The pope triples down on his univeralism

[musterion]

What you run across in Catholic websites is not at all indicative of what Catholics believe on a global scale.

Straw man. I only reported what I've read. I made no judgments here about any Catholics whatsoever (except the pope) regarding what they may or may not believe. Only that a lot of them are mighty ticked. Which they are. In spades. That you, evidently, are not among them says something.

The Pope isn't contradicting the tradition and teaching of the Catholic Church, the Pope is merely contradicting your interpretation of the Bible.

Your pope told an atheist he could be right with God without faith in Christ. Deal with that, not with me. Or if you happen to agree with him on it, come out and tell everyone you're a universalist and we're done here. Either way, I'm not the problem here.

Look, Vale...your pope is not pen-pals with some half-nude, bone-in-the-nose witchdoctor in the heart of darkest South America. It was an "enlightened" atheist raised in a purportedly Christian country, whose language your pope speaks fluently...yet your pope said NOTHING to this lost and damned man about Christ, despite several opportunities to do so when the context was what he should do to be right with God in case God exists.

Quite an oversight for the alleged Vicar of Christ, donchathink?

Are you ok with that? Do YOU believe all this atheist needs is a clean conscience and no criminal record to eventually gain Heaven, should he die tonight?

What's sad is that the only one making unfounded assumptions here is you. I was raised with both Catholic and Protestant influences in my life. I've sat through hundreds (no exaggeration) of Protestant services and fellowshipped in Bible studies and other events. Yes, I do know the Protestant mindset and intimately so. Lib prots, maybe. Not fundamentalists, which I am. Besides, I don't disagree with what you said is the typical Protestant response. You hear that God calls people to him through any means, any religion, any philosophy, and conclude that we're who is "we"? This is about your pope. So you agree with your pope on this? saying that full revelation of God in Christ Jesus has just become disnecessitated. If you say they can be saved without faith in Christ - as your pope did - you just disnecessitated Him. now you think that, and your assumption is in error.

More about me, nothing about your pope. That was the challenge, you'll recall.

You're just not the debater you think you are, Vale. I and my assumptions - right or wrong - are not the point. Never were.

I remind you for the sixth or seventh time! that your pope said faith in Christ is not absolutely necessary for becoming right with God. Even if you don't agree with that, YOUR CHURCH DOES AND YOU HAVE NO LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE TO DISAGREE WITH HER ON ANY MATTER HANDED DOWN FROM THE MAGISTERIUM.

But in an honest effort to be even-handed, I laid down a challenge for you to show where your pope did preach Christ in the conversations he had. You did not even try to do that. Instead you repeatedly made it about prots in general and me in particular.

That means you lost, Vale.

You cannot defend your pope, and I begin to suspect you don't feel the need because (just a hunch) you agree with him but are afraid to come out and say it.

Henceforth, your posts will go ignored and unanswered by me. Someone else can play in your sandbox.

It is one thing to have heard of Christ and reject him and another to have not heard of him.

I see no reason to disagree with that.

If people have not heard of Christ but lead a good life according to their consciences, are they damned?

Yes, because "good" is a relative term. Whose definition are you using? Man's or God's? God's definition of "good" is "perfectly sinless." What human, by nature and without Christ's imputed righteousness, can claim that before God?

Even if one has never heard of Christ, no one has lived up to the demands of his or her conscience - the Law written in the heart - and so no one can stand uncondemned before God on the grounds of conscience alone.They are still in their sin, as their conscience will bear witness that they KNEW there was a standard they were breaking, thus a Standard-Giver to whom they were responsible. Ignorance of Christ would be no excuse because they wouldn't have wanted Him had they known of Him.

However no one on the face of this planet - not even in North Korea - who TRULY SEEKS TO REPENT (that's the key!) TO THE GOD WE ALL KNOW EXISTS will be kept from hearing about Christ. God WILL get the Gospel to them. He's already done it. He's doing it now. Thousands of missionary stories bear this out.

But if someone is merely religious and humanly moral but is not interested in seeking (much less obeying!) the God Who Is...or loves sin...or has a seared conscience...or is content with just meeting their own standard of "good" but couldn't care less about God...that person is condemned already.

Someone who has not heard the gospel is not rejecting Christ but they can still be saved by Christ's saving work. Do you agree with that?

No, because you're excluding FAITH from the equation, which the Bible says is required. The mere fact that Christ died on the cross for the sin debt of the entire world means nothing in itself for salvation apart from faith - that's the way God set it up, and the apostles made no allowance for salvation in Christ apart from faith in Christ. It does not exist.

You asked me fair questions, I tried to give you fair answers.

 

[Dodo_David]

Protestants instinctively reject good works as having ANYTHING to do with salvation.

That is a straw-man argument. Protestants say that salvation will be followed by works given by God to do.
The works are the products of salvation, not the cause of salvation.
In other words, salvation produces works, not vice-versa.

It's unbiblical, but then again, so is the Reformation, for never are we told to deal with disagreements by starting our own church. But I digress.

Well, in the Year 1054 CE the Patriarch of Rome broke away from the rest of the universal Church Patriarchs to start his own branch of Christianity, now called the Roman Catholic Church.

Besides, Protestants didn't break away from the universal Church. Instead, they rejected the Roman Catholic teachings that they saw were unbiblical. But I digress.

Now, getting back to the topic of this thread . . .

 

[Selene]

musterion, I did not disagree with you.

I stated that Pope Francis gave the perception that he is promoting something that is rejected by both Protestants and Catholics.

For the sake of discussion, I encourage defenders of Pope Francis to demonstrate that the perception is wrong if it is wrong.

In other words, I encourage both sides of the debate to be presented.

There is nothing in that article stating that atheists are saved or that a person is saved by following their conscious. According to the article posted by musterion, this is the exact statement of what the Pope said: "And I repeat it here. Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

There is nothing in that statement saying anything about being saved. It would be best to read the article first before agreeing to a poster who made a claim that was never mentioned in the article. As I stated before under this thread, the Pope never believed in universalism to begin with.

 

[Mungo]

Musterion,

I asked: “If people have not heard of Christ but lead a good life according to their consciences, are they damned?”

To which you reply: “Yes”

I don’t like your God. I believe in a God who is full of love and compassion; a God who is merciful and forgiving; a God who sent his only Son that we might not be condemned even if we had never heard of him or what he did for us. That’s not universalism. I don’t believe that everyone in the world (past, present and future) will all be saved.

Paul says
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16).

Paul is clearly saying that Gentiles, who do not know Christ, can be excused on the day of judgement if they follow the dictates of their conciences and the law written on their hearts.


I asked: "Someone who has not heard the gospel is not rejecting Christ but they can still be saved by Christ's saving work. Do you agree with that?"

You replied: No, because you're excluding FAITH from the equation, which the Bible says is required. The mere fact that Christ died on the cross for the sin debt of the entire world means nothing in itself for salvation apart from faith - that's the way God set it up, and the apostles made no allowance for salvation in Christ apart from faith in Christ. It does not exist.

But faith in what or who. According to you it must be faith in Christ. But that is not what the Bible says.

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Heb 11:5-6).

Enoch had never heard about Christ.

The Bible also says:
And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. (Acts 17:26-27)

All people in all times have the opportunity to seek God and find him even if they have never heard of Christ.


I come back to the scripture that you seem to be trying hard to ignore:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?
(Rom 10:13-15)

If they have not heard of Christ then they cannot believe in him.

You say:
However no one on the face of this planet - not even in North Korea - who TRULY SEEKS TO REPENT (that's the key!) TO THE GOD WE ALL KNOW EXISTS will be kept from hearing about Christ. God WILL get the Gospel to them. He's already done it. He's doing it now. Thousands of missionary stories bear this out.

That is simply not true. There are many people from the moment Christ died on the cross until now that have never heard of Christ and never had the gospel preached to them. And by hearing about Christ I don’t just mean hearing of him (although many will never even have heard of him). And by hearing the gospel I mean truly preached to them so that they understand.

What is hearing about Christ?

Is hearing a Jehovah’s witness version enough?

If I rejected a Jehovah’s witness version of Christ am I condemned for rejecting Christ?

Is hearing a street preacher on a microphone ranting about how sinful we all are enough?

If someone “rejects Christ” how do we know if they are really rejecting Christ or rejecting the version they have heard?


Many people today in supposedly Christian counties have very little experience or understanding of Christianity and it isn’t necessarily their fault.
.
A BBC boss has claimed that modern audiences would be left baffled by the humour in Monty Python film The Life Of Brian - because they have such 'poor religious literacy'.

Head of religion and ethics at Broadcasting House Aaqil Ahmed, said that poor education has left two generations devoid of understanding when it comes to issues of religion.

Speaking as the BBC launched a mini-series on religious pilgrimages, Mr Ahmed said: 'We have poor religious literacy in this country and we have to do something about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467232/BBC-boss-says-Monty-Python-film-The-Life-Of-Brian-lost-modern-audiences-Britains-poor-religious-literacy.html

People don’t know about Jesus. Are they damned if they do good as best they can with their limited knowledge?

Someone has to preach the gospel to them and bring them to an understanding of Jesus, of what he has done for us, of the necessity of believing that and responding to it.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Straw man. I only reported what I've read. I made no judgments here about any Catholics whatsoever (except the pope) regarding what they may or may not believe. Only that a lot of them are mighty ticked. Which they are. In spades. That you, evidently, are not among them says something.

Your pope told an atheist he could be right with God without faith in Christ. Deal with that, not with me. Or if you happen to agree with him on it, come out and tell everyone you're a universalist and we're done here. Either way, I'm not the problem here.

Look, Vale...your pope is not pen-pals with some half-nude, bone-in-the-nose witchdoctor in the heart of darkest South America. It was an "enlightened" atheist raised in a purportedly Christian country, whose language your pope speaks fluently...yet your pope said NOTHING to this lost and damned man about Christ, despite several opportunities to do so when the context was what he should do to be right with God in case God exists.

Quite an oversight for the alleged Vicar of Christ, donchathink?

You know you remind me of the Pharisees and others who chastised Jesus for hanging out with sinners and the Pope is walking in the footsteps of Christ, no wonder you hate him so! The Pope is Pontificus Maximus, the chief bridge builder. I'm glad he's penpals with heathens, I'm glad he's reaching out. This isn't the scandal you make it out to be.

Are you ok with that? Do YOU believe all this atheist needs is a clean conscience and no criminal record to eventually gain Heaven, should he die tonight?

I'm ok with God making that decision and not you. One of the most fetid things that some Protestants such as yourself are guilty of, it's prescreening who's going to heaven and who's not. You arrogantly think that your biblical formulas give you insight into the mind of God when he searches the souls of men and pronounces final judgment. There's no humility that you too will one day stand before a holy God and give account of your life. There are few things that we can know for certain in this life, for example, the gospel, Christ crucified for sinners. How people come to God or reject God is much like an iceburg in the ocean where we see a little on the top but the inner workings of the heart are known only to God. The Pope calls us to humility, to understand that God works to save all people through processes that don't always yield a full epiphany in this lifetime.




More about me, nothing about your pope. That was the challenge, you'll recall.

You're just not the debater you think you are, Vale. I and my assumptions - right or wrong - are not the point. Never were.

I remind you for the sixth or seventh time! that your pope said faith in Christ is not absolutely necessary for becoming right with God. Even if you don't agree with that, YOUR CHURCH DOES AND YOU HAVE NO LIBERTY OF CONSCIENCE TO DISAGREE WITH HER ON ANY MATTER HANDED DOWN FROM THE MAGISTERIUM.


No, the Pope never said that and I defy you to prove he did.


But in an honest effort to be even-handed, I laid down a challenge for you to show where your pope did preach Christ in the conversations he had. You did not even try to do that. Instead you repeatedly made it about prots in general and me in particular.

That means you lost, Vale.

You cannot defend your pope, and I begin to suspect you don't feel the need because (just a hunch) you agree with him but are afraid to come out and say it.

Henceforth, your posts will go ignored and unanswered by me. Someone else can play in your sandbox.

If anyone is acting like he's in a sandbox it's you. "You're not the debater you think you are, you lost, Vale". Give it a rest. Make your case and let others decide who's making a stronger argument. If anyone is acting like a giant in his own mind, it's you. Oh, and this is the second time you threatened to ignore me. How old are you, sixteen?

 

[aspen]

Where are all these Catholics that are mad at the Pope? Vale and I agree with him and we do not agree on many things.....

 

[Selene]

Even I agree with the Pope. The Pope left the judgments to God because God is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. Catholics (including the Pope) have always believed that Hell exists, and we know that not everyone will be saved. That certainly is not universalism.

Musterion,

I asked: “If people have not heard of Christ but lead a good life according to their consciences, are they damned?”

To which you reply: “Yes”

I don’t like your God. I believe in a God who is full of love and compassion; a God who is merciful and forgiving; a God who sent his only Son that we might not be condemned even if we had never heard of him or what he did for us. That’s not universalism. I don’t believe that everyone in the world (past, present and future) will all be saved.

Paul says
When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:14-16).

Paul is clearly saying that Gentiles, who do not know Christ, can be excused on the day of judgement if they follow the dictates of their conciences and the law written on their hearts.


I asked: "Someone who has not heard the gospel is not rejecting Christ but they can still be saved by Christ's saving work. Do you agree with that?"

You replied: No, because you're excluding FAITH from the equation, which the Bible says is required. The mere fact that Christ died on the cross for the sin debt of the entire world means nothing in itself for salvation apart from faith - that's the way God set it up, and the apostles made no allowance for salvation in Christ apart from faith in Christ. It does not exist.

But faith in what or who. According to you it must be faith in Christ. But that is not what the Bible says.

By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had taken him. Now before he was taken he was attested as having pleased God. And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him. (Heb 11:5-6).

Enoch had never heard about Christ.

The Bible also says:
And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. (Acts 17:26-27)

All people in all times have the opportunity to seek God and find him even if they have never heard of Christ.


I come back to the scripture that you seem to be trying hard to ignore:
For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed?
And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard?
And how can they hear without someone to preach?
(Rom 10:13-15)

If they have not heard of Christ then they cannot believe in him.

You say:
However no one on the face of this planet - not even in North Korea - who TRULY SEEKS TO REPENT (that's the key!) TO THE GOD WE ALL KNOW EXISTS will be kept from hearing about Christ. God WILL get the Gospel to them. He's already done it. He's doing it now. Thousands of missionary stories bear this out.

That is simply not true. There are many people from the moment Christ died on the cross until now that have never heard of Christ and never had the gospel preached to them. And by hearing about Christ I don’t just mean hearing of him (although many will never even have heard of him). And by hearing the gospel I mean truly preached to them so that they understand.

What is hearing about Christ?

Is hearing a Jehovah’s witness version enough?

If I rejected a Jehovah’s witness version of Christ am I condemned for rejecting Christ?

Is hearing a street preacher on a microphone ranting about how sinful we all are enough?

If someone “rejects Christ” how do we know if they are really rejecting Christ or rejecting the version they have heard?


Many people today in supposedly Christian counties have very little experience or understanding of Christianity and it isn’t necessarily their fault.
.
A BBC boss has claimed that modern audiences would be left baffled by the humour in Monty Python film The Life Of Brian - because they have such 'poor religious literacy'.

Head of religion and ethics at Broadcasting House Aaqil Ahmed, said that poor education has left two generations devoid of understanding when it comes to issues of religion.

Speaking as the BBC launched a mini-series on religious pilgrimages, Mr Ahmed said: 'We have poor religious literacy in this country and we have to do something about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2467232/BBC-boss-says-Monty-Python-film-The-Life-Of-Brian-lost-modern-audiences-Britains-poor-religious-literacy.html

People don’t know about Jesus. Are they damned if they do good as best they can with their limited knowledge?

Someone has to preach the gospel to them and bring them to an understanding of Jesus, of what he has done for us, of the necessity of believing that and responding to it.

Exactly!! In order to believe in Christ, one must first HEAR about Christ and the Gospel preached to them. God is the only one who will judge all people. He doesn't need humans to make those judgments for Him. But obviously, there are some people who already judged an infant raised in a pagan home who has never heard the name of Christ to Hell already. By doing that, he is putting himself as God because he thinks he knows better as to who should be in Hell.

 

[Dodo_David]

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (ESV) the Apostle Paul states, “What have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”

I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer to participate in the Great Commission and leave it up to God to deal with those people who have never heard the Gospel.

God's sovereign will shall be done even if we don't know how God will deal with those who die without having heard the Gospel.

 

[aspen]

Not sure why some people on the outside of the Catholic Church are interested in looking for strife within the church - there is certainly none regarding the pope represented within the catholic community on this board

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

In 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 (ESV) the Apostle Paul states, “What have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside.”

I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer to participate in the Great Commission and leave it up to God to deal with those people who have never heard the Gospel.

God's sovereign will shall be done even if we don't know how God will deal with those who die without having heard the Gospel.

^^^^This.

 

[Selene]

Not sure why some people on the outside of the Catholic Church are interested in looking for strife within the church - there is certainly none regarding the pope represented within the catholic community on this board

There are some people outside the Catholic Church who seek to divide or lead the Catholic people away from the Catholic Church; therefore, they make false claims against the Pope. By making these false claims against the Pope, they are hoping to show Catholics that the Pope and the Catholic Church are professing false teachings against what we believe in.

All I can say is......if the Catholic Church teaches universalism, then the Catholic faithful would ALSO believe in universalism. The FACT that the Catholic people do not believe in universalism is proof enough that the Catholic Church never taught universalism to the Catholic faithful.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

There are some people outside the Catholic Church who seek to divide or lead the Catholic people away from the Catholic Church; therefore, they make false claims against the Pope. By making these false claims against the Pope, they are hoping to show Catholics that the Pope and the Catholic Church are professing false teachings against what we believe in.

All I can say is......if the Catholic Church teaches universalism, then the Catholic faithful would ALSO believe in universalism. The FACT that the Catholic people do not believe in universalism is proof enough that the Catholic Church never taught universalism to the Catholic faithful.

This is a good point. One defining belief in the Catholic Church is that the Church is led infallibly by the Holy Spirit and as such cannot teach error. Even Protestants concede to this infallibility when it comes to the canonical councils lest error was inserted in the creation of the Bible in the 4th century. The saying is true that pioneers get the arrows and the Pope is the most visible figure in the Catholic Church therefore a target for ignorant people to cast their calumny. But we believe the Pope is led by the Holy Spirit and that becomes clear when his words are taken in proper context and understanding. For myself, I'm rather enthused that he's speaking up on these matters.

 

[michaelvpardo]

They don't see faith as a series of baby steps but rather as one grand even short of which is a loss of salvation.

Is one born again by baby steps? Coming to a "saving faith" may take time, but of necessity is through hearing the word of God, and without conversion remains vain and futile. (By conversion, I'm not speaking of "transformation," "the renewing of the mind," or confessing faith in some religion.) Being born again of the Spirit of God is something that happens in a moment of time or the Lord wouldn't have used the analogy to birth. It is a change of direction, away from destruction, and toward God, which happens in the heart when the spirit of a man is made alive by the breath of God, the Ruach HaKodesh, the Holy Spirit, the third person of the "trinity."
If you haven't experienced it, that doesn't make it unreal, but you may experience it, if like the prophet Isaiah, you realize that all your good works are as "filthy rags" and you accept His righteousness on your own behalf.
How many baby steps to faith do you believe there are ? 33? More or less? Do you climb your way to the most High? Do you share the "prophetic vision" of one world wide fellowship, a brother hood with the common denominator of an eternal God and creator, and the immortality of man? I don't know if the Pope does, though I doubt it, but universalism is nothing new and mystery babylon has existed through the ages. Why don't we allow Christ to be our judge, if we can't trust Him to be our advocate.

7 To the degree that she glorified herself and lived sensuously, to the same degree give her torment and mourning; for she says in her heart, ‘I sit as a queen and I am not a widow, and will never see mourning.’ 8 For this reason in one day her plagues will come,pestilence and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up with fire; for the Lord God who judges her is strong. Revelation 18:7-8

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Michael V Pardo

It's not that full epiphanies don't occur, it's that it isn't the only way God saves people. Others take longer to come to the truth and we don't know the reasons; maybe religious abuse in their childhood or some other hindrance. The ideal way to come to Jesus is by a full, radical transformation in which a sinner confesses, is converted in heart, and receives the Holy Spirit joyfully. But it's also a cautionary tale because in the Parable of the Sower, we see people with great verve accepting the gospel but then falling away amidst trials and hardship. People's who's journey to God has been slow, but steady and deliberate aren't really vulnerable to this because under the surface they've been growing in God's grace even before coming to embrace the Lord fully.

The greatest education on this is to listen to the testimonies of people who have come to Christ. I've listened to more than I can possibly account for and I can say confidently that they are variegated as the people telling the story. What's most telling is the interactions they have with God prior to surrendering their lives fully to him. The saga they tell is interwoven with marvelous accounts of God's love and grace working in their life. So what happens if they die before ever reaching the point of unqualified belief? Well first of all, we need to understand that this death was timed by God and happened according to his will. And second, we trust in the mercy of God that those who pursued his love, even falling short of full possession of it, have not done so in vain.

So no, it isn't all-or-nothing with God and God doesn't set a wall so high as to keep everyone out except those who have fully breached it. Rather than looking for reasons to keep people out of heaven, God is passionately trying to bring as many of his children home to heaven as he can. Even (especially) the people you think don't deserve it.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Michael V Pardo

It's not that full epiphanies don't occur, it's that it isn't the only way God saves people. Others take longer to come to the truth and we don't know the reasons; maybe religious abuse in their childhood or some other hindrance. The ideal way to come to Jesus is by a full, radical transformation in which a sinner confesses, is converted in heart, and receives the Holy Spirit joyfully. But it's also a cautionary tale because in the Parable of the Sower, we see people with great verve accepting the gospel but then falling away amidst trials and hardship. People's who's journey to God has been slow, but steady and deliberate aren't really vulnerable to this because under the surface they've been growing in God's grace even before coming to embrace the Lord fully.

The greatest education on this is to listen to the testimonies of people who have come to Christ. I've listened to more than I can possibly account for and I can say confidently that they are variegated as the people telling the story. What's most telling is the interactions they have with God prior to surrendering their lives fully to him. The saga they tell is interwoven with marvelous accounts of God's love and grace working in their life. So what happens if they die before ever reaching the point of unqualified belief? Well first of all, we need to understand that this death was timed by God and happened according to his will. And second, we trust in the mercy of God that those who pursued his love, even falling short of full possession of it, have not done so in vain.

So no, it isn't all-or-nothing with God and God doesn't set a wall so high as to keep everyone out except those who have fully breached it. Rather than looking for reasons to keep people out of heaven, God is passionately trying to bring as many of his children home to heaven as he can. Even (especially) the people you think don't deserve it.

I'll just let scripture speak:

3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.''
4. Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?''
5. Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.' 8. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.'' John 3:3-8

No one is born mature, naturally or spiritually, but no one enters the kingdom of God "by steps," not even by the "Scottish rite" or the "York rite."
If you're not familiar with the reference, let me share something from an ancient tradition, one from which universalism has sprung and spread like a cancer:
[SIZE=medium]“Of no one age, Masonry belongs to all ages; of no one religion, it finds great truths in all religions. Indeed, it holds that truth which is common to all elevating and benign religions, and is the basis of each; that faith which underlies all sects and over-arches all creeds, like the sky above and the river bed below the flow of mortal years. It does not undertake to explain or dogmatically to settle those questions or solve those dark mysteries which out-top human knowledge. Beyond the facts of faith it does not go. With the subtleties of speculation concerning those truths, and the unworldly envies growing out of them, it has not to do. There divisions begin, and Masonry was not made to divide men, but to unite them, leaving each man free to think his own thought and fashion his own system of ultimate truth. All its emphasis rests upon two extremely simple and profound principles – love of God and love of man. Therefore, all through the ages it has been, and is today, a meeting place of differing minds, and a prophecy of the final union of all reverent and devout souls.” Pg. 254 “The Builders, a story and study of Masonry” by Joseph Fort Newton. Published by: The Torch Press, Cedar Rapids Iowa, [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]A belief in a god of love, a single great creator of the universe, a brotherhood of man, is common to most religions, but this is what scripture says about that: There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Proverbs 14:12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In the American colonies, "reverent and devout souls" started a rebellion against their lawful and God appointed authority to protect their wealth and property, and founded our great nation. Since then "reverent and devout souls" have waged wars to steal the land of the former inhabitants of that same land, to steal the land and property of each other, to protect their business interests in Europe, South east Asia, South America, the middle east (have I left anyone out?)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]There is nothing so deceived as the "religious" human heart. Man's quest for godliness keeps him from God or haven't you read that the very first lie in the book was this: 4. And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'' Genesis 3:4-5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]We live because God chose to create a people for Himself, not because of some inherent right of man: Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. Lamentations 3:22 Are we better men than those who died at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar's armies ? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I don't really know what you mean by "coming to embrace the Lord fully." It took me 39 years of searching for "the truth," for God to find me, but during that time I only moved further away from Him and not closer. If the Lord gave us what we deserve, we'd all be toast. Entrance into God's kingdom is all of His grace, and none of our merit. He chose the means to restore us to Himself and does that in accordance with His own will: Then He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'' Exodus 33:19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Lord may not set high walls to climb over, but He also said this: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”[/SIZE] John 10:1 (and you don't climb over doors, you walk through them when they're open.)
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

I'll just let scripture speak:

3. Jesus answered and said to him, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.''
4. Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?''
5. Jesus answered, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 6. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7. "Do not marvel that I said to you, `You must be born again.' 8. "The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit.'' John 3:3-8

