbelievers, but I don't view that as a sacrifice. 
�
�Well, actually, verbal prayer is only part of it.  We believe that suffering is
�also a form of prayer (this is the essence of fasting), which is what Paul
�spoke of when he said "I fill up in my own flesh what is still lacking in the
�sufferings of Christ for the sake of his body, the Church."  By accepting
�suffering in the flesh for the sake of our brethren, we believe we can more
�effectively entreat God to save them.

I'm not sure where that passage from Paul is, but the Bible is clear that Jesus
Christ paid the price of suffering for all.  We aren't called to do that, that
is works not grace.  Romans 10:9-10.

�>    They can be saved through their own prayers as well.  
�
�True, but that's assuming they want to pray, that they know how to pray, and
�that they will pray.

Prayer isn't rocket science, it's just talking and bearing your heart to God.
New believers struggle with this, but we have to remember that we can approach
our Heavenly Father in prayer and communicate with Him just as we would
communicate to our earthly father.

�>>And rightly it did: Scripture does not teach salvation by grace through faith
�>>alone.  The only place where "faith alone" occurs with respect to salvation is
�>>in James, where the idea of salvation through faith alone is CONDEMNED!
�    
�>    Ephesians 2:4-9, Acts 15:11, Romans 3:24, Romans 5:15, Romans 11:6,
�>    Titus 2:11, Titus 3:7, to name a few.
�
�All of these talk about salvation through faith, but none about salvation
�through faith ALONE, apart from anything else whatsoever.

Paul says we are saved by grace through faith, that sounds like faith is alone
to me.  The grace is God's, the faith is ours.  This is consistent throughout
the Bible.
    
whew!
Mike

| <<< Note 287.48 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>




| Romans 10:9 says "That if thou shalt confess with they mouth the Lord Jesus, 
| and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt
| be saved"


| Romans 10:13"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved


| Neither of those verses mention remaining sin free (addressed in 1 John) or
| anything but calling upon the name of the Lord, confessing Him and they
| SHALL (not maybe, not perhaps, not based on any condition) be saved.


	Neither of them say one needs to hold the Bible to any certain
authority either. Faith, as in your belief in God seems to be what matters. 
I know it matters to me, and it would seem that the Bible says the same.

| One can know, without a doubt, that they are going to heaven upon their death.

	Agreed Jim! 100%!  Scary, huh?


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 287.68 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>





>| Romans 10:9 says "That if thou shalt confess with they mouth the Lord Jesus, 
>| and shalt believe in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt
>| be saved"


>| Romans 10:13"For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord SHALL be saved


>| Neither of those verses mention remaining sin free (addressed in 1 John) or
>| anything but calling upon the name of the Lord, confessing Him and they
>| SHALL (not maybe, not perhaps, not based on any condition) be saved.


>	Neither of them say one needs to hold the Bible to any certain
>authority either. Faith, as in your belief in God seems to be what matters. 
>I know it matters to me, and it would seem that the Bible says the same.


 No, you're right on that point..we wouldn't have those verses which I posted
 and you quoted were it not for the Bible, however, nor would we know the 
 path to salvation.




>| One can know, without a doubt, that they are going to heaven upon their death.

>	Agreed Jim! 100%!  Scary, huh?



Well, yeah, but then what's even scarier, is that one of us is wrong..




Jim

    
    This is a reminder about the 100 line limit.  Please try and keep
    within the guidelines it makes reading notes easier.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

>    Do you believe God only gives us a hope of salvation or gives us
>    salvation.

Well, Nancy, interestingly enough, Scripture speaks very often of the "hope" of
salvation.  It also emphasizes that it is possible to fall away through
unbelief, or that it is possible to be condemned because of our sins even if we
do have faith.

Hebrews 6:9: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident 
of better things in your case -- things that accompany salvation.  God is not 
unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you 
hae helped his people and continue to help them.  We want each of you to show 
this same diligence to the very end, in order to make your hope sure.  We do 
not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and 
patience inherit what has been promised."

Hebrews 3:12: "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving
heart that turns away from the living God.  But encourage one another daily, as
long as it is called Today, so that none of you may be hardened by sin's
deceitfulness.  We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end
the confidence we had at first."

"Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.  For if God did not spare the natural
branches, he will not spare you either.  Consider therefore the kindness
and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you,
provided that you continue in his kindness.  Otherwise, you also will be
cut off. " (Romans 11:21)  

Romans 8:24 calls salvation a "hope for that which we do not see".  Paul speaks
of our hope of salvation as the helmet of our armor of God (1 Thes 5:8). Hence
Scripture _does_ speak of our "hope" and "confidence" in salvation, and not our
"assurance."

I believe that I have been saved, that I am being saved, and I have a firm hope
and confidence that I will be saved.  I am not assured of my salvation, not
because I do not trust in God, but because I do not trust in myself.  Scripture
says that we can lose our salvation through sin or unbelief.  Who knows what I
will do in the future?

I do believe, however, that were I to die at this moment, that I would receive
eternal life.  My lack of assurance, as I have said, has nothing to do with
lack of trust in God, or even lack of faith, but with not knowing what I might
do in the future.

Re: .48
> Neither of those verses mention remaining sin free (addressed in 1 John) or
> anything but calling upon the name of the Lord, confessing Him and they
> SHALL (not maybe, not perhaps, not based on any condition) be saved.

But you have a problem then, that Scripture contradicts itself, because
elsewhere Scripture _does_ give many different conditions for salvation, and
different ones at different points.  Sometimes it says, "He who believes will
be saved."  Sometimes, "He who believes and is baptized will be saved."
Sometimes, "He who perseveres to the end will be saved."  Sometimes, "He who
remains in Christ will be saved." Sometimes, "He who does not love remains in
death."  It is quite clear that one has to take them all in context and not
isolate one and say, "See here, this says that if we believe, we will be saved,
case closed, proof positive, that's all I need."  Wrong. I can point out
several different conditions for salvation, many of which I have already quoted
Scriptures concerning: repentance, hope, love, perseverance, and obedience;
and, in a normative (but not absolute sense), baptism and Eucharist.  You
cannot isolate passages in this way.

Many people have a psychological block to believing that we can fall away
because they have experienced in their Christian lives a gripping fear of not
being saved, and they have been caught up in an unhealthy psychological
situation unnecessarily fearing for their salvation.  This is not what the
Gospel is about, it is true, but I believe it is false to conclude based on bad
experience that therefore we cannot lose our salvation.  I quote the verse
which says (one of St. John's letters), "Perfect love drives out fear."  I have
no fear of my eternal state because I strive for perfect love for God. I know
that God gives me every grace and opportunity for repentance and conversion,
and that if I end up condemned, it is only because of my own hard-heartedness
and rejection of God.  Those who fear their salvation should seek to love God
perfectly and so drive out their fear; not seek to change their doctrine so
that have a false assurance of salvation

Re: .54

> The Bible tells us that God will forgive us of *all* our sin
>    when we accept His Son as Lord and Savior. 

If we are repentant, he will forgive us of all our past sin when we undergo
spiritual rebirth.  However, God's forgiveness is dependant on repentance: if
we sin during our Christian lives, and remain steadfastly unrepentant, will he
forgive us our sins?

The idea that God forgives all of our sins, past present and future,
unconditionally, is refuted by that Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matthew1
8:21ff) and elsewhere where Scripture teaches that we are forgiven by God in
the proportion which we forgive others.

Eric

>>Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some
>>after death, by some both here and hereafter; but all of them before
>>that last and strictest judgment (35). But not all who suffer temporal
>>punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to
>>follow after that judgment.
    
>    Hebrews 9:27

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment ..."

What does this have to do with the quote you gave?

>>What Trent _does_ say is that no one can know with infallible certainty, 
>>without a private revelation, that they are going to persevere to the end and
>> be saved.  And it is manifestly false that the Catholic Church teaches that
    
>    Christ's death provides salvation from sin for all who accept by faith
>    His sacrifice on their behalf (I Peter 3:18, Ephesians 2:4-9). The
>    eternal life given by grace to believers is also preserved by God 
>    (I John 5:11-13, John 6:39, 10:28-29).  God saves us because He loves us
>    (John 3:16).  Biblical salvation comes by grace through personal faith
>    in Christ as Savior disregarding all works (Ephesians 2:4-9).  It simply 
>    consists of receiving Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior (John 1:12-13, 
>    I John 5:9-13).  The Bible teaches that our righteousness is found in 
>    Christ (II Corinthians 5:21), and that we are saved through grace, love 
>    and mercy of God (Ephesians 2:4-9; John 3:16).  Our acceptance by God is 
>    based solely on our accepting His Son, Jesus Christ (Romans 10:9-10).  By 
>    accepting Jesus Christ, you too can be born again into the family of God 
>    (John 3:3-6, Romans 8:16-17).  Do it now, for today is the day of 
>    salvation (II Corinthians 6:2).

That is all well and good, but that does not guarantee that you will not,
before you die, renounce your faith or your salvation and be condemned.  The
Catholic teaching is that at any point in our life, we are able to lose the
grace of God such that, were we to die then, we would be condemned. We are not
to judge ourselves, then, before the appointed time:

1 Cor 4:1: "So then, men ought to regard us as servants of Christ and as those
entrusted with the secret things of God.  Now it is required that those who
have been giving a trust must prove faithful.  I care very little if I am
judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.  My
conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent.  It is the Lord who
judges me.  Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait til the
Lord comes.  He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose
the motives of men's hearts.  At that time each will receive his praise from
God."

1 Cor 9:24: "Do you not know that in a race all the runners run, but only one 
gets the prize? Run in such a way as to get the prize.  Everyone who competes 
in the games goes into strict training.  They do it to get a crown that will 
not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever.  Therefore I do 
not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the 
air.  No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to 
others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize."

"Do not be arrogant, but be afraid.  For if God did not spare the natural
branches, he will not spare you either.  Consider therefore the kindness
and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you,
provided that you continue in his kindness.  Otherwise, you also will be
cut off. " (Romans 11:21)  

Matthew 10:22 "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to 
the end will be saved."

Regarding your claims that salvation is by faith alone and entirely apart from
anything else, I would quote to you:

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and
anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who
is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.  Again, anyone who says
to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin.  But anyone who says,
'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell." (Matthew 5:22)

"If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away.  It is
better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be
thrown into hell.  And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and
throw it away.  It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for
your whole body to go into hell."  (Matthew 5:29)

1 Tim 4:15f: "Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so
that everyone may see your progress.  Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your
hearers."

[continued]

    Hi Eric,
    
    Reposted, got my attention twice!  Will read through when I have more
    time, thanks for reposting and answering!
    
    Nancy

[continued from .67]
1 Tim 4:15f: "Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so
that everyone may see your progress.  Watch your life and doctrine closely.
Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your
hearers."

1 John 2:3: "We know that we have come to know him if we obey his commands.
The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar,
and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys His word, God's love is
truly made complete in him.  This is how we know we are in him: Whoever claims
to live in him must walk as Jesus did."  

1 John 3:14: "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love
our brothers.  Anyone who does not love remains in death."  

John 3:36: "He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not
obey the Son shall not see life."

Hebrews 5:8f: "Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he
suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for
all who obey him . . ."

Matthew 19:23f (the parable of the rich young ruler): "Then Jesus said to his
disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the
kingdom of heaven.  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through
the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.' When the
disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, 'Who then can be
saved?' Jesus looked at them and said, 'With man this is impossible, but with
God all things are possible.'"

Philippians 2:12: "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

"You believe that there is one God.  Good! Even the demons believe that -- and
shudder.  You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is
useless?" (James 2:19-20)

Those who do not obey Christ will obtain eternal punishment: 2 Thes 1:8, John
3:36.  Romans 2:13 in fact says that those who obey are justified! If we do not
continue in grace, we will be pruned (Rom 11:22), but if we persevere, then we
will be saved: 1 Tim 4:16. Christ says in Matthew 7:13 that the narrow and
difficult way is the way to life; this obviously cannot imply that belief alone
is sufficient.  Jesus warns his followers to be vigilant so that they will not
be condemned in Matthew 24:42; a useless warning if we are assured of
salvation.  Again in Matthew 24:13, Jesus says that only he who endures to the
end shall be saved.  Believers are warned to ensure that we do not fall under
the sentence of the devil (1 Tim 3:6). I would also point out the parable of
the Sheep and the Goats (Matthew 25:31), where judgment is based on the good
deeds of the persons being judged (although clearly it is implied that faith is
being judged as well).

You see, when St. Paul spoke in Romans, Ephesians, and Galatians about how our
salvation is based on faith, he was contrasting this with the Judaizing point
of view, viz., that salvation is attained merely through observance of the
ritual Mosaic law: faith was not necessary, they claimed.  This was a serious
danger in the church at the time that Paul was writing, which is why he spends
so much time on it.

However, Paul never intended, when he wrote that, to say that someone who has
faith has no need to do anything else (for example, repent, love, renounce sin)
in order to be saved.  This is why there is no contradiction between Paul and
James: Paul is emphasizing that salvation comes through faith in Christ (not
faith ALONE, which he never says), not through the Jewish law.  But James,
writing more to a Gentile audience, is not addressing this issue, hence he says
that faith alone is not sufficient, we must also do good deeds.  By this he is
NOT referring to works of the Jewish law, but deeds of love and charity:
feeding the hungry, taking care of the sick and the orphans, welcoming the
stranger, clothing the naked.  In short, we are called to do what Paul exhorted
his listeners to do: "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem
and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent
and turn to God and prove their repentance by their deeds." (Acts 26:20)

Protestants get so worked up about Paul's anti-Judaizing polemics that they
entirely miss the context of his words and indeed don't even recognize the
words of our Lord Himself, who said some of the strongest things concerning the
necessity of not just believing but living out our faith by what we do.  Luther
and the other Reformers were wrong to conclude that Paul was saying that we
need only to have faith in God (which he defined merely as a trust in his
promises) in order to be saved, and that there was absolutely nothing else,
whether it be love for God, or repentance, or renunciation of sin, which was
needed for salvation.

This is why I believe that the teaching of "salvation by faith alone" is so
wrong.  It is one thing to say that we are "saved by grace alone", because that
is true: our salvation is merely by the grace and mercy of God, and we cannot
merit it at all.  It is another thing to say that we are "saved by faith",
because this is a Biblical phrase; "faith is the root and beginning of
salvation" (Council of Trent).  Our journey to salvation begins with faith.
But as Scripture says, faith without works is dead, and if we do not bear fruit
according to the grace we have received, we will be cut off and thrown into the
fire.  And so I believe that "salvation by faith alone" is wholly unbiblical.

Eric

>    Reposted, got my attention twice!  Will read through when I have more
>    time, thanks for reposting and answering!

Yes, I discovered to my chagrin that the joys of the new version of Notes
is not as great as I thought: Yes, it does word wrap, but it doesn't put
in carriage returns for those running any OTHER version of Notes.  So I
extracted and word wrapped it.

And while I was at it I cut my 154 line post down to two 85 line posts
(wrapping added lines).

Eric

>Who are the sheep and who are the goats?

The sheep are those who did good, who loved God and neighbor:

   Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of
   my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the
   world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye
   gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed
   me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
   Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an
   hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a
   stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee
   sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say
   unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of
   the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

					(Matt. 25:34-40, KJV)

The goats are those who did not love and serve their neighbors, and therefore
were disobedient to God, also failing to love and serve Him.  They may have
thought they had faith, but their faith was disobedient and empty:

   Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye
   cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For
   I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
   no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed
   me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also
   answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a
   stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
   Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
   did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these
   shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life
   eternal.

					(Matt. 25:41-46, KJV)

Salvation requires us to persevere in faith until the end, and to live that
faith all our lives by doing all those works which God has prepared for us
to walk in.  God requires us to love Him not only with our lips, but in our
lives, by giving up ourselves to his service, all the days of our lives.

/john

    .76
    
    Interesting interpretation....
    
    

Another point of view from a new noter... and my appologies for anything 
circular as I have only been able to skim!

As a protestant Christian, I would not presume that Catholics (in general) 
are not Christian, but still would make a distinction between "cultural" 
Catholics (by heritage, those who are told they are Catholic by upbringing) 
and Christian Catholics (by participation and choice, those who personally 
accept Jesus as their Savior).

And RE: .74, my understanding of the context of Paul's statement that 
"faith without works is dead", was his his building an argument about 
the _evidences_ of faith.  That good works are the evidences of our faith
(our justification or salvation), and are the work of the Holy Spirit in our
lives during our Christian walk (our sanctification, growing in His image).
From this point of view, good works are the effect of our salvation, not 
part of the cause, and an evidence to others which may encourage their 
respect and hopefully acceptance of our faith.  Our "journey to salvation"
which begins (and indeed caused by) our faith, ultimately waits upon the 
actuality of our being saved (our glorification).

I've heard that the Catholic faith allows for new revelations owing to the 
prophetic relationship between the (please insert appropriate honor) Pope 
and Jesus and the Father.  This being the source for revelations such as 
Mary's virgin birth.  I'm personally confused  in general between our reliance 
on what is Biblical as the only truth, and allowing for the Lord to provide 
prophets in our time.  (Maybe this discussion is elsewhere?)

However I still find it presumptious for one of us to ascribe the omnicience 
required to answer intercessory prayers to anyone, even one ascended into 
heaven, rather than praying to directly to the Father, through the Holy Spirit,
in Jesus name (all being One).  Personally asking a living saint to pray for 
or with you is different.  Was the provision for a conversational relationship 
between live and dead saints another Papal revelation?

Thanks,
Tanya

P.S. I mean no humor or disrespect by "please insert appropriate honor, 
but humbly ask your assistance as I'm naive about how to address him politely.

>This being the source for revelations such as Mary's virgin birth.

The only virgin birth the Church teaches is that of Our Lord, born of Mary
the Virgin, as scripture and the creeds teach us.

Possibly you are referring to the declaration made in accordance with the
scriptural doctrine that the Holy Spirit will lead the Church into all
Truth (John 17:13), that the ancient tradition that Our Lord's mother,
to make her a fitting vessel for the gestation of God's only Son, and
in an especial outpouring of God's favor upon her (Luke 1:28), as a
reward for her great faith (Luke 1:38), applied the fruits of Our Lord's
redemption retroactively to her from the moment of her normal human conception
by Joachim and Anna, keeping her free from any sin, is not an inappropriate
tradition, but rather is Truth revealed to the whole Church by the Holy Spirit.

This is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.

/john

>Was the provision for a conversational relationship between live and dead
>saints another Papal revelation?

Well, first of all, the Church does not teach that there is a conversational
relationship, but rather that the saints will help us to pray to God.  Also,
your comment about "the omniscience required to answer prayers" is also off
base, since saints do not answer prayers; they simply continue to present
our intercessions to God, just as anyone else whom we ask.

And it's not a papal revelation but rather the documented ancient practice
of the Church.

In the Creeds we say that we believe in "the communion of saints", which
means that we believe there is a close union (communion) between all faithful
believers, both alive and with the Lord, and that we can therefore ask for the
prayers of the angels and saints, not just those still alive but also those
with the Lord.

/john

    re -.2
    
    I could tell it was a doctrinal statement - the paragraph was one
    sentence, and I couldn't parse it!
    
    ;-)
    
    p

Mebbe with a few more jots and tittles it would have been easier.

| <<< Note 287.70 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Be there" >>>


| >	Neither of them say one needs to hold the Bible to any certain
| >authority either. Faith, as in your belief in God seems to be what matters.
| >I know it matters to me, and it would seem that the Bible says the same.


| No, you're right on that point..we wouldn't have those verses which I posted
| and you quoted were it not for the Bible, however, nor would we know the
| path to salvation.

	God used an item to tell us the path. Maybe He would have used
something else. Remember Moses and the moutain? Then He used stone. He
uses people. Even bulletin boards. All sorts of things. The Bible is 
one of MANY things that He uses to show us what He wants us to know.

| >| One can know, without a doubt, that they are going to heaven upon their death.

| >	Agreed Jim! 100%!  Scary, huh?

| Well, yeah, but then what's even scarier, is that one of us is wrong..

	Then me thinks ya better change yer position Jim...... :-)


Glen

re Nancy:    "Interesting interpretation...."
    
"Interesting" is such an interesting word.

There's actually very little interpretation provided by me, though.  Our
Lord's plain words call his followers to a practical religion of loving-
kindness, of love of neighbor, which demonstrates and completes love of God.

Commenting on this, St. Theresa of Avila writes: "Here the Lord asks only
two things of us: love for his Majesty and love of neighbor.  It is for
these two virtues that we must strive, and if we attain them perfectly
we are doing his will...  The surest sign that we are keeping these two
commandments is, I think, that we should really be loving our neighbor;
for we cannot be sure if we are loving God, although we may have good
reasons for believing that we are, but we can know quite well if we are
loving our neighbor.  And be certain that, the farther advanced you are
in this, the greater the love you will have for God; for so dearly does
his Majesty love us that he will reward our love for our neighbor by
increasing the love which we bear to himself, and that in a thousand
ways: this I cannot doubt" ("Interior Castle", V, 3).

Or, from Vatican II: "Today there is an inescapable duty to make ourselves
the neighbor of every man, no matter who he is, and if we meet him, to come
to his aid in a positive way, whether he is an aged person abandoned by all,
a foreign worker despised without reason, a refugee, an illegitimate child
wrongly suffering for a sin he did not commit, or a starving human being who
awakens our conscience by calling to mind the words of Christ: `As you did it
to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me'" (Gaudium et spes,
27).

In my opinion, there is no honest way to accept the Bible as inerrant Truth
and simultaneously to interpret away our Lord's call to demonstrate faith in
Him and service to Him through love of neighbor -- and to do that through
works of charity.

/john

>Hebrews 6:9: "Even though we speak like this, dear friends, we are confident 
>
>Hebrews 3:12: "See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving
>
>cut off. " (Romans 11:21)  

    I always thought the sheep and the goats were the saved and unsaved.

 That's how I'd always viewed it..

    Me too... 

Sorry, I meant the omnicience to hear our prayers (so many simultaneously 
around the world) in order to relay them. 

I thought the communion of saints was specifically a reference to the 
sacrement of communion that saints (the saved) have the privelege of 
sharing together, in rememberence of Jesus' sacrifice...?

