Another Fundy wacko bites the dust

The sacraments, most especially baptism and Eucharist, are *highly encouraged* (to put it lightly); however, *ultimately* they are not *absolutely* required for salvation as there are always caveats. See above.

The only assurance of salvation I have is if I continue to work with God's grace. I fall (sin), I get back up (repent). I fall again (sin), and I get back up again (repent). Christ's sacrifice was to open the doors of Heaven so that we might finally be able to obtain justification; however, there is no guarantee that we will be saved. To be saved, we must cooperate with God's grace. To do so is a reciprocal act of love between God and man, it's not a one-sided deal. We do individually what Israel did collectively. So, by Christ's sacrifice I have been justified (the doors of Heaven have been opened for me) but my salvation remains to be seen (whether I actually walk through those doors or not) and that is up to God's continued loving response to me and my continued loving response to God.

Thanks for sharing that. This is a less rigid vision of what most people think the RCC teaches, less dogmatic and with a holistic spin on the sacraments. I like the view that the sacraments are, in and of themselves, not the be all end all, but are simply supportive examples of the "reciprocal acts of love between God and man". And I don't doubt your correctness WRT what the RCC teaches; you seem to have done much study. Allowing for caveats takes the edge off the hard edged doctrine, but I would argue that the *rigidity* that defines Catholicism remains in its numerous Church doctrines.

I'm sure you're aware, many Catholics do view certain sacraments as *required*. And their focus and approach towards the faith emphasizes *ritual* not *relationship*. Attending mass and practicing the *sacraments* are essentially getting the 'checks in the boxes' for them. On the flip side of that, many Catholics, especially American Catholics, do not practice or 'believe in' church doctrine relating to birth control, abortion, stem cell research etc.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
I said "NO". Now what part of "NO" do you not understand.

Radiant said "no. no, no and no. What part of her saying no did you not understand.

Now reply to my post or STFU.

You really need to address that temper. Now that I've heard one Catholic, perhaps some others could chime in. I can tell you there is one (who has been absent, and I can't remember his name) who was quite adamant that if you are not Catholic you're not saved.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
Thanks for sharing that. This is a less rigid vision of what most people think the RCC teaches, less dogmatic and with a holistic spin on the sacraments. I like the view that the sacraments are, in and of themselves, not the be all end all, but are simply supportive examples of the "reciprocal acts of love between God and man". And I don't doubt your correctness WRT what the RCC teaches; you seem to have done much study. Allowing for caveats takes the edge off the hard edged doctrine, but I would argue that the *rigidity* that defines Catholicism remains in its numerous Church doctrines.

I'm sure you're aware, many Catholics do view certain sacraments as *required*. And their focus and approach towards the faith emphasizes *ritual* not *relationship*. Attending mass and practicing the *sacraments* are essentially getting the 'checks in the boxes' for them. On the flip side of that, many Catholics, especially American Catholics, do not practice or 'believe in' church doctrine relating to birth control, abortion, stem cell research etc.


Sacraments are tools to be used, ritual as well. Both enhance one's relationship with God. And yes, Catholicism can draw a hard-line circle of doctrine; however, I find that within that circle there is much room to breathe. One can express their individual spirituality within the bounds of Catholicism whether "rigid" or "holistic", all of the varied saints being an example of this. But hey, Christianity and Catholicism in particular isn't easy. The Way can sometimes be a hard and narrow road, and perhaps American Catholics are finding that especially true.
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
I can tell you there is one (who has been absent, and I can't remember his name) who was quite adamant that if you are not Catholic you're not saved.

That would be Bavarian. If I remember correctly, he is a staunch pre-V2 Catholic who is a part of what is a fringe group (SSPX) who are so Catholic they nearly cease to be Catholic due to schismatic acts.

It sounds as if you *want* a Catholic to say you aren't saved, blah blah. I mean, I can tell you that if you really want, but it wouldn't be true. The fact of the matter is, we just don't know who will be saved or not. Justified, yes, but not saved.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Absolutely not. We really dislike the KJV. Not only is it missing books but it's a poor translation. You have us waaay confused with someone else. If I didn't know you were being sincere, I'd think you were making a joke.

