Salvation???

I copied this from Wikipedia on Catholics and salvation and just wondered what this all means?

Individual salvation:
The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace cannot be merited; it proceeds solely from the love and mercy of God. Man may receive or reject this inspiration of God, he may turn to God or remain in sin. Grace does not constrain man's free will.

Thus assisted the sinner is disposed for salvation from sin; he believes in the revelation and promises of God, he fears God's justice, hopes in his mercy, trusts that God will be merciful to him for Christ's sake, begins to love God as the source of all justice, hates and detests his sins.

This disposition is followed by justification itself, which consists not in the mere remission of sins, but in the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of God's grace and gifts, whence a man becomes just instead of unjust, a friend instead of a foe and so an heir according to hope of eternal life. This change happens either by reason of a perfect act of charity elicited by a well disposed sinner or by virtue of the Sacrament either of Baptism or of Penance according to the condition of the respective subject laden with sin. The Council further indicates the causes of this change. By the merit of the Most Holy Passion through the Holy Spirit, the charity of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those who are justified.

Some points regarding the Catholic doctrine of salvation have been specified by the Catholic church; Catholic theologians are obligated to teach these. However, there are several other issues which have not been definitively taught by the Church; theologians are permitted to hold different views on these. The views required by the Catholic church are:

that the initial grace is truly gratuitous and supernatural;
that the human will remains free under the influence of this grace;
that man really cooperates in his personal salvation from sin;
that by justification man is really made just, and not merely declared or reputed so;
that justification and sanctification are only two aspects of the same thing, and not ontologically and chronologically distinct realities;
that justification excludes all mortal sin from the soul, so that the just man is no way liable to the sentence of death at God's judgment-seat.
Other points involved in the foregoing process of personal salvation from sin are matters of discussion among Catholic theologians; such are, for instance,

the precise nature of initial grace,
the manner in which grace and free will work together,
the precise nature of the fear and the love disposing the sinner for justification,
the manner in which sacraments cause sanctifying grace.
But these questions are treated in other articles dealing ex professo with the respective subjects. The same is true of final perseverance without which personal salvation from sin is not permanently secured.

What has been said applies to the salvation of adults; children and those permanently deprived of their use of reason are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism.

G75 How about these questions can you answer these?

Let's consider some passages where the OT is speaking of Jehovah, and the New Testament writers quote it and apply it to Christ:

[1] Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 102:25. The Psalm is unquestionably speaking of Jehovah, yet the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ! Knowing this, the New World Translating Committee broke their own rules and refused to insert "Jehovah" into Hebrews 1:10.2

Can you refute this?


[2] 1 Peter 3:14,15 is a quote from Isa. 8:12,13, which obviously contained the tetragram in the Hebrew text and referred to "sanctifying Jehovah in our hearts." Yet, Peter paraphrases it and applies it directly to Christ, saying that we are to sanctify CHRIST in our hearts! Again, their Translating Committee has shown bias in not following their own rules. Even the footnote in the Kingdom Interlinear shows that many of the modern Hebrew Bibles have "Jehovah" in 1 Peter 3:15. But since that would identify Christ with Jehovah, the Translating Committee could not face up to it.

[3] Acts 2:21 quotes from a prophecy in Joel 2:28-32 that contained the tetragram in the Hebrew text, saying, "Whoever calls upon the name of Jehovah will be delivered." Yet Peter quotes it and applies it to Jesus in Acts 2:21, as verse 38 says, "And Peter said to them, `Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"

Additionally, the name of Jesus takes great precedence over "Jehovah" in the New Testament. Just in the book of Acts alone, note the overwhelming importance of the name of Christ, with no mention of the covenant name of God:

Men healed in the Name Acts 3:6,16; 4:10,30
Salvation in the Name Acts 4:12; 10:43; 22:16
Baptism in the Name Acts 2:38; 8:16
Forgiveness through the Name Acts 10:43
Teaching and preaching in the Name Acts 8:12; 4:18; 5:28
Calling upon the Name Acts 2:21; 9:14,21
Speaking in the Name Acts 4:17; 9:27,29
Suffering for the name Acts 9:16; 15:26; 5:41
Bearing the Name before the nations Acts 9:15
Paul once opposed the Name Acts 26:9
Called or designated by the Name Acts 11:26

The New Testament record shows that the Name of Jesus holds primary importance, rather than the covenant Name of Jehovah. This is in line with Hebrews 1:1,2 where it is said that God, though speaking through his covenant people in times past, is now speaking through the Son; who is the exact representation of the Father (but not the Father). Note also other NT texts that speak of the Name of Jesus as being the most important name there is: Eph. 1:20,21; Phil. 2:9; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Cor. 1:2; Col. 3:17; 1 John 3:23; Rev. 2:3, 13. Jesus also spoke of the importance of his name in passages such as: Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5,20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19,20 (just to cite Matthew).