It always bothered me when communion was limited to members of the church, 
and not shared with other believers in Christ. (I think this is so in many 
different churches/denominations.) I recognise that the church intends for
communion to only be offered to believers, and that policies may be intended 
to better assure that; but I miss it when there is not a shared attitude that
all Christians are one in Christ.


-Tanya

>    I always thought the sheep and the goats were the saved and unsaved.

Have I said anything different?  Did Jesus say anything different in the
portions of Matthew that I have been quoting?

This is the point of the fifth great discourse in Chapter 25.

The sheep are on the right hand and the goats on the left (v. 33).

Now go back and read what I posted in .76, and exactly what Jesus said about
who will be saved and who will not be saved.

/john

re.76 and related

	It's clear from the Lord's own words that MAtt 25:34 and forward is not
related to the judgement of christians in any way. It is not even related to
seperating christians from non-christians. His own words say:

	v32 "And all *the nations* will be gathered before Him, and He will
separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from
the goats".

	When does this occur? v31 "But when the Son of Man cones in His glory
and all the angels with Him, at that time He will sit on throne of His glory"

	The throne of His glory is the millennium kingdom. This is the judgement
of the Gentiles who survived the great tribulation.  The christians have already
been judged at His judgement seat (Rom 14:10, 2 Cor 5:10)  *in the air* (1 thess
4:17) before He sets up his millennial rule from Jerusalem. 

Regards,
ace

re .-1  I don't think so:

25:32  And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them
 one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:

The "nations" shall be gathered before him, but then he shall separate "them",
the people, individually, in their individual judgements.

Don't take this out of the context of the whole chapter, especially verse 46.

/john

>	It's clear from the Lord's own words that MAtt 25:34 and forward is not
> related to the judgement of christians in any way. It is not even related to
> seperating christians from non-christians. His own words say:

>	v32 "And all *the nations* will be gathered before Him, and He will
> separate them from one another, just as the shepherd separates the sheep from
> the goats".

My NIV says, "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate
the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left."

And then he addresses those on his right and on his left as people.

>	The throne of His glory is the millennium kingdom. This is the judgement
> of the Gentiles who survived the great tribulation.  The christians have already
> been judged at His judgement seat (Rom 14:10, 2 Cor 5:10)  *in the air* (1 thess
> 4:17) before He sets up his millennial rule from Jerusalem. 

<sigh> ... sometimes fundamentalists simply amaze me.

1 Thes 4:17 refers ONLY to Christians alive at the time of the GENERAL RESUR-
RECTION. There is no context of judgment here. (I might add, too, that the
"Rapture" is a farce.  Christians will be raptured at the general resurrection
and Second Coming, and not a moment sooner, according to 1 Thes 4:17.)

Romans 14:10 simply says that Christians will have to stand before the judgment
seat of God, as does 2 Cor 5:10.  These are both in the FUTURE tense,

I have no clue how you can conclude, Scripturally, that Christians are either
judged separately from non-Christians (and can there be any righteous non-
Christians?), or that the judgment of Christians is separate from the judgment
of Matthew 25.

It seems to me that this rather novel interpretation of Matthew 25 is used to
support the false gospel of salvation by faith alone.  (Hey, we can't let God's
Word get in the way of what we want to believe!)

Eric

>I have no clue how you can conclude, Scripturally, that Christians are either
>judged separately from non-Christians (and can there be any righteous non-
>Christians?), or that the judgment of Christians is separate from the judgment
>of Matthew 25.
    
    There is the Bema Seat Judgment (II Corinthians 5:10) and the Great White 
    Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).
    
    Mike

    I have a question about the famous vision at Fatima.  Fatima was
    Muhammed's daughter, which is the pinnacle of Islam and is
    diametrically opposed to Judaism.  The current Pope is a firm believer
    in this vision at Fatima, and I believe that his life was spared (from
    an assassin's gun) while admiring a Fatima trinket that a little girl
    had (bent over to inspect it).  What is more intriguing about this is the
    current rapport that the Pope has with the Islamic countries.

    But what is beyond provocative is the Heraldry of the Vatican.  Right
    under the mitre is the Crescent Moon of Islam.  In II Thessalonians
    2:4, Paul uses the phrase, "above all that is *called* God."  It makes
    you wonder if that doesn't include Allah.  In Revelation 13 this same
    person unifies all religions on the planet earth, and we've been
    looking over the 2B Muslims who worship Allah.  He would have to be
    accepted by the Jews as well as the Islamic people.  

    What I'm wondering about is why is the Pope currently building this
    rapport with Islam, then officially recognizing Israel this year and
    where is the Catholic church going with this?

    thanks,
    Mike

    BTW - Islamic eschatology is also looking for their equivalent of the
    Messiah and believe he is alive today.  

Arabic-speaking Christians worship Allah, since that is the Arabic word for God.

    Eric,
    
    First off, I need to let you know I took offense to the sarcasm at
    thend of your note.  But laying that aside, you have basically pitted
    the Bible against itself with your catholic doctrine.
    
    Ephesians 2:8,9 is VERY clear that works has nothing to do with
    salvation... can you explain away what the Bible says here?
    
    For by grace are ye saved through faith, it is a gift of God, not of
    works, lest any man should boast.
    
    The key element to look at here is the last word in this text --
    "boast".  The first sin committed by man was an act of pride or ego if
    you will and that is where Satan gets his advantage in most of us.
    
    He used deception to impose a false ego system in Eve and subsequently
    Adam from whence comes the fall of man.  Romans 5:12.
    
    Whereas by one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, for
    that all have sinned.
    
    I believe the Bible to be inerrant and therefore any conclusion of
    salvation by works would pit the Bible against itself.  Of course,
    those who believe the Bible to be errant, but a good book will say
    Ah-Ha! there it is another discrepancy.
    
    There is no discrepancy.  Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about man's
    righteousness for salvation. Jesus himself said that, "Ye must be born
    again" and likens the spiritual birth to a physical birth.  Now aren't
    we mothers glad we don't give birth to our children every day???? :-)
    
    Neither does God need to give birth to us over and over again.  It is
    clear that we are judged for our works in heaven... and many works will
    burn and perish, but our souls will be saved.  These verses too,
    somehow get explained away, but there they are in black and white and
    very easy to read... :-)
    
    No a works salvation leaves open the door for Satan's greatest weapon
    against us, our own egos.

    Fatima is the name of the village in Portugal where the Blessed Virgin
    Mary appeared to three  children in 1917. Only one of the Children is still
    alive today, she is a nun by the name of Lucia. 

    Jim

>Nowhere in the Bible does it talk about man's righteousness for salvation.

Wrong.  Jesus himself said:

    Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye
    did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
    And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous
    into life eternal.

This is why I've been asking you to study and think about the fifth great
discourse in Matthew 25.

/john

    John,
    
    re: .100 (nice snarf ;-)
    
    Those who are not righteous due to their lack of faith in Him would
    obviously not be doing good works unto the least of His brothers (and
    therefore Himself).  Those who *are* righteous by their faith in Him
    will show evidence of that.  Note too that He says to some  who say
    to Him, "Hey - didn't we do all sorts of neat stuff (i.e., works) in 
    Your Name?", 'Depart from me - I never knew you...'.
    
    How does one know the L-rd?  Through works?  Or through faith?
    
    Steve

    It is not by our righteousness that he knows us, but by the
    righteousness of Christ we are reconciled to God.
    
    "All our righteousness is as filthy rags."
    
    

re.92 John

> Don't take this out of the context of the whole chapter, especially verse 46.	

	Fair enough. To be brought into the realm of eternal life (the realm of
God's ruling and reigning in the millennium) is the portion of the nations who
1) survive the tribulation and 2) helped the suffering christians and Jews
during the tribulation. This is the meaning of v46. That is not to be confused
with receiving eternal *into* us (John 3:16), the portion of the believers. Big
difference to me. What did you think the Lord would do with the nations
(Gentiles) anyway?  V32 clearly shows that it is the "nations" (Gentiles) not
the church being judged here. In the New Testament times there are three
catagories of peoples: (1) Jew (God's chosen people), (2) Gentiles (the
unbelieving Gentiles), and (3) the church (a composition of the believers in
Christ). 1 Cor 10:32 

See Mike Heiser's response concerning the BEMA.

re.93 Eric

> <sigh> ... sometimes fundamentalists simply amaze me.

	Why thank you Eric. I take that as a compliment. You see, I'd rather be
biblically fundamental than "out to lunch", speaking of which...  8*) 8*)

> (I might add, too, that the "Rapture" is a farce.
> It seems to me that this rather novel interpretation of Matthew 25 is used to
> support the false gospel of salvation by faith alone.

	Over the years, I've come to realize that with some folks there is no
way to reason, explain, or discuss certain matters. Their mind is made up. No
light can break through. Even God Himself cannot budge them! (I might even be
thinking of myself 8*)

	Eric, I learn a lot from you about Catholicism and the way you think
about it. However, I'm afraid our views about spiritual matters are so vastly
different (reference above) even in the basics that meaningful engagement is not
possible between us. 

Regards,
Ace 

re .103

Ace, you seem to have come up with an interesting innovation, unless you're
claiming the Apostles taught this.

What I hear you saying is that those who aren't Christians are the ones
being talked about by Our Lord in the fifth discourse.  I hear you saying
that these people, these non-Christians, will be saved if they have done
good, and cast into hell if they haven't.  I hear you saying that you don't
have to be a Christian and don't have to have faith as long as you do good
works.  If these are the non-Christians, then you're saying that the sheep
are the righteous non-Christians, and they are saved by righteousness.

Now that's certainly not the traditional apostolic interpretation of our
Lord's fifth discourse.  I've posted several explanations of the traditional
interpretation, but let me try again.

The traditional interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46 is completely consistent
with everything else Our Lord ever said.  It fits right in.  Elsewhere, when
asked how to go to heaven, he says to keep his commandments.  Elsewhere, he
also says "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments."  Elsewhere, he says
that the two greatest commandments are to love God and to love neighbor.

The traditional interpretation of the fifth discourse is that our Lord is
demanding love of God (including faith in him) as well as love of neighbor
(in the least whom we love God).  If we love neighbor, we love God.

But if we disobey God's commandment to love and serve neighbor we have
disobeyed God's commandment to love and serve Him as well.  We have not
kept his commandments; we have not loved him.  We are in a heap of trouble
come judgment day.

/john

    John,
    
    You have ignored the verses that I've given refuting this
    interpretation of salvation through works.  No one can love with God
    being inside of him first.  That comes from salvation.  I John explains
    emphatically that the only love that is within that can be demonstrated
    to meet the commandment to love our neighbors is through Him.
    
    If we do not have this love it is because the love of the Father is not
    in us.  How do we get this love, Jesus' answers that question in John
    3, it appears in your previous note where Christ is asked EXPLICITLY
    what one must do to be saved, that you have ignored being born again,
    not doing good works.
    

>Elsewhere, when asked how to go to heaven, he says to keep his commandments.
    
    I'm interested in the verses to support this.
    

    I have finally caught up with all of the replies to this note.
    As usual, the criticism about the Catholic Faith (especially the Pope)
    still continues. I believe my faith to be correct as I am sure other
    religions think theirs is. We could argue Scripture and its
    interrpretation until we turn blue. Its obvious we will NEVER agree.
    
    I will, as I always have, let God judge me and my faith. We should not
    be judging others. 
    
    As I have said before, I love being Catholic and will never change.
    I am a Christian just as you are. Only God knows which of us is
    correct.
    
    Terri

    
    
    I have been involved in the Catholic church and found many spirit 
    filled people who love Jesus and he is the center of their lives.
    
    The Retreats I have gone on you knew God was there. I was a born
    again Christian years ago.
    I had questions about the Catholic church and instead of thinking
    wondering I found out. One good way to find out is to go to
    a RCIA class. 
    
    I have been involved in a couple of prayer groups and they
    sure love Jesus and pray for everyone.
    
    God Loves us all and that includes the Catholics. 
    
    I feel also when you ask Jesus to come into your Life..that
    you would want to do good works for his sake. 
    
    
    Ann
    
    
    

>>Elsewhere, when asked how to go to heaven, he says to keep his commandments.
>    
>    I'm interested in the verses to support this.
    
	And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good
	thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
	And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none
	good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life,
	keep the commandments.
					(Matthew 19:16-17)

Jesus repeatedly instructs people to do good.  He repeatedly chastises people
who either do good but have not faith or who claim to have faith but do not
salt the earth with the fruits of their faith.

Salvation by works without faith is a heresy.
Salvation by faith alone without fruits of that faith is also a heresy.

/john

By the way, Nancy, I have not ignored faith.

Never have I said that anyone can be saved without faith.

Never.

But I have also not ignored works.  Works before faith are worthless.

But works are clearly required, after faith.

Salvation by works is a heresy.
Salvation by faith alone is also a heresy.

/john

    I feel that I must step in at this time. I have been a RON until now
    but hope to participate in these discussions. I am part of a spirit
    filled prayer group in Derry, N.H. that meets at the Congregational 
    Church in town because our parish, Holy Cross Catholic Community, does 
    not have a church yet. 
    
    Our prayer/bible study group is open to anyone of any faith and we pray 
    for all churches every week. After seeing this note and reading the
    discussions going on I raised the people of this conference up to have
    the gift of discernment and lead this discussion toward harmony rather
    than discord.
    
    I am by no means an expert on the Catholic religion or all of the
    Protestant beliefs but have a fair amount of experience in both
    religions. I will explain more about my background in the introduction
    note and not take up the time here.
    
    The one thing that I will say is that I recently returned to the
    Catholic faith and the community that I am involved with is very
    concerned about the unity of all Christians and not with tearing  apart
    someone else's beliefs.

re.104 

John,

>Ace, you seem to have come up with an interesting innovation, unless you're
>claiming the Apostles taught this.

	Sorry, I can't take the credit. This is the teaching of the New
Testament as I see it. If I didn't think that it was I wouldn't accept it. I
care only for the Bible, not traditional teachings.

> I hear you saying
> that these people, these non-Christians, will be saved if they have done
> good, and cast into hell if they haven't.

	Not exactly. I am saying that the Gentiles who during the great
tribulation help and assist the persecuted Jews and Christians, and survive the
great tribulation will be judged according to the mercy they showed. 

	Let's back up to get the whole picture. The Lord began this speaking
when His disciples inquired of Him "When shall these things be, and what is the
sign of Your coming and of the consummation of the age?" Matt 24:3 The Lord's
reply spans MAtt 24:4 through MAtt 25. This is collaborated by MAtt 26:1 "And it
came to pass when Jesus had finished all these words..."

	So MAtt 24:4 thru Matt 25 is the Lord's answer to the when and how of
the destruction of the temple (MAtt 24:2), the sign of His coming, and the
consummation of the age.

	Within in this reply, the Lord Jesus gives a thorough answer to these
question concerning Israel, the church, and the nations.

	Concerning Israel: 	MAtt 24:1 - 31 
	Concerning the Church:	MAtt 24:32 - MAtt 25:30
	Concerning the Nations: MAtt 25:33 - 46

	Confusion has and will result when mis-applying the prophecies of
MAtthew 24 and 25 to the various groups (as I think you have done, i.e. applying
the prophecy concerning the nations to the church would lead one to believe that
christians will be cast into eternal punishment in the lake of fire. This of
course would be a gross error concerning the christian faith) .

	I agree that all will come under a judgment. And judgment will begin
with the Lord's house of God (1 Pete 4:17). However, the way the Lord judges,
the timing of the judgments, the reward or punishments of the judgments are not
the same. 

Regards,
Ace

	

	

    
    If you could attend a Easter Vigil, you would know that Jesus is the
    center of a Catholics life and also when they celebrate Jesus birth
    They really celebrate. 
    I have had alot of wonderful experiances with the Church and have 
    always walked away feeling good and closer with Jesus.
    
    He is everywhere...and has love for all....
    
    He has us where he wants us... 
    
    We all struggle and this is why we pray and support each
    other..
    
    The most beauitful church services I have been to is when
    all churches come together and have a Service together.
    Including Jewish. That is something to see.
    
    In Gods Love
    
      Ann
    
    

>> I hear you saying that these people, these non-Christians, will be saved 
>> if they have done good, and cast into hell if they haven't.
>
>	Not exactly. I am saying that the Gentiles who during the great
>tribulation help and assist the persecuted Jews and Christians, and survive
>the great tribulation will be judged according to the mercy they showed. 

But you are saying that they will be saved by their works, even if they do not
profess any faith.  You are saying that their works make them righteous.  For
certainly if they profess faith in salvation through Jesus Christ, they will
be baptized (by water, blood, or desire), become Christians, and be saved.

I don't see any evidence in the writings of the Fathers that what you are
saying is what the Apostles understood Our Lord to have taught.  He taught
them to make disciples of all nations (The Great Commission, Matt 28:19).
You seem to have a new revelation, a quite novel interpretation.  With your
interpretation, there is not a lot of need to obey the Great Commission.

/john

    
    I also want to add, Catholics do not worship Mary, they ask her
    to pray for them, just like we would ask any friend to pray for
    us when we need prayers. I believe and learned that she is a good
    role model and think it's nice to see how fathfull she is.
    She was chosen to give birth to Jesus. 
    
    Ann
    
    
    
    

Re: Note 287.110 (John C.)

>But works are clearly required, after faith.
>
>Salvation by works is a heresy.
>Salvation by faith alone is also a heresy.

    "Salvation" (faith) that is not subsequently evidenced by "works"
    (behavior that is in accordance with the Christian life) is a salvation
    (faith) that is open to question.  However, according to the book of
    Galatians, "salvation" by anything more than faith alone is "another
    gospel", and is anathema.
    
    Mark L.

    
    On Hymn the Catholics sing and I know others do also. Is here I am
    Lord. 
    
    I the Lord of Sea and Sky I have heard my people cry. 
    It is I lord. I have heard you calling in the night.
    It is I Lord where you lead me. I will follow where
    you lead me...
    
    Ann
    
    

re.110

John,

> But works are clearly required, after faith.

	Absolutely! But they are not required to determine the believers eternal
salvation. Rather they determine the believer's reward or punishment. 

Regards,
ace

    
    I would think a Christian would want to do good works for Jesus
    sake.
    
    Ann
    
    

>    I would think a Christian would want to do good works for Jesus
>    sake.
    
    Exactly.  It is the natural response of being a new creation in Christ
    Jesus.  *HIS* desire is to do the works of His Father, and if we have
    His life, such will be our desire.  However, it is the faith of the
    Christian, not the works of the Christian, that makes him/her a
    Christian.
    
    Mark L.

re.114

John,

>But you are saying that they will be saved by their works, even if they do not
>profess any faith. 

Heavens no.

Not "saved" like a christian. Christians *receive* eternal life. Eternal in
nature and durability. The reward to overcoming faithful christians is to rule
and reign with Christ for 1000 years. Not all christians will receive this
specific reward, but nevertheless, in eternity all true christians will enjoy
His presence for eternity. 
	As for the nations in MAtt 25:32, if they happen to survive the great
tribulation (it's no picnic), and if they help the suffering believers and Jews
during that time, they will be allowed to enter the millennial kingdom of Christ
as the nations which He and the overcoming christians will rule and reign over.
If they do not help the suffering christians and Jews they will be cast into
hell. There will still be nations during the 1000 reign of Christ, there will
still be death, pain, etc. for those nations nevertheless it is under the ruling
and reigning of the righteous King and His administration.

	I not asking if you accept this, but do you at least understand now what
I mean to be the difference between the christians reward and the nations reward?

Regards,
Ace   

 From page 11 of today's Union Leader


 "Thank you, God


  Say nine Hail Marys for nine days and ask for three wishes.  First
  business, second and third is for the impossible.  Have this published
  on the ninth day and your wishes will come true even though you don't
  believe in it"



 What does this mean?  I notice these frequently in the UL (and other papers).
 


 (I don't mean to insult, I'm just curious as to the origin of such notices
 published in papers.



 Jim

re.122

Surely you jest.

This for real?

ace

.97 (Nancy Morales)

>    First off, I need to let you know I took offense to the sarcasm at
>    thend of your note.

I am sorry if you were offended, but that's the way I see many interpretations,
as bizarre attempts to shoehorn certain Scriptures to fit a preconceived
doctrinal system.  Dispensationalists are notorious for this (IMHO), and the
frequency of this occurrence,and the bizarreness of the doctrines being
justified by Scripture, was one of the things that led me to conclude that the
truth was not to be found in evangelical Protestantism.

>  But laying that aside, you have basically pitted
>    the Bible against itself with your catholic doctrine.

I stand on God's Holy, Infallible Word.  It is the faith-alone folks which
I believe pit Scripture against itself.

For me, the doctrine of "salvation by faith alone" necessarily implies
salvation apart from:

1) Cooperating with God's grace;
2) Repentance and rejection of sin;
3) Hope and love;
4) Remaining in Christ;
5) Persevering in righteousness.

I do not believe that it is Biblical to say that all one needs is to trust in
God's promises and leave it at that.
    
>    Ephesians 2:8,9 is VERY clear that works has nothing to do with
>    salvation... can you explain away what the Bible says here?
    
>    For by grace are ye saved through faith, it is a gift of God, not of
>    works, lest any man should boast.

1) Salvation is a gift of God, given to us solely by His Grace and Mercy. Our
salvation comes from God alone.
2) We cannot earn it at all, nor do we have any reason to boast of our 
salvation.
3) But this is not to say that we need not love God as well, and as St. John
says, one cannot disobey God and claim to love him at the same time.

The Council of Trent says:

"But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely (Rom 3:24,
5:1), these words are to be understood in that sense which the uninterrupted
unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we
are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of
human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it
is impossible to please God (Heb 11:6) and to come to the fellowship of His
sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously [i.e. "by grace"],
because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or
works, merit the grace of justification.  For, if by grace, it is not now by
works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more. (Rom 11:6)"

You are concluding that because we cannot say that we merit our salvation, and
because salvation is by grace alone, therefore anything which we do _after_
justification, which we are able to do by God's grace, plays absolutely no role
whatsoever in whether we are ultimately saved or not.  But this is fallacious:
a gift can be rejected, or it can be abandoned and unused, plus it has to be
unwrapped! 