Ultimately the answer to that is no. Baptism removes the "stain" of original sin or our "sin nature" so obviously the sacrament of baptism gives us an easier road so to speak; however, there are people who may not have ever heard the gospel or have heard it but misunderstood it and therefore are not baptized. If their ignorance is to no fault of their own, then they can be saved if they live a life according to their conscience. The same would hold true for someone who desired baptism, but for whatever legitimate reason could not perform the sacrament.

No for more or less the same reasons as above; however, to receive Christ's glorious body in the Eucharist is to receive a grace from God that would otherwise be missed. This is true of all sacraments.

No. If it were not for the Catholic Church then there would be no salvation because the gospel would not have spread to anyone. Remember, the Catholic Church is the Apostolic Church and was there to spread the gospel by word of mouth before any scripture was written let alone put together in a bible. Does that mean you *must* be Catholic? Not necessarily.

The sacraments, most especially baptism and Eucharist, are *highly encouraged* (to put it lightly); however, *ultimately* they are not *absolutely* required for salvation as there are always caveats. See above.

You’re right… much of what the CC believes is confusing. Heck, much of what the protestant side believes has me a little perplexed. However, your answers are a bit wishy-washy to me.

To baptism “ultimately the answer is no”, then you provide caveats. I have to inject how the CC justifies infant baptism as a means to salvation. This tells me the CC believes Baptism is a mechanism to salvation. But I have been told by many Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) that if you are not baptized you can’t be saved.

To communion, again you are placing caveats. They are not *absolutely* required, but could be?

Even if we (all of us) do accept that the Catholic Church is THE Apostolic Church (the source church for all Christianity), which many don’t, is it acceptable that we be members of non-Catholic churches? I’ve had many tell me otherwise.

The only assurance of salvation I have is if I continue to work with God's grace. I fall (sin), I get back up (repent). I fall again (sin), and I get back up again (repent). Christ's sacrifice was to open the doors of Heaven so that we might finally be able to obtain justification; however, there is no guarantee that we will be saved. To be saved, we must cooperate with God's grace. To do so is a reciprocal act of love between God and man, it's not a one-sided deal. We do individually what Israel did collectively. So, by Christ's sacrifice I have been justified (the doors of Heaven have been opened for me) but my salvation remains to be seen (whether I actually walk through those doors or not) and that is up to God's continued loving response to me and my continued loving response to God.

I like your answer here, but the problem I have with it is, if I sin and die before I have a chance for confession/repentance, what is my salvation status? You already know my view on this, that once you accept Christ as your savior you are saved at that moment. All other things are supposed to be natural changes in one’s life, but not requirements to ‘maintain’ one’s salvation. But I am in an effort to show that many Catholic do hold the view that if you don’t adhere to these ‘sacraments’ you are not saved; thus by inference stating they can claim to know the status of one’s salvation. You and Bird Dog have sort of stated otherwise; but I have enough personal experience to say it is widely believed that you must accept Christ, be baptized, receive communion routinely, go to confession, be a member of the Catholic Church… and not doing these things, you’re not saved.

But I don't want to beat this up too much because I adamantly reject anyone claiming they know the status of someone's salvation; unless that person openly admits they are an atheist and completely reject God.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
That would be Bavarian. If I remember correctly, he is a staunch pre-V2 Catholic who is a part of what is a fringe group (SSPX) who are so Catholic they nearly cease to be Catholic due to schismatic acts.

It sounds as if you *want* a Catholic to say you aren't saved, blah blah. I mean, I can tell you that if you really want, but it wouldn't be true. The fact of the matter is, we just don't know who will be saved or not. Justified, yes, but not saved.

That’s him.

I have a near lifetime of experiences with various denominations and contacts with just about every belief in existence. I have seen some very terrible things committed by just about every denomination. For now I am focused on the CC. I’ve seen people ‘excommunicated’ for having relationships with someone non-C. I’ve seen CCs reject providing a wedding for a couple that one is C and the other is P. I can’t tell you how many Cs I’ve been in discussions with that tell me because I’m not a member of THE Church, I’m not saved, if I’m not baptized I’m not saved, if I don’t go to confession I’m not saved. On the other hand… I have had Ps tell me I’m not saved if I don’t acquire a ‘gift’ (like speaking in tongues or healing), if I don’t tithe 10% I’m not saved. I knew one guy whose church believed that if you used musical instruments to worship God, this is sinful and isn’t a real Christian Church and those that attend those churches aren’t saved. His claim was that the only way to worship God is through the pure voice. However it was okay to listen to secular music. He was into the heavy metal with lyrics full of what is considered to be Satan worship. Weird stuff if you ask me.

