I again would like to examine the decrees from the Council of Trent, namely the catholic canons on justification. These decrees reveal that the roman church does not believe in justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ and his work upon the cross, but faith
plus our good works. You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works.
Now understandably, in the book of James it states "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (cf. Jam 2:24), but in the very verse preceding this that James says "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" (cf. Rom 4:3-5). So God declared Abraham righteous before doing any work, but the works made his faith perfect or complete (cf. Jam 2:22).
So the discussion here isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but if you are cursed by God for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.
I am not going to go through all 33 canons, since not all are speaking to this issue. But if you would like to review all the canons they can be found here:
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html
CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Here is my favorite, unless you believe you are saved through faith plus works (meaning you are not saved simply though faith alone, but you must co-operate in addition to faith to earn grace) you are anathema.
CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.
If you believe you are justified by faith in Christ you are anathema.
CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.
This canon again curses those who believes in justification by faith, and not by works.
CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.
This is another great one, if you believe that once you are born again that you have assurance that you are predestined (for example like Paul in: Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11) you are anathema.
CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.
So if you believe that you have the gift of perseverance (meaning that God works in you, cf. Phl 2:13) you are anathema.
Unless of course you were revealed the someplace other than the Bible...
CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.
So again we see that salvation is not by grace, but is conditional by keeping the commandments (or by works). This false belief system was dealt with by the Apostles in Acts 15 when men said the Gentiles needed to keep the commandments of Moses to be saved. And the Apostles said that the Gentiles were saved by the "purifying their hearts by faith.", and that placing them under the commandments for salvation was "tempting God".
So in this effect would make the Apostles and anyone who agreed with them, anathema.
CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
This is just an ugly way to look at the Savior, imo. Jesus says "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?", if he is your Lord then you do as he says. But Jesus is not a legislator issuing edict and commandments like the roman church for people to follow to be saved.
Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
So if you believe that good works are the fruit of your justification, and doesn't merit your justification you are anathema.
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
If you believe that by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves and not of works (cf. Eph 2:8-9), you are anathema.
You must believe we are saved though faith plus works.
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.
So in effect if you believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross, and that all your sins were blotted out by him (no need for purgatory) by faith in him; you are anathema.
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose [Page 49] living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
In other words, if your don't believe that you can earn the gift of eternal life through good works plus faith, you are anathema.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
And here is the ku de'gra, that if you say that these doctrines on justification are not the truth and you don't believe that they glorify God and the merits of Jesus Christ you are anathema. Notice also it states
"by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree" (this also means if someone later disagrees or tries to change it they are also anathema).
I find most of these canons not only offensive to the gospel but to be anti-gospel since they deny the very thing that saves us and elevate mens good works to the level of Jesus Christ's redemptive work upon the cross (which is simply bereft of theology to even believe is possible).
I would like to hear your comments.
Whenever a Roman Catholic attempts to deny the charge that their church teaches and promotes salvation by works, one needs only to refer them to these canons as clear, unequivocal proof... In his letter to the Galatians, Paul reserved a word for any who would teach and promote such a "gospel". Interestingly enough, it was the word "anathema".
Charles has a link to that video where Sproul, Kennedy, and MacArthur expose the hidden meaning of that one Catholic document. The one where they agree that we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. But as Sproul notes, they leave out the crucial ALONE. GRACE ALONE, FAITH ALONE, and IN JESUS CHRIST ALONE.
Ugh - I just typed a detailed response to this post and lost the entire post!
So here is the revised edition:
To my dismay, I have noticed a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board since I decreased my own participation. Charles and James have always been vocal about their strict opposition to the Church Jesus started upon Peter, but I am honestly shocked to see how many people have abandoned reason in order to make sense of their rhetoric! Please - if you have any questions about the differences between Catholic doctrine and Protestant
doctrine - ask a Catholic - we are the only people who can answer your questions without a Protestant slant. Going to a Calvinist to learn about Catholicism is like going to FOX News to learn about Liberals.
These decrees reveal that the roman church does not believe in justification by faith alone in Jesus Christ and his work upon the cross, but faith plus our good works.
Indeed! The Catholic Church does not teach the doctrine of man! Luther's compromised doctrine of 'faith alone' appeared in roughly 1517 - a good 1500 hundred years after Jesus started His Apostolic Church upon Peter. I am sorry Luther believed that he was incapable of meeting God's standards, but his obsessive/compulsive tendencies hardly justify a change in doctrine! A comparable comparison would be Joseph Smith's need to marry more than one wife - a belief that also failed to change orthodox doctrine.
Now understandably, in the book of James it states "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (cf. Jam 2:24), but in the very verse preceding this that James says "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness" (cf. Rom 4:3-5). So God declared Abraham righteous before doing any work, but the works made his faith perfect or complete (cf. Jam 2:22).
It is nice to see that you recognize the book of James as canonized scripture - Luther would disagree. I love the verse you included - it is a nice example of works proceeding faith, rather than the Protestant teaching of faith justifying works. James is clear - both Faith and Works are necessary for salvation - just like both faith and works are necessary for all relationships. If neglect your relationship with your God or your wife you will end up alone.
So the discussion here isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but if you are cursed by God for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.
I appreciate your research on this topic, Charles - you have been thorough and accurate. The Vatican was not shy about condemning the leaders and inventors of false doctrine - Calvin and Luther and Zwingli and many others are held responsible for their rebellion - but are the followers of their distortions? The Vatican and the majority of Catholics believe the followers of the Reformers who still worship a Triune God are still under God's mercy. It is not their fault they were mislead!
The funniest part of you condemnation of the methods of the Catholic Church is the fact that the same methods employed by the Catholic Church saved the Christian Church against the heresies of the Donasts, Dualists, Manichaeist, Montanism, Gnostics. Muslim, Catharists, Huguenots, etc, etc, etc......
I am not going to go through all 33 canons, since not all are speaking to this issue. But if you would like to review all the canons they can be found here:
No need. Educated Catholics will agree with all the statements - many Protestants will disagree. Charles - you have only succeeded in confirming the beliefs of all Catholics and all Calvinists and confusing all mainliners. What is your purpose? If you are really serious about exploring Church history I am ready and willing to engage you - let me know.
This is another great one, if you believe that once you are born again that you have assurance that you are predestined (for example like Paul in: Eph 1:5, Eph 1:11) you are anathema
How can you be 'born again' and 'predestined' at the same time? Calvin's doctrine is illogical Charles - I appreciate your ability to preform the logical gymnastics necessary to accept it - but really, haven't you suffered enough outside the kingdom? Come on home to Rome, my friend!
CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.
Trust and obey - sounds like a relationship to me. Substitute 'parent' for God in this statement and no one would blink in opposition. We are called to have a real relationship with God - which includes trust and obedience - rather than the Protestant ideal of trust and absenteeism. Since when did God agree to be the weekend Father - someone who buys off his kids!
Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.
CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.
If anyone says that a mutual relationship with God is not necessary - a relationship where God alone gives you an eternity with him without your participation let him or her be placed in a reality which does not include God or anyone associated with Him or his followers.
CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.
For those who mislead those who participate in an honest and loving relationship with the Creator or the World and the Savor of humanity in communion with His Church. let them be cut off. If Luther's cartoon sent to the Pope regarding an 'ass playing a harm' is any indication of the direction he was leading his congregation - the Vatican's reaction was underplayed.
If you believe that by grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves and not of works (cf. Eph 2:8-9), you are anathema.
If you believed that if you are only required to 'ask Jesus into your heart' and then proceed as you were before encountering Christ - you are not serious about engaging in a saving relationship with God and you will not be included in His eternal family. It cracks me up when I listen to Protestants complain about the problem of 'easy salvation' - especially when they have no idea where it came from!!!!!
So in effect if you believe that Jesus paid it all on the cross, and that all your sins were blotted out by him (no need for purgatory) by faith in him; you are anathema.