What Paul is speaking of is the source and root of salvation, that is, how we
are initially justified.  He is not saying, however, that once we are
justified, we need do absolutely nothing else.  We have to _live_ out what we
believe in faith, hope, and love.  We have to bear fruit.  We have to renounce
sin and persevere.  This is not a matter of "earning" the free gift; it's a
matter of _using_ the free gift and remaining in God's grace.

All the good deeds which we do, we can do only because God's grace enables us
to do them.  Therefore we do not truly merit them, nor can we boast about them,
as if they were not by grace.  However, I believe that while our whole
salvation and justification rests on grace alone, it is necessary for us to
cooperate with that grace and respond to it.  Again, the Council of Trent,
Session Six, Canon 9:

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning
that nothing else is required in order to cooperate in order to obtain the
grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be
prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema."

By God's grace, we are enabled to cooperate in our justification: and we must
cooperate by responding to this grace in order to be justified.

>    I believe the Bible to be inerrant and therefore any conclusion of
>    salvation by works would pit the Bible against itself.

I am not proposing "salvation by works."  I am proposing "salvation by faith
working [or expressing itself] through love." (Gal 5:6) Not faith alone, not
works alone, faith working through love.  And to love God is to obey his
commandments, and to love one another as he loved us. It's not a matter of
working _for_ salvation, but working _from_ salvation, that is, we do good
deeds _because_ God has saved us freely, and not to do so willingly constitutes
a false faith, a fatal ingratitude, and a rejection of God's gift.

[continued]

[continued from .125]
>    Neither does God need to give birth to us over and over again.  It is
>    clear that we are judged for our works in heaven... and many works will
>    burn and perish, but our souls will be saved.

Not always; Scripture warns many times of condemnation that Christians risk
by doing evil deeds.

The ironic thing is, that the people who usually scream "salvation by faith
alone!" the loudest are the ones who should be least concerned about being
saved according to my view of salvation.  We are not talking about a checkoff
list: "Have I fed the poor?  Check, did that last weekend ... Have I visited
the sick?  Yep, taken care of ... How about the prisoners?  Gee, I'd better
schedule that in right now!"  I am talking about an inner attitude: do we love
God?  Do we want to do what He asks?  Do we want to bear fruit?  Do we strive
to live out the Gospel message and renounce sin? If we have this attitude, then
we have the "working" faith we need to be saved.

Salvation by faith working through love expresses a quality of faith, not a
step by step procedure for reaching salvation.  A person whose faith does not
lead them to bear fruit does not have true, or saving, faith; a person whose
faith no longer causes them to bear fruit, is no longer in Christ and no longer
has saving faith.  The branch must remain on the vine. If it does, it bears
fruit.  If it does not bear fruit, it is not on the vine and will be burnt up
unless it finds the vine again real quick.

Let no one put the cart before the horse: faith comes before good deeds and
fruit.  But faith apart from good deeds -- that is faith which does not grow
and produce fruit (or which is incapable of doing so) -- is useless faith.

Eric

Here is a commentary on today's Catholic Lectionary Scripture readings from the
Navarre Bible Commentary. The reading is on the Vine and the Branches.

For Wednesday, May 4, 1994 (John 15:1-8):

The Vine and the Branches
-------------------------
(Jesus said to His disciples,) [1]"I am the vine, and My Father is the
vinedresser.  [2]Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, He takes
away, and every branch that does bear fruit He prunes that it may bear
more fruit.  [3]You are already made clean by the word which I have
spoken to you.  [4]Abide in Me, and I in you.  As the branch cannot
bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you,
unless you abide in Me.  [5]I am the vine, you are the branches.  He
who abides in Me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for
apart from Me you can do nothing.  [6]If a man does not abide in Me, he
is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered,
thrown into the fire and burned.  [7]If you abide in Me, and My words
abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you.
[8]By this My Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so
prove to be My disciples."

***********************************************************************
Commentary:

1. This comparison of the chosen people with a vine was used in the Old
Testament: Psalm 80 speaks of the uprooting of the vine in Egypt and
its re-planting in another land; and in Isaiah's Song of the Vineyard
(5:1-7) God complains that despite the care and love He has lavished on
it, His vineyard has yielded only wild grapes.  Jesus previously used
this imagery in His parable about the murderous tenants (Mt 21:33-43)
to signify the Jew's rejection of the Son and the calling of the
Gentiles.  But here the comparison has a different, more personal
meaning: Christ explains that He Himself is the true vine, because the
old vine, the original chosen people, has been succeeded by the new
vine, the Church, whose head is Christ (cf. 1 Cor 3:9).  To be fruitful
one must be joined to the new, true vine, Christ: it is no longer a
matter of simply belonging to a community but of living the life of
Christ, the life of grace, which is the nourishment which passes life
on to the believer and enables him to yield fruits of eternal life.
This image of the vine also helps understand the unity of the Church,
Christ's mystical body, in which all the members are intimately united
with the head and thereby are also united to one another (1 Cor
12:12-26; Rom 12:4-5; Eph 4:15-16).

2. Our Lord is describing two situations: that of those who, although
they are still joined to the vine externally, yield no fruit; and that
of those who do yield fruit but could yield still more.  The Epistle of
St. James carries the same message when it says that faith alone is not
enough (Jas 2:17).  Although it is true that faith is the beginning of
salvation and that without faith we cannot please God, it is also true
that a living faith must yield fruit in the form of deeds.  "For in
Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail,
but faith working through love" (Gal 5:6).  So, once can say that in
order to produce fruit pleasing to God, it is not enough to have
received Baptism and to profess the faith externally: a person has to
share in Christ's life through grace and has to cooperate with Him in
His work of redemption.

Jesus uses the same verb to refer to the pruning of the branches as He
uses to refer to the cleanness of the disciples in the next verse:
literally the translation should run: "He cleanses him who bears fruit
so that he bear more fruit".  In other words, He is making it quite
clear that God is not content with half-hearted commitment, and
therefore He purifies His own by means of contradictions and
difficulties, which are a form of pruning, to produce more fruit.  In
this we can see an explanation of the purpose of suffering: "Have you
not heard the Master Himself tell the parable of the vine and the
branches?  Here we can find consolation.  He demands much of you for
you are the branch that bears fruit.  And He must prune you `ut fructum
plus afferas": to make you bear more fruit'.

"Of course: that cutting, that pruning, hurts.  But, afterwards, what
richness in your fruits, what maturity in your actions" ([Blessed] J.
Escriva, "The Way", 701).

3. After washing Peter's feet Jesus had already said that His Apostles
were clean, though not all of them (cf. Jn 13:10).  Here, once more, He
refers to that inner cleansing which results from accepting His
teachings.  "For Christ's word in the first place cleanses us from
errors, by instructing us (cf. Titus 1:9) [...]; secondly, it purifies
our hearts of earthly affections, filling them with desire for Heavenly
things [...]; finally, His word purifies us with the strength of faith,
for `He cleansed their hearts by faith' (Acts 15:9)" (St. Thomas
Aquinas, "Commentary on St. John, in loc.").

[...]

6. If a person is not united to Christ by means of grace he will
ultimately meet the same fate as the dead branches--fire.  There is a
clear parallelism with other images our Lord uses--the parables of the
sound tree and the bad tree (Mt 7:15-20), the dragnet (Mt 13:49-50),
and the invitation to the wedding (Mt 22:11-14), etc.  Here is how St.
Augustine comments on this passage: "The wood of the vine is the more
contemptible if it does not abide in the vine, and the more glorious if
it does abide....For, being cut off it is profitable neither for the
vinedresser nor for the carpenter.  For one of these only is it
useful--the vine or the fire.  If it is not in the vine, it goes to the
fire; to avoid going to the fire it must be joined to the vine" ("In
Ioann. Evang.", 81, 3).

***********************************************************************  
[Source: "The Navarre Bible" (Text and Commentaries).  Biblical text is
taken from the Revised Standard Version and New Vulgate.  Commentary is
made by members of the Faculty of Theology of the University of
Navarre]

    
    I understand by Faith we are set free, I just feel by having Faith
    in Jesus you would want to do Good Works for him.
    
    I would like to know why do people get so upset about how others
    worship God ? 
    
    I know you do have to be careful as not all of them teach the Love
    of Jesus.
    
    Ann
    
    

>> But works are clearly required, after faith.
>
>Absolutely! But they are not required to determine the believers eternal
>salvation. Rather they determine the believer's reward or punishment. 

Are you saying that those who are saved can avoid/reduce punishment by
their works?

Where/when does this punishment take place?

/john

Re: .78
> And RE: .74, my understanding of the context of Paul's statement that 
> "faith without works is dead", was his his building an argument about 
> the _evidences_ of faith.  That good works are the evidences of our faith
> (our justification or salvation), and are the work of the Holy Spirit in our
> lives during our Christian walk (our sanctification, growing in His image).

Personally, I don't take this view because James is very adamant: we are
justified, he says, not by faith alone, but also by what we do.  Faith without
deeds, he says, is lifeless and cannot save.  This is not the language of
someone who is arguing that deeds are merely evidences of faith: he is arguing
that they are central and inherent to faith.

St. John points this out: 1 John 2:3: "We know that we have come to know him if
we obey his commands.  The man who says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he
commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.  But if anyone obeys His word,
God's love is truly made complete in him.  This is how we know we are in him:
Whoever claims to live in him must walk as Jesus did."

I believe that St. James's words can be fully explained if we note that Paul
was rebuking the Judaizers, and James was rebuking the Gentiles.

Protestants tend to separate faith from good deeds.  Catholicism does not do
this.  Faith that does not produce fruit is not truly faith at all.  We do not
believe one can separate faith from works in the first place.  This is
precisely what St. John and St. James teach.

> I've heard that the Catholic faith allows for new revelations owing to the 
> prophetic relationship between the (please insert appropriate honor) Pope 
> and Jesus and the Father.  This being the source for revelations such as 
> Mary's virgin birth.

This is incorrect.  We believe that public revelation ended with the death of
St. John the Evangelist (the last Apostle).  What the Holy Spirit does is help
the bishops of the church in the union with the Bishop of Rome to discern what
doctrines have been received from the Apostles and always believed by
Christians from innovations.

> Was the provision for a conversational relationship 
> between live and dead saints another Papal revelation?

Not unless it is one of Pope Peter.  It is an Apostolic doctrine.

.94 (Mike Heiser)
>> I have no clue how you can conclude, Scripturally, that Christians
>> are either judged separately from non-Christians (and can there be
>> any righteous non- Christians?), or that the judgment of Christians
>> is separate from the judgment of Matthew 25.
    
>    There is the Bema Seat Judgment (II Corinthians 5:10) and the Great White 
>    Throne Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15).
    
Yes, but how does one conclude that one is only for Christians and the other
for non-Christians?  We believe that there are two judgments: one is personal,
which happens at death (called the Particular Judgment), and one is at the end
of time, called the General Judgment, but each person will be present at both;
one is not for Christians and the other for non-Christians.

I might add, if one concludes that Matthew 25 is not for Christians but only
for non-Christians, isn't one implying that Christians are judged by faith,
but non-Christians are judged by works?  Where is the faith-alone crowd to
anathematize this?

.95
>    I have a question about the famous vision at Fatima.  Fatima was
>    Muhammed's daughter, which is the pinnacle of Islam and is
>    diametrically opposed to Judaism.

We believe this to be a sign that the Muslims will be converted, at the end
of time, to the Catholic faith.  Mary has said this in other apparitions.
Because the Muslims share with Catholics a veneration of Mary, we believe 
it is through Mary that they will be brought to the truth and be received into
the Ark of Salvation.  Perhaps the name "Fatima" is to indicate that their
conversion to the true faith will involve the apparitions at Fatima.

.101 (Steve McConnell)

> Those who *are* righteous by their faith in Him will show evidence of that.
    
This is quite true.  Conversely, those who do not produce this evidence --
provided, of course, that they have the opportunity to do so -- are not
righteous by their faith.

>    How does one know the L-rd?  Through works?  Or through faith?

One knows the Lord through the kind of faith which bears fruit in good deeds,
most especially love.

.103 (Ace)

> Over the years, I've come to realize that with some folks there is
> no way to reason, explain, or discuss certain matters. Their mind is
> made up. No light can break through. Even God Himself cannot budge
> them!

This is quite true; we all need to humble ourselves before God, ask for His
mercy and pardon for our sins, and repent, daily, of our pride and
stubbornness. 

>	Eric, I learn a lot from you about Catholicism and the way you think
> about it. However, I'm afraid our views about spiritual matters are so vastly
> different (reference above) even in the basics that meaningful engagement is
> not possible between us. 

I believe you are probably correct...

>Are you saying that those who are saved can avoid/reduce punishment by
>their works?

	John,

	Must you be so negative? 8*) The answer is yes, but its a matter of
reward and punishment. Those believers who have given their lives for the Lord
will be rewarded according to their offering up of themselves, and at the other
end of the spectrum those believers who are christians but live like the devil
will receive punishment. All others are in between somewhere. Thank God He is
the judge. MAtthew 24:32 - MAtthew 25:30 speak about the judgment of believers
and their reward and punishments. However, these punishments are not for
eternity. 

> Where/when does this punishment take place?

	According to the context of these verses it occurs prior to His open
coming in glory (MAtthew 25:31). Therefore it must occur before this. This only
leaves one possibility: somewhere between here and the throne. Probably in the
air where only the believers are caught up (raptured) to.  Where I don't know
exactly but it is described as a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. (24:51,
25:30)

Regards,
Ace

>   "Salvation" (faith) that is not subsequently evidenced by "works"
>   (behavior that is in accordance with the Christian life) is a salvation
>   (faith) that is open to question.  However, according to the book of
>   Galatians, "salvation" by anything more than faith alone is "another
>   gospel", and is anathema.
    
One, Galatians does not say we are saved by faith alone: it says that the
only thing that counts is "faith working through love", Gal 5:6.

Two, Galatians deals specifically with refuting the Judaizing heresy and
salvation through the Mosaic Law -- when it says that salvation is by faith,
it does not intend to mean that salvation is apart from repentance, hope and
love, perseverence in living the Gospel, and bearing fruit.

I personally tend to avoid saying that "salvation is by faith and works"
because this leaves the matter open for misunderstanding, especially since
"works" is usually used in Scripture to refer to works of the Mosaic law, not
the good deeds which are inherent to true faith.  But I will categorically
deny that "salvation is by faith alone", because those words do NOT occur
in Scripture except to be condemned.

I prefer to use the Biblical phrase of Galatians: salvation by faith working
through love.  Not faith alone.

Ace (.130):

> As for the nations in MAtt 25:32, if they happen to survive the great
> tribulation (it's no picnic), and if they help the suffering believers and
> Jews during that time, they will be allowed to enter the millennial kingdom
> of Christ as the nations which He and the overcoming christians will rule and
> reign over.  If they do not help the suffering christians and Jews they will
> be cast into hell. 

Why would someone who is not a Christian help Christians during the 
Tribulation?  Aren't all non-Christians going to accept the Mark of the Beast
and thus be handed over to wickedness and regard the Christians as mortal
enemies?

I've always seen the period of tribulation as a time when no one sits on the
fence, and there are no agnostics: either you are a zealous Christian or a
raging servant of the Beast and the Anti-Christ.  Why would someone, during
the Tribulation, not believe in Christ but refuse the take the Mark of the
Beast (since they will be forced to do so, or die)?

And where in Scripture is all this stuff about non-believers helping out
the Christians and the Jews?

Jim (.122)
>  Say nine Hail Marys for nine days and ask for three wishes.  First
>  business, second and third is for the impossible.  Have this published
>  on the ninth day and your wishes will come true even though you don't
>  believe in it"

This is superstitious nonsense condemned by the Catholic Church.  Think of
these folks as the Catholic equivalent of phoney evangelists.

re .130

I just wanted to be sure of what you were saying.

That sure does sound like Pp-ppp-pppp(say it!)purgatory.

/john

    Lest anybody be misled by some of the things that are being said in
    this stream, I submit the following wonderful gospel promises that
    demonstrate that all that is needed for salvation is faith (belief) in
    the work of the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the Word of God.
    
    John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
        Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have
        everlasting life.
    
    Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not
        of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
      9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
    
    Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus,
        and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the
        dead, thou shalt be saved.
     10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the
        mouth confession is made unto salvation.
     11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be
        ashamed.
     12 For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the
        same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
     13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
        saved.
     17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
      
    Galatians 3:1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye
        should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath
        been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
      2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the
        works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
      3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made
        perfect by the flesh?
    
      6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
        righteousness.
      7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the
        children of Abraham.
      8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen
        through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In
        thee shall all nations be blessed.
     

re.130

Eric,

>Why would someone who is not a Christian help Christians during the 
>Tribulation?  Aren't all non-Christians going to accept the Mark of the Beast
>and thus be handed over to wickedness and regard the Christians as mortal
>enemies?

	We'll find out soon enough I suppose! Schindler may be an example of
someone who falls into this catagory. 

	The verses that discuss this are the  ones we've been referring to in
MAtt 25 concerning the nations.

ace

re.132

John,

Concerning the "P" word: 

I don't think so. 8*)

Regards,
Ace

Doesn't all the "faith vs. works" discussion belong in another note?  It
really has nothing to do with Catholicism per se.

Paul

 Good point...however the moderatorship is not well represented today and
 those who are present are short in the time dept.



 I may log in later this evening and move them around if I get the chance.




Jim

Well, it isn't "faith vs. works" anyway.

It's "faith alone vs. faith and the works it produces as fruit."

/john

>    Lest anybody be misled by some of the things that are being said in
>    this stream, I submit the following wonderful gospel promises that
>    demonstrate that all that is needed for salvation is faith (belief) in
>    the work of the Lord Jesus Christ as recorded in the Word of God.

What about Matthew 5:22, 1 Tim 4:15f, 1 John 3:14, Ezekiel 33:18f, 
Hebrews 5:8f, Matthew 19:23f, Matthew 10:38, Matthew 7:13-14, Heb 4:11, 
2 Thes 1:18, Rom 2:13, James 5:12, some of which I have already
quoted?

I do not believe, once we compare Scripture with Scripture, that these
Gospel promises you quote are meant to be exhaustive and complete
descriptions of all we need to do to be saved.  I believe they presuppose 
that someone who believes will follow up on that belief and remain in
Christ: I see them as short summaries of the Gospel, or even intro-
ductions to the Gospel.

For example, if you ask me, "How do I get to LKG?" and I replied,
"Take 495 north to the 119 exit and turn left at the top of the
ramp," I would assume that you would know how to drive, follow all the
traffic signals, stop at stop signs, use your turn signal, see the
Digital sign and turn at it, park the car, turn off the ignition, and
so forth.  My instructions are not exhaustive.

The Christian is committed not to faith, but to a Person, Jesus Christ,
just as a husband is vowed not merely to the ideas of love and faith-
fulness but to the person of his wife.  I don't believe the Gospel
intends us to believe that we are saved merely by believing, apart from
a committment to the Person of Jesus Christ and submission to Him as
Lord, King, and Savior.

A good book on this topic, from an Evangelical perspective, is
"The Gospel According to Jesus" by John MacArthur. He does a good job
of refuting some of the extreme beliefs in salvation by faith alone,
although he certainly is no fan of Catholicism.

>	And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none
>	good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life,
>	keep the commandments.
>					(Matthew 19:16-17)
    
    How about John 15:12, I John 3:23, and Romans 13:8-10?

>Salvation by works is a heresy.
>Salvation by faith alone is also a heresy.
    
    what about situations where a believer can't work for Christ, such as a
    death-bed conversion?  Only faith can save in such a case and is proof
    that faith alone will save you.  

>The ironic thing is, that the people who usually scream "salvation by faith
>alone!" the loudest are the ones who should be least concerned about being
>saved according to my view of salvation.  We are not talking about a checkoff
    
    I'm biased but I agree with this.  There's just something about knowing
    the saving grace of God's atonement.  When people know they are saved,
    they don't have to spend life worrying about their eternal destiny and
    have an incredible joy of salvation.  They seem to grow in leaps in
    bounds and show the fruit out of the desire to give back to the Lord
    because of all He has done for us.  The joy and the yearning to serve
    is overwhelming once you put Christ's love and sacrifice into
    perspective.
    
    eternally secure,
    Mike

re .141 "What about those unable to do good works?"

Certainly God does not require anything physically impossible for those
who have faith in him.  Neither does he permit those who can obey his
command to love neighbor to shirk that responsibility.

I already addressed that in my original note on this subject, 462.21,
and in others, when I used the phrase, "all such good works as God has
prepared for us to walk in," as in the Prayer of Thanksgiving after
Communion used in the Episcopal Church in the USA:

�After Communion, the Celebrant says

Let us pray.

�The People may join in saying this prayer

Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost
feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious
Body and Blood of thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby
of thy favor and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate
in the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people;
and are also heirs, through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom.  And we humbly
beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may
continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast
prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom with thee
and the Holy Ghost, be all honor and glory, world without end.  Amen.

    I am no opponent of stressing the importance of good (God-directed)
    works/behavior in the Christian life.  However, the Bible is clear that
    our salvation is a *gift* that not based on any of our works.  Our
    works (in obedience to God) *do* play a great part determining in our
    inheritance/reward.
    
    Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient,
        deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and
        envy, hateful, and hating one another.
      4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward
        man appeared,
      5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according
        to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and
        renewing of the Holy Ghost;
      6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
      7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
        according to the hope of eternal life.
      8 This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou
        affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God might be
        careful to maintain good works. These things are good and
        profitable unto men.
    
    Note that verse 5 makes it clear that we *are* saved not through works
    but by God's mercy and grace.  We are then motivated to enter into the
    good works which God has determined for us.  "For we are his
    workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
    before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph 2:10)
    
    Mark L.

    Amen, Markel!  

    re:146
    
    No!
    
    Jim

re:142
>    
>    I'm biased but I agree with this.  There's just something about knowing
>    the saving grace of God's atonement.  When people know they are saved,
>    they don't have to spend life worrying about their eternal destiny and
>>    have an incredible joy of salvation.  They seem to grow in leaps in
>    bounds and show the fruit out of the desire to give back to the Lord
>    because of all He has done for us.  The joy and the yearning to serve
>    is overwhelming once you put Christ's love and sacrifice into
>    perspective.
    