Originally posted by menace71
G75 How about these questions can you answer these?

Let's consider some passages where the OT is speaking of Jehovah, and the New Testament writers quote it and apply it to Christ:

[1] Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 102:25. The Psalm is unquestionably speaking of Jehovah, yet the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ! Knowing t Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5,20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19,20 (just to cite Matthew).

Application to Jesus Christ by inspired Bible writers of passages from the Hebrew Scriptures that clearly apply to Jehovah

Why does John 1:23 quote Isaiah 40:3 and apply it to what John the Baptizer did in preparing the way for Jesus Christ, when Isaiah 40:3 is clearly discussing preparing the way before Jehovah? Because Jesus represented his Father. He came in his Father’s name and had the assurance that his Father was always with him because he did the things pleasing to his Father.—John 5:43; 8:29.

Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 quote Psalm 102:25-27 and apply it to the Son, when the psalm says that it is addressed to God? Because the Son is the one through whom God performed the creative works there described by the psalmist. (See Colossians 1:15, 16; Proverbs 8:22, 27-30.) It should be observed in Hebrews 1:5b that a quotation is made from 2 Samuel 7:14 and applied to the Son of God.

Although that text had its first application to Solomon, the later application of it to Jesus Christ does not mean that Solomon and Jesus are the same. Jesus is “greater than Solomon” and carries out a work foreshadowed by Solomon.—Luke 11:31.

If the name of Christ holds more importance why does he state that we should ask for not his name, but the name of God to be sanctified? why dont you people use and sanctify that name as Christ evidently did?

(Matthew 6:9-13) . . .“‘Our Father in the heavens, let your name be sanctified.  Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven, also upon earth.  Give us today our bread for this day;  and forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.  And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the wicked one.’

why have you systematically removed it from your bibles and replaced it with the inane and meaningless lord? tell the forum Manny why your translators have done that? what authority they had to do that?

(John 5:43-44)  I have come in the name of my Father, but you do not receive me; if someone else arrived in his own name, you would receive that one.  How can you believe, when you are accepting glory from one another and you are not seeking the glory that is from the only God?

(John 10:25) . . .The works that I am doing in the name of my Father, these bear witness about me. . .

(John 12:28) . . .Father, glorify your name. Therefore a voice came out of heaven: “I both glorified it and will glorify it again.. . .

(John 17:6-8) . . .“I have made your name manifest to the men you gave me out of the world. They were yours, and you gave them to me, and they have observed your word.  They have now come to know that all the things you gave me are from you;  because the sayings that you gave me I have given to them, and they have received them and have certainly come to know that I came out as your representative, and they have believed that you sent me forth.

Christ evidently felt the need to make Gods name manifest, to glorify it and to sanctify it, why dont you? rather than removing it from the sacred text, its no wonder that you people dont get it, a trinitarian dogma superimposed upon scripture leads to yet more distorted reasoning. Thus we have the biblical example of Christ and those who profess the trinity on the other hand, so if you dont mind Manny, i think we would rather follow the example of Christ than some distorted reasoning based on pre Christian and pagan concept, if you please.

Originally posted by menace71
G75 How about these questions can you answer these?

Let's consider some passages where the OT is speaking of Jehovah, and the New Testament writers quote it and apply it to Christ:

[1] Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 102:25. The Psalm is unquestionably speaking of Jehovah, yet the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ! Knowing t ...[text shortened]... Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5,20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19,20 (just to cite Matthew).

If the tetragrammaton is there in the book of Joel, as it evidently is, why does your translation no render it as the divine name Manny? its a direct quotation after all? why have you substituted it with the meaningless Lord? that's not a name, nor is it accurate, nor is it the name of Jesus, nor is it truthful! here is the correct, accurate and truthful translation, from the New world translation of the Holy scriptures.

(Acts 2:21) . . .And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.”’

(Joel 2:32) . . .And it must occur that everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will get away safe; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there will prove to be the escaped ones, just as Jehovah has said, and in among the survivors, whom Jehovah is calling.. . .

why does your translation not read accurately Manny, why have you removed the divine name from your text?

Originally posted by galveston75
I copied this from Wikipedia on Catholics and salvation and just wondered what this all means?

Individual salvation:
The Council of Trent describes the process of salvation from sin in the case of an adult with great minuteness (Sess. VI, v-vi).

It begins with the grace of God which touches a sinner's heart, and calls him to repentance. This grace ...[text shortened]... d those permanently deprived of their use of reason are saved by the Sacrament of Baptism.