If you believe you only need to tell you wife 'I do' during the marriage ceremony in order to guarantee a good marriage you are just as mistaken as you would be if you believe asking Jesus into your heart once is going to guarantee your salvation.
CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.
If you worship God outside of His body (modern day equivalent - Jehovah's Witness, Mormon. Christian Science, Scientology member) you are excluded from His body.
And here is the ku de'gra, that if you say that these doctrines on justification are not the truth and you don't believe that they glorify God and the merits of Jesus Christ you are anathema. Notice also it states "by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree" (this also means if someone later disagrees or tries to change it they are also anathema).
Yep - if you choose to follow the teachings of Luther rather than the doctrine that has been established by the Church that Jesus established on Peter - 15 hundreds years before Luther suffered from Obsessive/Compulsive disorder and decided to redefine doctrine.......
I find most of these canons not only offensive to the gospel but to be anti-gospel since they deny the very thing that saves us and elevate mens good works to the level of Jesus Christ's redemptive work upon the cross (which is simply bereft of theology to even believe is possible)
Interesting - I find most of your comments to be contrary to the gospel and an open invitation to engage in a false 'easy salvation' relationship with Jesus that (surprisingly, contradicts your Calvinistic predestination doctrine) which will lead people to Hell - what is up with that?
Doh that darn Raven!!!!
Ravenlorre :)
ravenlore... When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it. Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.
I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations. But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe. How do I know... Cause I used to be one. Same principle.
I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break. Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.
But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation.
With your quip about FOX you have committed a fallacy. Because something is biased does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate as a source.
1500 hundred years after Jesus started His Apostolic Church upon Peter.
Peter has a wife. lol
love the verse you included - it is a nice example of works proceeding faith
I think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."
Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship,
created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
NOT AS A RESULT OF WORKS. WORKS ARE WHAT WE ARE CALLED TO AFTER WE ARE GIVEN FAITH. FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD BECAUSE TRUE FAITH PRODUCES WORKS. IT IS SIMPLE AND EXPLICIT.
Jesus is the Redeemer, and if he is your redeemer you will listen to his words.
Matt. 15:3And He answered and said to them, "Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?
It cracks me up when I listen to Protestants complain about the problem of 'easy salvation' - especially when they have no idea where it came from!!!!!
Romans 10:9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
Where is the "If you work hard enough..." ?
just as mistaken as you would be if you believe asking Jesus into your heart once is going to guarantee your salvation.
Haha. I'd love to see the scripture on that one.
If you worship God outside of His body (modern day equivalent - Jehovah's Witness, Mormon. Christian Science, Scientology member) you are excluded from His body.
Too bad for Catholicism, huh?
surprisingly, contradicts your Calvinistic predestination doctrine
Charles isn't a Calvinist...
Charles:
You have made an error in your opening statement when your write, "You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works." In point of fact, NONE of the canons you cite support this interpretation you put on them. The most that the cited canons state is that one may increase grace via the vehicle of ascetical struggle (i.e., good works). But this is nothing more than what Ephesians 2:8-10 says, and what Ephesians 4:1ff implies. So it's hardly remarkable.
You ARE correct, however, when you identify that the Roman Catholic view of justification differs from that of the Protestant view. But so far in this thread you haven't made an argument that the Protestant view is correct. You've simply assumed it (with a little sleight of hand vis a vis James).
For the record, the Orthodox do not accept the Roman dogma of Purgatory, nor do we emphasize the meritorious aspect of works to the degree that the Roman Church does. Our view of salvation is much less juridical than the Rome/Protestant dialectic. We do, of course, believe in justification, and we, too, preach synergy, just like the Roman Church, but our primary paradigm is medicinal not juridical.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 09:22:13
Charles:
You have made an error in your opening statement when your write, "You will notice some canons will even clearly say that we earn salvation and eternal life through doing good works." In point of fact, NONE of the canons you cite support this interpretation you put on them.
Just to point out what canon I was considering:
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 09:38:46CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.
Actually, Charles, it does
not say what you interpret it to say. Let's read it more closely.
Notice that the "increase of grace, eternal life and the attainment of eternal life" is explictly stated to be not
simply "by the good works which he performs" but
cooperatively "through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is."
In other words, you are falsely asserting that the Roman Church teaches that salvation is earned on the basis of good works (or good works alone). In fact, the Roman and Orthodox Churches both teach exactly what Scripture says, that we are justified
synergistically both by God's grace and our ascetical struggle (good works), with God's grace taking precedence, but not apart from our own works. See James 2:14-26, Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and so on.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:25:49
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 09:38:46CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.
With this very statement that works merit the increase of grace and attainment of eternal life, one does not even need interpret it as works based salvation; they need only read what it says.
Actually, Charles, it does not say what you interpret it to say. Let's read it more closely.
Notice that the "increase of grace, eternal life and the attainment of eternal life" is explictly stated to be not simply "by the good works which he performs" but cooperatively "through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is."
In other words, you are falsely asserting that the Roman Church teaches that salvation is earned on the basis of good works (or good works alone). In fact, the Roman and Orthodox Churches both teach exactly what Scripture says, that we are justified synergistically both by God's grace and our ascetical struggle (good works), with God's grace taking precedence, but not apart from our own works. See James 2:14-26, Philippians 2:12-13, Ephesians 2:1-10, 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and so on.
No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith
plus works, not works alone.
But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)
I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith
plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)
But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)
Might I add, the work He did while we were yet dead in the flesh...
It's not like Jesus died for people who just needed some instruction on Godly living so they could work their way to heaven (or let's say, spend less time in "purgatory"). He died for people who were already judged (John 3:18), and already dead (Eph. 2).
CDHealy, you'll notice that dead men cannot choose anything for themselves, especially life. Life is what Christ offered; in order to obtain this life, God had to drag dead men to His Son. Interesting that "drag" is the exact word used by Jesus for this situation.
"No man may come to Me unless the Father draws (Greek: drags) him." - John 6:44.
The Catholic Church borders on Pelagianism. As if our works can add to Jesus' sacrifice. It's not wrong to want to do good works, even as a proof of our faith; but works are the result of faith, not the begettor of it (much less salvation).
It all hinges on how you define faith.
Paul goes to some lengths to separate faith and works - for the sake of the people understanding that their actions cannot merit salvation apart unless those actions are produced as a the result of faith.
Nonetheless, it seems that the Works-that-ARE-the-result-of-faith, are the very stuff that salvation-from-sinning is accomplished through. Isn't that what James is saying? And don't "the just live by faith?"
Further obfuscating the matter is the chronology of salvation. Protestants tend to speak of salvation meaning that ultimate salvation from damnation at the final judgment. Catholics tend to speak of salvation, meaning that deliverance present in our everyday lives from the trouble of making mistakes.
Then there's the differences in defining justification. Protestants talk of God declaring us to be in the right at that judgment mentioned earlier. Catholics talk of God making us just.
Maybe it's just me, but all I ever see in these threads are people talking past each other. I wonder what would happen if y'all tried to do one of these threads, without using any "church words."
Nonetheless, Charles, your efforts to actually study the catholic canons are commendable. Very few people are willing to go to primary sources, it seems.
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.
Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges. But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)
There's no doubt that we were and are unable to save ourselves. If Christ had not come and put death to death for us, and paid the penalty for sin, then we would still be lost in our sins.
But it does not then follow that simply because we cannot save ourselves of ourselves that the salvation which Christ works is also something we have nothing to do with. And since we have explicit biblical testimony that works are a necessity of faith, then they are a necessity of salvation as well.
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)
Then you not only misread the Ephesians passage you cite, by selectively leaving out v. 10, you also contradict the other passages I list, especially James.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:22:42Might I add, the work He did while we were yet dead in the flesh...
It's not like Jesus died for people who just needed some instruction on Godly living so they could work their way to heaven (or let's say, spend less time in "purgatory"). He died for people who were already judged (John 3:18), and already dead (Eph. 2).
No disagreement here.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:22:42CDHealy, you'll notice that dead men cannot choose anything for themselves, especially life.