     For me it isn't knowing that I'am saved that is so wonderful, but
     knowing that my sins have been forgiven. Does forgiveness of
     sin  equal  salvation, even if were to reject God in the
     future ? I don't believe so.


     Jim

>    
>    Just a simple question.  Must I be a catholic in order to obtain
>    salvation?
>    

No.  This is the heresy known as Feeneyism, named after a Boston priest.
The heresy was condemned by the Pope sometime in the 1940s.

/john

  Re : .146

  I was told the following by a priest when he counseled me because I was 
  leaving the RC Church based upon my scriptural convictions.

  "Outside the Church there is no salvation" . 

  With this explanation (probably not word for word).

  The RCC considers most Christians other than Roman Catholics and some
  orthodox folk "separarted brethren" but still within the fold of Rome. 
  They are "invincibly ignorant" of the fact that the Church of Rome is 
  the True Church and therefore still viable candidates for salvation.

  People like yourself who have leave the Church via a volitional act
  of the will are damned.

  I do remember these exact words :  

   "you mean you are going to gamble your soul on what the 
    King James Bible (sic) says?"

  Hank

    RE:150

    The priest answer was not the official teaching of the Catholic Church.

    Vatican II States of non-Christian religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism,
    saying, "The Catholic Church rejects nothing which is true and holy in 
    these religions" which "often reflect a ray of that Truth which
    enlightens all men.(Non-Christian Religions 2) The same document speaks
    of the same reverence with regards to Islam, which contains elements of
    both Judaism and Christianity and of course speaks of Judaism, the
    root from which Christianity came from. 

    The Catholic Church, faithful to the Bible and Tradition teaches
    that people of other religions can be saved.

    Jim

Hi Jim,

Following the references to Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam, you put :
�    The Catholic Church, faithful to the Bible and Tradition teaches
�    that people of other religions can be saved.

This is going right over to the opposite stance.  I'd like a little
clarification, please!  Does this mean to imply that the Catholics view
salvation as available through ways other than Jesus' blood?  Or does it
just mean that someone who has held another religion may convert to
Catholicism?  And if the latter, in the context of the discussion, does it
mean that for a protestant to be saved, it is necessary for him to convert
to Catholicism? 

							Andrew 

Re:  .152

Roman Catholicism did a major switch in the last Council.

Previously, you had to be a RC to be saved.

Now, you can be anything and be saved.

Of course, there's a lot more language and a few restrictions,
but this is the simplistic way of looking at it.

Personally, I prefer the first view to the second (although
both miss the mark, the second is a LOT more dangerous).

Collis

� Now, you can be anything and be saved.

Actually wide open? - ie "No condemnation for those who are in Christ 
Jesus", NOR for those who are 'outside Christ Jesus'?

							Andrew

re:152

>This is going right over to the opposite stance.  I'd like a little
>clarification, please!  Does this mean to imply that the Catholics view
>salvation as available through ways other than Jesus' blood?  

    Nope ! We are all saved through the blood of Christ. Even for people who 
    have never heard his name, but have faith in God, Jesus is the Way, 
    the Truth and the Life.

    God's grace falls on those who He wishes it to fall on. See Acts 10:34-35.

    >Or does it
>just mean that someone who has held another religion may convert to
>Catholicism?  And if the latter, in the context of the discussion, does it
>mean that for a protestant to be saved, it is necessary for him to convert
>to Catholicism? 

     Nope, I'm not saying this at all.
		


     Jim

    re:152

    Actually it wasn't a switch. The Catholic Church's teaching that it was
    the one true Church founded by Christ was misunderstood and often
    taught by those who misunderstood it, that only Catholics would go to
    heaven. Those not baptized in Christ, but without sin, were in a state of 
    limbo, which basically means "to be in an unknown state".

     Jim

Hi Jim,

You didn't quite hit the query on the nose with the response of .155 ;-). 
In .151, you put: 

�    The Catholic Church, faithful to the Bible and Tradition teaches
�    that people of other religions can be saved.

I wasn't sure which you were saying of :
	� Ignorance of salvation does not commit people to hell
	� People of any religion can convert [to Christianity or Catholicism]
	� Cleansing from sin, through the LORD Jesus is available via other 
	  religions, although their adherents don't acknowledge His Name, 
	  having known this way...

Now the first two points I would agree with, but the context of the 
discussion made it appear to me that maybe you meant the third point.
Now I don't believe that you meant this, but would be glad for you to 
explicitly confirm that for me!!

						Thanks
							Andrew

re:157

>I wasn't sure which you were saying of :
>	� Ignorance of salvation does not commit people to hell
>	� People of any religion can convert [to Christianity or Catholicism]

        Both true.

>	� Cleansing from sin, through the LORD Jesus is available via other 
>	  religions, although their adherents don't acknowledge His Name, 
>	  having known this way...

     Salvation comes to all of us through Jesus Christ, whether your are 
     a Christian or not. If you are saved, it is because of Him, period. 
     Religion doesn't save anyone. People of other religions, who love God, 
     and do their best to live their lives according to His will, can also 
     be saved, even though they do not convert to Christianity or accept
     Jesus as their Lord and Savior. 

     Jim

Hi Jim,

Are you saying that you would embrace the third point as stated?

								Andrew?

>     Salvation comes to all of us through Jesus Christ, whether your are 
>     a Christian or not. If you are saved, it is because of Him, period. 
>     Religion doesn't save anyone. People of other religions, who love God, 
>     and do their best to live their lives according to His will, can also 
>     be saved, even though they do not convert to Christianity or accept
>     Jesus as their Lord and Savior. 

Hoo boy.  Deep rathole a'comin.

There is a possibility that there may be some truth in this.  Jesus did say
that "I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold."  We know that Jesus
is the only way to the Father, but we can hold out the hope that people might
have a chance to be saved by Him in ways we don't understand.  That can be a
comfort, though a remote one, when someone we love who does not know the Lord
passes on.

But to leap from that hope to say with any assurance that anyone from any
religion may be saved by Christ without knowing Him as their Savior is a leap
that invalidates Christianity at it's root.  We're right back into "any way
is as good as another to come to the Father."  If this is true, the great
commission is null and void - what's the point in making disciples of Christ
if it doesn't matter anyway?

The Biblical witness loudly proclaims the fact that it is only by Christ that
we are saved.  So let us hold to Christ firmly, let us proclaim Christ
boldly, and let us tell all the world that Christ is the only way.  That is
our calling, that is what He told us to do.  Let us not water it down by
saying that yes, He's the only way, but you don't even have to know Him or
acknowledge Him, and can in fact reject Him outright yet still be saved by
Him.  If Christ in His mercy has a plan for those who have not accepted Him
on earth, I will be glad, but He may not.  That is His business.  Our
business is to proclaim Him as the only way to salvation as He instructed us.

Paul

My view on this rathole ;-)

� "I have other sheep that are not of this sheepfold."  

Often understood to refer to the gentiles, as distinct from the Jews.  
Their inclusion was only fully embraced after Jesus' rejection by the Jews 
formally as a nation, Pentecost, and the affirmation of the Holy Spirit 
through Peter to Cornelius.  That opened the way for Paul's ministry...

In Jesus' lifetime, this was still a hidden mystery, so the 'other 
sheepfold' reference was necessarily veiled....

Of course, as it's a rathole through which I creep, it is somewhat 
important to me ;-)

						Andrew

Hi Bob,

I didn't think of this as a discussion you initiated; I was merely 
requesting clarification of something I thought was implied in a reply.
While you may not feel comfortable with a denominational label, I sincerely 
doubt if anyone of us would think of salvation as being according to any 
particular such label.  However, it is a convenient way of indicating a 
general perspective on the workings of salvation, and our perspective on 
understanding God's Word.  

It is important to stress that there are saved and unsaved people who would 
claim to patronise all labels of Biblical denominationalism.  The proof of 
the pudding is in the eating.  Where you find the LORD in someone's heart, 
the mutual response of the Holy Spirit doesn't need labels.  However, 
there are dangers in 'look-alike' areas, varying from cults, to errors
which can steal the joy of a believer, or virtually neutralise his
effective witness for years.  I know of one in particular in my own 
congregation, who clings to an alien understanding robbing him of the joy 
of salvation...

Also important, is thath labels help us to know where to tread gently, 
rather than where to 'stamp out doctrine', in order not to grieve others.   
This may be perceived to be mis-applied, but we are individuals with 
individual responsibility to the LORD....

You may not have noticed that I was only asking for a yes/no answer on a 
particular aspect, as far as it went. 

						God bless
							Andrew

    RE:159
    
    Not as you stated but as I did.
    
    Jim

.162  Bob Poland

>    The scripture condemns denominationalism.  

(1) Show me where.

(2) What is your definition of denominationalism?

-----------------

Re: Salvation

What we know:

(1) Jesus is the Way, Truth, and the Life. No one come to the Father except
    through Him.

(2) Some people may never have opportunity to know about the historical Jesus.

(3) God is both merciful and just.

(4) We are each responsible for what we DO know.

(5) We are given the great commission.  The reason to go and tell is not
    merely because we've been told, but it is to bring "light" so that what
    is known of God is made clear(er) as to Who is the Way, Truth, and Life,
    so that a more perfect knowledge leads to a more perfect understanding,
    responsibility, and decision to follow God in His way.

Salvation can be seen as triune (that is, in three parts or stages).  In 
each stage, a person is saved indeed and at no stage is a person not saved.
Initial Salvation comes when a person "turns from his wicked ways and seeks
God's face," believing God for forgiveness of sin and seeking to serve Him.
After initial salvation comes a commitment to give all to God as He reveals
Himself to us through the relationship we've established.  It is because we
have found God to be consistent and loving, and never-failing, that we put
our whole trust in him (beyond being saved from death to life) toward making
us righteous and holy, pleasing to God.  The third stage is glorification,
when we put off this mortal coil and are cloaked with immortal flesh.  
At this stage, when God takes us home to heaven, we are forever saved.

My last phrase indicates a doctrine that says that a person, though
initially saved can run the race (St. Paul's illustration) and not finish 
it, giving it up.  Even for the Calvinists, who would save that this person 
was never really saved (part of the elect), the person does not complete the
race.  Completing the race, for both Calvinists and Wesleyans means to
be Always Saved, or forever saved.  Not completing it means to either
have never been on the team for real (Calvinism, and the elect) or to
have been on the team but quit for various reasons (Wesleyanism, and free will).

I repeat that at any time during any stage, a person is saved and at no
point of these stages is not lost (unless the person chooses not to 
complete the salvation).  Philippians 2:12 says "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye 
have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my 
absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  We are indeed
saved by faith and faith ALONE.  Working out our salvation is running the
race.  All the while we run it, we are saved, and saved indeed!  When 
we finish the race, we are saved forever.

So why should we work out our own salvation (run the race) with fear 
and trembling?  Fear and trembling is "due care"; that is, don't take
your salvation lightly.  Faith is not merely an intellectual assent, nor
does salvation come by word alone ("Be ye doers of the Word!")  One is
not (ulitmately) saved merely by profession; there must be sincerity
behind the profession, turn FROM wicked ways TO the glory of the Lord.

As for those who may never hear, we don't know.  We are not God.  But God
is God and he does not.  We are responsible for what we know and for bringing
the truth to others for a more perfect understanding of Who God is.  There
will be some surprises on both sides, as the Scripture says.  But for us,
trust in God to be righteous, just, and loving, seek Him in all things, and
do what you know to be true.

Mark

The official statement of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of those
who, without fault of their own, ignore Christ and his Church, is:

	Even though God might bring people who ignore the gospel without
	fault of their own to the faith "without [which] it is impossible
	to please him" (Hebrews 11:6) by ways known only to himself, the
	Church still has the duty and at the same time the holy right to
	evangelise.
                                                --Ad Gentes 7
						
/john

>    I used to put my faith in a 1-2-3, A-B-C scenario also, then I grew...

I could play the "I've grown beyond that" game too.  I used to believe in a
much more "open" view of Christ's role in salvation.  Only that's not really
a very productive game, since the main point of it is to belittle the
opposing view without really refuting it.

Instead I'll ask, in what direction did you grow?  The most profound truths
are sometimes the simplest.  "See to it that no one takes you captive through
philosophy ... rather than according to Christ."  Col 2:8

I'd love to believe according to worldly wisdom that any way can be a valid
road to come to know God.  Only Christ didn't leave us that option.  He made
it abundantly clear that He is the only way.  I don't pretend to understand
fully HOW it is or WHY it is that Jesus is the only way.  But it is clear
that to follow Him, to accept what He said about Himself, is to accept that
He *IS* the only way.

"Growth" that encourages us to discard that idea is not really growth at all.

Paul

    Having not received a response to my off-line inquiry, let me ask here
    then if the charge of "wrangling in the mud" is the kind of response you
    say you've grown from?
    
    C'mon, Bob - if you're not a fan of arguing doctrine, then don't.  We
    can discuss whether denominations are ok or not perhaps in another
    topic, and certainly 'til we're blue in the face; but the fact remains,
    denominations exist, and as long as they do, there are those (myself
    included) who find it educational and fruitful to match doctrine and
    test against the Word.
    
    Steve

I don't have time to write much now, but I will note that I did not inject a
note of antagonism into this conversation.  Your statement of "I've grown
beyond the 'writhing in the mud' which you are doing" is extremely
antagonistic and condescending.  If you really "find it futile to banter back
and forth your beliefs and mine," and have really "grown beyond" such things,
then what is the point of entering statements like this here?

Paul

    RE:170
    
    Bob,
        you asked a question in .146. I answered you with a "no" which is
    what you asked for in .162, but then you go on to present an argument
    on how the Bible condemns denominationalizism(your word) of religion. 
    What your asking us to do is to listen to your belief, but not to 
    challenge it, meanwhile you challenge everyone else's beliefs. If you 
    don't want anyone to challenge what you believe, then it would be best 
    not to share it here, for it will most certainly be challenged.


    Jim

I think it's actually quite appropriate that the question of whether
denominations should exist came up in this topic.

It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that they should
not exist, and where division does exist, it is the result of sin on the
part of one party or the other.  However, those who today live the faith
in Christ in the Churches or ecclesial communities resulting from past
divisions are not themselves guilty of the sin of division.

Division should be brought to an end not by polemics, but by studying and
living the gospel.

Our Lord, in his high priestly prayer, prayed that we might all be one.  It
is important for us to work toward this goal, so that the world will believe.

/john

    I belong to a denomination.  I am a free man in Christ.  These two
    things are not incongruous.
    
    Christianity transcends the demarkations of both denomination and
    non-denominational churches.  Denominations provide a function that
    singular churches cannot, and even though the NT shows churches in
    different geographical areas, you should note that these churches
    helped each other.
    
    The "I follow Apollos...  I follow Paul" passage is not an injunction 
    against denominations but an injuction against placing anyone over
    Christ, the head of the church.  In Revelation, each of the
    geographical churches are clearly not unified since Jesus has something
    against each of them, but different somethings.  Perhaps these
    geographical churches are referred to metaphorically.  Nevertheless, 
    each church is not in perfect alignment with Truth for some reason
    or another.
    
    I ask you, Bob, to consider the [hopefully gentle] criticism that the
    very thing you accuse of some is the very thing you may be guilty of,
    namely, presenting doctrinal views for consideration as the Truth.
    
    Mark
    
    
    
    

    By the way, I've been in and out (mostly out).  Why is this discussion
    in a "Catholic Forum" note?  And how did it get here?
    
    MM

 Numerous offshoots of the basenote topic have sprung up.  Perhaps as we have
 time we can move them to more appropriate topics.  



 Jim Co Mod

    Dave Hunt (noted author of The Seduction of Christianity, The God Makers, 
    etc.) was at my church this weekend.  Friday night he spoke on the R.C.
    church and he spent all day Saturday on the New Age movement.  If I'm
    still here next month, I'll be glad to share some of the info.
    
    Mike

 .179 set hidden and returned to author.  .180 hidden as it is an addenda
 to .180




 Jim Co mod

At the risk of being one who would tread on David Hunt's toes, especially
one who has not read Colson, I think Hunt is off base.

There are many people in the evangelical churches who will speed a 
pathway to hell and many in the Roman Catholic Church who will
enter in before us.  Yes, we all have church-laden encumberances 
that pollute a pure doctrine.  The claim to church purity is a
fallacy for any church, but claims are a dime a dozen.

Christianity is about Christ, and relationship to God, the same,
through the Holy Spirit.

Mark

    If anyone wants to see what was set-hidden, send mail.  I'm done with
    altering quoted sources just because it contains the H-word.  If it's
    good enough for C-P, it's good enough for here.
    
    Mike

I saw it.

A reminder that only notes which attach a value (good *OR* bad) to
homosexuality are hidden because of the company's position on gays,
which we believe stands in contradiction to Biblical truth.

Freedom of speech is not a right in DEC Notes.

You can say the word and refer to it directly, but calling it good or bad
violates either company policy or biblical standards, regardless of the
permissiveness of other conferences.  In this conference, the moderators
have chosen to censor both.  

Mark Metcalfe
Former co-moderator

    I realize this, but it's from a quoted source, not the one who posted
    it.

Mike,

I find it not a little hypocritical that the Catholic Church is said
to be so Satanic and awful because it burned heretics at the stake, when
in that same time period Jean Calvin burned many other Protestants at the
stake, as did many Protestant reformers -- not just Catholics, but one
another as well.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

I feel very sorry for people like Dave Hunt who are so filled with hatred
and bitterness that they become blinded to the truth. Some people cease
to believe Christianity and start to believe in hatred as an end, it
seems.  I see no fruits of the Spirit in Dave's attitude.  Such an
attitude is not of God, but straight from Satan.

I pray that God might have mercy on Dave Hunt and grant him the grace to
turn away from his hatred and see the truth of the Gospel.

All I have to say is that Dave will have to give an account at the
judgment seat of Christ for the veracity of what he says and the souls
of the people he has lead astray.  As a Catholic, I would not want to 
give an account for teaching people wrongly what Protestants believe,
let alone give an account for using falsehoods and misinformation to
turn people away from the one Church of Christ with the fullness of
truth and means of salvation, which I believe Dave Hunt is doing. He
will have enough to account for given his false beliefs without
accounting for leading others astray.

Eric

    perhaps this should be a topic of its own...we'll see I guess...
    
    The modern "witch-hunt" is (as far as I can see) a baseless attack of a
    person, veiled behind an expose of his doctrine (and usually, the
    person gets nailed much harder than the doctrine does).  This is the
    danger in sloppy apologia.  The danger of having no apologists is
    seeing false doctrines swallowed up by innocent believers (who perhaps
    aren't completely innocent as all should be studying and testing what
    is said, like the Bereans did...).
    
    Actually - is an apologist supposed to defend his position by attacking
    another in the first place?  But then - aren't there times when false
    doctrine must be pointed out?
    
    If I'm not mistaken, didn't Hunt write a book called "Witch Hunt" about
    this very thing?  I haven't read it and maybe it was another author,
    but....
    
    Maybe the circumstances of the past few days (based on what I've seen
    in this file lately) are an opportunity for us to learn how to test
    things, how to carefully deal with the good and bad revelations and
    those who give them, and how to keep ourselves in line with the Word?
    
    It's much too easy to say "so and so" is a heretic; and equally the
    "path of least resistance" (temporarily) to ignore true heresy.  G-d
    gave us brains...let's use them.
    
    Steve
    

    Has the RC Church officially changed its stance on anti-Semitism and
    the view that it is Israel (i.e., God's chosen people)?

The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach (as should all Christian
Churches) that the Church is The New Israel.

The Vatican II document Nostra Aetate states that the Jews are not
collectively responsible for the death of Christ (any more so than
we all are because of sin), and condemns anti-Semitism.

/john

    I don't believe the Church = God's Chosen People.  God will continue to
    honor His covenant with Abraham.

I'm with Mike on this one.

Leslie

 !            <<< Note 287.189 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
 !                     -< The Church is The People of God >-

 ! The Roman Catholic Church continues to teach (as should all Christian
 ! Churches) that the Church is The New Israel.
    
    Exactly what are you saying John, that the Church IS and the people
    of Isreal ARE NOT?
    
    Please clarify so I can jump all over you when you deny that the chosen
    people are still the chosen people regardless of what it may appear
    like currently. ;^)  But seriously, I would like to understnd your
    terminology. Please explain what you define "The New Isreal" to be.
    Secondly expound on the premise that all Christian Churches should
    teach that they ARE The New Isreal? Tell me also how the nation of
    Isreal is viewed by these so called "Christian" churches.
    
    PDM

One has to walk a fine line between the biblical "there is no name under heaven
by which men shall be saved other than Christ Jesus" and the understanding that
God is still faithful to his covenant with the Hebrew people.

I'll see if I can find a copy of Nostra Aetate to post here.

/john

			       PAUL, BISHOP
			SERVANT OF THE SERVANTS OF
			  GOD TOGETHER WITH THE
			  FATHERS OF THE SACRED
		 	 FOR EVERLASTING MEMORY

			      [NOSTRA AETATE]

				DECLARATION
			   ON THE RELATION OF THE
			  CHURCH TO NON-CHRISTIAN
				 RELIGIONS	


  In our time, when day by day mankind is being drawn closer together,
and the ties between different peoples are becoming stronger, the
Church examines more closely her relationship to non-Christian
religions.  In her tasks of promoting unity and love among men, indeed
among nations, she considers above all in this declaration what men
have in common and what draws them to fellowship.

  One is the community of all peoples, one their origin, for God made
the whole human race to live over the face of the earth (1).  One also
is their final goal, God.  His providence, His manifestations of
goodness, His saving design extend to all men (2), until that time
when the elect will be united in the Holy City, the city ablaze with
the glory of God, where the nations will walk in His light (3).

  Men expect from the various religions answers to the unsolved
riddles of the human condition, which today, even as in former times,
deeply stir the hearts of men: What is man?  What is the meaning, the
aim of our life?  What is moral good, what sin?  Whence suffering and
what purpose does it serve?  Which is the road to true happiness?
What are death, judgement and retribution after death?  What, finally
is the ultimate inexpressible mystery which encompasses our existence:
whence do we come, and where are we going?

