cites?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp
“Baptism is necessary for salvation.”
Wrong about the Catholics. Took me three minutes to find that one.
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/catechism_ext.htm
“Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ.”
Wrong about the Orthodox. Two additional minutes.
“By God’s grace, made known and effective in the person and work of Jesus Christ, a person is forgiven, adopted as a child of God, and given eternal salvation.”
Wrong about the Lutherans (the Anglicans are less clear)
I’ll give you part of the divide Presbyters and the Quakers. But saying that you “even know Baptists” who don’t think salvation is necessary admits that most Baptist believe that Salvation from Hell (which the Christian “loving” God created) lies only through Jesus Christ.
Want to prove I’m wrong? Instead of whining and complaining come up with some cites. So far you haven’t substantiated a thing. You’ve made assertions but mere assertion is not proof. I have provided proof. You do the same now.
I agree. Since tom thinks that some of what you are arguing is off topic, perhaps you should start a new thread in which tom defines and defends what he thinks is the right Christian message. Then you can watch him weasel out of that too.
And you (typically) found a simplistic example that you did not bother to try to understand, using snipped phrases instead of comprehension. (See below.)
Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 836 - 848
(Never mind that the last priest who made the claim that one had to be Catholic (never mind Christian) in order to be saved was excommunicated.)
And again you grab a simplistic quotation and miss the expression of the church:
The Final Judgement
I’m sure you can find other cherry picked quotations that support your view, but they are not the actual beliefs held by the churches on which you are digging up quotes. Your tenuous grasp of genuine theology is no better than your failure to grasp the anthropological understanding of how religions use scripture.
You did not even bother to read (much less understand) the statment from the Catholic article to which you, yourself, linked that goes on to say
In other words, the church recognizes that God calls all people to Himself and He does not damn them for having failed to make it through a ritual. Even the later passages that refer to a person rejecting the church are understood in Catholic theology to require that the person fully underastand and believe that the church is the correct path and then choose to reject it; a person who has learned of the church but who does not actually believe that it is the true path is under no such condemnation.
The majority of the mainstream Christian denominations use that understanding (not always expressed in the same way so as to not appear too similar to the Catholics) when viewing non-Catholics and it is generally only the Fundamentalist groups who insist on the literal action of Baptism.
“Let’s you and him fight” posts are not acceptable on this message board.
I have no interest in participating in a thread where I set out beliefs and I would only participate to point of correcting the factual errors that you or braintree might post. You are right, however, that this silly hijack is clearly off-topic for this thread, so perhaps you would stop pursuing that hijack simply to attempt to wage a feud with me.
That’s good tom, because I did not suggest that you and him should fight. Merely that you and him should continue the debate in a thread for which that is the topic. This is the debate forum isn’t it? I would be glad to join in, but I think braintree would do quite well without me. Also, since when is it against the rules to suggest that a new thread be started on a topic? Or is this another one of those made up rules to apply to me only?
Told ya.
Actually I didn’t think braintree was hijacking anything, I was just pointing out that you said it was off topic and you used that as a reason not to respond to inconvenient questions, when the fact is, you know that specifically acknowledging your beliefs and trying to defend them, scripturally or otherwise, would not go well for you.
You did not suggest that he start a new thread to discuss the issue. You suggested that he start a new thread “in which tom defines and defends what he thinks.” Telling Poster A to start a thread for the purpose of having Poster B make declarative statements to be attacked and defended is pretty much the same as saying “Let’s you and him fight,” especially since you know from many exchanges that I do not dabble in discussions to define beliefs, particularly mine.
Got any more dishonest declarations? Or would you like to participate in a discussion of whether religion can or should be taught in schools rather than trying to bait me?
And you have some reason to think that doing so would be in the form of some kind of fight rather than a debate?
No, it’s the same as saying “Let’s you and him debate.” I think I understand why you don’t wish to.
I just wanted to see that point made clear for braintree. That point being that you really enjoy using your erudition to point out small motes in the thinking of others, but that you maintain a big smokescreen so others can’t see the logs in your own reasonings.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Well, ok, since you asked, how about another honest declaration. That you are being accused weaseling in another forum as we speak. You might take that stuff as a hint.
You’re as guilty of this hijack as I am.
from your own link
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized” (CCC 1281; the salvation of unbaptized infants is also possible under this system; cf.
took me less than three minutes to see you were dead wrong.
I have responded to your interruptions out of courtesy.
The hijack initiated by braintree was organic in that arose from a dispute over a specific comment on the topic. I have, on several occasions noted that his arguments were irrelevant to the actual topic, although he appears to disagree with that assessment.