Boy, that's funny, because St. Paul talks a lot about how dead men walk around committing sins of the flesh, and walking in the ways of the world. It appears that dead men can actually do things.
Like making choices to sin.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:22:42Life is what Christ offered; in order to obtain this life, God had to drag dead men to His Son. Interesting that "drag" is the exact word used by Jesus for this situation.
"No man may come to Me unless the Father draws (Greek: drags) him." - John 6:44.
Well, the etymological fallacy is alive and well.
But that said, no one denies that God draws (drags, pulls by the nose, what have you). But it does not logically follow that the objects of such drawing have no free will in the matter. One can be dragged AND want to be and fully cooperate with being dragged. And one can be dragged and fight it and ultimately break away, too.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:22:42The Catholic Church borders on Pelagianism. As if our works can add to Jesus' sacrifice.
Bordering on is not the same thing as being. In point of fact, strictly speaking the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, too) cannot be Pelagian because Pelagianism is a belief about human nature and the consequences of the Fall, and not simply about free will.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:22:42It's not wrong to want to do good works, even as a proof of our faith; but works are the result of faith, not the begettor of it (much less salvation).
Rome and Orthodoxy would completely agree here.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:36:32
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.
Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges. But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.
CD,
This would be a matter of some debate, but I am forced to point out again that my op states that the discussion isn't if works are necessary, or if real faith will produce works; but that Christians are considered by the RCC anathema for believing that we are justified by grace through faith alone; and not through our works.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:36:32
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18But I disagree with the belief that I can add to the redemptive work of the cross by my own feeble struggles against sin when because of the weakness of my flesh God had to send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. (cf. Rom 8:3)
There's no doubt that we were and are unable to save ourselves. If Christ had not come and put death to death for us, and paid the penalty for sin, then we would still be lost in our sins.
But it does not then follow that simply because we cannot save ourselves of ourselves that the salvation which Christ works is also something we have nothing to do with. And since we have explicit biblical testimony that works are a necessity of faith, then they are a necessity of salvation as well.
I agree that we are involved in salvation, since we are the ones being saved; but who is doing the saving the Bible makes very clear.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:36:32
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18I believe we are saved by faith and not by faith plus works. (cf. Eph 2:8-9)
Then you not only misread the Ephesians passage you cite, by selectively leaving out v. 10, you also contradict the other passages I list, especially James.
Not to get to sidetracked here, I would like to mention that I in no way contradict the second chapter of James since the entire chapter isn't suggesting we are saved by faith
plus works but that real faith is evidenced with works. This is clear from a contextual reading of the chapter without amputating verses to support works based salvation. (Not to mention the belief that works are the fruits and signs of justification would place one in violation of Canon XXIV.)
And verse 10 of Ephesians chapter 2 only further supports the belief that good works are legitimate fruits of salvation since we are
his workmanship (not our workmanship) created for good works that God ordained we should have been doing in the first place. Not that doing good works makes us his workmanship or makes us created in Christ Jesus. That would be a completely backwards reading.
Boy, that's funny, because St. Paul talks a lot about how dead men walk around committing sins of the flesh, and walking in the ways of the world. It appears that dead men can actually do things.
Like making choices to sin.
Nice try, but the question you've overlooked is what it means to be dead in the Ephesians 2 sense. Sin comes from the flesh. We are born again when we are born of the Spirit. Being alive, in this sense, is being made alive in Christ (i.e., being born again in the Spirit). Dead men--those living in the flesh--are dead to the Spiritual. They cannot choose the Spirit because they are dead to it.
It's all quite straightforward in scripture.
But that said, no one denies that God draws (drags, pulls by the nose, what have you). But it does not logically follow that the objects of such drawing have no free will in the matter. One can be dragged AND want to be and fully cooperate with being dragged. And one can be dragged and fight it and ultimately break away, too.
The problem is that what God is dragging is a dead person. Dead men have no free will as it relates to the Spirit. Dead men cannot resist being dragged. The process of rebirth is monergistic, not synergistic. Faith is synergistic, but dead men cannot have faith in something they cannot experience. That is, Spiritual life. "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
Bordering on is not the same thing as being.
Allow me to smack my forehead.
In point of fact, strictly speaking the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox Church, too) cannot be Pelagian because Pelagianism is a belief about human nature and the consequences of the Fall, and not simply about free will.
If I recall correctly, Catholicism teaches that our works somehow contribute to our justification.
Rome and Orthodoxy would completely agree here.
So works don't cause salvation?
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53Nice try, but the question you've overlooked is what it means to be dead in the Ephesians 2 sense. Sin comes from the flesh. We are born again when we are born of the Spirit. Being alive, in this sense, is being made alive in Christ (i.e., being born again in the Spirit).
Yes, let's talk about Ephesians 2, to wit, the following:
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. (vv. 14-16; NIV)
[By the way, let me add the Hebrews reference: "Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that
by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death--that is the devil--and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death" (2:14-15).]
Now notice something: the victory over death accomplished by Christ was accomplished in his body. So, when his body was Resurrected from the dead, then death no longer held power over all of humanity. (Cf. Romans 5 on this point.)
So, even if humans are dead, in the Ephesians 2 sense, that death no longer binds them as it did prior to the Resurrection. This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead. If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death. But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.
Which means that we ARE free to choose Christ and eternal life. We are free because he has set us free.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53Dead men--those living in the flesh--are dead to the Spiritual. They cannot choose the Spirit because they are dead to it.
It's all quite straightforward in scripture.
Excellent! Then BCV me, friend. You're making assertions without Scriptural support. (If you want to cite the Church Fathers, I'll also take that.)
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53The problem is that what God is dragging is a dead person. Dead men have no free will as it relates to the Spirit.
BCV, please. Oh, and this assumes that Jesus hasn't freed us from the bondage of death. But Ephesians (and Romans 7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 2) say otherwise.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53The process of rebirth is monergistic, not synergistic.
Please provide Scriptural evidence for your monergism. (And please be advised that I've dealt with this extensively with John Hendryx and his monergism site on my own blog. Click the link in the sig line and search for "monergism" on my blog.)
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53Faith is synergistic, but dead men cannot have faith in something they cannot experience. That is, Spiritual life. "Unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God
Now your confusing yourself. You being "born again" is a precursor to "seeing the Kingdom of God" (one cannot happen without the other). But in your schema you distinguish between faith (synergism) and rebirth (monergism). But seeing the Kingdom of God is not self-evidently coterminus with new birth. Care to make the Scriptural case?
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 13:04:53If I recall correctly, Catholicism teaches that our works somehow contribute to our justification. [SNIP] So works don't cause salvation?
Yes to the first comment. No to the second comment.
Clarification to the No: Works cause salvation in the synergistic sense--i.e., we are not saved apart from works.
Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer.
So, even if humans are dead, in the Ephesians 2 sense, that death no longer binds them as it did prior to the Resurrection.
Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.
This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead. If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death. But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.
Once again, two different deaths. Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death? (He doesn't.) The abolition of death is a different matter.
Which means that we ARE free to choose Christ and eternal life. We are free because he has set us free.
No; "No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.
That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT. The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water. Water is not enticed. It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none). Just like dead men.
Excellent! Then BCV me, friend. You're making assertions without Scriptural support.
Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.
Oh, and this assumes that Jesus hasn't freed us from the bondage of death. But Ephesians (and Romans 7-8 and 1 Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 2) say otherwise.
Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead. It is a past action, completed. If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross? After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.
Please provide Scriptural evidence for your monergism. (And please be advised that I've dealt with this extensively with John Hendryx and his monergism site on my own blog. Click the link in the sig line and search for "monergism" on my blog.)
You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...
Eph. 2:1And
you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even
when we were dead in our transgressions,
made us alive together with Christ (by grace
you have been saved), 6and
raised us up with Him, and
seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For
by grace you have been saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...
See also: Genesis 20:6, 35:5; Exodus 34:23; Deuteronomy 2:25, 30:6; Judges 14:1-4; 1 Kings 4:29; 1 Chronicles 22:12, 29:18; Ezra 1:1, 5, 6:22, 7:27; Nehemiah 1:11, 2:8, 12; Esther 2:17, 4:14, 6:1-4; Ezekiel 36:25-32; Psalm 33:10, 65:4, 139:16; Proverbs 21:1; Isaiah 44:28; Jeremiah 10:24; Haggai 1:14; Luke 24:16, 31, 45; John 6:37, 45, 10:3, 4, 27; Acts 11:18, 13:48, 16:14, 17:26; 1 Corinthians 3:5, 12:13, 15:10; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Galatians 2:8; Philippians 2:13; Hebrews 13:20; James 4:13-15.
You being "born again" is a precursor to "seeing the Kingdom of God" (one cannot happen without the other). But in your schema you distinguish between faith (synergism) and rebirth (monergism). But seeing the Kingdom of God is not self-evidently coterminus with new birth. Care to make the Scriptural case?
The key is the word "unless."
John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you,
unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
And again, Eph2:5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved).
Made alive while we were dead. Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.
But let's just go to Catholicism:
Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
we are not saved apart from works.
Eph. 2:8For
by grace you have been saved through faith; and
that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9
not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Hopefully you just mean that works are integral to faith...
Fire:
I've discovered something about you, as exemplified in the PVM thread: you will make an assertion, unsupported by any evidence or argument, and then use that assertion as though it's been proven.
You go to great lengths in the preceding post to assert that I mean death in only once sense--heck, you even go into past and present tenses and so forth. But, in point of fact, I do not mean death in only one sense, but death in all its senses. So, that takes out about 99% of your post.
The remainder is built on unproven assertions regarding free will (using an unproven assertion regarding the implications of death).
It really is useless to argue with you, I'm finding, because: a) you make no attempt to prove what you assert, but just keep asserting it as thought it's been proven, and b) you do not take your opponent's arguments and explanations honestly, but twist and distort them and then argue against the distortions (as though they were the argument itself).
Frustrating, to say the least.
But let's take a look here.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19
Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer. . . . Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.
You missed the point entirely. Look again at what I wrote (which you quoted):
This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead. If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death. But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.
But then you completely ignore that and go on:
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Once again, two different deaths. Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death? (He doesn't.) The abolition of death is a different matter.
No, it's not. And no there are not two different deaths (at least not what is being considered here; the passage in Revelation is another matter). There is one death, with far-reaching implications. You insist on a spirit-body dualism here that is not warranted, and is not Christian. Read Romans 5: the death brought into the world by Adam was not just a physical death, though it was physical in certain of its aspects.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.
That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT.
Methinks you do not properly understand the etymological fallacy. An etymological fallacy is not built upon how many times a word is used, but on asserting an unwarranted definition of the word (such as some do with adelphos), which does not take into account all its semantic range.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water. Water is not enticed. It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none). Just like dead men.
Another fallacy: an unwarranted comparison between two objects.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Excellent! Then BCV me, friend. You're making assertions without Scriptural support.
Genesis 6:5, 8:21; Numbers 15:37-39; 1 Kings 8:46; Job 15:14-16; Psalm 14:1-3, 51:5, 94:11, 130:3; Proverbs 4:23, 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20, 8:11; Isaiah 6:5, 53:6, 64:6; Jeremiah 10:14, 13:23, 17:9; Matthew 7:11, 15:19; Mark 10:18; Luke 17:10; John 2:24, 3:36, 6:44, 15:5, 16; Acts 3:16, 16:14; Romans 1:18-2:16, 3:9-20, 23, 5:12, 7:18-20, 8:7; 1 Corinthians 2:14, 12:3; 2 Corinthians 3:5, 4:3, 11:3; Ephesians 2:1-6, 4:17-19; Colossians 2:13; 1 Timothy 2:25, 6:5; 2 Timothy 3:8; Titus 1:5; James 2:10, 3:2, 8; Revelation 9:20, 16:9.
Puh-leeze. At least when I BCV'ed I gave four meaty chunks. These are just random verses, ripped out context. Take the first two Genesis examples: they are citations of specific historical instances. By using them to prove a point of principle, you commit the generalization fallacy.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead. It is a past action, completed. If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross? After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.
And, once again, you are refusing to acknowledge that I mean death in more than one sense. This here is the reductio fallacy.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...
Non sequitor.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...
Funny how that tenth verse always keeps getting left out. Hmmmm.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19The key is the word "unless."
John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
You still haven't proven that "born again" is coterminus with "seeing the Kingdom of God." One may be born again, and the may be required to engage in ascetical struggle to see the Kingdom of God.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Made alive while we were dead. Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.
Back to unproven assertions.
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 11:36:32
: Charles Sloan Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 10:55:18No CD, re-read my op. I stated the RCC teach faith plus works, not works alone.
Thank you for the clarification, it hasn't been so clear in the subsequent exchanges. But since the Scriptures themselves teach salvation by faith plus works (see my references above), then it would appear that the RCC (and Orthodoxy) follow the Bible on this.
Not according to Romans chapter 4:
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are fogiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."Not "plus works"... Not with works...
"Without works".
: James Rondon Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 23:39:44Not according to Romans chapter 4:
"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are fogiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin."
Not "plus works"... Not with works...
"Without works".
I'm sorry, Mr. Rondon, perhaps you forgot that, as was Abraham, we are justified by our works.
James 2: 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
You have Paul contradicting James, and even his own self. When read in context, James does not contradict Paul, instead, he complements him.
Salvation is not the result of works, nor is it the result of faith plus works. Salvation is the result of faith "without works", as Paul said in Romans chapter 4 (see also Ephesians chapter 2:9, "not of works"). Even so, as James said, such a faith will produce works (see also Ephesians 2:10, "created in Christ Jesus unto good works"; notice, not "by good works", and not "with good works").
Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.
Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.
(By the way, "faith" being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; cf. James 2:1)
James:
Please deal with what James actually says, not with what you want him to say: justified by works. That's what he says. A man is justified by his works, not by faith only.
That's what the Scripture says. Please deal with that.
: James Rondon Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 00:33:42
Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.
Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.
If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.
Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.
Try a logical operator instead:
If (faith) then (works)
If (faith) then (salvation)
: EKEph. 2:1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Just so I understand, are you saying we are born again before we come to the cross.
FTL
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 11:04:32
: James Rondon Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 00:33:42
Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.
Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.
If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.
Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.
That is exactly the point. Notice that the reordering of that equation, while seemingly contradictory to James, is equivalent to what Paul has said in Romans chapter 4.
: James Rondon Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 14:29:09
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 11:04:32
: James Rondon Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 00:33:42
Thus, the biblical formula is not as you have suggested:
Faith + works = salvation.
Rather, it is:
Faith = salvation + works.
If that is so, logically I can say that
Salvation = Faith - Works.
Somehow, that looks like the antitheses of what James says.
That is exactly the point. Notice that the reordering of that equation, while seemingly contradictory to James, is equivalent to what Paul has said in Romans chapter 4.
??? So are you seriously contending that Paul and James contradict each other?
Not at all. That is CD Healy's position.
Paul and James are looking at the same things, from different perspectives (thus, the reordering of the same equation).
: James Rondon Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:20:08
Not at all. That is CD Healy's position.
Paul and James are looking at the same things, from different perspectives (thus, the reordering of the same equation).
I'm kind of guessing that you both think they agree, but you don't agree on what they both mean.
Let me put this forward again, as a way of looking at it:
If (faith) then (salvation).
If (faith) then (works).
The result is that works are not required for salvation. But...
That everyone whom salvation is given to, also happens to manifest their faith by works.
Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction. They harmonize very well.
But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.
So, no, I affirm no contradiction. We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works. "Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."
That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.
Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction. Mine does not. You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction. They harmonize very well.
But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.
So, no, I affirm no contradiction. We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works. "Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."
That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.
Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction. Mine does not. You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.
::amen!:: ::clappingoverhead::
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
Excuse, me, but my position is not that St. Paul and St. James are in contradiction. They harmonize very well.