  2. From ancient times down to the present, there is found among
various peoples a certain perception of that hidden power which hovers
over the course of things and over the events of human history; at
times some indeed have come to the recognition of a Supreme Being, or
even of a Father.  This perception and recognition penetrates their
lives with a profound religious sense.

  Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have
struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined
concepts and a more developed language.  Thus in Hinduism, men
contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible
abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry.  They
seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through
ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with
love and trust.  Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the
radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by
which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to
acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own
efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.  Likewise, other
religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the
human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising
teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites.

  The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these
religions.  She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct
and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in
many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often
reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.   Indeed, she
proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ, "the way the truth, and the
life" (John 14, 6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious
life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself (4).

  The Church therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and
collaboration with the followers of other religions, carried out with
prudence and love and in witness to the Christian faith and life,
they recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and
moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.

  3.  The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems.  They adore  the
one God, living and subsisting in Himself, merciful and all-powerful,
the Creator of heaven and earth (5), who has spoken to men; they take
pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as
Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes great pleasure in linking
itself, submitted to God.  Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as
God, they revere Him as a prophet.  They also honor Mary, His virgin
mother; at times they even call on her with devotion.  In addition,
they await the day of judgement when God will render their deserts to
all those who have been raised up from the dead.  Finally, they value
the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving
and fasting.

  Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities
have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this Sacred Synod urges
all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding
and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all
mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and
freedom.

  4.  As the Sacred Synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it
remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New
Covenant to Abraham's stock.

  Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's
saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found
already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets.  She professes
that all who believe in Christ -- Abraham's sons according to faith
(6) -- are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that
the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen
people's exodus from the land of bondage.  The Church, therefore,
cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament
through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded
the Ancient Covenant.  Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance
from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been
grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles (7).  Indeed, the Church
believes that by His cross Christ Our Peace reconciled Jews and
Gentiles, making both one in Himself (8).

  The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his
kinsmen: "There is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and
the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and
from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 8, 4-5), the Son
of the Virgin Mary.  She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's
main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who
proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish
people.

  As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of
her visitation (9), nor did the Jews, in large number, accept the
Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading (10).  Nevertheless God
holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not
repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues -- such is the
witness of the Apostle (11).  In company with the Prophets and the
same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which
all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him
shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3, 9) (12).

  Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus
so great, this Sacred Synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual
understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical
and theological studies as well as fraternal dialogues.

  True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead
pressed for the death of Christ (13); still, what happened in His
passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction,
then alive, nor against the Jews of today.  Although the Church is the
new People of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or
accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.  All
should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching
of the Word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to
the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

  Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man,
the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and
moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love,
decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed
against Jews at any time and by anyone.

  Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ
underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and
out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation.  It is,
therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross
of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain
from which every grace flows.

  5.  We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to
treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of
God.  Man's relation to God the Father and his relation to men his
brothers are so linked together that Scripture says: "He who does not
love does not know God" (1 John 4, 8).

  No foundation therefore remains for any theory or practice that
leads to discrimination between man and the man or people and people,
so far as their human dignity and the rights flowing from it are
concerned.

  The Church reproves, as foreign to the mind of Christ, any
discrimination against men or harassment of them because of their
race, color, condition of life, or religion.  On the contrary,
following in the footsteps of the holy Apostles Peter and Paul, this
Sacred Synod ardently implores the Christian faithful to "maintain good
fellowship among the nations" (1 Peter 2, 12), and, if possible to
live for their part in peace with all men (14), so that they many
truly be sons of the Father who is in heaven (15).

			*************************

  The entire text and all the individual elements which have been set
forth in this Declaration have pleased the Fathers.  And by the
Apostolic power conferred on us by Christ, we, together with the
Venerable Fathers, in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and enact them;
and we order that what has been thus enacted in Council be
promulgated, to the glory of God.

	Rome, at St. Peter's, 28 October, 1965.

			I, PAUL, Bishop of the Catholic Church
	
	There follow the signatures of the Fathers.

Footnotes:

(1) Cf. Acts 17, 26

(2) Cf. Wis. 8, 1; Acts 14, 17; Rom. 2, 6-7; 1 Tim 2, 4.

(3) Cf. Apoc. 21, 23f.

(4) Cf 2 Cor. 5, 18-19.

(5) Cf St. Gregory VII, Letter XXI to Anzir (Nacir), King of
    Mauritania (PL 148, col 450 f.)

(6) Cf. Gal. 3, 7.

(7) Cf. Rom. 11, 17-24.

(8) Cf. Eph. 2, 14-16.

(9) Cf. Luke 19, 44.

(10) Cf. Rom. 11, 28.

(11) Cf. Rom 11, 28-29; cf Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium (Light
     of Nations), AAS, 55 (1965), p. 20.

(12) Cf Is. 66, 23; Ps 65, 4: Rom. 11, 11-32.

(13) Cf. John 19, 6.

(14) Cf. Rom. 12, 18.

(15) Cf. Matt. 5, 45.

    Nostra Aetate or no; the *Bible* does not teach that there is a "new"
    Israel.
    
    But this is an old argument that's been "done over" many times.
    
    Steve

>    Nostra Aetate or no; the *Bible* does not teach that there is a "new"
>    Israel.

The Word "Israel" doesn't appear in Nostra Aetate.

It would be useful if you would read it before commenting on it.

I didn't say that it was NA that defines the Church as the New Israel; I
suspect that is in the Constition of the Church.  Without reading this,
we don't know what is meant by "New Israel".  Certainly NA would not say
that "New Israel" means that Israel is no longer Israel.

To me, it means that Christians are the new spiritual descendants of Abraham.

/john

    John, I was responding to .189 where you said the RC church teaches (as
    should all churches) that the church is the "new" Israel; and then
    spoke about the N.A. document (which I haven't read).
    
    My comment is that in spite of whatever claims the N.A. document makes,
    the Bible doesn't teach what you're saying the RC church does and all
    others should as well (as if brushing off the anti-semitic claim of
    "christ-killers" substantiates the new israel claim...).
    
    Sons of Abraham are those who did as Abraham did; i.e., to believe G-d
    and have that faith credited to them as righteousness.  There was a
    unique covenant made to Abraham and carried on through Isaac and
    Jacob/Israel and his descendants; a covenant with very specific
    promises relating solely to those chosen people.  Others, from all
    nations, may be grafted into the commonwealth of Israel through faith
    in the Messiah, but should be careful in boasting about such a gracious
    position for there is no covenant with the nations (see Romans 9-11).
    
    Blindness "in part" has come upon Israel (is that the "new
    Israel?")...but if their falling away meant riches for the Gentiles,
    how much more will their *fullness* mean?????  It will be life from the
    dead.
    
    G-d has not abandoned His segulot, nor will He break His promises to
    His chosen people; nor has he exchanged them with another.
    
    Steve

>    My comment is that in spite of whatever claims the N.A. document makes,
>    the Bible doesn't teach what you're saying the RC church does and all
>    others should as well (as if brushing off the anti-semitic claim of
>    "christ-killers" substantiates the new israel claim...).

And what I am saying is that they are separate teachings.

The Nostra Aetate document is not the document that calls the Church the
New Israel.  It must be quite an old document, probably from one of the
first four councils, (and all Christian Churches should teach what the
first four councils teach).  The reason I suspect it is that old a teaching
of the Church is that it is not only in Roman Catholic summaries of Vatican
II, but also in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in
the United States, which does not consider current Roman Catholic councils
to be authoritative.

Furthermore, calling the Church the New Israel does not say anything negative
about God's covenant with the Jews.

I'm sure that all Christians believe that God has established a New Covenant
with those who accept Christ as Saviour.

/john

 !            <<< Note 287.198 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
 ! To me, it means that Christians are the new spiritual descendants of Abraham.
    	                                   ^^^ ^^^^^^^^^
    		eeeeeehhhhhhhttttt!!!!  Strike TWO.
    	New implies replacement. I see your sublime replacement theology
     is rearing its ugly head again John.  Try, the gentiles have been added
    to the spiritual descendants of Abraham. For Christ said, you are
    children of Abraham if you follow the teachings of the Lord. Right now,
    there are many Jews that do not recognize Jesus as Christ because of
    what Christians have done to them, but soon, the nation if Isreal, not
    the New Isreal - whatever THAT is, will come to Christ and they will
    again take their place as the spearhead of the elect, the chosen
    people. First, the Jew, THEN the Gentile - as per the coventant by God.
    
    I think the "Church" has, and continues, to separate itself from its
    roots; The God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph. For some unknown reason,
    the Christian Church thinks its roots started a couple of weeks after
    pentacost thereby making it some 2000 years old. Bleeh!
    
    When the Church wakes up and teaches the heritage of Christ and the
    symbnolism of the Jewish nation, then there will be a resurgence.
    
    A long time ago, 1 man, Peter, spoke and 3000 were saved, today, 3000
    speak and it is not clear if 1 is saved. Why? Because Peter spoke to
    them what they learned from history, symbolism and fullfilment. The
    Church speaks, doctrine and traditions. They say, believe what I tell
    you rather than let's look at the signs, symbols, and fulfillment.
    The fulfillment of scripture is much more robust, poetic, clear, in the
    original text than in English (KVJ), and as for NIV and ALL the rest,
    well, they are acceptable translations, but there is little excuse in
    not learning the Bible in its initial printing. I count myself among
    the lazy too. I hold doctrine above some Jewish instructions, and I am
    doubting that practice these days. The Torah is a book of instruction,
    teaching and practice, more than a cook book to Catholic salvation.
    
    The history of the Jewish nation is rich and it is in those riches that
    the Jews will someday show us, the Christians, where we have strayed and
    become heretics and pompus fools.
    
    
    PDM__new_isreal_plleeze.
    

>    	New implies replacement.

No it doesn't.

/john

   !          <<< Note 287.202 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
   !              -< What of the New Covenant / New Testament? >-
    
    New Testament is a name contrived by the Catholic church many moons
    ago. It is not a Biblical term and to some yes, it does mean
    replacement.
    
    As for New Covenant, Jesus used the term "a new covenant I give you"
    he was not replacing any existing ones but adding a new one.
    
    IMHO, when the Church uses New anything, there is an implied
    replacement as you used the term New Covenant and as the NA used the
    term. There is difference in the use of the capital verses lower case
    'N'.
    
    
    

>    	New implies replacement.

No it doesn't.
    More often than not. And more often these days.
    
    
    PDM
    

re .203

Er, the word "Covenant" is the same word as "Testament", so you are wrong
when you say that the Roman Catholic Church invented it -- it came right
out of the mouth of Jesus.

And you dispute my saying that "new" doesn't imply replacement, yet you
say that Jesus didn't mean replacement when he gave the new covenant.

Let's be a bit more consistent, ok?

/john

John,

From the N.A. posting:

>Although the Church is the
>new People of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or
>accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures.  

This is like saying, "Mary isn't worshipped, only venerated and praised."
The Jews were G-d's people, but now they're not as the Church is the new 
G-d's people, but this doesn't mean the Jews are rejected by G-d (though 
the implication of "new" people should be clear....).   

Shameful doublespeak IMO.

Replacement 'theology', no matter its form, support, or language is 
repugnant to me; all due respect to the "Fathers" who were pleased by this 
document (and who, if there is a new Israel, have rushed into the seat 
of the Pharisees).

We obviously see this from completely different perspectives.  I don't see 
much value in pursuing it further (and I won't) as the perspectives have been 
communicated clearly, we don't agree, and we have (as far as I can tell) 
nothing more to add that hasn't already been said.  I suppose we're both 
entitled to our differing opinions.

Thanks for posting the document though.

Be well,


Steve

    Gentiles a part of the Bride of Christ -> the church, which was only
    made possible by Jesus Christ.  We are not God's new people, because of
    Christ, we're added to God's already existing people.

Please explain how faith in Jesus is not required for salvation.

(I'd like to hear an explanation other than the one I've seen argued
 speculatively rather than Biblically.)

/john

!             <<< Note 287.204 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
!                 -< Testament = Covenant = Contract or Pledge >-


Er, the word "Covenant" is the same word as "Testament", so you are wrong
when you say that the Roman Catholic Church invented it -- it came right
out of the mouth of Jesus.
    
    I think this electronic medium is not allowing me to present my
    stance well.
    
    What I am trying to say is, when God uses new, it is realized as "in
    addition to"  when man (the church) uses new it has a replacement
    flavor. 
    
!And you dispute my saying that "new" doesn't imply replacement, yet you
!say that Jesus didn't mean replacement when he gave the new covenant.
    
    I recognize that testament == covenant, but I disagree that man (the
    Church) and God use the term 'new' the same way.
    
    That is what I tried to say earlier albeit poorly. 
    

    

>    What I am trying to say is, when God uses new, it is realized as "in
>    addition to"  when man (the church) uses new it has a replacement
>    flavor. 

Convoluted and untrue.

/john

 !            <<< Note 287.209 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
 !  Convoluted and untrue.
     I disagree. The Church thinks that is the way the truth and the life.
     It makes decrees and doctrines that are not in harmony with God. That
    is why there are so many churches. You profess to "know" one thing
    where another man follows something different. In this case, I affirm
    that Churches, and in particular the NA statement, uses eloquence to
    state that it replaces the chosen people of God rather than adds to
    them.
    
    
    

re .210

How many times do I have to point out that if you haven't read the NA
statement, you shouldn't claim that it says anything about "The New Israel."

Quote from it.  Quote complete sentences, in their context.

Oh, and the Church thinks that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life,
and that noone comes to the Father except by him.

How do you think that statement applies to those who do not accept him
as Saviour?  (I think I know how, but again, it is speculative -- what
does the Bible say?)

/john

    I refer you to rep: .199   Steve spoke well to your words. 
    
    Similarly, the NA document, and oh by the way, yes I read it, gives me
    the impression that it attempts to put gentiles before Jew. Then I said
    that the Church attempts that as well. If you disagree, that is fine. I
    give you apology for rendering my unsolicited opinion.
    
    
    No further comment needed, John, except, I am curious, where does the
    Episcopal Church place the Jew? Does it follow replacement or
    dispensation theology, or some cross of the two?
    
    My thought, and I attended Episcopal Church for some years (before
    becoming disillusioned by it), held to replacement theology. Tell me,
    since I attended oh some twenty years now have they changed?
                                                                
    thanks,
      PDM

    The only document that should matter, and one that is the final
    infallible authority, is God's Word - The Holy Bible.

Then tell us what the bible says.

/john

    I am confused on exactly what the argument is in here.  Is it that Jews
    can come to God apart from Christ?  Then I believe Jesus answers the
    argument in John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one
    comes to the Father, but through Me".  I know several folks who are
    "completed Jews", those who believe that Christ is the Messiah, the Way
    to the Father.
    
    We are certainly under a new convenant (and better) where we are no
    longer under the law, but under grace.  We no longer have to sacrifice
    to atone for our sins, since Jesus became our sacrifice, once for all
    the just for the unjust.  We now have the Holy Spirt to guide us into
    all Truth (and the word of God as a source of His truth).
    
    Or, is the argument, that some Christians think that they are on a
    closer basis with the Father?  We who know Christ are His children, He
    is our Abba.  I don't see any partiality on the Father's part.
    
    Let us consider how to love and stimulate one another to good deeds
    (Heb 10:24).
    
    Bing
    
    
    
    

    It is an interesting position... and not one I am unfamiliar with. 
    .215 states that Jesus is the only way to the Father... The fulfillment
    of the covenant between God and Israel is fulfilled through
    Christ. 
    
    Now I'm not sure of this and can't really point to any scripture that
    says this... but ponder with me for a moment..
    
    God promised salvation for his people.. the Jews.  Christ came and
    fulfilled the covenenant and was rejected by the Jews... well, most of
    the Jews, there were many who believed.  God never says that the
    promise is forsaken because of their rejection.  He does say however,
    that with Christ salvation was given to all Jews and Gentiles and via
    our spiritual birth are joint heirs with Christ to the kingdom of
    Heaven.
    
    Now here is where it gets sticky... why can't the fulfillment of Christ
    be all that is necessary for the Jews as they already worship God,
    Jehovah, the one and Only God?  Again, is it possible that the people
    of Israel could be held accountable differently then the Gentiles?
    
    

    re: .216
    
    Hi Nance, no need to fear the "pouncing"....it's o.k. to ponder
    aloud...
    
    "Will not the Judge of the world do right?"
    
    There is only *one* Way of atonement; G-d's gracious gift of faith;
    trusting in His Promise; the Messiah.  That Way (Yeshua) is the same
    for Jew and Gentile.  Rejecting Him is rejecting salvation, whether one
    is Jewish or Gentile.
    
    That said; I think the "Jesus" that many Jews and Gentiles have
    rejected is *not* the Jesus/Yeshua of the Bible, but a very twisted and
    manipulative version of "the gospel"; which rightly should be rejected.
    
    Think about it, if you were Jewish and grew up expecting G-d to fulfill 
    His Promise and send the (Jewish) Messiah, wouldn't you immediately
    reject any counterfeits?  And what if the Messiah presented to you was
    known as a torah-hating, jew-hating, promise-breaking (etc.) person? 
    Would you not immediately (and rightly so) reject such a "messiah"?
    
    Is such an accurate description of Yeshua?   I say no; in spite of the
    centuries of 'teaching' to the contrary.
    
    There are, for example, Jews who marched to their deaths in the
    Holocaust reciting the Shema (the prayer the L-rd Yeshua himself said
    was the most important commandment (Mk 12:18-34).  If that's not
    expressing faith in G-d, I don't know what is.  I am confident that
    "the Judge of the world will do right" and we'll have eternal
    fellowship with these believers.  Though some may have rejected the
    version of the "gospel" that was forced upon them (which was no
    "gospel" at all....), they did not reject G-d's Promise of Moshiach.
    
    Now - *that* said, let me be clear that rejecting the *true* Gospel and
    the *true* Messiah does, unfortunately, have dire consequences, for
    both Jew and Gentile.  Neither, soley by virtue of his physical
    heritage, will enter the Kingdom.
    
    Steve
    
    

    Steve,
    
    Well said.  As you said, there has certainly been a lot of hatred
    proclaimed in the name of Jesus.  All the more reason for us to allow
    Him to love other through us.
    
    I listened to Focus on the Family last night.  They replayed the "A Man
    Called Norman" tape by Mike Atkins.  It brought into my focus the need
    to love our neighbor as ourselves, regardless of how lovely the person
    is in our sight.  As Jesus said, "As you've done unto the least of
    these...".
    
    Bing

    re: .207
    
    (some background)
    
    I believe I implied in my title of .205(?) that I wasn't going to
    debate any further with John on this topic, but after reading .207, I
    forwarded it to him to ask if it was addressed to me.  He said it was
    (as well as to others).
    
    (to the point)
    
    Hi John...I believe that faith in the Messiah (that is, Yeshua) *is*
    required for salvation; both for Jew and Gentile.  I replied to Nancy's
    (.216) pondering with more detail on this.
    
    There is only one Gospel, one Way of Salvation.
    
    Steve

 A man called Norman...an excellent film!





Jim

    Okay Steve,  I see the scriptural as well as logical point made in your
    note... however, O:-), if I may.  Why are you so sure that God doesn't
    hold the Jews to a different standard then the gentiles?
    
    

What kind of standard do you mean, Nancy?

    Standard for salvation...
    
    Who are the 144,000 that God speaks of in the Bible?  Where do they
    come from?
    
    If the practicing Jew of today follows Yeshua, they believe in Jesus,
    they just don't believe that he has come yet...
    
    But they believe...  
    
    

    re: .221
    
    Why is there only one Standard?
    
    Because Yeshua said, "I am *the* Way, *the* Truth, and *the* Life - no
    one comes to the Father but by Me."
    
    Steve

    Please clarify for me the Jewish belief in God.  Do they see him as a
    trinity yet to happen in the Messiah?

    My understanding of replacement theology is this:

    There were promises made by God to the people Israel which are
    recorded in the Tanakh and have not yet been fulfilled.  Because 
    the Jews rejected Yeshua, "the church" now replaces Israel or 
    becomes "spiritual Israel", and the church will be the receipient
    of those unfulfilled promises in place of the Jews.  Furthermore,
    the church has replaced Israel in terms of being the instrument of
    God to bring His plans for all that will be to completion.  

    During much of history, the church has made the claim that the 
    Jewish people are now cursed of God, therefore, it is legitimate to
    run them out of countries, burn their synagogues and homes, and
    ultimately, to rid the world of them.  This may be subtle is some
    areas, but has also led to such things as ethnic slurs against the 
    Jews, the various pogroms, murder and killing of Jews during the 
    Crusades and the Inquisition, the Holocaust, and all kinds of other 
    things.  

    You may object and say that this is not the fault of replacement 
    theology, that these atrocities were done in another age, but I would 
    disagree.  Furthermore, even had none of these terrible things occured, 
    and even if similar things were not happening today, I would still
    have to reject replacement theology on the basis of truth.

    God is unchanging.  He is faithful to thousands of generations.  He
    has not revoked His promises to the Jewish people.  For the first decade 
    after Yeshua's ascension, it was the Jewish people who heard and responded
    to the gospel message in the thousands.  It was they who reached out to 
    tell the rest of the world of the wonder of God's grace for humanity.
    Paul, who labored to bring the gospel to many parts of the ancient world,
    continued to go first to the synagogue wherever he went.  The split between
    Jewish and gentile believers came very early in the history of the 
    gentile church due to many interwoven complexities that I won't describe
    hear.  But still it is Paul who points out to us that if the Jewish 
    "rejection" of Yeshua was so that gentiles could come to faith more easily,
    then there will be a much  greater blessing to the world when the Jew's 
    acceptance of Yeshua occurs.

