HartfordWhalers Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 I guess it's too late... :sleep: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote]Jeff, you are right in that a person before Christ was not required to believe in the Blessed Trinity, just as he was not required to be baptized, but now after Pentecost Baptism is necessary and belief in the Holy Trinity is necessary. Without either of these TODAY there is no salvation[/quote] Hartford, God Bless! Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I've been really busy with school and my "phatmass" time has been divided between the real phatmass and defending the Holy Mother Church on other online forums. As I'm sure you read my whole post, I am wondering whether or not you could reply to my point that directly deals with the above comment. If one acknowledges that God allowed people to gain salvation if they followed the Truth as far as it had been revealed to them, as you have, but states that it is now no longer so, then you have put yourself in quite a theological bind. As I pointed out, this position asserts that Christ's sacrifice [i]decreased[/i] the number of people who could be saved by [i]tightening[/i] the mode by which salvation can be obtained. (ie, the identical person who would be saved before the death of Christ, by following the Truth as far as it has been revealed to him, would no longer be saved after Christ's death because he has never heard of the Trinity). I would love to hear a response to this point, because I maintain that it is not fitting to God that the Sacrifice of the Lamb [i]decrease[/i] the efficacy of God's plan of salvation. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HartfordWhalers Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='JeffCR07' date='Oct 1 2004, 12:36 AM'] Hartford, God Bless! Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, I've been really busy with school and my "phatmass" time has been divided between the real phatmass and defending the Holy Mother Church on other online forums. As I'm sure you read my whole post, I am wondering whether or not you could reply to my point that directly deals with the above comment. If one acknowledges that God allowed people to gain salvation if they followed the Truth as far as it had been revealed to them, as you have, but states that it is now no longer so, then you have put yourself in quite a theological bind. As I pointed out, this position asserts that Christ's sacrifice [i]decreased[/i] the number of people who could be saved by [i]tightening[/i] the mode by which salvation can be obtained. (ie, the identical person who would be saved before the death of Christ, by following the Truth as far as it has been revealed to him, would no longer be saved after Christ's death because he has never heard of the Trinity). I would love to hear a response to this point, because I maintain that it is not fitting to God that the Sacrifice of the Lamb [i]decrease[/i] the efficacy of God's plan of salvation. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff [/quote] The number of those saved is much greater now (or rather it is greater when the Church was at Her strongest, before the vast exodus from the Church after the council) on two accounts: 1) there are more people, hence a greater number saved, and 2) Not only are there more people, but the Church is over a great majority of them (still now over 1 billion, but during the Middle Ages and even into the discovery of the New World the Church was nearly 90% or thereabouts of all men), whereas before Christ a very small majority of the world followed Judaism, and there were many pagans. St. Paul taught us that a pagan cannot be saved, because it is against reason to assert there can be more than one God, so therefore, only those who believed in one God before Christ could be saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Oct 1 2004, 02:11 AM'] ...the Church is over a great majority of them (still now over 1 billion, but during the Middle Ages and even into the discovery of the New World the Church was nearly 90% or thereabouts of all men)... [/quote] This is just not accurate, if I understand you correctly. Unfortunately, Christianity has never been embraced by 90% of the world's population. God bless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 For a Catholic, which is 100% of Christian Truth, one must believe in the Creed completely. That does not mean understand every aspect of it, but to accept it and pray for grace to grow in understanding. The Creed contains the concept of the Trinity. To reject any of the Creed due to pride, apathy, arrogance, any act of will to not be open to God to help, could be judged by God as ultimately heresey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HartfordWhalers Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='Mateo el Feo' date='Oct 1 2004, 09:29 AM'] This is just not accurate, if I understand you correctly. Unfortunately, Christianity has never been embraced by 90% of the world's population. God bless. [/quote] According to which statistics, may I ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mateo el Feo Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='HartfordWhalers' date='Oct 1 2004, 11:59 AM'] According to which statistics, may I ask? [/quote] OK. Now, I'm confused. I rejected an unsubstantiated claim (i.e. 90% of the world's population at one time accepted Christianity). Now I have to prove your claim false by using statistics? I'm merely working on common sense here. The Middle Ages predates Christian evangelization of the Americas. It was a time when Christianity was busy fighting off Islam (which by the way, was extremely widespread during this period). Aside from northern Africa, that continent barely knew Christianity. In Asia, there were missions, but majority Christian populations in that continent weren't too likely--though I imagine that much of the missionary success was undone by the imposition of Islam. The Pacific Rim and Australia hadn't even gotten the message of Christianity. So your proposition is that at the same time that Europe's population was decimated by the Black Plague (heck, let's even forget the Plague), Christianity outnumbered (9-to-1) all other people, including the combined population of North America, South America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia and the rest of the Pacific Rim (not to mention most of Asia)? BTW, I suspect that the 90% figure may be related to the total population that was subject to a Christian Crown (e.g the Dutch, French, Spanish, etc). Probably some point in the Colonial period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 I always thought that, if you dont believe in the Trinity, then you weren't considered a true believer, and if you claim to be Christian, then your not a full believer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 To be a christian you must believe in the Trinity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 and to not believe in the Trinity, but claim to be a believer anyway, is a imposeration right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasJis Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 [quote name='White Knight' date='Oct 1 2004, 03:29 PM'] and to not believe in the Trinity, but claim to be a believer anyway, is a imposeration right? [/quote] No, that's Jehovah Witness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Knight Posted October 1, 2004 Author Share Posted October 1, 2004 Jehovah Witnesses are imposteration of Christianity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Mormons are in the same category. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelFilo Posted October 1, 2004 Share Posted October 1, 2004 Knowing of the Trinity is no more salvic than knowing of quantam physics is an aid in adding integers. Rejecting the Trinity however is like learning how to add integers to understand quantam physics. God bless, Mikey Postscriptum, White, define "true believer" and please explain your capatilization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now