I have seen no harmonization on your part. Only a prooftexting of James to the exclusion of Paul.
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
But your position does require a contradiction because you categorically deny that justification is by works, and yet that is exactly what St. James says.
Go back and re-read my posts - I have only said what Paul has said. Your argument is with him, not me... Justification is "by works", in as far as justification is by faith ("ye see then how...", James 2:24). How? A faith that saves is a faith that will work ("... can that faith save him?...", James 2:14f). Even so, salvation is by grace, through faith, and "not of works" ("without works...", Romans 4:5-6). Thus, faith = salvation + works (cf. Eph. 2:8, 9 and 10).
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
So, no, I affirm no contradiction. We are saved by faith (there is no "alone" in Scripture, in fact, St. James denies the use of "alone" with faith) AND we are saved by our works.
Will you stand with Paul and say that salvation is "
not of works"? Will you stand with Paul and say that we are justified by faith "
without works"?... Will you stand with Paul and say "to him that
worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness"? If so, how so?
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
"Work out your salvation," "a man is justified by his works."
That's the straightforward, uncomplicated reading of the Scripture.
The one who rightly divides the word of truth will consider context, and the rest of Scripture, including Romans chapter 4.
: CDHealy Fri Apr 04, 2008 - 15:54:52
Your position requires you to twist St. James around in self-contradiction. Mine does not. You distort Scripture--claiming faith alone when St. James denies it, denying what Scripture affirms, that we are justified by works--I don't.
Your position requires that you completely avoid Romans chapter 4. Mine does not. Mine leaves room for both James 2 and Romans 4, and is able to harmonize them without contradiction. Paul said we are justified by faith "without works", and that we are saved by grace, through faith, and "not of works". Even so, you would have James deny it, denying what Scripture affirms--I don't.
CDHealy... I think someone is misinterpreting "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" Philippians 2:12, by what you posted.
I do believe that is more along the lines of... Searching your heart, disecting your motives, waking up at night to repent of things that make you shake.... kind of thing.. I have woke up in the night, trembling to think of some of the things I did before I got saved. I believe I need to always keep that mindset concerning sin. Never to take it lightly.
Working it out in the spiritual sense. Staying above reproach... in all things.
Not "do works" for salvation. We should be concerned about our acts... not doing acts to be saved.
Since there's a bunch of misrepresentation of what my position entails, let me be clear:
1. We are saved by grace through faith. (Ephesians 2:8)
2. We are saved so that we may do good works. (Ephesians 2:10)
3. We are justified by our works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24)
4. We are to work out our salvation. (Philippians 2:12)
5. God works in us. (Philippians 2:13)
6. We must discipline our bodies lest we be disqualified (1 Corinthians 5:20; 9:27).
: CDHealy Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 22:37:04But, in point of fact, I do not mean death in only one sense, but death in all its senses. So, that takes out about 99% of your post.
The point is not what you mean but what Scripture says. Scripture makes death out to be physical and spiritual death, connected, but distinct. That is, one can be discussed without the other being implied. That is the case in Ephesians 2.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19
Once again, that death is not the physical death to which you refer. . . . Look at his audience: not everyone who has been spiritually dead (which we all were at birth); he is writing to and about the church at Ephesus.
You missed the point entirely. Look again at what I wrote (which you quoted):
This is why, by the way, ALL humans will be raised in the Resurrection, some to eternal life some to eternal judgment, but all will be raised from the dead. If not, then Jesus did not accomplish victory over death. But since Scripture is clear that Jesus did accomplish victory over death, then it follows that death no longer holds sway over us.
But then you completely ignore that and go on:
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Once again, two different deaths. Where in that passage from Ephesians 2 does Paul write about Christ abolishing death? (He doesn't.) The abolition of death is a different matter.
No, it's not. And no there are not two different deaths (at least not what is being considered here; the passage in Revelation is another matter). There is one death, with far-reaching implications. You insist on a spirit-body dualism here that is not warranted, and is not Christian. Read Romans 5: the death brought into the world by Adam was not just a physical death, though it was physical in certain of its aspects.
I guess I'll have to throw away my O/NT Expository Dictionary... It keeps telling me that death has many meanings in scripture, and that when it is talked about, it doesn't always include all meanings.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me drags him." - John 6:44.
That's not an etymological fallacy since the exact same word is used in two other locations in the NT.
Methinks you do not properly understand the etymological fallacy. An etymological fallacy is not built upon how many times a word is used, but on asserting an unwarranted definition of the word (such as some do with adelphos), which does not take into account all its semantic range.
We already took into account its range in a previous post. Context shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters through the marriage and sexual intercourse of Mary and Joseph. Adelphos can mean this or other things, but it does not have to mean something else when the context is clear.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19The only instance they use for translating it "draw" is a reference to drawing water. Water is not enticed. It is moved regardless of its will (because it has none). Just like dead men.
Another fallacy: an unwarranted comparison between two objects.
You must not understand. The point is that the word has only one meaning or implication. That is, whether you apply it to dragging people to court (Acts 16, James 4) or drawing up water. It never means to draw as in to entice as we so misread it today.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Here is the irony and absurdity of this repeated assertion: Paul refers to us as having been dead. It is a past action, completed. If Paul's point related to or implied by (since I don't see any explicit mention of death's abolition in the passage) Ephesians 2 is that Jesus abolished physical death--that is, gave us life in a physical sense--then how were people alive before Jesus died on the cross? After all, we must have been physically dead in Eph. 2:1 if that's what Paul's explaining.
And, once again, you are refusing to acknowledge that I mean death in more than one sense. This here is the reductio fallacy.
See above.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...
Non sequitor [sic].
Haha, it wasn't intended to be a logical formula. But since you were wrong there, and you're defending the same ideas here, you're wrong here, too. So I guess it's not really a non-sequitur after all.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19I'm just wondering where the verbs are which show how we did anything...
Funny how that tenth verse always keeps getting left out. Hmmmm.
It adds to my case. "That God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" - God has to give us something to be able to accomplish His goals. Good works aren't of our own, and they are contingent and consequential to regeneration, faith, etc.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19The key is the word "unless."
John 3:3Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God."
You still haven't proven that "born again" is coterminus with "seeing the Kingdom of God." One may be born again, and the may be required to engage in ascetical struggle to see the Kingdom of God.
Clarify what you think I mean. I feel like you're arguing against something I haven't posited, but I'm unsure.
: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Made alive while we were dead. Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.
Back to unproven assertions.
So dead men can choose life? You seem to think the basis of my statement is unfounded; be more specific.
: HaroldJust so I understand, are you saying we are born again before we come to the cross.
Define "come to the cross." Preferably with Scripture.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33The point is not what you mean but what Scripture says. Scripture makes death out to be physical and spiritual death, connected, but distinct. That is, one can be discussed without the other being implied. That is the case in Ephesians 2.
Please demonstrate by argument that, as your position requires, Ephesians 2
cannot (note: not
does not, but
cannot, there's a huge logical difference) mean physical death. You are asserting it without proof. Please prove it.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33I guess I'll have to throw away my O/NT Expository Dictionary... It keeps telling me that death has many meanings in scripture, and that when it is talked about, it doesn't always include all meanings.
I'm not claiming such. But your position requires that physical death is properly and necessarily
excluded. Again, please demonstrate this by argument.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33We already took into account its range in a previous post. Context shows that Jesus had brothers and sisters through the marriage and sexual intercourse of Mary and Joseph. Adelphos can mean this or other things, but it does not have to mean something else when the context is clear.
You are once again asserting a proposition that hasn't been established by argument. I have shown by argument that "until" does not require a change after a point in time (i.e., Jesus is with us not only
until the end of the age, but after as well). The semantic range of adelphos cannot be limited to children of the same mother. Your entire argument about sexual intercourse between the Holy Virgin and Joseph rests on these two points alone. And yet, since these two points cannot be established, your argument falls apart.