On the other hand, your interruptions have had nothing to do with the topic, being merely personal swipes at me. Cool it. Take it to the Pit or drop it, but if you keep using this thread to simply bash me, you are going to get a time out.
[ /Moderating ]
Fine.
Excuse me but it says “all those who ** without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration and grace**…”
In plain English without knowing of the church means that one is ignorant of the church. This is clearly an exception for someone who’s never heard of Christianity or Catholicism. Therefore if you know of the Chruch but reject it anyway, it’s right back to Atich EEE double hockey sticks.
And even without that your argument doesn’t make sense. Look if you say that Baptism is necessary for salvation, that’s a simple declarative sentence which means that Baptism is necessary for salvation. If I say you need a ticket to get into the theater but then say I’ll let you in anyway it doesn’t make the first statement simplistic what it does do is show that I’m an inconsistent bastard talking out of both sides of my mouth.
If you Christians can’t keep your stories straight you realy shouldn’t complain about being misrepresented.
Yes, religion COULD be taught intelligently in the public schools, but it’s highly unlikely that it WOULD be. The reason is that the incredible amount of superstition and ignorance among American Christians would prevent them from even listening (or allowing their children to listen) to an intelligent presentation of religion. **Oakminster ** is right – in theory, religion (being the personal belief system that it is) should be taught only in the home and church. Unfortunately, homes and churches are doing a crappy job of teaching religion. And, with all due respect, a lot of religious schools aren’t doing much better.
…
“All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God’s grace to salvation.”
Has this as quoted always been part of the catachism? Your remark about “the last priest who made the claim that one had to be Catholic…in order to be saved was excommunicated” makes me suspect that there has been a revision. If so, when did that happen?
“Salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ.”
This is a simple, declarative sentence the meaning of which is unambiguous. Either salvation demands faith in Jesus Christ or it doesn’t. It can’t be both ways. If a bunch of Orthodox Christians say they believe that you have faith in Jesus to keep from burningn in hell who am I to doubt them?
“At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. Man’s eternal destiny - heaven or hell, salvation or damnation - depends solely on his response to this love.”
Exactly. You have to respond to God’s love as beheld in the face of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t say “But whether through Jesus Christ or not the important thing is God’s love” There is no such clarification so this actually helps prove my point.
There’s a misunderstanding here that’s clearly my fault. I only cared about baptism in that it significes acceptance of the church. Therefore, it says you have to be part of the church in order to be saved because if it doesn’t I don’t know what you’re getting baptised for.
I read some comments on this part of the catechism, and it seems clear to me that while all men are called, those who do not respond are not saved. Catholic means everyone, and, unlike Judaism, Catholicism is open to anyone.
I’ve also read a lot of contradictory opinions on the state of salvation of those who believe in God but do not accept Jesus. This appears to vary by Pope. I don’t think any Pope wants to stir things up by explicitly saying that Jews and Moslems are not saved, but saying they are would tend to make the central core of Christianity a bit pointless.
So, the passage says that all are invited to believe in Jesus, but claiming it says all can be saved without this belief seems to be pushing it.
But the initial challenge was that you lumped all Christians together as one monolithic entity. No one asked you to (mis)represent Christianity. The point was that there are multiple beliefs under the larger umbrella of Christianity and you falsely pretend that discrepancies between different groups represent inconsistencies within each group–a point you have failed to establish and which you can only assert by misreading the texts at which you so cursorily glance.
There is no crime in being ignorant of theologies in which you have no interest. On the other hand, it is a sign of willfull ignorance (that one should not be so ready to demonstrate) to attack different theologies as though they were one and to do so impelled by that very ignorance.
“Plain language”? You come across like a person who denies evolution occurred because it is “just a theory.” Every discipline of thought develops its own language–law, philosophy, the various branches of science, music, art, theology, etc. Picking up a tract written in the language of a particular discipline and attacking it because you do not choose to take the time to learn the language says more about you than about the object of your attack.
This is not to say that you have any reason to find such texts compelling, or even interesting. You might even be correct in your basic rejection. However, your attacks, as posted, demonstrate a silly reliance on ignorance to make your case.
Baptism and participation in the church is sought because it is the position of the church that ultimately all people will be happier and come closer to God if they recognize the role of Jesus in the world and participate the Body of Christ, his church. (YMMV, obviously.) The point (in Orthodox and Catholic theologies) is that humans do not decide who will or will not be saved and while they have a command to bring people to God through Christ, they are not about to put limits on whom God may choose to save.