Reply With Quote
Ok, now how about the good?
But I don't believe there's enough time in the week to answer to the good...
TRO, your hatred truly does you no credit and severely damages your witness. Please accept this in the spirit intended.
Ok, now how about the good?
But I don't believe there's enough time in the week to answer to the good...
Actually, that got me thinking. Where can one find some sort of definitive compendium of Catholic achievements through the centuries?
Hmmm, I'll try and see what I can find.
I disagree and, apparently, so does Paul...
The argument for faith plus works is made difficult by some hard to reconcile Scriptures, my fried. But, this is the central question and disagreement over which the Reformation occurred so, I don't expect that I will change your mind where centuries of more tactful, scholarly, and intelligent theologians have not.
When you compare Romans 3:28, 5:1 and Galatians 3:24 with James 2:24. Some see a difference between Paul (salvation is by faith alone) and James (salvation is by faith plus works).
In reality, Paul and James did not disagree at all. The only point of disagreement some people claim is over the relationship between faith and works. Paul dogmatically says that justification is by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) while James appears to be saying that justification is by faith plus works.
This apparent problem is answered by examining what exactly James is talking about. James is refuting the belief that a person can have faith without producing any good works (James 2:17-18). James is emphasizing the point that genuine faith in Christ will produce a changed life and good works (James 2:20-26). James is not saying that justification is by faith plus works, but rather that a person who is truly justified by faith will have good works in his life. If a person claims to be a believer, but has no good works in his life – then he likely does not have genuine faith in Christ (James 2:14, 17, 20, 26).
Paul says the same thing in his writings. The good fruit believers should have in their life is listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Immediately after telling us that we are saved by faith, not works (Ephesians 2:8-9), Paul informs us that we were created to do good works (Ephesians 2:10). Paul expects just as much of a changed life as James does, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come” (2 Corinthians 5:17)!
James and Paul do not disagree on their teaching on salvation. They approach the same subject from different perspectives. Paul simply emphasized that justification is by faith alone while James put emphasis on the fact that faith in Christ produces good works.
So, where exactly does the Catholic church draw the conclusion that one is saved through faith and works?
No, Catholics are not antagonistic by and large, however, do you disagree that they do doctrinally believe they alone will receive Salvation due to the adherance to their Catholic rituals and sacraments?
I have a Catholic friend who fretted for months over her daughter's salvation because of an internal family disagreement over when to have the Baptism performed. She was afraid that, should something happen before the Baptism and it never occur, her daughter was damned to . Is that just ignorance on her part or is that the Church's stance?
So, really, "accepting" another's religion while maintaining only those who adhere to your's will be Saved is not "accepting" at all...it's tolerating a nuisance so you don't have to support your position.
No, my church isn't perfect...but, then, it doesn't claim to be the be all and end all of the way to Salvation.
And, respectfully, I submit to you there is a difference between fallible and evil. Many of the Pontiffs have been evil...
It doesn't. The Church says that faith saves, but that there is no faith without works.
I can agree with that. Good works naturally flow from a faith in Christ...which, by the way was my point about the Catholic Church (most obviously during the Dark Ages) losing it's faith because of the lack of good works by even it's highest officials.
Apparently, DrRich interprets this differently.
I doubt it. The topic is one that is heavily misunderstood on both sides, Catholic and Protestant.
Also, concerning your question about "tolerance"...
From The Catechism of the Catholic Church (Section 818)
"...one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church..."
Last edited by travis2; 06-08-2005 at 02:07 PM.
So, because I was baptised in a Christian Church, the Catholic church recognizes my salvation?
I'm sorry, the language was tough to follow.
It's funny how TRO claims to be part of a Christian denomination whose members are tolerant of others who disent, but on the other hand, he has written several posts spewing hate against the Catholic Church, claiming its members should abandon the Faith because "any serious and intelligent believer in Jesus Christ would have, by now, sought another community of faith with which to worship" given that "the Catholic Church long ago lost its moral authority".
Reading posts from other people, I see Catholics that are much more tolerant than yourself, my friend.
Are you MFD in disguise?
I'm not a Church lawyer. I do know that if you were baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, then the Catholic Church recognizes your baptism.
You know, hate is such a overused term these days...
I think I have legitimate questions about the Catholic Faith. I also believe I have somewhat well informed, even if ill-formed, ideas about the failings of the Catholic Church.
I don't hate Catholics. I just don't understand a religion, based on the same scriptures we both use, having some of the oppressively heirarchical notions of papal supremacy and infallibility.
I also find suspect a religion that believe you have to have an intercessor such as a Priest, Bishop, or Pope between you and Jesus Christ; particularly when, Christ's life, death, and resurrection were all about establishing a new covenant between God and man where one could have a direct, personal relationship with their Savior.
And, apparently, the one time one of their Monks decided to try and understand the scriptures as well as he thought the Pope did, only to discover the church is perpetrating a sham on the Church's followers, he was branded a heretic and ex-communicated (they wanted to do worse).
Someone point me to the do ent that addresses the 95 Theses of Martin Luther. I'm sincerely interested in how the Catholic church answered him...and when they answered him.
Why can't someone vehemently disagree or propose that something is vast different that it appears without being accused of hatred?
travis2 is engaging in the best dialogue yet. And, yes, I agree that I don't have the tact or diplomacy to have this conversation in a tone that would not offend many...but, my intent is purely to try and understand.
That was the intent when I asked the initial questions in this thread...I didn't intend to start a debate over the validity of Catholicism...in fact, my questions had nothing to do with my thoughts on the religion at all. I was merely asking how a true Catholic could remain a Catholic if they condoned abortion or same-sex marriage. Period.
If the Catholic Church truly believes that faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, and faith alone, is all that is required for Salvation then, hey, I'm convinced.
Unfortunately, in my mind, their doctrine and actions speak differently. And, such an admission would nullify the papacy.
Well, at least that's half the question.
Someone want to contribute to the rest of the equation? Am I going to heaven if I'm not Catholic?
And, by the way, Presbyterians recognize all other Christian baptisms as well.
You were doing so well until that last sentence up there...that's an unwarranted stretch.
About the Papacy?
Why? If we are Saved by faith alone, what is the purpose having a Holy Father?
In other words, nothing separated us from Jesus Christ.
"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."
"Receive the Holy Spirit. Who's sins you forgive, they are forgiven. Who's sins you hold bound, they are held bound."
No, You are misinterpreting my statement.
I understand one must have faith in order to have salvation. Our differences lie in "Faith Alone". Faith alone is not good enough if that faith is not accompanied by good deeds. You quote Paul, but what you don't say what he mentions in the rest of his letters....being a servant of God. If Paul believe that Faith Alone was good enough then why would he write in 1 Corinthians 9:27: "No, I drive body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified."
Catholics believe Salvation is an ongoing process. It is not just one moment in time. This is backed up by Jesus in his own words in the books of Matthew and Mark.
On Sola Fides...
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=57764
I recommend sifting through all the replies, but here is an interesting one:
Pastor Robert,
It is nice for a change to hear a Protestant minister say such things. To a Catholic, the more we grow in our faith, and certainly the more we receive Christ through the Eucharist, the more He abides in us. Now if the perfect spirit of Christ comes in contact with the imperfect spirit of a man or woman, then three things may result:
1) No discernable change to either spirit.
2) The imperfect spirit of the man taints or lessens the perfection of Christ.
3) The perfect spirit of Christ ennobles or "improves" the spirit of the man.
I believe in the third scenario as no man can in any way reduce God's perfect essence; nor could it be possible for the communion of the man and God to result in a maintaining of the status quo.
By nature, we are selfish creatures. We are always more concerned with ourselves more than anyone else, so charity is not normal to fallen man's nature. But Jesus is the fountain of all love, and love is to suffer and sacrifice for others. We are to love God first, (suffer and sacrifice for Him) and then act the same way to others, just as Christ suffered His passion and sacrificed His life on the cross for all men. If one is truly in the faith, and if one's faith and devotion to the Lord has been accepted by Him, ( John 2:23-25) then our ennobled spirits, improved by that contact with the Spirit will take on Christ-like qualities; the most evident of which is suffering and sacrificing for others... i.e. good works of charity to others. If we have not charity, or good works, we do not have the Spirit.
Unfortunately, Pastor Robert, Protestantism, a man-made approach to Christianity, does as one would suspect man would do to a sometimes difficult philosophy of self-denial, suffering, and sacrificing. It scrubs it clean of all such notions and makes it a "day off with pay" deal. Examine the more common Protestant practices and beliefs and you will see an obvious attempt to make salvation as easy and inexpensive as possible...
A. The bread and wine are symbolic. (Accept it as the body and blood of Christ and commit to a sacred covenant oath to Him? Too demanding.)
B. Confess one's sins to a minister of the Lord. (Sorry, that would require a bit of humility.)
C. Charity and good works as an integral part of one's faith. (That means spending my time, effort, and even money on someone I don't even know. No thanks.)
D. Penance. (More suffering and sacrificing... doesn't appeal to me.)
E. Purgatory. (Be responsible and accountable for my actions on earth? Burn away my sins (ouch), endure in patient suffering the full reception of sanctifying grace? (There's got to be an easier way!)
And then there comes Protestantism. Just have faith, and faith alone, in the Lord's promises and you will be saved and receive eternal bliss and heavenly reward. Tah-Dah!
No suffering, no sacrificing, no enduring, no humility, no inconvenience, no self-denial = no love, no good works, no faith; which equals no salvation.
Thal59
But the distinction is that good works, in your explanation are engaged to achieve salvation in addition to having faith. From what I understand of Paul's words, good works are a natural output of having faith and, therefore, are inseparable in that when you have absolute faith in Jesus Christ, you will do good works...no additional effort required, it will be your nature.
Allow me to briefly point out the irony in any "my belief in an invisible man based on a book is better than your belief in an invisible man based on a book" argument.
Nah, keep it to yourself, noodles.
That's pretty certain stuff, ain't it...
How 'bout this; We confine the discussion to the legitimacy of this passage as being the installation of Peter as the first Pope and then, if we ever reach agreement -- or impasse -- we move to whether or not the current Catholic Pope is in a direct lineage to Peter the apostle.
Fair enough? Because, I think that's where the true issues are.
Issue #1) The Protestant faith holds that Peter was not elevated above the other apostles to any particular office and there is no scriptural basis for such belief.
Issue #2) The Catholic Church's own history of the papacy is so full of holes, gaps, disputes, and downright craziness that is is impossible for them to make the claim the current Pope is part of an unbroken chain of apostates leading back to Peter the apostle.
How 'bout we settle those two allegations first...or, at the very least, confine our arguments to them.
That is only one verse in the Bible that states that, there are many more that say we must keep striving to obey the Lord eventhough we have faith.
If your statement is true then and "no additional effort is required" , why does Paul say he continues to drive and train his body? If "no additional effort required" then why did Paul have to write two letters to the Corinthians.
James 2:14 states "What good is it if a man claims to have faith, but has no deeds? and James goes on to say, in verse 17: In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" This to me and most Christians hold just as much truth as does Pauls writings.
I understand when you say good deeds are your nature when you are a believer, and in some cases that is true. but Satan believes in Jesus Christ. Is he in Heaven? NO. What about Judas?
One of the reasons why we need a Pope, bishops and priests, people who devote their lives to Christ and to study the Holy Book, is to precisely avoid what happens in Protestantism, where individuals interpret the Bible which ever way it suits them, which usually translates into a new Christian denomination being born whenever a strong willed person finds a new "twist" in Scripture.
That's why there are so many Protestant denominations. Some of them, such as the Anglicans and the Greek Orthodox, are very similar in their believes to the Roman Catholics. Some of them are so far away (Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Johova's Witness, etc) that they can hardly be called Christians.
There is only one Truth, not thousands. And the Truth lies within the Catholic Church, the one Church founded by God (Christ), not founded by a mere human being who was against a particular set of Catholic teachings.
smeagol i strongly agree yet totally disagree
you can sum-up all religious arguements with "onegod"
anyway hosana in the highest when the spurs win
dam hosana in the highest
Which Inquisition, TRO?
The Spanish Inquisition or the Roman Inquisition?
The Spanish Inquisition was an instrument of the Spanish Crown and was as political as it was religious. The Spanish royals believed they were being undermined by Moors and Jews who insincerely converted to the Catholic faith, but were secretly practicing their own religions. As the "New Columbia Encyclopedia" points out, the "popes were never reconciled to the inquisition, which they viewed as usurping the Church's perogative." The tortures and trials of this inquisition were notorious, but we msut remember that most of the accounts of this activity came from the English (mortal enemies of the Spaniards). The Spanish royals really did believe they were defending themselves from enemies and used methods of dealing with this perceived threat consistent with those used at the time.
Don't blame the Church for the abuses started by Ferdinand and Isabella.
The Roman Inquisition came during the Middle Ages and was pretty much localised to southern France against the Albigensians. It was the ultimate application of Mathew 10:28. However, Church sentences were not generally severe, and what abuses there were came from secular rulers. The Church Inquisitors wanted to win back the heretic, not punish him!
Look these Inquisitions up in an objective source of history and attempt to interpret them in light of their times.
Don't take your history from watching Monty Python.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
