<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Catholic Church Teaching Universalism?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721</link>
	<description>A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:07:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog &#187; A Wicked and False Religion?</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721#comment-9237</link>
		<dc:creator>Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog &#187; A Wicked and False Religion?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Mar 2006 17:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1721#comment-9237</guid>
		<description>[...] Like I said, the Church has PR problems. Rand, of A Pattern of Sound Words, asserts: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[[...] Like I said, the Church has PR problems. Rand, of A Pattern of Sound Words, asserts: [...]]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog &#187; Salvation, Discipleship, and Priorities</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721#comment-35</link>
		<dc:creator>Ales Rarus - A Rare Bird, A Strange Duck, One Funky Blog &#187; Salvation, Discipleship, and Priorities</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2006 04:08:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1721#comment-35</guid>
		<description>[...] Don&#8217;t get me wrong. I&#8217;m not endorsing universalism. There are plenty of uncertainties in this parable, such as how different charitable acts balance against failures to act charitably, to leave more than enough rope for man to hang himself. There&#8217;s also the matter of explicit rejection of Christ, which seems to be pretty&#8230;well&#8230;condemned. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[[...] Don&#039;t get me wrong. I&#039;m not endorsing universalism. There are plenty of uncertainties in this parable, such as how different charitable acts balance against failures to act charitably, to leave more than enough rope for man to hang himself. There&#039;s also the matter of explicit rejection of Christ, which seems to be pretty&#8230;well&#8230;condemned. [...]]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve N</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721#comment-1661</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve N</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1721#comment-1661</guid>
		<description>I think this all boils down to a very simplistic and wrong-headed view of grace among my Evangelical (and esp. Calvinistic) brethren.  They often draw (a completely ficticious) line between "general grace" and "salvific grace," all the while ignoring that, since it is God's perfect and unambiguous will that all be "saved" and come to the knowledge of the truth, that ALL grace is inherently "salvific."&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Cheers!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[I think this all boils down to a very simplistic and wrong-headed view of grace among my Evangelical (and esp. Calvinistic) brethren.  They often draw (a completely ficticious) line between &#034;general grace&#034; and &#034;salvific grace,&#034; all the while ignoring that, since it is God&#039;s perfect and unambiguous will that all be &#034;saved&#034; and come to the knowledge of the truth, that ALL grace is inherently &#034;salvific.&#034;<br /><br />Cheers!]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Smith</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721#comment-1664</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1721#comment-1664</guid>
		<description>&lt;?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?&gt; &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"&gt; &lt;html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"&gt; &lt;head&gt; 	&lt;title&gt;Untitled document&lt;/title&gt; 	&lt;meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body&gt; This guy doesn&#39;t seem to understand that, if He wanted to, Christ could save as many people who don&#39;t accept Him as he darn well pleases.  No one is saying that Christ isn&#39;t the one who saves, they&#39;re saying that it&#39;s possible (though far, far less likely) to be saved by Christ without acknowledging Him.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Also, this bit irked me:  &#34;The church that killed millions of true Christians throughout the centuries is now opening its arms to embrace her &#39;separated brethren.&#39;&#34;&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Millions?  Really?  I&#39;d like to see some evidence for millions.  And unless he really is an Albigensian or something, he doesn&#39;t really understand the ramifications of calling early heretics &#34;true christians.&#34;  &#34;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&#34; does not apply here.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Also, this dude thinks that the Pope said that every prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The Pope actually said that every *true* prayer is inspired.&lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt; Anyway, I agree that, perhaps, some within our hierarchy have gone a tad too far with ecumenism, though not so far as to preclude an orthodox interpretation of things.  I don&#39;t have a problem with understanding between religions, but we don&#39;t have to be syncretistic, either, like it seems the Anglican and liberal Protestant ecumaniacs have. &lt;/body&gt; &lt;/html&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[< ?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> < !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"> <head> 	 	<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> </head> <body> This guy doesn&#39;t seem to understand that, if He wanted to, Christ could save as many people who don&#39;t accept Him as he darn well pleases.  No one is saying that Christ isn&#39;t the one who saves, they&#39;re saying that it&#39;s possible (though far, far less likely) to be saved by Christ without acknowledging Him.<br /> <br /> Also, this bit irked me:  &quot;The church that killed millions of true Christians throughout the centuries is now opening its arms to embrace her &#39;separated brethren.&#39;&quot;<br /> <br /> Millions?  Really?  I&#39;d like to see some evidence for millions.  And unless he really is an Albigensian or something, he doesn&#39;t really understand the ramifications of calling early heretics &quot;true christians.&quot;  &quot;The enemy of my enemy is my friend&quot; does not apply here.<br /> <br /> Also, this dude thinks that the Pope said that every prayer is inspired by the Holy Spirit.  The Pope actually said that every *true* prayer is inspired.<br /> <br /> Anyway, I agree that, perhaps, some within our hierarchy have gone a tad too far with ecumenism, though not so far as to preclude an orthodox interpretation of things.  I don&#39;t have a problem with understanding between religions, but we don&#39;t have to be syncretistic, either, like it seems the Anglican and liberal Protestant ecumaniacs have. </body> </html>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeremy Pierce</title>
		<link>http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/archives/1721#comment-1665</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeremy Pierce</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://alesrarus.funkydung.com/wordpress/archives/1721#comment-1665</guid>
		<description>Usually the complaint regarding the Galatian heresy has to do with salvation by works. As someone who fully endorses the Reformed view of salvation, I don't think Roman Catholicism commits the Galatian heresy. I think some Catholics add something to the gospel, but the Galatian heresy replaced the gospel with something else. The official Catholic view has never been that works themselves save. It's always been that true faith will result in works and that for many people those works will confirm that process of salvation over time. It amazes me how many Reformed people will take the same view in response to libertines but then accuse Catholics of heresy for saying the same thing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[Usually the complaint regarding the Galatian heresy has to do with salvation by works. As someone who fully endorses the Reformed view of salvation, I don&#039;t think Roman Catholicism commits the Galatian heresy. I think some Catholics add something to the gospel, but the Galatian heresy replaced the gospel with something else. The official Catholic view has never been that works themselves save. It&#039;s always been that true faith will result in works and that for many people those works will confirm that process of salvation over time. It amazes me how many Reformed people will take the same view in response to libertines but then accuse Catholics of heresy for saying the same thing.]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