So, my thoughts on this come from real experience and not just a desire to vilify your church or anyone else’s. I just want to understand. My attempt here was, though, to point out that Chuck isn’t the only one that points that judgmental finger at folks. I’ve had enough of it to know that, according to many on all sides of our faith, I’m not saved. :ohwell:

:buddies:
 

Radiant1

Soul Probe
To baptism “ultimately the answer is no”, then you provide caveats. I have to inject how the CC justifies infant baptism as a means to salvation. This tells me the CC believes Baptism is a mechanism to salvation. But I have been told by many Catholics (and even some non-Catholics) that if you are not baptized you can’t be saved.

The caveats are the reason the answer is no. Granted, the caveats are small and not likely; however, they do exist so therefore the answer is no. Baptism is a mechanism to salvation; however, it's not absolutely required, again, due to the caveats mentioned. Is it better to be baptized? Absolutely! Is it preferable to be baptized? Absolutely! Does baptism confer a special grace upon the person receiving it? Absolutely, and that's why we baptize our children.

To communion, again you are placing caveats. They are not *absolutely* required, but could be?

See above, same thing.

Even if we (all of us) do accept that the Catholic Church is THE Apostolic Church (the source church for all Christianity), which many don’t, is it acceptable that we be members of non-Catholic churches? I’ve had many tell me otherwise.

Acceptable? Well, no it's not acceptable, but it is tolerable. You are our "separated brothers in Christ". As long as you aren't swaying away from basic Trinitarian Christianity, then we consider you the Body of Christ. Distant cousins or something like that, but still family.

I like your answer here, but the problem I have with it is, if I sin and die before I have a chance for confession/repentance, what is my salvation status? You already know my view on this, that once you accept Christ as your savior you are saved at that moment.

Repentance stems first and foremost from the heart. The act of confessing is to seal that repentance and renewal with God's grace, a reciprocal act of love. If you die sorrowful for your sins, then the act of confession isn't necessary; however, it is better, preferable, and confers a special grace. Now, having said that, if you die having committed a sin that you knew was a sin and you were not sorry for it, then you're in trouble and your salvation might be at stake.

All other things are supposed to be natural changes in one’s life, but not requirements to ‘maintain’ one’s salvation. But I am in an effort to show that many Catholic do hold the view that if you don’t adhere to these ‘sacraments’ you are not saved; thus by inference stating they can claim to know the status of one’s salvation. You and Bird Dog have sort of stated otherwise; but I have enough personal experience to say it is widely believed that you must accept Christ, be baptized, receive communion routinely, go to confession, be a member of the Catholic Church… and not doing these things, you’re not saved.

How old are these Catholics? I ask because there are many that are still living in a pre-Vatican2 era. Vatican 2 was an ecumenical and teaching council of bishops from all over the world to come together to form new and different understandings of the doctrines of the Church. The council officially began on December 25, 1961 (only two generations ago). The doctrines stay the same, but over time our understanding of them differ. We do not understand things the same way we did in the 1st, 5th, 10th, or 15th centuries. (The Wiki article is good if you care to read it). As you can imagine, considering how many Catholics there are in the world, it is very difficult to re-catechize those who were raised pre-V2 hence the confusion.

But I don't want to beat this up too much because I adamantly reject anyone claiming they know the status of someone's salvation; unless that person openly admits they are an atheist and completely reject God.

Agreed.

And btw, Chuckt and those like him are the only ones who point fingers on this forum, this venue, this media. I guarantee you that the majority of Christian faithful on somd.com forums are majority Catholic, but as typical of Catholics they just want to practice their faith and be left alone. There are only a few who are willing and/or equipped to address people such as he. I was raised in various Protestant denominations and was exposed to Catholic households and never once was my salvation called into question by anyone UNTIL I became Catholic and it was then the persecution and finger pointing began by not only my own family but strangers as well. Although not exactly the same, my experience is somewhat similar to yours.
 
Is it sinful to dance naked around a fire?

Are your kidding me, sin doesn't exist in my universe! In my world it's highly recommended for your spiritual health just like skinny dipping and sunbathing nude and a host of other things that I would recommend for your spiritual health better left unsaid :wink:
 
Top