I disagree. This is how a Catholic should answer the "Are you saved?" question. I really wish I could buy into the once saved always saved thing, but it just screams of error. It was Christ who said not everyon saying Lord Lord will pass the test on the last day.
That's taken from some website. I've read it before. The official Catholic dogma of salvation is not the answer you just posted. In fact, in contradiction to the Bible, the Council of Trent says the following (newadvent.org) If anyone believeth and is baptized is saved.... this is in direct contradiction! It doesn't "scream" of error. You are still basing your concept of justification on judging someone's works instead of true, saving faith. You and my dad both say it's "mincing words" and "semantics", but it isn't. It's a misunderstanding of the issues.
Not from a website. It's from Karl Keatings newsletter. They aren't my words which is why I quoted them. Not if you beleive as Catholics do, that the salvation won in Baptism can be lost. I think that misunderstanding goes both ways. I am not basing on judging works instead of faith. I am saying works offer proof of faith, or justification. True faith will produce works, the works will flow from the faith. If a man professes faith in Christ, I mean hardcore crazy for Jesus, and lets his hungry brother starve does he have faith? I would say no. Faith would compell the Christian to feed the hungary.
Have, in the past, now read this. http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num11.htm You will find that the positions taken by Salmon are easily refuted if 1) one understands the Catholic faith, 2) has read the works of the fathers, and 3) knows the true context of the quotes he sources. Anytime you see something about Cardinal Newman you can immediately throw it out, because Salmon uses only quotes that Newman made before he became Catholic. Of course he rejected Papal Infallibility when he was an Anglican. He saw the error of his ways, and accepted the truth.
Nope. Reason being - when one believes when the church is infallible any scripture which goes against its tradition can be explained away by infallibility.
I am reading this right now. Some immediate interesting indefensible statements: Yes. I and the reformers deny the heresy that a priest has the power to convert the unleavened bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. I deny that the sacrifice of the Mass is necessary for the salvation of believers. I deny that the sacrament of Reconciliation is necessary. I deny that Mary is co-redeemer. However, unlike the Catholic Church, we affirm that people are justified by faith alone, and that works are a result of that saving faith and resulting spiritual resurrection. We look not after the works of man to judge his heart. See how that works? We can deny things and affirm things... It can go both ways. How can the Church a priori make such a statement? Especially since it's a historical fact that the Catholic Church descends from Rome and Rome alone... and its current primacy was gained politically? truth.. :grin:
