Evidence for God from Science

What this comes down to is whether or not one believes in OSAS (actually it really comes down to a matter of authority but we’ll get to that eventually I’m sure). If one believes in OSAS then what you are reading above probably sounds like a works based salvation. But to us Catholics who do not believe in OSAS they are nothing of the kind. These are called sacraments and we believe they were established by Christ himself to increase us in God’s graces and to KEEP us from losing our salvation. Now I’ve had this discussion numerous times and what it boils down to is this, there is absolutely no difference whatsoever between believing that one can lose their salvation and believing in OSAS but that one can prove they were never saved to begin with. Please think on that for a while then we can come back to it if you wish. For a better understanding of the Catholic position on OSAS please read this.

Byblos, thanks again for the time you took to answer my questions. I know how sensitive a subject this can be for some(myself included). Moving on to your quote above, IF OSAS is what scripture teaches, then Catholic doctrine is a works based system. I believe OSAS teaches that we only need God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, indwelt in a believer, to keep one from losing his salvation. Any sacraments that have to be performed, in order to keep salvation, are works other than the atoning work of Christ, that was all that was needed. Even IF one could prove the sacraments were established by Christ himself. Remember, the ten commandments were established by God, and no one can gain nor keep his salvation by following those. 2 Corinthians 1:22 shows that God has given us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of His promise of what is to come. God made the way for eternal life, and He promised that we can know we have eternal life, by the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Once we realize that, we are free to live a life guided by the HS, instead of being burdened by sacraments, commandments, or whatever else we feel we need to do to gain or keep our salvation. It is all God's work through Christ, not of ourselves.(Ephesians 2:8) If we need to keep sacraments to keep our salvation, it now becomes of ourselves.

I will read the links you posted when I get more time, and thanks again for being patient. I know you've gone over this subject many times on this board, and you show more patience than I probably would.

RickD wrote:Byblos, thanks again for the time you took to answer my questions. I know how sensitive a subject this can be for some(myself included).

Not a problem at all, it is my pleasure to try to dispel misconceptions where possible, knowing full well disagreements will persist.

RickD wrote: Moving on to your quote above, IF OSAS is what scripture teaches, then Catholic doctrine is a works based system.

I believe you are absolutely right. But I also believe scripture does not teach OSAS so how do we get over this impasse? I believe there is a supreme court of sorts whose interpretive authority is nonnegotiable, precisely because it was mandated from up above with such a task.

RickD wrote:I believe OSAS teaches that we only need God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, indwelt in a believer, to keep one from losing his salvation. Any sacraments that have to be performed, in order to keep salvation, are works other than the atoning work of Christ, that was all that was needed. Even IF one could prove the sacraments were established by Christ himself. Remember, the ten commandments were established by God, and no one can gain nor keep his salvation by following those. 2 Corinthians 1:22 shows that God has given us the Holy Spirit as a guarantee of His promise of what is to come. God made the way for eternal life, and He promised that we can know we have eternal life, by the evidence of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Once we realize that, we are free to live a life guided by the HS, instead of being burdened by sacraments, commandments, or whatever else we feel we need to do to gain or keep our salvation. It is all God's work through Christ, not of ourselves.(Ephesians 2:8) If we need to keep sacraments to keep our salvation, it now becomes of ourselves.

And that's where differences of interpretation become grave without an authoritative interpreter.

RickD wrote:I will read the links you posted when I get more time, and thanks again for being patient. I know you've gone over this subject many times on this board, and you show more patience than I probably would.

I also appreciate very much the time you are putting into this. Like I said before, I'd much rather you (and everyone else) fully understand the Catholic position THEN disagree with it, rather than disagree with it based on falsehoods and misrepresentations.

Byblos,

I believe you are absolutely right. But I also believe scripture does not teach OSAS so how do we get over this impasse? I believe there is a supreme court of sorts whose interpretive authority is nonnegotiable, precisely because it was mandated from up above with such a task.

First, I'm not trying to convince you to believe OSAS. I don't think it's a critical issue when it comes to salvation. I believe there are true Christians who believe OSAS, don't believe OSAS, and true Christians who don't really know one way or the other. I'm not dogmatic about OSAS. I just believe that's the best way to interpret scripture.

As for the second part of your above quote, forgive me if I'm not understanding you correctly. How is claiming that the Pope has final, nonnegotiable, interpretive authority that was mandated from above, any different from any number of cults, whose leader claims final authority given from God?
We as fallible Christians, have the Holy Spirit to guide us. He alone is the final authority. Each of us, through God's power can interpret scripture without any HUMAN as final authority. (That doesn't mean there won't be disagreements between interpretations of scripture, as evidenced by this topic).
This is from a link you posted about infallibility:

Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").

When I read this, I don't see any difference between the pope and the Catholic hierarchy claiming their interpretation is the final correct interpretation, and cults who use the phrase " don't touch the Lord's anointed", to claim their leaders are above questioning.
One thing that all cults that I know of have in common, is a leader who's the final authority when it comes to interpreting scripture. I'm not calling Catholicism a cult as of yet, but I just don't see the difference.
I don't want to be guilty of arguing against a strawman of Catholicism, so please tell me why the Pope's "God given authority" is different from all cult leader's "God given authority".