    The survival of the Jewish people in the face of all the persecution the
    world has hurled at them is the evidence of God's continued interest in,
    love for, and protection of His people.  If they were truely accursed by
    God, they would have been wiped out through the progroms, Crusades, 
    Inquisition, and Holocaust long ago.  It is the evil one's intent to get
    rid of them because He knows that God's plans and promises for all of
    humanity have the people with His name stamped on the them, ISRA-EL, El,
    being one of God's names, as the centerpiece.  It was into Jewish lineage
    that Yeshua came to be born, it was the Tanakh, the revelation of God
    to the Jewish people that foretells and explains the Messiah, and we will
    someday see, that the Jewish people will be blessed by God, and be the
    means for bringing God's final plans for judgement and re-birth to 
    completion.  The Lord is not done moving through this people yet.

    Leslie    

    Nancy,

    The Jewish belief in God is found in something known as the Shema.
    Shema means "hear", and is the first word in a set of passages from
    the Torah that form the heart of the Jewish faith.  The Jewish faith
    is founded on a relationship with God and obediance to His law, rather
    than on doctrine and creed.  However, the Shema can be looked at as
    being the statement of faith for the believing Jew.

    There are three sections to the Shema, though the first passage forms 
    the crux of it, and often stands alone:

     Deuteronomy 6:4-9 which is the statement of God's uniqueness and
     oneness, and an injunction to love and obey Him.

     Deuteronomy 11:13-21 which describes the blessings or rewards
     for obeying, and punishments or curses of disobeying.

     Numbers 15:37-41 which is the law concerning wearing tassels on
     the corners of one's garment as a reminder to keep all of God's
     commandments.

     Deuteronomy 6:4-9 says:

     Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.  Love the Lord
     with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your
     strength.  These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your
     hearts.  Impress them on your children.  Talk about them when you
     sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and
     when you get up.  Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them
     to your foreheads.  Write them on the door frames of your houses and
     on your gates.  (NIV)

     So now to answer your question, no, they do not see God as a trinity
     at all.  God is one.

     More later, via mail.

     Leslie

The Episcopal Church defines "Catholic" to mean "all of the faith, for all
people, for all time, for all the world."

The Church does not "replace" the People of Israel; it widens the People
of God into a new people, a new nation, of all those who are incorporated
into Christ's Body, "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
God's own people." (1 Peter 2:9)

/john

    Re: Hebrews and the Trinity
    
    but much of the symbolism in their holy days show a triune nature
    of God.  For example, the Unity cracker used during Passover and the
    affikomen (sp?).  What about the plurality of "Elohim"?
    
    Mike

    Re: Israel vs. the Church of God
    
In regards to the question on whether the Vatican (or any Church) has replaced
Israel as God's chosen people or not, turn to Romans 2:28-29; 3:1-2:

"2:28  For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that
       circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
 2:29  But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
       heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of
       men, but of God.
 3:1  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
 3:2  Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles
      of God."

This is the Natural Israel.  The oracles of God were committed to all of the
Jews whether they were circumcised in the heart or not.  Most of them wandered
in the wilderness and died (after receiving the oracles), but they were still
Jews.  

In Romans 9:3-5, Paul tells us:

"9:3  For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my
      kinsmen according to the flesh:
 9:4  Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
      the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the
      promises;
 9:5  Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
      who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen."

Jesus Christ came in the flesh out of the Physical or Natural Israel.  Some
people try to say that Israel is finished and that the Church is now Israel.  
Before the cross, there were only 2 entities: Jew and Gentile.  After the
cross, there are 3 and they are mentioned in I Corinthians 10:32:

"10:32 Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the
       church of God:"

In Ephesians 2:15, Paul adds:

"2:15  Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments
       contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
       making peace;"

The Church of God is composed of both Jews and Gentiles.  When Gentiles come
into the Church of God, that doesn't mean there are no more Gentiles.  Likewise
for the Jews.  When the Jews come into the Church of God, that doesn't mean
there is no more Israel.  Look at Romans 10:1:

"10:1  Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they
       might be saved."

You have to be saved to be in the Church of God, so obviously this applies to a
Physical or Natural Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not promised the land
of Israel.  Spiritual Israel was not scattered across the world and
re-gathered in these last days.  As in Romans 4, though the Jews have specific
promises that apply to them only, they will not inherit the promises of Abraham
unless they have the relationship with God that Abraham had.  As in
Zechariah 12:10, they will recognize Him who they have pierced.  There's a
definite distinction between Israel and the Church of God.

In a sense you could call the Church of God a Spiritual Israel because of our
promises, but that DOESN'T replace Natural Israel.
    
    Mike

    I've been listening to some teachings lately and Replacement Theology has 
    come up a lot.  Besides Romans 11, there are more passages that should be
    noted that show that the Church can never replace Israel.
    
    - Revelation 3:9, Jesus Himself warns the Church of those who will adopt
      Replacement Theology.
    - 2 Samuel 7:24, God says Israel will be His people *FOREVER*!
    - Jeremiah 31:35-37, 33:23-26, God says Israel will never be forsaken or
      rejected.  Verse 26 was fulfilled in 1948 when Israel became a nation.
    - Psalm 89:30-37, God once again declares He will not violate His covenant
      with Israel.
    - Isaiah 11:11-12 says how God will gather the Jews together again from
      all over the world just as it is happening now!
    - Amos 9:8-15 says that God will never destroy the Jews, even though
      they will go through the Great Tribulation.  God will restore their land
      afterwards.
    
    The significance of this is great because you will not ever properly
    understand Bible prophecy without realizing the importance of Israel with 
    God and its role in prophecy.
    
    Mike

On May 21, 1995, on an abandoned Soviet airfield in Moravia (a battleground of
the ferocious Thirteen Years' War in the 17th century), Pope John Paul II held
Mass before a crowd of 100,000 rain-soaked people.  The Pope asked forgiveness
for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Protestants and people
of other faiths.

     "Today, I, the Pope of the Church of Rome, in the name of all Catholics,
     ask forgiveness for the wrongs inflicted on non-Catholics during the
     turbulent history of these peoples.  At the same time, I pledge the
     Catholic Church's forgiveness for whatever harm her sons and daughters
     have suffered."

The Pope has made similar overtures to Eastern Orthodox churches this month in a
letter.  The language insures the Pope was sincere.  What is amazing about all
this is what it means with respect to the doctrine of Infallibility.  All of a
sudden, the 10's of millions of Christians tortured to death in the past 1,500
years are now "swept behind us."  Pope Innocent III in just one day murdered
more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together!

Which Pope is fallible and which is infallible?  John Paul II or Innocent III?
How do we know which is fallible?

The timing of Dave Hunt's latest book "A Woman Rides the Beast" couldn't be more
appropriate.

    	To help clear up the Doctrine of Infallibility:
    
         <<< HASTUR::DKB300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY.NOTE;1 >>>
                             -< Catholic Theology >-
================================================================================
Note 8.1                     doctrinal infallibility                     1 of 49
NY1MM::SWEENEY "Pat Sweeney"                         11 lines  29-JAN-1987 23:50
                            -< Roman Catholic view >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What is meant by the infallibility of the Catholic Church?
    
    By the infallibility of the Catholic Church is meant that the Church
    with the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, cannot err when it
    teaches or belives a doctrine of faith or morals. 
    
    When does the Church teach infallibly?
    
    The Church teaches infallibly when it defines through the Pope alone,
    as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and the bishops,
    a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful.
    

    	Does anyone think the Pope is wrong in doing this?  (Making
    	statements such as those on .232.)

    The pope or Pat Sweeney made the statement?

II Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
II Timothy 3:17
That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
    
Hebrews 1:1
GOD, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets,
Hebrews 1:2
Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son [GREEK SAYS "ONCE AND FOR
    ALL"], whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made 
    the worlds;
Hebrews 1:3
Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and
upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged
our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
    
Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now
revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Galatians 1:14
And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation,
being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.

Matthew 15:2
Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not
their hands when they eat bread.
Matthew 15:3
But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment
of God by your tradition?
Matthew 15:6
And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made
the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

    Joe, nothing is wrong with extending an apology or asking forgiveness. 
    The problem is the light it sheds on man's doctrine.

    <<< Note 287.235 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

    >The pope or Pat Sweeney made the statement?
    
    	Those are quotes from the Catechism (as of the date it was 
    	written.)  Thus, The Church made the statements.

          <<< Note 287.237 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    Joe, nothing is wrong with extending an apology or asking forgiveness. 
    
    	Great!
    
>    The problem is the light it sheds on man's doctrine.
    
    	It only sheds light on man's behavior.  There is no doctrine
    	that calls for persecution.

    Former Catholic James G. McCarthy has written an excellent book
    comparing Catholicism with Scripture entitled: "The Gospel According to
    Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God."
    
    Why Do RC's believe the Pope is infallible?
    -------------------------------------------
    Roman Catholicism teaches that Scripture and tradition together are the
    Word of God.  Since Scripture alone is insufficient, the bishops become
    the teaching authority.  In 1870 it was decreed that "God
    supernaturally protects the [bishops].  The bishops do not err and
    cannot err when teaching doctrine related to faith and morals" (p.
    267).  While the bishops are infallible collectively, not as
    individuals, "the gift of infallibility extends to the teaching of the
    Bishop of Rome [the Pope] in a special way" (p. 267).  His teachings
    "*in no way need the approval of others*" (p. 268).
    
    Scriptural Response
    -------------------
    In contrast, the Bible states Scripture is the Word of God (2 Timothy
    3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Revelation 22:18-19).  Tradition is the words
    of men (Mark 7:1-13).  God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19).  God
    has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).  Every Christian,
    aided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability and the right to interpret
    Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).  The Holy Spirit is the
    authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

re .-1

Scriptural Response
-------------------

Tradition, as long as it does not contradict scripture, is authoritative:

  "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
   our epistle"  -- 2 Thess 2:15, KJV.

The Holy Spirit will guide the apostles into all truth:

  "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
   truth"  -- John 16:13

  "the gates of hell will not prevail against [my church]" -- Mt 16:18

The recently released Catechism of the Catholic Church has been on the N.Y.
Times bestseller list, confirming a widespread interest in Catholic beliefs.
What do today's Roman Catholics really believe?  Must Catholics and Protestants
remain divided?  Former Catholic James G. McCarthy has written an excellent book
citing official Catholic documents, such as the Catechism, as compared to the
Holy Scriptures.  The following quotations are from his book, "The Gospel
According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God."  Official
Catholic doctrine is quoted italics [asterisks used instead].

Note: There are many Catholics who are genuinely born again and love the Lord as
much as any born again Protestant.  It is not our intent to offend them.
However, we feel it is imperative to address instances where unbiblical
tradition has mixed with scriptural truth.

By What Authority Does the RC church rule its members?
------------------------------------------------------
"The authority of the RC hierarchy rests upon 3 beliefs: Christ made Peter the
head of the apostles and the universal church; the apostles appointed bishops as
their successors; the Pope, as the Bishop of Rome, is Peter's successor.  None
of these claims, however, can be established from Scripture" (p. 237).

Scriptural Response
-------------------
First, Jesus the Messiah is the head of the Church (Colossians 1:18).  While
Matthew 16:18 is used to equate Peter with the rock upon which Jesus builds His
Church, the passage context and a wealth of Scripture define God and,
specifically, the Messiah as our Rock (Psalm 18:31, 1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter
2:6).  The name "Peter" refers to a "detached stone."  Peter himself in 1 Peter
2:5 calls all followers of Jesus "living stones."  Jesus said, "You are Peter
(Petros), and upon this rock (petra, [which refers to a mass of rock]) I will
build my church."  Jesus is saying that Peter is a stone, but Jesus will build
his church on a mass of stones (p. 239).  Further, Peter describes himself not
as Chief Apostle but as a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1).

Second, there is no biblical basis to say that apostles appointed bishops as
their successors.  Jesus told His apostles to go and "make disciples of all the
nations" (Matthew 28:19).

Third, the Bible does not mention Peter as Bishop of Rome (or as ever even being
there), ruling the universal church, or having a successor.  Instead we find
Peter ministering to Jews in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and Antioch
until at least 49 A.D.
    
Why Do RC's believe the Pope is infallible?
-------------------------------------------
Roman Catholicism teaches that Scripture and tradition together are the Word of
God.  Since Scripture alone is insufficient, the bishops become the teaching
authority.  In 1870 it was decreed that "God supernaturally protects the
[bishops].  The bishops do not err and cannot err when teaching doctrine
related to faith and morals" (p. 267).  While the bishops are infallible
collectively, not as individuals, "the gift of infallibility extends to the
teaching of the Bishop of Rome [the Pope] in a special way" (p. 267).  His
teachings "*in no way need the approval of others*" (p. 268).
    
Scriptural Response
-------------------
In contrast, the Bible states Scripture is the Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17,
2 Peter 1:20-21, Revelation 22:18-19).  Tradition is the words of men
(Mark 7:1-13).  God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19).  God has entrusted
revelation to the saints (Jude 3).  Every Christian, aided by the Holy Spirit,
has the ability and the right to interpret Scripture (Acts 17:11,
1 Corinthians 2:12-16).  The Holy Spirit is the authoritative teacher of the
church (John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

How does a RC attain Eternal Life with God?
-------------------------------------------
A RC never knows until the moment of his death if he will go to heaven.
According to RC teaching, salvation is a process.  Baptism is the first step in
that process.  Through baptism, original sin is removed and the divine life of
God is imparted to a human soul.  Infants may readily be baptized, but adults
must go through a preparation period of good works, sometimes as long as several
years, in order to qualify for baptism.

However, the sanctifying grace of baptism is not permanent.  It can be lost
through sin.  "The RC church teaches that there are 2 categories of sin...Mortal
sin ends the life of God in baptized Catholics" (p. 74-75).  Venial sins are
minor sins which simply weaken a person's spiritual vitality.  A RC may be
restored to grace through the sacrament of penance, also known as confession.

The process of losing grace through mortal sin and regaining grace through
confession continues throughout life.  At the moment of death, if a RC has
unconfessed sin, he will go to hell despite baptism, previous penance, and
multitudes of good works.  If, upon death, "God finds a person in the state of
grace, the individual's ultimate salvation is ensured" (p. 92).  However, he is
first required to atone for any "temporal punishment that was not paid for while
on earth" (p. 92).  A RC will suffer in purgatory until his punishment is
complete, after which he will enter heaven.

Catholics still living believe they can help deceased loved ones in purgatory by
saying prayers, giving alms, performing good works, or acquiring special credits
(indulgences) (p. 94).

Scriptural Response
-------------------
"For the RC, eternal salvation involves a lifetime of doing, working, and
striving...Biblical salvation, on the other hand is characterized by rest" (p.
69; Hebrews 4:10).  Biblical salvation is attained by grace through faith apart
from works.  Good works are the result, not the cause, of salvation (Ephesians
2:8-10).  Jesus frees the ungodly from their sins by His blood (Romans 5:6-8,
Revelation 1:5).  When God forgives sin, He completely forgives (Colossians
2:13, Isaiah 43:25).  There is no second justification (Hebrews 9:25-28, Romans
8:30).  Purgatory is never mentioned in the Bible.  And praying for the dead or
doing special works to help the deceased is unbiblical.  Hebrews 9:27 says, "And
it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment."  Jesus made
the perfect satisfaction for all sins, making a purgatory unnecessary (1 John
2:1-2).  The believer can rest in the assurance that he has eternal life (1 John
5:13).

Why do RC's pray to Mary?
-------------------------
"In Roman Catholicism, Mary is much more than a model of virtue; she is the
co-redeemer of the human race" (p. 200-201).

1. The Immaculate Conception - this is not the virgin birth of Jesus; it refers
to Mary's conception.  In 1854 the RC church formally announced that Mary, '*in
the first instant of her conception...was preserved free from all stain of
original sin*' (p. 186).  Thus she was "a fit habitation for Christ" (p. 186).

2. The Virgin Mother of God - the RC church teaches that '*Jesus Christ came
forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity*' (p.
187).  Also, although wed to Joseph, Mary remained an "immaculate and perpetual
virgin, abstaining from all sexual relations with her husband" (p. 187).

3. The Assumption of Mary - this doctrine, instituted in 1950, states that upon
Mary's death, her body did not undergo decay, but was miraculously taken to
heaven by God so that she '*should in all things resemble Jesus*' (p. 224).
There she sits at Jesus' right hand as Queen of Heaven and Earth.

4. The Mediatress of All Grace - According to the RC church, '*God has committed
to her [Mary] the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know
that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation.  For
this is His will, that we obtain everything through Mary*' (p. 218). '*She is
the neck of Our Head, by which He communicates to His mystical body all
spiritual gifts*' (p. 220). '*Just as no one can approach the highest Father
except through the Son, so no one can approach Christ except through His
Mother*' (p. 219).  Apparently as Mary watched Jesus die on the cross, her
sufferings were so intense that she '*participated with Jesus Christ in the
very painful act of redemption*' (p. 202).

Scriptural Response
-------------------
Mary is never referred to in Scripture as immaculate, sinless, or All-Holy.  As
a descendant of Adam, she was born in sin (Psalm 51:5, Romans 5:12).  The Bible
teaches that Mary was a virgin until the birth of Jesus, after which she had
other children (Matthew 1:25, 13:55-56, Psalm 69:8).  No Scripture mentions
Mary's death or burial.  The concept of assumption is never found in the Bible.
According to 1 Peter 1:18-19 Messiah alone is the Redeemer of mankind, for He
alone suffered and died for sin.  Jesus is the one mediator to whom we can
entrust all our cares and petitions (1 Timothy 2:5, John 14:13-14, 1 Peter 5:7).

Jesus Himself had opportunity to tell people to revere His mother, but He
didn't.  Matthew 12:47-50 states: "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother
and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.  But he answered
and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother?  and who are my brethren?
And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother
and my brethren!  For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in
heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."

If you would like to receive Jesus as your Messiah, pray this prayer aloud and
mean it to the best of your ability:

"Dear God, please forgive me for every sin I have ever committed.  I am sorry
and, with your help, I turn from them.  I believe Jesus died in my place for my
sins.  And by His wounds, I am forgiven.  I make Jesus my Lord and ask Him to
live inside of me.  In the name of Jesus, Amen."

{from the Mishpochah File 1:14, Messianic Vision, PO Box 1918, Brunswick, GA
31521; (912) 265-2500}

>Tradition, as long as it does not contradict scripture, is authoritative:
    >
>  "hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or
>   our epistle"  -- 2 Thess 2:15, KJV.
    
    the Greek word for "traditions" here is "teachings."  You can't claim
    tradition as authoritative since Christ condemned the traditions of
    men (Matthew 15:2-3,6; Mark 7:3-5,8-9,13).  Paul also condemned them in
    Galatians 1:14 and Colossians 2:8.  The conext of the Bible is the
    entire book.

>The Holy Spirit will guide the apostles into all truth:
>
>  "when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all
>   truth"  -- John 16:13
    
    Amen.

>  "the gates of hell will not prevail against [my church]" -- Mt 16:18

    and again, Amen.
    
    Mike

re .242

None of these references correspond to either page numbers or paragraph
numbers in my copy of the Catechism.

The proper way to reference the Catechism is by paragraph number, which
will be consistent across all editions.  Each publisher is free to paginate
the Catechism as he sees fit.

/john

    .242
    
    However much is written about Catholic beliefs versus x,y or z, what
    they believe,how and why they believe. I think it boils down to how
    much one is in love with Jesus. It is true that we Catholics have gone
    through a very great change in our relationship with God. The God we
    feared as judgemental has become a loving Father and a God with
    unmeasurable love.
    In all that you have written I cannot read that Catholics have the
    reserved privilege to receive the body of Christ daily. The mirical
    of transubstanciation that we Catholics believe in and introduced by
    our Master Himself at the Last Supper (This IS My Body ...Not
    represents My Body) handed down through generations of Bishops and
    Priests (Do this in commemeration of Me).
    I cannot tell you how unhappy I am for  my non Catholic friends who
    cannot receive the true body and blood of Christ as nourishment for
    their souls.
    I also experience a great love for Mary. I don't pray to Her as such
    but invite Her to pray with me and to inspire me in prayer. As Mother
    of our Devine Savior and my heavenly mother it is within Her interests
    to guide me in Her Sons' footsteps.
    
    Many poeple have difficulty in interpreting the Bible and, to
    understand some passages one has to understand the background and the
    environmental conditions to which it refers in the time it was written.
    Many poeple go as far as to bend the interpretation to what they hope
    it means by buying different versions until they can justify
    inconsistencies and by consulting numerous friends to find an
    interpretation that may fit their particular life styles.
    I for example tried to find a justification for being within the top
    10% highest paid whilst 50% were undernourished. I was given many
    justifications but do you know it still hurts within my heart.
    I have experienced that when you ask, God tells you how to follow Him,
    how to interpret a particular part of the Bible when you need it and to
    understand His needs which may not be written in the Bible.
    The Bible for me and I guess for many Catholics is like Baptism.. It is
    the basis. The basis for understanding. But like Baptism it is only the
    beginning of a process. A Bible on the shelf even if read daily only
    remains a treasured book in memory of God if the messages contained
    therein are not put to practice.
    
    I pray that all Christians accept others right to be sincere in their
    beliefs.
    
    May God Bless you
    
    Peter

    >I think it boils down to how much one is in love with Jesus.
    
    I think I understand what you mean by this.... but I've always believed
    that it boils down to how much we are loved by God.
    
    Romans 5:8
    
    But God commendeth His love towards us, in that while we were yet
    sinners, Christ died for us.
    
    
    
    
    

    .246
    I believe that we are all equally loved by God
    Gods love is unmeasurable and cannot be more for one than another. It is
    infinate love. So it is up to me to get my act together with Him... to
    learn to love Him with my whole heart, mind and strength. To put Him in
    the middle of my life not me in His.
    
    
    

    .247
    
    Then we totally agree!  Amen!!!!  I'm reading a book now entitled, "A
    Heart for God!"  The first 3 pages have had me hungry... it is
    something I'd recommend for anyone who truly wants to develop a
    personality like David, "A man after God's own heart!" :-)
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

    John, the page numbers are for McCarthy's book.

Eric Ewanco has posted, elsewhere in this conference or in the previous
version, the scriptural justifications for every single Catholic belief
and practice you have objected to.

The Roman Catholic Church bases every one of its teachings on the bible.
The methods of interpretation are those handed down in continuous and
unbroken succession from the twelve original apostles.

No teaching of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.

/john

    Re: Note 287.250 by COVERT::COVERT

�Eric Ewanco has posted, elsewhere in this conference or in the previous
�version, the scriptural justifications for every single Catholic belief
�and practice you have objected to.
    
    Would you be so kind as to point me to Eric's note? I apparently missed
    it and would like to mark it.
    
�No teaching of the Roman Catholic Church contradicts the Bible.
    
    I am curious about the Roman Catholic teaching that folks are to pray
    to Mary or other now-deceased persons. I am also curious about the
    Roman Catholic teaching re Purgatory. No need to rehash them here if
    you can point me to Eric's note (and it resolves these issues).
    
    Thanks!
    
    	BD�

>    Would you be so kind as to point me to Eric's note? I apparently missed
>    it and would like to mark it.

It's not one note, it is hundreds of them.  They address every objection
with sound, biblical answers.

DIR/AUTH=EWANCO or /AUTH=EJE should find them.

/john    

    Looks like the former Catholic priests at Mission Catholic
    International disagree with Eric.
    
    Mike

Well, current priests agree with Eric.

Too bad about these former ones.  Seems they're wrong.  Which might be why
they are "former".

/john

    .251
    
    It seems to be bothering you alot (this praying to mary business)
    What is prayer? ... For me a prayer can be in adoration, a request, a
    kind thought or just offering your daily task up to God. What do we
    Catholics do when we pray with mary? What have you Heard we do? What
    have you against it when I ask Mary to Help me?.
    I would hate to arrive at the gates of Heaven and during my
    confrontation with God He says.Peter you did all the things I could
    expect from you but why were you so horrible to my mother?. I sent her
    to help you....
    It's like that man who had so much faith in God that He would rescue Him
    in the floods that he refused the rescue boot, climbed up on the roof
    when the water rose refused the rescue helicopter and drowned. He asked
    the Lord why did you not come to rescue me? to which the Lord replyed I
    tried to, I sent the rescue team with the boat, I sent the rescue team
    with the helicopter but you didn't recognise my help.....
    May the Lord be with you
    
    Peter

    
    Please explain,
    
    This question is in no way bating or anything else...I was
    just wondering what is the Biblical basis for the belief
    that Mary was sent to help us?  
    
    Pam

The way Mary helps us is manifold.

	1. Just as any other Christian helps us, she prays for all
	   Christians.  I'm sorry that so many of the readers of this
	   conference have lost the concept of the "Communion of Saints"
	   that was present in the early Church and confirmed in the
	   creeds and even mentioned in the Bible -- nothing, not even
	   death, can separate us.

	2. Even more importantly she helps us by showing us her Son.

	3. She serves as an example to us.  She is a type of the Church,
	   and her role, and our role, is to bring Christ into the world.

	4. The statements attributed to her are an example to us:

		a. "Let it be unto me according to thy word."

		b. "Do whatsoever He tells you."

There are many Biblical phrases which have been interpreted throughout history
to apply to Mary -- not always uniquely to her, because as a type of the Church,
phrases which apply to her and or the Church can be applied, in many cases to
one or both.

/john

>Too bad about these former ones.  Seems they're wrong.  Which might be why
>they are "former".
    
    John, they left voluntarily.

    >    expect from you but why were you so horrible to my mother?. I sent her

    the only pre-existant being in the universe doesn't have a mother.

    Mike

    There is a Catholic church in Rome (I think it's by the train station
    near St. Peter's Basilica?) that has a large monument of the cross with
    Christ on one side and Mary on the other.  Why would they do this and
    what Bible passage supports it?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>>   expect from you but why were you so horrible to my mother?. I sent her
>
>    the only pre-existant being in the universe doesn't have a mother.

This is an old heresy, denying that Jesus Christ has a mother.

Furthermore, it violates the rules of this conference, by being totally
non-biblical.

/john

re .260

Gal 2:20 "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live."

The type-identification of Mary and the Church is made clear throughout
the Bible.  This piece of art is an affirmation of the statements in the
Bible that the whole Church shares in Our Lord's death and in his resurrection.

However, I would object to it on the grounds that it confuses people who
do not fully understand the whole faith.

/john

�>    the only pre-existant being in the universe doesn't have a mother.
�
�This is an old heresy, denying that Jesus Christ has a mother.
�
�Furthermore, it violates the rules of this conference, by being totally
�non-biblical.
    
    Colossians says Jesus Christ is the Creator.  God/Creator/Jesus has no 
    mother.  He pre-existed and it is a fundamental doctrine of
    Christianity, supported by the Bible.
    
1:13  Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us
 into the kingdom of his dear Son:
1:14  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of
 sins:
1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
1:16  For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in
 earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
 principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
1:17  And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
1:18  And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the
 firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

>God has no mother.

Sorry, but it is a premise of this conference that Jesus is God.  And Mary
is the sign and guarantee that the Son of God had truly been born as a man.

	Gal 4:4-5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God
	sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.
	To redeem them that were under the law, that we might
	receive the adoption of sons.

Mary, according to the Bible, and according to the early councils which
dealt with Arian, Gnostic and other christological heresies, is the Theotokos,
the God-bearer, the mother of God the Son.

Failure to recognize this causes serious problems with the understanding of
the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the salvation of humanity by Our Lord's
taking of Human nature into heaven.  In particular, some Gnostics denied
that God had a completely human life.  He was said by some Gnostics to have
passed through Mary like light passes through a window.  But "born of the
Virgin Mary" in the Apostles' Creed was the Apostles' insistance that Jesus
was Truly Man, just as he is Truly God.

Without a Mother, there would be no Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

/john

"Is Mary the Mother of God?" by Peter Doeswyk (former Roman Catholic Priest)
� Missions to Catholics International, Inc.

Mother of "God."  God has no mother.  He had no beginning, but exists from
eternity.  Even many non-Catholics accept and use the title "Mother of God" in a
popular and poetical sense without being aware of its serious contradiction.
The Roman Catholic church, however, does not look upon this title as a mere
figure of speech, nor just a bit of poetry.  In Catholic teaching it is not a
mere title, it is a doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Doctrine
---------------------------
"She {Mary} is truly the Mother of God, because Jesus Christ is the Second
Person of the Blessed Trinity, equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and
truly God."

Fallacy of This Doctrine
------------------------
By the same line of reasoning it could be proved that St. Ann is the
"Grandmother" of God, because she is (supposedly) the grandmother of that human
nature which is united to the one and divine personality of Jesus Christ.
Likewise James, the brother of the Lord, would become the "brother of God"
(adelphotheos), and David the "forefather of God" (theopator), as they were
actually called by early propounders of this sort of logic.

Such reasoning has no limits.  Since the Father, The Son, and the Holy Ghost are
but one God, if Mary were the mother of God, she would also become the mother of
the Blessed Trinity.  She would thus be the mother of her own Creator!  Even a
child can see how absurd is this whole Roman doctrine of Mary's divine
motherhood.  It is pagan in origin, blasphemous ridicule of what is sacred and
divine, and its supposed logic is far below that found in the song "I'm My Own
Grandpa."  Yet Pope Sixtus V in 1587 officially approved the title "Mater
Creatoris" - Mary, the mother of the Creator.  Catholics today pray to Mary as
"Mother of our Creator" in the "Litany of the Virgin Mary."

History of Roman Doctrine
-------------------------
The title "mother of God" (theotokos: god-bearer) originated in the 4th century,
but was not accepted as a doctrine until the 5th century.  The great promoter of
Mary's divine motherhood was an unscrupulous bishop of Egypt, Cyril, who was
promptly anathematized for his "new" and "idolatrous" doctrine by the most
prominent bishop of his day, Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople.

At the Council of Ephesus (5th century) Cyril ganged up on Nestorius, and by
blackmail and bribery (fairly admitted in the Catholic Encyclopedia) the "mother
of God" controversy was settled in favor of Cyril.  The name of Cyril is still
remembered in the Mass of February 9th wherein he is called "the invincible
champion of the divine motherhood of the most blessed Virgin Mary."  The name of
Nestorius is immortalized by his followers, the Nestorians, a sect of the
Eastern church, who remain as witnesses today of the origin of the "mother of
God" doctrine in the 4th and 5th centuries.

Pagan Origin
------------
Centuries before Christ, the pagan world worshiped a mother-of-God with a
baby-god in her arms.  The Egyptian madonna, Isis, carrying her little Sun-god,
Horus, in her arms, became so popular that the worship of Seb, the Father of the
gods, was supplanted by this mother-goddess.  From Egypt her worship spread to
Rome.

Once Mary had been proclaimed the "mother of God" and the "Queen of Heaven"
(moon), the very statues of Isis were carried from vacated pagan temples and,
without alteration, installed as Christian Madonnas in the churches of Rome.
The Egyptian Madonnas-with-child in the Metropolitan Museum of New York, the
Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and others, are witnesses of the pagan
origin of the Roman Catholic Mother-of-God cult.

Rome's Design
-------------
To frustrate the work of complete salvation by Christ, the worship of a divine
Mediator was substituted by that of a human "Mediatrix."  To accommodate Rome,
many monks eagerly stooped to an all-time low in blasphemous vulgarity by
'reasoning' that the Holy Spirit could not have overshadowed Mary without her
consent, for this would constitute rape.  God's will depended on Mary's will.
Thomas Aquinas, the greatest genius in Roman sophistry, teaches the same
blasphemy, namely, that the redemption of mankind depended on the consent of
Mary.

Thus the "Mother of God" was gradually introduced as the "Mediatrix" and the
dispenser of all divine graces, and became "Queen and Gate of Heaven," "*at
whose command all things obey, even God."

Scriptural Teaching
-------------------
The word theotokos is not found in the Bible, nor in the Apocrypha, nor in any
of the numerous Christian writings of the first 3 centuries.  Early Rome did not
have a Mary-cult, as is evident from the Calendar of Christian feast days drawn
up by the Council of Laodicea (4th century).

The Roman Mary-cult is a confusion between means and end.  Scriptural references
to Mary are rare, and occur only in so far as they are necessary to the life
story of Jesus.  In the epistle of Paul to the church of Rome, Mary is not
mentioned at all.  In the Roman Gospel (Mark) Mary is only mentioned by a group
of unbelievers.  Other Gospels refer to Mary as "the mother of Jesus" or "His
mother," but never a "the mother of God."  Realizing her sinful human nature,
and her need of salvation, she brought God a sin offering after the birth of
Christ, and called him "My Savior" (Luke 1:47, 2:24).

 Gentlemen, let's remember who's we are as we discuss this, please.






 Jim

	"Affirmation of the title `Theotokos' is critical to Christian
	 salvation not because of what it says about Mary, but because
	 of what it says about Christ."

Like all heretical attacks on the Christian faith as defined in the Bible
and the councils of the early Church, .265 is a cruel mixture of truth and
falsehood, designed to confuse the reader and draw him away from a proper
understanding of the Trinity and the soteriological nature of the Incarnation.
As such, it is as dangerous an attack on the Trinity as any that has ever
been posted in this conference.

In .265, Nestorius is falsely lionized as being the champion.  However, the
title "Theotokos" was dogmatically affirmed by the council of Ephesus, a
council of the entire Church, to refute the Nestorian heresy.

The argument was between the title "Theotokos" and "Christotokos".  But the
the rejection of the title "Theotokos" is heretical and unbiblical, because
it implies that Jesus was only Christ at his birth, and not God.  It teaches
that Jesus was not divine by nature but rather divine by virtue.  With this
false model of Our Lord, the Trinity does not live up to its soteriological
capability to bring God and humanity together in a saving relationship.

The following are excerpts from "The Cruelty of Heresy" by C. FitzSimons
Allison, a retired Episcopal bishop (whose godson, Christopher FitzSimons,
IV, was my roomate during my junior year at GaTech):

    Nestorius accepted that the full humanity of Christ but not the divine
    logos was born of Mary.  His critics objected that he had so separated
    the two natures that the result was not an essential union, not a
    single person.  Nestorius's choice of "prosopon" (person) to describe
    both the divine and human nature (physis) made it seem even more likely
    that Christ was two persons.
    
    Nestorianism can best be described by comparing it with Arianism and
    Apollinarianism.
    
    Arianism: Created, lesser deity, not of the same substance.  Christ
    is not "homoousios" (of one substance) but only "homoiousios" : "like"
    the Father and only "like" human nature.  There is no "At-one-ment",
    no substantial identification with God or humanity, no union of God and
    humanity in Christ -- no salvation.  [Diagram shows gaps between God
    and Christ and between Man and Christ.]
    
    Nicaea 325: Atonement of God and humanity in Christ.  Christ is
    "homoousios" with the Father and with humanity.  This condems
    Arianism.  [Diagram shows God and Man perfectly united in Christ.]
    
    Apollinarianism: Christ fully divine, not fully human.  Leaves out the
    mind or soul from the scheme of redemption.  Redemption is by replacement
    or destruction of something human.  [Diagram shows God united with an
    imperfect Man in Christ.]
    
    Constantinople 381: Reasserted Nicaean victory of Arianism and affirmed
    full human nature against Apollinarianism.
    
    Nestorianism: Christ is fully divine and fully human but two persons
    joined in unity by will.  There is a "gap of salvation" [which cannot
    be bridged by the Incarnation (God's saving action) alone but only by
    human will-power].  Christ possesses not just two "natures" (physis)
    but two "persons" (prosopon) with the unity dependent upon the moral
    agreement of the two wills.  The unity of salvation is only that unity
    of the will.  As Jesus and the logos are one by their wills, so we will
    be one with Christ as long as our wills are his will.  No unity, no
    ontology (being) but only unity by will-power.  [Diagram shows Christ
    himself divided in two by the gap.]
    
    Ephesus 431: One person/Two natures -- true atonement
    
    Nestorianism has improved on Arianism in that it asserts the full
    divinity and full humanity of Jesus Christ.  The two fatal Arian
    gaps between God and Christ and between Christ and humanity are
    now reduced to one, and that in Christ himself.  Thus, Nestorianism
    denies not divinity but rather the soteriological unity by which God
    and humanity are one in Christ.
    
    The place of "theotokos" then can be seen in its affirmation that the
    logos and Christ are essentially and ontologically one person (in his
    very being), not just in "their" congruity of will, ethics, and morals.
    "Theotokos" (God-bearer), implying essential union (ontological from
    conception), would not allow for any interpretation of Jesus's baptism
    as the conferring of divinity (as we have seen in Adoptionism).

For this reason the title "Theotokos" rather than the Nestorian heresy of
"Christotokos" establishes the unity of one person from the moment of
conception.  The title is critical to Christian salvation not because of
what it says about Mary, but because of what it says about Christ.

With the Nestorian heresy, we are only saved if we _will_ ourselves to be
like God.  But scripture clearly condemns this: "By his wounds you are
healed".  Allison explains that the cruelty in the Nestorian heresy is
that the salvation promised in the work of Christ is reduced to the
imperative for us to work to be like him.

And that is the cruelty in the rejection of the fully orthodox and scriptural
understanding that Mary is the mother of God the Son -- one person with two
inseparable natures, inseparable from the moment of conception in the womb of
his mother.  It is heretical to divide Our Lord's human and divine natures,
and to do so cruelly makes His free gift of salvation accessible only by
human effort, not by God's grace.

/john

Please note that Mary was the mother of Jesus' humanity.  Not in any degree
of His divinity.  Hence the term 'mother of God' is inappropriate, and
blasphemous.  Mary may have been found 'righteous in her generation', as
was Noah, but she was still a sinner, needing a Saviour (Luke 1:47), as are
all people other than Jesus, through whom salvation is available. 

							Andrew 

>Please note that Mary was the mother of Jesus' humanity.  Not in any degree
>of His divinity.

Did you even read .267?

The Church soundly condemned as heretical and non-biblical the separation of
the person of Jesus into humanity and divinity at both the council of Ephesus
and the council of Chalcedon.

You will not be able to find any biblical support for such a separation; as
I explained in .267, this is the heresy called Nestorianism, which is almost
as dangerous as Arianism.

Once the hypostatic union was formed at his conception, there was one person
with two inseparable natures.  Separating them in any way causes serious
problems for all soteriology, and leads to all sorts of other heresies,
including, for example, the heretical claim that only Jesus's humanity,
and not his divinity, was crucified on the cross.

/john

Hi John,

Jesus was in no way divided, but He fully possessed both natures.  He was 
both fully human and fully divine.  But Mary was purely human.  If you 
claim any different, you equate God with man in a very unBiblical and 
unsupportable manner.

							Andrew

re .270

Yes, but God chose to become incarnate -- and to do so he chose a human woman
to be the human mother of his divine Son.

To deny that is unbiblical.  Reread .267, and remember that even Protestants
at the time of the Reformation considered the first four councils to have an
authority almost as strong as that of the bible.  Without the interpretive
methods worked out in those councils of the entire worldwide Church, the
bible is open to interpretations by Arians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Gnostics,
Mormons, etc.

Christians must hold fast to the teachings of at least the first four
councils to have any semblance of unity about the soteriology revealed
in Jesus Christ.

/john

    Re: Note 287.255 by VNABRW::WILLIAMS
    
�    It seems to be bothering you alot (this praying to mary business)
�    What is prayer? ... For me a prayer can be in adoration, a request, a
�    kind thought or just offering your daily task up to God. What do we
�    Catholics do when we pray with mary? What have you Heard we do? What
�    have you against it when I ask Mary to Help me?.
    
    Hi Peter,
    
    I don't want to get into an argument about this, but since you asked
    I'll answer. As I see it, the Bible prohibits our attempted
    communication with the dead. Mary (as with all humans to date except
    Enoch and Elijah) has died. It seems contrary to the Bible, therefore,
    to be trying to contact her. As I understand the Bible, all prayers are
    to go to God and Him alone.
    
    	BD�

Hi John,

I do not hold to councils, and don't hold that early protestants were 
infallible.  Especially where such conflict with the clear teaching of the 
Bible.  Jesus was fully human at the creation, which He was instrumental in 
effecting.  You misunderstand my note if you take any division of nature 
from it.  

� Yes, but God chose to become incarnate -- and to do so he chose a human 
� woman to be the human mother of his divine Son.

But He already had both divinity and humanity.  While Mary gave Him birth,
she did not give Him divinity.  The fact that He is the divine Son did not 
originate at conception.

Obviously, from our respective stances, we are not going to come to
agreement on this, or persuade each other!  And I don't think it's
profitable to continue much further.  Especially as for us both, the
opposing position is very unacceptable.  I'm not saying 'stop now', because
after all, I did enter the above!  I am saying I would rather wind this
down than see it lead to conflict.  I respect and love you as a brother in
the LORD, and feel that it's valuable to clarify our differences without 
losing mutual fellowship, if that can be arranged! ;-)

								Andrew

    This discussion has a tad of dejavu around it.  The very first time I
    entered this forum the very same discussion was ongoing. :-) :-)
    
    I can see that neither John nor others have changed of their
    discernments.  
    
    I think we agreed to disagree before... but somehow I have a feeling
    this topic will go on a bit further prior to that conclusion.
    
    Nancy
    

>As I see it, the Bible prohibits our attempted communication with the dead.

It prohibits sorcery, and conjuring up spirits, but that is not what asking
a member of the Communion of Saints (alive or dead) is doing.

The bible also tells us that nothing, not even death, can separate us from
the love that is in Christ Jesus, and it is through that love that we pray
for each other, by and for all of the members of the Communion of Saints,
now and forever.

/john

    Re .275 (John) 	<I believe in the Communion of Saints>
    
    Thanks for the explanation, John.
    
    	BD�

Discussions on the eternal state have been moved to a new note, 765.

							   Andrew 
							co-moderator

   <<< Note 765.11 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

>.283 - Joe,  Elijah and Moses were not in their mortal bodies; they were 
>not being consulted or prayed to; they were 'talking with' Jesus.  
    
    	People who ask for the saints' intercession do no more or no less.

Hey Joe!  I just moved these here from the Catholic discussions topic, and 
you start reverting the conversation!!!!  ;-}

You omitted quoting where I pointed out that Jesus was also in a glorified 
body at the time.  Also, that He was not 'asking for their prayers'.

However, never having held a face-to face discussion with the glorified
saints, I can't argue with those who apparently do!!!! ....especially in a
topic that isn't discussing this! ;-)

However, I will one day.  I leave it to you to decide which ;-)

								Andrew 

   <<< Note 765.19 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

>Hey Joe!  I just moved these here from the Catholic discussions topic, and 
>you start reverting the conversation!!!!  ;-}
    
    	Just replying to them where they are!  :^)
    
>You omitted quoting where I pointed out that Jesus was also in a glorified 
>body at the time.  
    
    	I don't see the significance of this point, but I'll accept
    	that it is important for you.
    
> Also, that He was not 'asking for their prayers'.
    
    	THis we have no way of knowing.
    
>However, never having held a face-to face discussion with the glorified
>saints, I can't argue with those who apparently do!!!! 

    	Have you ever had a face-to-face with Jesus?  
    
    	I have not had such a face-to-face with a saint, but I do not 
    	let that get in the way of my faith that the saints are all
    	still alive in Christ, and that they are still able to pray
    	for me no less so -- and perhaps quite more so -- than anyone
    	currently alive here in earth that I might also ask to pray
    	for me.

.283 - Joe,  Elijah and Moses were not in their mortal bodies; they were 
not being consulted or prayed to; they were 'talking with' Jesus.  bear in 
mind also that Jesus was in [some measure of] His glorified body at that 
point, and the disciples spoke only to Jesus; not to Moses and Elijah.

								Andrew

OK Joe, back to first principles, God is the only one we are instructed to
pray to, in either the first or second person, as in John 14:13 and 16:23.

I can find no justification for communicating with those who have passed 
from this life, and severe warnings against it.  Again, this is one which 
has gone round and round many times, and does not seem profitable to 
propagate.
							Andrew

    I always thought that praying to anyone other than God was idolotry
    
    Praying for the saints is a different matter and I'm happy to have
    anyone pray for me.
    
    Love
    Ben

�    Praying for the saints is a different matter and I'm happy to have

The living one, rather than those who have stepped into the Presence, though?

							Andrew

    But of course Andrew - seems to me that the dead saints don't need no
    praying for anymore - they are well-blessed.
    
    Bless you bro'
    Ben

    yes anyway
    
                      Patricia

 :-)



 Way to go!