It means that a person achieves salvation by God's grace and a free choice to cooperate with it. Salvation cannot be won by a once only profession of faith; a person must cultivate their faith. Salvation can be lost by mortal sin which is a conscious rejection of grace.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If the tetragrammaton is there in the book of Joel, as it evidently is, why does your translation no render it as the divine name Manny? its a direct quotation after all? why have you substituted it with the meaningless Lord? that's not a name, nor is it accurate, nor is it the name of Jesus, nor is it truthful! here is the correct, accurate and tr ...[text shortened]... our translation not read accurately Manny, why have you removed the divine name from your text?

In all fairness we don't know how to pronounce the name anyway. Jehovah is not correct it's just a guess at best. God said to Moses I am that I am. Actually When We (I) Have time let's look at each one of those scriptures individually. I have to go to work but I kinda did it in jest just because G75 pasted his stuff from wikipeida but I think those scriptures hold true.


PS: I do believe in Jehovah God 🙂 (Though we don't know if Jehovah is even correct)

Manny

I did not have to hi-jack like that! However I actually agree with most of that as far as salvation goes. It's supernatural Grace bestowed upon man which changes his heart and mind.




Manny

Originally posted by Conrau K
It means that a person achieves salvation by God's grace and a free choice to cooperate with it. Salvation cannot be won by a once only profession of faith; a person must cultivate their faith. Salvation can be lost by mortal sin which is a conscious rejection of grace.

So just everyday sin and imperfection does not cancel out you being saved now?

Originally posted by menace71
G75 How about these questions can you answer these?

Let's consider some passages where the OT is speaking of Jehovah, and the New Testament writers quote it and apply it to Christ:

[1] Hebrews 1:10 is a quotation of the LXX version of Ps. 102:25. The Psalm is unquestionably speaking of Jehovah, yet the writer of Hebrews applies it to Christ! Knowing t ...[text shortened]... Mt. 7:22; 10:22; 12:15-21; 18:5,20; 19:29; 24:9; 28:19,20 (just to cite Matthew).

So are we getting back into the Trinity discussion here?

Originally posted by menace71
In all fairness we don't know how to pronounce the name anyway. Jehovah is not correct it's just a guess at best. God said to Moses I am that I am. Actually When We (I) Have time let's look at each one of those scriptures individually. I have to go to work but I kinda did it in jest just because G75 pasted his stuff from wikipeida but I think those scrip ...[text shortened]... S: I do believe in Jehovah God 🙂 (Though we don't know if Jehovah is even correct)

Manny

The whole idea that some supreme being that created the whole universe has one 'true name' in human language is utterly ridiculous. Its like suggesting that his mother tongue is English (or Hebrew, or any other human language), or that he/she is masculine, or belongs to a particular race.
The whole I am that I am speech makes far more sense.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole idea that some supreme being that created the whole universe has one 'true name' in human language is utterly ridiculous. Its like suggesting that his mother tongue is English (or Hebrew, or any other human language), or that he/she is masculine, or belongs to a particular race.
The whole I am that I am speech makes far more sense.

So why can't he have a name?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The whole idea that some supreme being that created the whole universe has one 'true name' in human language is utterly ridiculous. Its like suggesting that his mother tongue is English (or Hebrew, or any other human language), or that he/she is masculine, or belongs to a particular race.
The whole I am that I am speech makes far more sense.

the idea that someone who has not researched, knows nothing of the meaning of the name evident by subscribing a gender connotation to it, and then declares that the name should not exist in the first place on this ill conceived basis, is typically ironic to say the least, dont you think? research the subject first and then formulate an opinion, 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the idea that someone who has not researched, knows nothing of the meaning of the name evident by subscribing a gender connotation to it, and then declares that the name should not exist in the first place on this ill conceived basis, is typically ironic to say the least, dont you think? research the subject first and then formulate an opinion, 🙂

Twitehead has a point. A name is just a series of arbitrary sounds. My name is 'Kyle' but it could just as easily have been 'John' without any loss to my identity. There is no necessary relationship between my name and who I am.

Originally posted by galveston75
So just everyday sin and imperfection does not cancel out you being saved now?

It depends. Habitual sins can still be mortal and deprive a person of salvation. The Council of Trent distinguished between mortal and venial sins. Venial sins are of minimal gravity (such as white lies, light-hearted gossip and so on) which do not preclude a person from salvation; mortal sins are of a more serious nature (like murder, theft and sexual immorality) and require repentence and, if possible, sacramental absolution.

Originally posted by galveston75
So why can't he have a name?

The question is why cant it have names? By saying "he" and "name" , you are severly limiting the creator.