RickD wrote:When I read this, I don't see any difference between the pope and the Catholic hierarchy claiming their interpretation is the final correct interpretation, and cults who use the phrase " don't touch the Lord's anointed", to claim their leaders are above questioning.
One thing that all cults that I know of have in common, is a leader who's the final authority when it comes to interpreting scripture. I'm not calling Catholicism a cult as of yet, but I just don't see the difference.
I don't want to be guilty of arguing against a strawman of Catholicism, so please tell me why the Pope's "God given authority" is different from all cult leader's "God given authority".

On the surface there is no difference, unless of course one of them is right. So how do we know which one is right? The one that can claim having been established by Christ himself, the one that was proclaimed to be the pillar of truth guided by the Holy Spirit, the one that Christ promised the gates of hell will not prevail against it, the one that can trace its roots to the apostolic age, the one that can show that Christ left a successor and commissioned him to leave other successors, and finally the one that can show an unbroken lineage of successors from the apostolic age to today. Here are a couple of links on Peter and the Papacy and Apostolic Succession.

As to each of us having the Holy Spirit and having interpretive authority, the problem with that is of course that when we do reach contradictory interpretations, and not just on trivial matters but matters of grave importance such as whether or not baptism saves, the question of assurance (OSAS), the real presence in the Lord's Supper, etc. etc. When we are in disagreement on fundamental issues, whose side is the Holy Spirit on in those cases? Surely you don't believe that the HS takes sides so who is right and who is wrong? More importantly, who has the authority to decide? Do we throw our hands up in the air and declare each is right? In legal matters we can have disagreements but we can always go before a judge who has legal interpretive authority and who will declare whose side the law is on. And if we disagree with the judge we take it to federal court, or the appeals court. When all else fails we take the matter all the way up the supreme court. Why do we have such a hierarchical legal system? To prevent chaos or worse, anarchy. Why do we expect anything less with grave matters of salvation from Christ when he established his church? Catholics believe Christ established a real church with Peter at its helm and promised it that the Holy Spirit will always be with it and the gates of hell shall never prevail against it (part of the infallibility promise). Christ also gave Peter and the apostles the power to loose and to bind, including the authority to appoint successors. There is an unbroken lineage of popes from Peter to Benedict. There is no other church than can make such a claim (again, rightly or wrongly).

DannyM wrote:

Yea, Danny. That's not what I was hoping for in this topic. As Byblos and I have gone down this road before, I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with Byblos, and I'm getting out of this conversation. We both seem to be beating a dead horse.

RickD wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Yea, Danny. That's not what I was hoping for in this topic. As Byblos and I have gone down this road before, I'm going to respectfully agree to disagree with Byblos, and I'm getting out of this conversation. We both seem to be beating a dead horse.

It was not my intention to prolong it nor to make it seem like a debate Rick but you asked . My only hope is that I shed some light on the subject(s), at least enough for you guys to say okay, we vehemently disagree with this guy Byblos but at least we understand where he's coming from; that is all I I ever asked for out of these discussions on here.

It was not my intention to prolong it nor to make it seem like a debate Rick but you asked . My only hope is that I shed some light on the subject(s), at least enough for you guys to say okay, we vehemently disagree with this guy Byblos but at least we understand where he's coming from; that is all I I ever asked for out of these discussions on here.

Byblos, I didn't intend it to become a debate either. Thank you for posting the links so I could see the beliefs directly from the source. Now I can honestly say I disagree with the official Catholic statements too.

The best thing I took from this discussion, is that we, as Brothers in Christ, can disagree, but still come away from this with a respect for each other. At least on my end. And if I'm wrong about what we discussed, I pray that God will show me where I'm wrong.

Based on what I understand, Christ secures eternal salvation and makes it possible for man to be with God. However, Catholics believe that the transformation from perishable to non-perishable must take place in purgatory.

RickD wrote:

It was not my intention to prolong it nor to make it seem like a debate Rick but you asked . My only hope is that I shed some light on the subject(s), at least enough for you guys to say okay, we vehemently disagree with this guy Byblos but at least we understand where he's coming from; that is all I I ever asked for out of these discussions on here.

Byblos, I didn't intend it to become a debate either. Thank you for posting the links so I could see the beliefs directly from the source. Now I can honestly say I disagree with the official Catholic statements too.

The best thing I took from this discussion, is that we, as Brothers in Christ, can disagree, but still come away from this with a respect for each other. At least on my end. And if I'm wrong about what we discussed, I pray that God will show me where I'm wrong.

Classy, gentlemen. An example to us all of how to conduct a discussion of this kind. No frothing at the mouth, no raised blood pressures. A little too short for my liking, but dignity prevails all round. We are a brotherhood first and foremost. And that has shone through.

DannyM wrote:Classy, gentlemen. An example to us all of how to conduct a discussion of this kind. No frothing at the mouth, no raised blood pressures. A little too short for my liking, but dignity prevails all round. We are a brotherhood first and foremost. And that has shone through.

Danny, just one question. Why did you put brotherhood with a small "b"?

Gotcha!!!!!

DannyM wrote:... A little too short for my liking...

And I'm all for kicking up into high gear elsewhere (you know where) if you're up to it .

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:... A little too short for my liking...

And I'm all for kicking up into high gear elsewhere (you know where) if you're up to it .

Do we have a "Smackdown" forum here?

Byblos wrote:

DannyM wrote:... A little too short for my liking...

And I'm all for kicking up into high gear elsewhere (you know where) if you're up to it .

If you are prepared to be converted to the doctrine of secured salvation, then Dan's your man