If asking saints to pray for us is unbiblical,

    then please delete topic 6 (the prayer requests topic).

Those who ask for the intercession of the saints do no more and no less
that what is being asked in topic 6.

/john

As I hinted at in the previous reply, many of the readers of this conference
simply don't understand what the English word "pray" means.

They have this false notion that "praying" is some form of worship.

It isn't.  The word in English means "ask" or "petition" or "request".

In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when a plaintiff goes before a civil
court to make a claim against someone, he submits a "prayer" to the court
that it take some action.

Thus a "prayer" to a saint (including those saints who are members of this
conference or of any part of the Communion of Saints), in the English language,
is simply a request that the saint do the request -- the request is usually a
request for further "prayer" to God.

And we all know that praying for others, and asking them to pray for us, is
firmly Biblical.

/john

    .289
    
    Wrong! :-)  
    
    Praying together with a saint and praying *to* a saint are very
    different things.

I pray you, Nancy, please look in a dictionary.

/john

    	Thanks, John.  You said what I wanted to say, and did it
    	much better than I would have.

    If you believe the Bible to be God's literal infallible, inerrant, and
    inspired Word, then you shouldn't make exceptions of praying to the
    dead based on what Christ did at the Mt. of transfiguration.  We're not
    Christ.
    
    Mike

    1. Pray for me.
    
    2. Pray to me.

    pray - verb - 1: entreat, implore 2: to ask earnestly for something 3:
    to address a divinity esp. with supplication.

    The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary - 1989 edition

    If praying is simply asking then that must be talking to.
    
    If, in praying to the saints, you are talking to the dead then you are
    breaking Gods holy commands (I can't give references here, but it is in
    the law, the Bible history books and the prophets at least).
    
    Plus Ecclesiastes 9:5+6 says this:
    
    For the living know they will die but the dead know nothing;they have
    no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. Their
    love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; NEVER
    AGAIN WILL THEY HAVE A PART IN ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS UNDER THE SUN
    
    Love
    Ben

Hi Harry,

I use a small-ish Collins one from '88, which is handy to keep at work.  
It has further definitions, linking prayers to requests to God.

The word 'pray' in normal English usage (with apologies to the Americans, 
Australians, etc ;-) is only applied to inter human requests in an archaic 
form 
	[ what would my boss's first reaction be if I were to say 
	'Ah, JC, I pray you to give me a generous review...' ? ;-]
It has also been retained in some formal contexts, where the original form
of language has been retained, rather than updating to modern
understanding.  That's ok, but our understanding (and progression of the 
dictionary) is driven by current usage rather than by derivation.

According to the preponderance of my dictionary definition, the word 'pray'
is understood to refer to communication with God.  That's as far as a
dictionary can go, because its compilers - and the majority of those it
represents - are not concerned with the deeper significance of meaning. 
That is more a matter for the one who prays.

The archaic origin of 'ask earnestly, entreat' etc, can obviously be
applicable to any living person for temporal and physical etc requests. 

However, when we refer to 'prayer' in a religious or spiritual context, we
generally mean a request which goes beyond human capability.  We are asking 
for something in the spiritual dimension, or for something which is 
materially at least uncertain, unlikely or impossible, recognising that the 
one we pray to has power to command both the spiritual and the material 
realms, beyond what is normally perceived as their limits.

This latter meaning of 'prayer' is the one we generally mean in this 
conference, and certainly in note 6.  It is totally Biblical to share
our prayer requests and unite in prayer, according to Matthew 18:19,
Ephesians 6:19, 1 Thessalonians 5:25, James 5:16 ...

The point in question, as Mike has indicated, is to whom we pray.  One only 
makes a request of someone who is empowered to answer that request.  [ I
wouldn't ask my son for that pay rise ! ]  So in 'praying' in the spiritual
context we are making a request of someone with supernatural power which is
operative on earth.  The only one I know who comes into that category is
God Himself. The implication of Luke 16:19-31 (yes, Dives & Lazarus again!)
is that those who have passed from this mortal life no longer have ability
to affect what happens on earth (it also appears that at that point they 
are not even aware of activities on earth).  The only one who can affect
this favorably (ignoring angelic spirits, fallen or unfallen), is again,
God Himself. 

I have referred in a previous reply to God's invitation to us to pray to 
Him directly (eg John 14:13 and 16:23); His command is to pray to Him
directly, even addressing Him as Father (Matthew 6:9).  This is our LORD's
direct instruction to us on 'how to pray'.  His supreme commitment to us
and care over our continual involvements are also assured, especially in
Romans 8:26-39, where the Holy Spirit actually helps us to pray where words
fail us! 

In the light of His direct command in the Word of God, there is every
reason to pray to God, whether in the person of the LORD Jesus, or to the
Father.  There is no reason to make supernatural requests to those who have
passed on, and an impossibility of them being able to effect them, even if
they could hear them.  To ask them to pass on a request to God sounds at
best an embarrasment to one in the Divine presence who knows at the deepest
level that God does all things well (and has heard him being asked, even if 
he hasn't...).

							Andrew

Fine.  If the word "pray" in the language of this conference is limited only
to prayer to God, then _by_definition_ no Catholic or Anglican or Orthodox
Christian or Lutheran has ever "prayed" to a saint.

So I formally ask the moderators to delete any note which claims that they do
or condemns the practice.  In the language of this conference, the practice
doesn't exist, and the moderators should prevent such lies.

As for there being a biblical prohibition on "talking to the dead", I don't
think you can find anything other than a prohibition on using magic and
mediums to conjure up the dead.

Through Jesus Christ, through the Communion of Saints, we remain in close
union with all Christians, living and dead.  Our requests for prayers span
time, space, and eternity to reach those who are constantly in the Father's
presence, continually offering the prayers of the saints (Rev 5:8 & 8:3-4)
to Him in his glory.

I feel very sorry for my brethren in this conference who have been snared
into the loss of the comfort of the full Communion of Saints and the
knowledge that our _requests_ for prayers will not go unanswered.

/john

    I too would be interested in knowing which passages prohibit talking
    with the dead.
                                                       Patricia

    Have you read the notes in this string, John?  Scripture has been given
    to support not talking to the dead.
    
    

re .297

That passage in Ecclesiastes uses the word "dead" to refer to the wicked,
those who are dead because of their loss of communion with God.

Don't forget that the faithful departed are not "dead" in the sense of
those verses of Ecclesiastes, but rather are asleep in Christ, and will
be alive again, offering prayers before God.

/john

Hi John,

I'm not redefining the language of the conference, but rather pointing out
normal usage.  If your normal usage differs from this, we just need to be
aware that you are using a word differently from most of us.  If on 
consideration, you feel that any note of your's doesn't convey what you 
intended to convey,. it is your responsibility to look after it.

I understand the prohibition you refer to as covering any communication 
with the dead, as totally inappropriate and unnecessary.  I did not realise
that you regard communication with saints who have gone before as being
'through Jesus Christ'.  Is this actually the case?

Thank you for your sympathy, but I can assure you that I do not feel any 
lack of comfort from making my requests directly to our LORD!

							Andrew

>    Have you read the notes in this string, John?  Scripture has been given
>    to support not talking to the dead.

It has not.  The only scripture which has been given supports not conjuring
up the dead through magic.

No scripture exists which supports not asking the members of the Communion of
Saints, alive and departed, to pray for us.

And I have given scripture which supports the prayers of the saints as being
effective.

Nothing, not even death, can separate us from the love which is in Christ
Jesus.

Nor from the requirement to pray for each other.  Nancy, when you stand before
God, you will be spending a lot of time praying to Him for all those who have
ever asked for your prayers.

/john

>If your normal usage differs from this, we just need to be aware that you are
>using a word differently from most of us.

We're not talking about _my_ usage.  We're talking about notes by other people
who bring up, completely on their own, the falsehood that Catholics, Anglicans,
Orthodox, Lutherans, etc. "pray" to saints.  If the word "pray" has a particular
meaning in this conference, then those people who make this statement better
be the ones to clarify that they are using the word differently (if they are
actually talking about what these people really do); if they are not using the
word differently, then they are the ones _bearing_false_witness_ against us
for claiming that we address saints as though they were God.

>I understand the prohibition you refer to as covering any communication 
>with the dead, as totally inappropriate and unnecessary.

I don't.  It specifically refers to magic.

>I did not realise that you regard communication with saints who have gone
>before as being 'through Jesus Christ'.  Is this actually the case?

It is through Jesus Christ that we are all one body.  He has gathered us
together in an inseparable Communion.

And we can pray to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,
severally or individually.  As well as asking others to pray for us.

/john

287.300 � I too would be interested in knowing which passages prohibit talking
287.300 � with the dead.

Someone who communicates with the dead is referred to as a medium.

The basic command is contained in Deuteronomy 18:9-12:

   "When you enter the land the LORD yuor God is giving you, do not learn 
    to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there.  let no-one be 
    found among yuo who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who 
    practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, 
    or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist, or who consults the 
    dead.  Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because 
    of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those 
    nations before you."

The case of mediums and spiritists are also addressed in Leviticus 19:31 
and 20:6.

The penalty is incurred by Saul.  He had exiled the mediums and spiritists
(1 Samuel 28:3,9), but due to his own unfaithfulness was cut off from the
LORD.  He therefore had his men seek out a medium so that he might
communicate with Samuel.  To the womans horror she found, not a spirit
answering her activity (as is usual, mixing some knowledge with deceit),
but Samuel himself.  His message was that the next day, the Philistines
would be victorious, Saul and his sons would die, and David would be given
the kingdom. 

1 Chronicles 10:13
    "Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD,; he did not keep the 
     word of the LORD, and even consulted a medium for guidance...."

								Andrew

    <<those verses of Ecclesiastes, but rather are asleep in Christ, and will
    <<be alive again, offering prayers before God.
    
    John - you wrote the above and say that the dead in Christ will be
    _alive again_ indicating that they are not alive at present. And that
    scripture in Ecclesiastes most certainly does not refer to the physical
    dead, not the spiritual dead (the spiritual dead still play a part in
    what goes on under the sun).
    
    I'm sorry we disagree, but I see no basis in scripture for your
    argument.
    
    Love
    Ben
    

.304� And I have given scripture which supports the prayers of the saints as 
.304� being effective.
We have no difference over that!

re .305, I am under the impression that many you list do think that they
actually make requests of the dead.  Possibly the teaching is otherwise,
but I think that there are many who are unable to make the distinction. 
I would be glad to find it otherwise.

�> I did not realise that you regard communication with saints who have gone
�> before as being 'through Jesus Christ'.  Is this actually the case?

� It is through Jesus Christ that we are all one body.  He has gathered us
� together in an inseparable Communion.

That wasn't quite what I was asking. Jesus instructs us to pray in His Name 
(John 16:23).  This is why prayers are often concluded with 'In Jesus' 
name', or 'for Jesus' sake' in some form.  This is also referred to as 
praying 'through Jesus Christ'.  I was wondering whether Jesus' 
authentication is used in addressing the departed.

� And we can pray to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,
� severally or individually.  As well as asking others to pray for us.

Can you supply any Biblical authentication for praying to (as opposed to 
through) the Holy Spirit?

btw - I realise that this is a sensitive topic for you, as it is for all
Christians.  I don't intend to goad or annoy you by my replies, and hope 
that we can wind down the debate as we establish the respective positions.

							Andrew

A person who _consults_ the dead is called a medium.

I see no basis in scripture for concluding that the prohibition on _consulting_
the dead applies to asking other Christians to include us in their prayer life.

I see no basis in scripture for concluding that the dead are not alive in
Christ.  In fact, that is exactly what the Bible says.

And all the Saints join their prayers to ours.

/john

>� And we can pray to God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost,
>� severally or individually.  As well as asking others to pray for us.
>
>Can you supply any Biblical authentication for praying to (as opposed to 
>through) the Holy Spirit?

He's God, isn't He?

/john

�I see no basis in scripture for concluding that the prohibition on _consulting_
�the dead applies to asking other Christians to include us in their prayer life.

There lies our difference.  The 'sola scriptura' view is that we do not 
communicate with the dead, meaning those who have passed through physical 
death.  Even though we know some who are alive in Christ.

								Andrew

>Can you supply any Biblical authentication for praying to (as opposed to 
>through) the Holy Spirit?

Can you answer the question directly, John?

Can you provide any biblical authentication for considering the Holy Ghost
to be less God, and less attentive to our prayers than any of the other
co-equal members of the Trinity?

/john

    Can anyone provide why we must go round and round on this subject one
    again? :-) :-)  I knew it wouldn't end quickly... and it would be
    different if it were a new set of conversants...but no, its the same
    old same old, debating the same old, same old.
    
    :-)

The bible instructs us to pray to God.

The Holy Ghost is God.

That's all the biblical justification that is necessary.

/john

    	Now wait a minute.
    
    	I can see a basis for arguing about whether we can/should(not)
    	pray to/for/with/through/(add-your-favorite-semantic-here) saints,
    	but how can there be an argument about the same regarding the
    	Holy Spirit?
    
    	When the question arose about the creed of this conference
    	regarding the Trinity, we were referred to 2.1.  We believe 
    	in the Trinity (or Triunity) here.  To me that would imply
    	an equality among the Three.  Given that, how can we then
    	say that there is not an equality in our interaction with
    	those Three?

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing,
neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither
have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

>Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
>For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing,
>neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
>Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither
>have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

I've already pointed out that this statement refers to the evil, who do not
live in the love of the Lord.  According to the New Testament, Christians
who have died are not dead but continue to live in Christ.

Do not refuse to interpret that statement in Ecclesiastes in the light of
the good news Jesus Christ brought us, that we do not die but go to live
with him in heaven.

The Communion of Saints is a wonderful mystery of the Church.  Embrace it
and live!

/john

    John, that's eisegesis.  I seriously doubt you'll find a respected
    commentator who agrees with you.  None of the ones in my library do.
    
    Mike

I could accuse you of eisegesis as well.

I think you are interpreting that verse without the light of the New Testament.
The Jewish teacher who put the inspiration of the Holy Spirit into words in
that particular text did not believe in the Resurrection, but in Sheol as a
permanent abode for the dead.

Remember, although the Bible witnesses throughout to eternal life in God, it
is a historical fact that ancient Judaism did not understand that, as
witnessed by the controversy documented in the Gospels between the Saducees
and Pharisees.

I would be very careful of that verse; taking it by itself would seem to
deny that the dead are alive in Christ and deny that there will be a
resurrection.

/john

    So you are saying that the OT was written by men and not by God?  Who
    is Wisdom and/or Teacher talking in that book?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

The text is exactly true.  But we have to interpret it in the light of
the promises concerning the afterlife in the Good News of Jesus Christ.

The author of all of sacred scripture is God.  There is no error in the text.
However, the human transcriber was only able to write what he understood.
At that time, this human writer did not know about the resurrection; God
had not yet fully revealed it to the Jews.  Qoheleth couldn't have written
about the resurrection any more than he could have written about television.

Let's look at our understanding of what Jesus promised, and this text.

In the light of the New Testament, we know that "the faithful departed"
are not dead, but alive.

We know that we are not separated from them.  We know that we will be
rejoined with them.  We know that they will be resurrected, and live
in perfect love and fellowship with God and each other.

Christ made certain promises to his followers concerning this.  Since
both Christ's promises about the departed and Qoheleth's statements
about these dead are true, but contradictory, we know that this text
is not talking about faithful departed Christians.  It doesn't agree
with what the New Testament says about them.

But it's true, so it must describe some sort of dead people.  The only
ones who fit the description of knowing nothing and never having any
part again with anything under the sun (such as a future part with the
rest of us from under the sun who have gone with Christ to heaven) are
those who have gone to Sheol, a place where the Son doesn't shine.

These are not the people who are alive in Christ -- God is God of the
living, not of the dead.  God of everyone who is alive in the Communion
of Saints.

/john

In Ecclesiastes the phrase 'under the sun' occurs 28 times.  I think that
in this way the Holy Spirit has shown the context in which the book is to
be taken, as He inspired Solomon.

							Andrew

>The text is exactly true.  But we have to interpret it in the light of
>the promises concerning the afterlife in the Good News of Jesus Christ.
    
    Fair enough.

>The author of all of sacred scripture is God.  There is no error in the text.
>However, the human transcriber was only able to write what he understood.
>At that time, this human writer did not know about the resurrection; God
>had not yet fully revealed it to the Jews.  Qoheleth couldn't have written
>about the resurrection any more than he could have written about television.
    
    While the church was a mystery to the OT books, the resurrection was
    not.  Three different persons were raised from the dead in the OT and
    are recorded in 1 Kings 17:17, 2 Kings 4:32, 13:21.  There is also
    evidence of OT believers looking to the resurrection of saints in
    Exodus 20:12, Deutronomy 32:39, Hebrews 11:8-19.  There is also the
    translation of Enoch and Elijah in Genesis 5:22-24, Hebrews 11:5, and 2
    Kings 2:11-12.  
    
    The blessed hope of the resurrection was also expressed by several OT
    people:
    
    Hannah  - 1 Samuel 2:6
    Job     - Job 19:25-27
    David?  - Psalm 16:9-11
    Isaiah  - Isaiah 25:8a
    Ezekiel - Ezekiel 37:1-10
    Daniel  - Daniel 12:2-3
    Hosea   - Hosea 13:14
    

>Let's look at our understanding of what Jesus promised, and this text.
>
>In the light of the New Testament, we know that "the faithful departed"
>are not dead, but alive.
    
    So are the unfaithful dead.  Your decision for Christ in this life
    determines where you will spend eternity.

>Christ made certain promises to his followers concerning this.  Since
>both Christ's promises about the departed and Qoheleth's statements
>about these dead are true, but contradictory, we know that this text
>is not talking about faithful departed Christians.  It doesn't agree
>with what the New Testament says about them.
    
    Unless you have some new divine revelation from God that says the 
    sun shines in heaven, the same is true of the saved.

>But it's true, so it must describe some sort of dead people.  The only
>ones who fit the description of knowing nothing and never having any
>part again with anything under the sun (such as a future part with the
>rest of us from under the sun who have gone with Christ to heaven) are
>those who have gone to Sheol, a place where the Son doesn't shine.
    
    What book-chapter-verse says the sun shines in heaven?  Also, I think
    Matthew 27:52-53 reports what happened the day the Son shined in Sheol. 
    Remember, Luke 16 says it had 2 compartments.

    Mike

I haven't said that the sun shines in heaven.

However, the bible is clear that departed Christians _will_ again have
a part in the fellowship of each other.

/john

>However, the bible is clear that departed Christians _will_ again have
>a part in the fellowship of each other.
    
    Then we no longer have fellowship with those that have passed on before
    us in the faith.  Our fellowship is with God and with those that are
    currently on the earth with us.
    
    Mike

The Communion of Saints, is a tradition passed down by the Apostles in
the Apostles Creed.  We are commanded to believe in the Communion of
Saints by the bible (2 Thess 2:15).

The Communion of Saints means that there is a continuing communion, in a
mystical way, through God, with all Christians, present, past and future.

And I'm sorry that you don't accept it, but it is completely biblical
because of being an Apostolic Tradition accepted from the earliest times
and held to continuously throughout the history of the Church.

It's your loss.

/john

    >The Communion of Saints, is a tradition passed down by the Apostles in
>the Apostles Creed.  We are commanded to believe in the Communion of
>Saints by the bible (2 Thess 2:15).

    we've already dealt with traditions here.  Traditions <> Scripture. 
    They are unreliable and often contradict God's Word.  We're not called
    to accept what's popular, but to strict adherence to God's Word.

>The Communion of Saints means that there is a continuing communion, in a
>mystical way, through God, with all Christians, present, past and future.

    Koinonia doesn't exist with the dead saints.  Complete koinonia won't
    be restored until we're all in heaven.

>And I'm sorry that you don't accept it, but it is completely biblical
>because of being an Apostolic Tradition accepted from the earliest times
>and held to continuously throughout the history of the Church.

    We don't measure traditions according to acceptance.  We measure them
    according to God's Word.  Praying to the dead saints wasn't practiced by
    Judaism, or the Jews in the Gospels, or by the early church in the book
    of Acts, or taught in the epistles.  This is an extrabiblical tradition
    derived from paganism, mostly due to Constantine not replacing the
    pagan priests in his court at the time of his conversion.

>It's your loss.

    Praise God!  At least I know I'm not violating God's Word by praying to
    the dead (in or out of Christ).

    Mike

Since the word "pray" in this conference is defined to apply only to requests
addressed to God, would you please delete .-1 and use a term that is
acceptable, such as "ask for intercession".

Thank you.

    1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says that when Jesus returns the dead in Christ
    shall rise first, shortly followed by us and we will meet together in
    the air. This means that the dead in Christ are still in their graves
    awaiting the rapture/resurrection - so surely that means that praying
    to these "sleepers" must be a waste of time.
    
    Love
    Ben

Heaven exists outside our earthly concepts of time and space.

In Heaven, the last day has already come; the victory has already been won.

/john

    Can someone explain "Sola Scriptura" to me?  I've seen it mentioned a
    couple times, but am not sure what it is.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

re .333

Moderators, please move this note.  It is off topic here.

/john

    since I can't reply to the "Mary" topic...
    
    the October 9th issue of "Business Week" with the pope on the cover has
    an interesting feature article in it.  A couple of pages into the
    article, there is a photo of Bishop Alfred Hughes of Louisiana with a
    quote under it.  In this quote, on the issue of women becoming priests,
    he blatantly says, "No one in the church is more important than Mary."
    
    Mike

He's right, of course.

Note that Jesus is not _in_ the Church; the Church is in Him.

/john

Acts 10:34  
    Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is
    no respecter of persons:

>    Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, ...

	"Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality"  - Acts 10:34

Peter's short address is his first to non-Jews.  It begins with the central
idea that God is impartial; he wants all men to be saved through the
proclamation of the Gospel:

	"but that in every nation any one who fears him and does what
	 is right is acceptable to him."

Good that you brought this up.  God wants everyone, Jew or Gentile, to
be crowned in His nation of priests and kings.  We are royalty.

All of you.  You, Mike, you and Our Lord's blessed mother.

Don't begrudge your Lord's mother her crown and thereby lose your own!

/john