No one is born mature, naturally or spiritually, but no one enters the kingdom of God "by steps," not even by the "Scottish rite" or the "York rite."
If you're not familiar with the reference, let me share something from an ancient tradition, one from which universalism has sprung and spread like a cancer:
[SIZE=medium]“Of no one age, Masonry belongs to all ages; of no one religion, it finds great truths in all religions. Indeed, it holds that truth which is common to all elevating and benign religions, and is the basis of each; that faith which underlies all sects and over-arches all creeds, like the sky above and the river bed below the flow of mortal years. It does not undertake to explain or dogmatically to settle those questions or solve those dark mysteries which out-top human knowledge. Beyond the facts of faith it does not go. With the subtleties of speculation concerning those truths, and the unworldly envies growing out of them, it has not to do. There divisions begin, and Masonry was not made to divide men, but to unite them, leaving each man free to think his own thought and fashion his own system of ultimate truth. All its emphasis rests upon two extremely simple and profound principles – love of God and love of man. Therefore, all through the ages it has been, and is today, a meeting place of differing minds, and a prophecy of the final union of all reverent and devout souls.” Pg. 254 “The Builders, a story and study of Masonry” by Joseph Fort Newton. Published by: The Torch Press, Cedar Rapids Iowa, [/SIZE]



[SIZE=medium]A belief in a god of love, a single great creator of the universe, a brotherhood of man, is common to most religions, but this is what scripture says about that: There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. Proverbs 14:12[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]In the American colonies, "reverent and devout souls" started a rebellion against their lawful and God appointed authority to protect their wealth and property, and founded our great nation. Since then "reverent and devout souls" have waged wars to steal the land of the former inhabitants of that same land, to steal the land and property of each other, to protect their business interests in Europe, South east Asia, South America, the middle east (have I left anyone out?)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]There is nothing so deceived as the "religious" human heart. Man's quest for godliness keeps him from God or haven't you read that the very first lie in the book was this: 4. And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5. "For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.'' Genesis 3:4-5[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]We live because God chose to create a people for Himself, not because of some inherent right of man: Through the Lord's mercies we are not consumed, because His compassions fail not. Lamentations 3:22 Are we better men than those who died at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar's armies ? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=12pt] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=12pt]I don't really know what you mean by "coming to embrace the Lord fully." It took me 39 years of searching for "the truth," for God to find me, but during that time I only moved further away from Him and not closer. If the Lord gave us what we deserve, we'd all be toast. Entrance into God's kingdom is all of His grace, and none of our merit. He chose the means to restore us to Himself and does that in accordance with His own will: Then He said, "I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the Lord before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.'' Exodus 33:19[/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium]The Lord may not set high walls to climb over, but He also said this: "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.”[/SIZE] John 10:1 (and you don't climb over doors, you walk through them when they're open.)
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]
[SIZE=medium] [/SIZE]

The technical issues on this site are making participation very difficult and I wish the moderators would pay attention to it instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying, "It works fine for me." The inability to copy and past makes point by point apologetics very laborsome. With that said:

The first portion of your post, I don't mean to seem rude, but I don't see how it's used to refute my argument other than the fact that you said you're going to use scripture and that you did, verse upon verse with no exegetical connection. I mean, we're not even talking about the Masons here.

But I would like to address your claim that it took 39 years for God to "find you" and that during this time you were moving further away. This after I just said that the testimonies people give to how they came to know Jesus are as variegated as the number of people testifying. Furthermore, at risk of offending you, you have no clue whether you were moving closer to further away from God because some of the darkest times in our lives happen to remove an obstacle to us coming to know God. But even statements like "Entrance to God's kingdom is all of His grace and none of our merit" shows a consistent pattern throughout your riposte of arguing against things I never claimed. So if I seem highly critical of your response, it's because half of it's throwing scriptures at me, which punctuates the point that being loquacious in scripture is not the same as understanding scripture. And the other half are self-pious arguments aimed at who-knows-what. None of your wordy response plumbs the depths of how people come to know God and how God's grace moves people even before they come to a point of conversion.

So in spite of all the time you put into that post, I'm still waiting for an answer.

 

[michaelvpardo]

The technical issues on this site are making participation very difficult and I wish the moderators would pay attention to it instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying, "It works fine for me." The inability to copy and past makes point by point apologetics very laborsome. With that said:

The first portion of your post, I don't mean to seem rude, but I don't see how it's used to refute my argument other than the fact that you said you're going to use scripture and that you did, verse upon verse with no exegetical connection. I mean, we're not even talking about the Masons here.

But I would like to address your claim that it took 39 years for God to "find you" and that during this time you were moving further away. This after I just said that the testimonies people give to how they came to know Jesus are as variegated as the number of people testifying. Furthermore, at risk of offending you, you have no clue whether you were moving closer to further away from God because some of the darkest times in our lives happen to remove an obstacle to us coming to know God. But even statements like "Entrance to God's kingdom is all of His grace and none of our merit" shows a consistent pattern throughout your riposte of arguing against things I never claimed. So if I seem highly critical of your response, it's because half of it's throwing scriptures at me, which punctuates the point that being loquacious in scripture is not the same as understanding scripture. And the other half are self-pious arguments aimed at who-knows-what. None of your wordy response plumbs the depths of how people come to know God and how God's grace moves people even before they come to a point of conversion.

So in spite of all the time you put into that post, I'm still waiting for an answer.

Well, now, if there is a simple answer to "how do people come to know God?" It would have to be "Only that He reveals Himself to them."
There is a sense in which creation reveals the glory of God, in the same manner in which a piece of artwork, a poem, a song, reveals something of the artist. For this reason we have a plethora of religions and vain philosophies which all make the claim to be a way to know God, primarily by understanding the difference between good and evil and by force of personal will and "religious" practice to attain to the good and "godlike" character, to become one with God, (or even better, to become a god.) The problem with religion is that it ignores the heart of man, or makes the assumption that a man can change his own nature.
From the erection of the tower of Babel to the construction of the "freedom tower," man in his aspiration to be his own god, shakes his fist at his Creator, and imitates his father, the progenitor of all under the spirit of this age: 13. For you have said in your heart: `I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; 14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Isaiah 14:13-14
The scripture is clear to the point, no one seeks out God, rather it is He that seeks us.
The discussion isn't about Masonry, but Masonry, perhaps more than any religion I know of, seeks to reproduce itself around the world, accepting all who will confess to a belief in a single divine Creator and cling to the promise of eternal life. Masonry, through it's "operative" path and past made inroads into the visible Church before the 10th century, and provided haven to Protestantism from the very beginning, finding in it "free thought" and a spirit of rebellion against dogma. Mystery religion has always ridden upon the back of visible religion, true or otherwise. Mystery religion, at least in its Masonic form, seeks to unite all peoples in one "brotherhood of faith" by applying the lowest common denominator as it's criteria. The difference between such religion and Islam, for example, is that while Islam seeks to dominate by force, Masonry seeks to dominate through deception (though the tools are generally the same in practice.) Perhaps a better expression of the operative principle is overt verses covert.
While Christ came to us as the express image of the glory of God, and through Him we apprehend love and grace, He never made any pretense at bringing some grand unity of humanity to the Father, but rather proclaimed clearly: 34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35. "For I have come to `set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.' 36. "And `a man's foes will be those of his own household.' Matthew 10:34-36
Now if it seems to you that I'm making some sort of personal attack against you, then I must ask your forgiveness, but "my attack" is directed against the false notion that man is master of his own will and thereby master of his own fate. We're all beggars, brother, on the same level as the poor man, Lazarus, when it comes to spiritual matters. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
No one comes unless he's first called. No one enters in (legitimately) unless the door is opened to him. No one receives except that God has given him faith by opening his ears and eyes to the truth of the Word. No one sees Christ except that Christ reveals Himself to him. Grace is a gift of God's election, not of man's. These may be controversial statements, but not with respect to scripture.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Well, now, if there is a simple answer to "how do people come to know God?" It would have to be "Only that He reveals Himself to them."
There is a sense in which creation reveals the glory of God, in the same manner in which a piece of artwork, a poem, a song, reveals something of the artist. For this reason we have a plethora of religions and vain philosophies which all make the claim to be a way to know God, primarily by understanding the difference between good and evil and by force of personal will and "religious" practice to attain to the good and "godlike" character, to become one with God, (or even better, to become a god.) The problem with religion is that it ignores the heart of man, or makes the assumption that a man can change his own nature.
From the erection of the tower of Babel to the construction of the "freedom tower," man in his aspiration to be his own god, shakes his fist at his Creator, and imitates his father, the progenitor of all under the spirit of this age: 13. For you have said in your heart: `I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation on the farthest sides of the north; 14. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.' Isaiah 14:13-14
The scripture is clear to the point, no one seeks out God, rather it is He that seeks us.
The discussion isn't about Masonry, but Masonry, perhaps more than any religion I know of, seeks to reproduce itself around the world, accepting all who will confess to a belief in a single divine Creator and cling to the promise of eternal life. Masonry, through it's "operative" path and past made inroads into the visible Church before the 10th century, and provided haven to Protestantism from the very beginning, finding in it "free thought" and a spirit of rebellion against dogma. Mystery religion has always ridden upon the back of visible religion, true or otherwise. Mystery religion, at least in its Masonic form, seeks to unite all peoples in one "brotherhood of faith" by applying the lowest common denominator as it's criteria. The difference between such religion and Islam, for example, is that while Islam seeks to dominate by force, Masonry seeks to dominate through deception (though the tools are generally the same in practice.) Perhaps a better expression of the operative principle is overt verses covert.
While Christ came to us as the express image of the glory of God, and through Him we apprehend love and grace, He never made any pretense at bringing some grand unity of humanity to the Father, but rather proclaimed clearly: 34. "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35. "For I have come to `set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.' 36. "And `a man's foes will be those of his own household.' Matthew 10:34-36
Now if it seems to you that I'm making some sort of personal attack against you, then I must ask your forgiveness, but "my attack" is directed against the false notion that man is master of his own will and thereby master of his own fate. We're all beggars, brother, on the same level as the poor man, Lazarus, when it comes to spiritual matters. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."
No one comes unless he's first called. No one enters in (legitimately) unless the door is opened to him. No one receives except that God has given him faith by opening his ears and eyes to the truth of the Word. No one sees Christ except that Christ reveals Himself to him. Grace is a gift of God's election, not of man's. These may be controversial statements, but not with respect to scripture.

I don't know what you mean by characterizing me as saying "man is master of his own will and thereby master of his own fate." I've never said any such thing and I don't believe in moral free agency, the belief that man is equally able to choose good as he is evil. Man is inclined to sin and therefore chooses to sin except for the intervention of God's grace. When man does good, when he loves, is kind, is remorseful, is generous, he draws upon a foreign resource, contrary to the ridiculous lie that atheists tell themselves that they can be good without God. This applies to both saved and unsaved (Mt 5:45).

What's frustrating in this dialogue is that you continue to argue against positions I haven't taken. And by the way, you and I agree completely on Masonry. It's demonic. No need to preach to the choir.

 

[Dodo_David]

One defining belief in the Catholic Church is that the Church is led infallibly by the Holy Spirit and as such cannot teach error.

Yes, that is a belief of the Roman Catholic Church. Sure, it's a non-falsifiable hypothesis, but what can be done about it?

Anyway, I suspect that the current Pope has simply been misunderstood in regards to the topic of this thread.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I don't know what you mean by characterizing me as saying "man is master of his own will and thereby master of his own fate." I've never said any such thing and I don't believe in moral free agency, the belief that man is equally able to choose good as he is evil. Man is inclined to sin and therefore chooses to sin except for the intervention of God's grace. When man does good, when he loves, is kind, is remorseful, is generous, he draws upon a foreign resource, contrary to the ridiculous lie that atheists tell themselves that they can be good without God. This applies to both saved and unsaved (Mt 5:45).

What's frustrating in this dialogue is that you continue to argue against positions I haven't taken. And by the way, you and I agree completely on Masonry. It's demonic. No need to preach to the choir.

I've never specifically studied reformation theology, but arrived at a theology of my own (sometimes receiving teaching from "reformation" theologians) through biblical study and the guidance and teaching of the Spirit I received when I put my faith in "Christ alone," seeing in myself and in no institution the ability to make any change in my heart. We may have the ability to make a choice between a "good" or an "evil" work, but the Lord judges by the heart and the scripture tells us that the heart is deceitfully wicked, describes our minds as corrupted (we imagine only evil continuously), and spiritually dead, separated from God by our sin (not just by our deeds but by our sinful nature.) When we do evil, it is according to our natural inclination (like brute beasts), and if we choose to do something "good" the act is never pure because of the impurity of the motives of our heart (even if that impurity is only the notion that we may earn merit with God for doing that which we were created to do.) In that sense, our will is captive to sin unless we are made alive by Christ (and that's when the war between our nature according to the flesh and our new nature actually starts.)
I was previously engaged in the discussion about Job and the general misconception that Job was righteous (because the book describes him as blameless) by virtue of his works, but God revealed through his responses to his "friends" that Job was standing upon his own righteousness, rather than that of God. This was the reason for his repentance in chapter 42, but there are still plenty of people that argue that even the word "repentance" was not about Job's sin, though he proclaimed the ceremonial confession of covering himself with dust and ashes as a symbol of his "uncleanliness" before a pure and holy God. This is the toughest thing for "religious" people to come to agreement with.
No one wants to consider themselves evil, even in the smallest things, and when they catch themselves doing evil, even though they believe themselves to be good, they then find justification for their actions or dismiss their guilt as somehow balanced out by their "goodness."
Some hear God's call and start "seeking" Him out right away, others go in the opposite direction (and for what reason is known only to God), but no one changes their nature by steps (nor does anyone have the power to change their nature). When religious people fall, they fall hard and sometimes quite publicly, but even this is God's grace, allowing them to see themselves in the light of His holiness. The Lord told Moses that no one could look upon His face and live, and the scriptural examples we have of encounters with God's glory usually have the mortal falling as though dead and then restored by God to usefulness. That's what it means to draw near to God, that is, to die to self, and to give place to the resurrection power of Jesus Christ to empower us to genuine good works (not our own, but His works through us.) That's why we have Paul teaching us that we can die to self and live for Christ, or live for self and go in that way which leads to death. I also see scripture teaching us that we only have this choice after we've received Him by faith, but the Lord in His faithfulness will move heaven and earth to keep those that know Him from wandering far off, so that He may preserve them from eternal destruction.
I hope that you can appreciate this; I have no way of knowing what you hold to be true (I'm not omniscient and can only make judgments based upon observation, the scripture, and a spirit of discernment). I'm not arguing specifically against any positions of yours (with the exception of taking exception with the idea that people can take steps toward Christ without first receiving His Spirit and if I've misunderstood you, then I apologize for that), but rather, I'm arguing for the truth of God expressed in the person of Jesus Christ and given through the testimony of scripture, the written word of God. This is not personal correspondence, but public discussion open to the view of anyone with a computer and an internet connection. Every questionable statement made by anyone becomes a teachable moment for a response to all who are able to receive it. The public nature of it is also part of the reason that people are so ready to take offense at any "negative" response (at least that which is perceived as negative). Our pride wants to protect our self image and our public one. I try to be candid to the extent its possible without revealing specific sin that may cause the weak to stumble, to make it clear that I have no righteousness of my own to stand upon, only the word of God and the righteousness of Jesus Christ (as though that were somehow insignificant, but my flesh will always cling to some fig leaf that remains the invention of my own evil imagination.) In other words, I'm not specifically attempting to attack you, but lifting up Christ so that all men might be drawn to Him.