To continue to say things, then, like "The context is clear" is circular argument, and invalid.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33You must not understand. The point is that the word has only one meaning or implication. That is, whether you apply it to dragging people to court (Acts 16, James 4) or drawing up water. It never means to draw as in to entice as we so misread it today.
You truly do not understand the etymological fallacy, since you continue to commit it.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19You've been wrong here; I don't really care if you've been wrong somewhere else...
Non sequitor [sic].
Haha, it wasn't intended to be a logical formula. But since you were wrong there, and you're defending the same ideas here, you're wrong here, too. So I guess it's not really a non-sequitur after all.
Sorry, show me where it's been demonstrated that I've been wrong here. And if it were the case that I have been so shown to be wrong, it
still is a non sequitor to assert that, on the basis of being wrong here, I'm wrong anywhere else.
But I'm not surprised that you would commit logical fallacies with such dogged regularity. Your posts are full of them.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33"That God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them" - God has to give us something to be able to accomplish His goals. Good works aren't of our own, and they are contingent and consequential to regeneration, faith, etc.
If the good works aren't of our own, then whose are they? If they aren't ours, then how can we claim to be obedient to the will of God (to do good works)? If we aren't obedient to the will of God, how can we claim to be saved?
Whoops. There's another unproven assertion that causes your own system to fall apart.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33Clarify what you think I mean. I feel like you're arguing against something I haven't posited, but I'm unsure.
You appear to conflate born again with the seeing of the Kingdom of God. I don't think that's warranted from the text. Perhaps you'd like to demonstrate it.
: Ek Pyros Sat Apr 05, 2008 - 14:45:33: Ek Pyros Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 17:50:19Made alive while we were dead. Dead men cannot choose life; they cannot cooperate with grace.
Back to unproven assertions.
So dead men can choose life? You seem to think the basis of my statement is unfounded; be more specific.
Yes, dead men can choose life. Certainly God's grace has made that possible for all men (cf. Hebrews 2 and Romans 5), but it is still a fact that people choose to accept Christ all the time.
Please demonstrate by argument that, as your position requires, Ephesians 2 cannot (note: not does not, but cannot, there's a huge logical difference) mean physical death. You are asserting it without proof. Please prove it.
Physical death is not the meaning of "and you were dead in your sins and trepasses." Why? Because you cannot be both physically alive and physically dead simultaneously (and since he's speaking to people still physically alive...).
What do you accuse me of, false dichotomy?
I have shown by argument that "until" does not require a change after a point in time (i.e., Jesus is with us not only until the end of the age, but after as well). The semantic range of adelphos cannot be limited to children of the same mother. Your entire argument about sexual intercourse between the Holy Virgin and Joseph rests on these two points alone. And yet, since these two points cannot be established, your argument falls apart.
Your example for until is not a very good one given the ambiguity of talk of ages in Greek. Indeed, some versions do not say until but "even to" which has a slightly different connotation. Do you have another example?
No, the
range can't be limited to children of the same mother, but that is a specific meaning of the word. Range is constituted of several distinct meanings. Indeed, we can have ambiguity because of range, but "children by a shared parent" is a specific meaning which is used throughout scripture, and is distinct given context.
Let me quote a word study outline of adelphos:
1) a brother, whether born of the same two parents or only of the same father or mother
2) having the same national ancestor, belonging to the same people, or countryman
3) any fellow or man
4) a fellow believer, united to another by the bond of affection
5) an associate in employment or office
6) brethren in Christ
a) his brothers by blood
b) all men
c) apostles
d) Christians, as those who are exalted to the same heavenly place
Both Thayer's (which you can see here - http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G80&t=kjv ) and Bauer's Lexicons are very clear that adelphos in several passages are about siblings of Christ from Mary.
Indeed, in Luke 2:7 (And she gave birth to her
firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.), Thayer's holds that instead of huion prototokon, had Mary had no subsequent children, the phrase huion monogene would have been used. (That is, only begotten/unique son versus firstborn.) Added to the distinction between Jesus' brethren (James for instance) and His apostles, the case becomes clearly in favor of the Protestant view.
To continue to say things, then, like "The context is clear" is circular argument, and invalid.
No, range is not the concern here.
Sorry, show me where it's been demonstrated that I've been wrong here. And if it were the case that I have been so shown to be wrong, it still is a non sequitor to assert that, on the basis of being wrong here, I'm wrong anywhere else.
But I'm not surprised that you would commit logical fallacies with such dogged regularity. Your posts are full of them.
Follow me closely so I don't lose you a third time: if you are writing about the same subject, probably with the same arguments, in two different places, and you are wrong here, then you are likewise wrong there.
How much time will you spend in Purgatory for calling me a fool?... Just a caution.
If the good works aren't of our own, then whose are they? If they aren't ours, then how can we claim to be obedient to the will of God (to do good works)? If we aren't obedient to the will of God, how can we claim to be saved?
When I said aren't of our own, I was referring to their preparation: that is, God prepared them beforehand. Good works are synergistic. Clear now?
Yes, dead men can choose life. Certainly God's grace has made that possible for all men (cf. Hebrews 2 and Romans 5), but it is still a fact that people choose to accept Christ all the time.
But those people aren't dead anymore... That's the problem.
I must've missed (sincerely) where you responded to the Trent 6.3 doctrine. I believe I quoted it here. Again, do you agree with this Catholic doctrine?
Council of Trent, Session VI, CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.
: kensington Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore... When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it. Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.
I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations. But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe. How do I know... Cause I used to be one. Same principle.
I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break. Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.
But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation.
Oh please.....
Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed? Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature. If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own! You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!
Talk about dumb.....lol
With your quip about FOX you have committed a fallacy. Because something is biased does not mean it is wrong or inaccurate as a source.
Nor does it guarantee that the information will be free from a slant on the facts. FOX News is very open about providing us all with a conservative slant on the news, therefore it is wise to recognize that conservative facts will be supported and not challenged, while liberal facts will be challenged and exploited whenever possible. So if you want to feel good / supported in your conservative viewpoint, while having the opportunity to belittle liberal ideas - FOX News is probably a good choice. Same thing goes for NPR - if you want to feel supported in your progressive view of the environment, while receiving a nonsupportive viewpoint on the current administration - NPR is a good place to turn. Both report the facts - neither are 'fair and balanced'.
Would I want to learn about environmentalism from FOX News - only if I was interested in learning about the conservative point of view on the issue.
Peter has a wife. lol
Umm, last time I checked, Peter went to be with the Lord about 2,000 years ago......
Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
I think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."
Funny.....you sound just like Calvin - he also believed he was the only Christian in 1500 years to ever view scripture in context - how arrogant is that?!- lol
The fact is, everything from God is grace. Our faith, our works, our salvation is all from God and therefore the result of His grace alone. Nothing we do is apart from God's grace - unless we deny His grace and live in arrogance; but, even in this case we are only fooling ourselves - pretending that we can achieve righteousness apart from Him. Protestants love to claim that Catholics rely on their own righteousness to gain salvation - WRONG! Catholics believe that all of our faith and all of our works are a result of Grace and we are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace.
It is only semantics that lead people to set up the idea that faith cames first and then works - frankly, it doesn't matter - as long as your recognize that all of your faith and all of your works are God's grace.
Luther got all uptight about this idea because he was so neurotic about working for his salvation (without faith, I might add) that his own, Medieval abbot told him to loosen up! Instead, following the teachings of his own church, he mistook his own misunderstand of 'works alone' with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The only thing left for him to do was to claim that 'faith alone' is the only way for us to be saved - when in fact grace (faith + works in Christ) is the only way to salvation.
blessings
: ravenlorre Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 23:21:12
: kensington Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore... When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it. Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.
I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations. But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe. How do I know... Cause I used to be one. Same principle.
I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break. Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.
But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation.
Oh please.....
Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed? Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature. If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own! You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!
Talk about dumb.....lol
Not at all... there are many many protestants who have left the catholic church and remained in suportive fellowship to what they teach and believe. They have a far less slanted view of the religion that someone who just follows it blindly to their own destruction. Or even someone who has followed it faithfully and never experienced anything else. They don't know the difference in what they believe and may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said. Which is it...
: kensington Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 01:07:07
: ravenlorre Sun Apr 06, 2008 - 23:21:12
: kensington Thu Apr 03, 2008 - 05:02:27
ravenlore... When I want to know about Catholicism, I ask a protestant who left it. Why... they have seen it for what it really is, and if they left it, they probably have a very good reason.
I was raised in a family of Democrats for generations. But, I watch fox news... and they are ACCURATE to the letter of what Dems are up to and what they believe. How do I know... Cause I used to be one. Same principle.
I am not going to a Catholic to be brainwashed. Give me a break. Of course they aren't going to have a Protestant slant... what a dumb remark.
But, I do find humorous The remark you made about "a marked increase in anti-catholic sentiment on this board"... considering the remark you made about my SAVED husband's salvation.
Oh please.....
Since when is going to the source in order to learn, the same as being brainwashed? Scientists don't consult witches to learn about the material world - they research scientific literature. If you really want to bolster your own point of view without challenge, by all means continue to consult people who have left a former tradition for your own! You are almost guaranteed to learn a distorted, misguided, uneducated version; at least you can feel confident in your belief system!
Talk about dumb.....lol
Not at all... there are many many protestants who have left the catholic church and remained in suportive fellowship to what they teach and believe. They have a far less slanted view of the religion that someone who just follows it blindly to their own destruction. Or even someone who has followed it faithfully and never experienced anything else. They don't know the difference in what they believe and may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said. Which is it...
So, are these my only choices? Catholics who have left the Catholic Church to become Christians or brainwashed followers of the Catholic Church who are incapable of original thought?
Where do I fit in to that equation?
BTW, since you have been such a stickler on demanding that people provide quotes - why not provide one for Pope John Paul II, the Great? After all, it is important to give the illusion of competency when you are trying to words in someones mouth.
Of course... absolutely, whatever I can do to help you find your way ravenlore.... here you go...
From Vatican II...
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Quote from: Lumen Gentium
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
I would like to thank Broach who posted this.
: kensington Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 01:36:26
Of course... absolutely, whatever I can do to help you find your way ravenlore.... here you go...
From Vatican II...
DOGMATIC CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
LUMEN GENTIUM
SOLEMNLY PROMULGATED BY HIS HOLINESS
POPE PAUL VI
ON NOVEMBER 21, 1964
Quote from: Lumen Gentium
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ's disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
Here is the link if you want to read the document in its entirety...
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
I would like to thank Broach who posted this.
So where is the part about not being Christian? The Pope is talking about praying for the Body of Christ, which is presently fractured to be reunited. The Pope described in detail all of the reasons people outside the Church can still be referred to as Christian - I am really at a loss how you can read into his statement that people outside the Catholic Church are not Christian!
Pope John Paul II wanted reconciliation with the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant Church - that was his biggest desire!
BTW - how can you be so angry about what a Church, you don't even believe to be Christian, thinks about your faith in Christ?? And why are you so offended that Catholics reject Protestants as Christian (your belief, not mine or the Catholic Church), but have no problem rejecting us?
Why don't you go back and READ exactly what I said ... and stop jumping to conclusions about what it is you think I said.
Read it again. SLOWLY... very slowly. That might help. Thanks.
: kensington Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 02:02:19
Why don't you go back and READ exactly what I said ... and stop jumping to conclusions about what it is you think I said.
Read it again. SLOWLY... very slowly. That might help. Thanks.
Ah ok - well since you asking so condescendingly,
They don't know the difference in what they believe and may not be. Unless of course, the church has been teaching them that everything not of the Catholic church and those "other" brethern are not part of Jesus, as Pope John Paul said. Which is it...
Unless of course the church (Catholic Church) has been teaching them (the brainwashed Catholics) that those other brethren (Eastern Orthodox) are not apart of Jesus (part of the Body of Christ).
Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion.
If you want to be offended that the Pope follows the Bible's teaching that there is only one Body and your Church is currently fracture from it - knock yourself out. The Pope certainly has a much more gracious attitude for recognizing that Protestants and EO teach the truth, then Protestants who believe the Catholic Church teaches falsehood that hinder their members from being Christian.
I never said I was offended by what the Pope said. That is another misconception you have all on your own.
If you go back and read what I said to the original post by broach, you will see that.
It's in the "Eucharist" topic. Please, by all means, feel free to look it up. ::tippinghat::
: kensington Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 02:56:06
I never said I was offended by what the Pope said. That is another misconception you have all on your own.
If you go back and read what I said to the original post by broach, you will see that.
It's in the "Eucharist" topic. Please, by all means, feel free to look it up. ::tippinghat::
No - I am done.
Whatever.
Greetings,
I think this is all quite simple really...
The Reformed and the Orthodox (some people have the impression that 'CDHealy' is some manner of Catholic) have vastly different of what Jesus did on the cross, what salvation is, how it 'works' (pardon the pun, and, differences over, maybe who over Jesus was (is) (in a Christological sense), etc.
Arguing over verses and interpretations of verses rarely solves anything, since the Reformed and the Orthodox have such distinctive ways of reading them.
The Reformed will accuse the non-Reformed of making St. James contradict St. Paul, the non-Reformed, in turn, will say the the Reformed interpretation of St. Paul (the interpretation which is used as an interpretative lens for the rest of the Canon of Scripture, especially on matters related to salvation, justification, etc) is completely wrong-headed, myopic, etc.
"What we've got here is a failure to communicate."
CDHealy: I would suggest **trying** to better understand where the Reformed are coming from... trying to speak to them using their language, coming from their methodology (as best you can). It is clear, to me at least, that they aren't getting you at all. Orthodox soteriology is very alien to Reformed soteriology. I have come to the conclusion that if one accepts certain 'incarnations' (pardon the pun) of Orthodox Christology and soteriology... well... their opinion of Reformed Christology and soteriology would be very low (insufficient at best - wildly heretical and non-Christian at worst)... and, probably vice versa... so... give it a shot, eh?
Everyone else: It's clear to me that most of you have very little or no understanding of Orthodox theology. It's not very much like Reformed theology at all, but people have believed in it for centuries before Calvin or Beza were born... right or wrong I think it deserves to be looked at on it's own terms...
Take care!
Cearnaigh
Ravenlorre.
You wrote:
"Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion."
So far as I know, the late pontiff regards the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church. For the Catholic the Orthodox actually have "churches" since they have a valid priesthood via apostolic succession, hence they have valid sacraments... the Orthodox, for the late pontiff, actually have "Churches," are part of the Catholic Church, though the communion is strained... fractured in a sense... Some Orthodox agree with the late pontiff, some don't....
Protestants, on the other hand, don't have Churches, as JPII saw things... they are regarded as 'ecclesial communities.'
For most Catholics... all who are baptized into Christ are 'in the Church,' in one sense or another, but the Catholic view of Orthodoxy is vastly different from the Catholic view of Protestantism, IMHO.
Be well!
Cearnaigh
: Cearnaigh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 11:27:53
Ravenlorre.
You wrote:
"Pope John Paul recognizes that the Reformers and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not part of the Catholic Church, yet they are still Christians because their teachings still contain the truth of the gospel, but not in completion."
So far as I know, the late pontiff regards the Orthodox as part of the Catholic Church. For the Catholic the Orthodox actually have "churches" since they have a valid priesthood via apostolic succession, hence they have valid sacraments... the Orthodox, for the late pontiff, actually have "Churches," are part of the Catholic Church, though the communion is strained... fractured in a sense... Some Orthodox agree with the late pontiff, some don't....
Protestants, on the other hand, don't have Churches, as JPII saw things... they are regarded as 'ecclesial communities.'
For most Catholics... all who are baptized into Christ are 'in the Church,' in one sense or another, but the Catholic view of Orthodoxy is vastly different from the Catholic view of Protestantism, IMHO.
Be well!
Cearnaigh
Your comments have really added to the conversation - I appreciate them very much. I agree with you that JPII did view Orthodox and Anglican churches differently from the majority of Protestantism; the conversation I was having with K failed to communicate that - thanks for pointing it out.
I am not sure anything I wrote was received, but I did my best.
blessings
: Cearnaigh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 11:17:41CDHealy: I would suggest **trying** to better understand where the Reformed are coming from... trying to speak to them using their language, coming from their methodology (as best you can). It is clear, to me at least, that they aren't getting you at all. Orthodox soteriology is very alien to Reformed soteriology. I have come to the conclusion that if one accepts certain 'incarnations' (pardon the pun) of Orthodox Christology and soteriology... well... their opinion of Reformed Christology and soteriology would be very low (insufficient at best - wildly heretical and non-Christian at worst)... and, probably vice versa... so... give it a shot, eh?
I'm not sure the assumption that I've failed to understand them is correct, at least insofar as its predicated upon an unwillingness to utilize their terminology.
Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation. Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put. I have done what I think is at least an adequate job of defining my terms. If there's lack of clarity, perhaps its on the part of the Reformed who are not only failing to define their terms, but are question begging by failing to substantiate such definitions.
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
CDHealy,
I don't think it be the case that you lack a certain understanding of Reformed theology, actually, I think you probably have a decent grasp of it. I guess what I meant by 'understanding where they [re: the Reformed] are coming from,' is more about your using terms and concepts that they would be more familiar with and 'translating' your Orthodox theology into something they could more easily 'get.' That's all... honest! :)
You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation. Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."
I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.
I think the person who posted after you has the right idea. He is asking for definitions of 'justification.' That's a good place to start...
Let's say that when they see you use justification, but they are understanding 'justification' to mean 'being forensically declared righteous before God (though inwardly still wicked - there is no 'subjective change') by merit of the righteous of the penal substitute (Christ) whose righteousness has been imputed to the 'account' of the individual and elect (by grace) sinner whose election was decreed from eternity past by a Divine decree based on nothing but God's good pleasure." If they understand the term that way and then see the rest of how you present salvation (works, etc)... of course they are going to be confused, even say you are preaching another Gospel.
They don't see Jesus has having redeemed the created order... as having triumphed over sin, death, and the Devil... as the One who became man so that men could become gods.... all of this is alien to them. Try to define your terms and express your Orthodox theology in a way that you think they might have a better chance of understanding it.
IC XC
Cearnaigh
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
Baptism
: Cearnaigh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:17:51
CDHealy,
I don't think it be the case that you lack a certain understanding of Reformed theology, actually, I think you probably have a decent grasp of it. I guess what I meant by 'understanding where they [re: the Reformed] are coming from,' is more about your using terms and concepts that they would be more familiar with and 'translating' your Orthodox theology into something they could more easily 'get.' That's all... honest! :)
You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation. Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."
I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.
I think the person who posted after you has the right idea. He is asking for definitions of 'justification.' That's a good place to start...
Let's say that when they see you use justification, but they are understanding 'justification' to mean 'being forensically declared righteous before God (though inwardly still wicked - there is no 'subjective change') by merit of the righteous of the penal substitute (Christ) whose righteousness has been imputed to the 'account' of the individual and elect (by grace) sinner whose election was decreed from eternity past by a Divine decree based on nothing but God's good pleasure." If they understand the term that way and then see the rest of how you present salvation (works, etc)... of course they are going to be confused, even say you are preaching another Gospel.
They don't see Jesus has having redeemed the created order... as having triumphed over sin, death, and the Devil... as the One who became man so that men could become gods.... all of this is alien to them. Try to define your terms and express your Orthodox theology in a way that you think they might have a better chance of understanding it.
IC XC
Cearnaigh
You are one of the most reasonable and clear thinking persons I have ever encountered online - thank you for your insight. I have a lot to learn from you.
: ravenlorre
Peter has a wife. lol
Umm, last time I checked, Peter went to be with the Lord about 2,000 years ago......
Matthew 22:30
At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.
Yeah, thanks for the update, but that wasn't the point. If Peter was the first Pope, and if Pope's are forbidden to marry, why do you consider him Papal when he had a wife in this life?
I think all Catholics, or at least those who defend their theology here, should wear signs around there necks proclaiming, "I do not acknowledge the meaning context has on scripture."
Funny.....you sound just like Calvin - he also believed he was the only Christian in 1500 years to ever view scripture in context - how arrogant is that?!- lol
I missed the refutation...
The fact is, everything from God is grace. Our faith, our works, our salvation is all from God and therefore the result of His grace alone. Nothing we do is apart from God's grace - unless we deny His grace and live in arrogance; but, even in this case we are only fooling ourselves - pretending that we can achieve righteousness apart from Him. Protestants love to claim that Catholics rely on their own righteousness to gain salvation - WRONG! Catholics believe that all of our faith and all of our works are a result of Grace and we are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace.
Woah...I thought you were Catholic...
Luther got all uptight about this idea because he was so neurotic about working for his salvation (without faith, I might add) that his own, Medieval abbot told him to loosen up! Instead, following the teachings of his own church, he mistook his own misunderstand of 'works alone' with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The only thing left for him to do was to claim that 'faith alone' is the only way for us to be saved - when in fact grace (faith + works in Christ) is the only way to salvation.
Refuted Luther doesn't challenge anything I've said. Like I wrote before, faith is not without works. We are saved by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone.
we are called to participate in a saving relationship with Jesus based on that faith and works supplied by His Grace
That's the key. Works are an integral part of faith, but in no way contribute to our salvation.
Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified.
And of course, the classic Ephesians 2: "8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."
Saved by a single sacrifice; and saved not as a result of works.
Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language. No one has seemed to notice this assertion. Would you care to take a look?
Ek Pyros,
I wanted to make a few comments about what you've said here...
You wrote:
"Yeah, thanks for the update, but that wasn't the point. If Peter was the first Pope, and if Pope's are forbidden to marry, why do you consider him Papal when he had a wife in this life?"
Clerical celibacy is not a not a doctrine or 'de fide' dogma professed by the Catholic Church. It has been something practiced in the Latin rite for the last 1000 years or so, but this is not a practice in all of the Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.
You wrote:
"That's the key. Works are an integral part of faith, but in no way contribute to our salvation."
Concentrate on defining your terms and showing your reasoning for this assertion utilizing the Holy Writ.
You wrote:
"Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."
Not one informed Catholic or Orthodox Christian is going to be unaware of this passage, but they certainly don't see it in the same way you do. Try to find out the specific differences and then do some comparison and contrasting of the views. What is different about them? What is the same? Etc.
Don't forget Ephesians 2:10... ;)
You wrote:
"Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language. No one has seemed to notice this assertion. Would you care to take a look?"
I think that you need to show this to be the case... so far as I can tell you have not shown this.
You probably also need to show that James is using "justified" in a manner distinct from the manner in which Paul is using this since it seems to be integral to your argument. Quoting a Reformed commentary that says so won't sway many a Catholic/Orthodox person... just a word to the wise...
I am on my way out so I had to make my comments rather quickly.
I hope you are well.
Cearnaigh
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
Baptism
::sigh::
Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?
Thank you for your comments Cearnaigh. I confess that most of my posts concerning Catholicism are not as thorough as they ought to be. Perhaps this is because I consider it to be a) a lost case, and b) obviously errant.
Clerical celibacy is not a not a doctrine or 'de fide' dogma professed by the Catholic Church. It has been something practiced in the Latin rite for the last 1000 years or so, but this is not a practice in all of the Churches in communion with the Pope of Rome.
This is not something I was aware of. Thank you.
Since you seem to have some knowledge on the subject, do you know whether the dogma against meats on Friday is similar?
"Hebrews 10:10By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, 13waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET. 14For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified."
Not one informed Catholic or Orthodox Christian is going to be unaware of this passage, but they certainly don't see it in the same way you do. Try to find out the specific differences and then do some comparison and contrasting of the views. What is different about them? What is the same? Etc.
Perhaps I should ask for the Catholic interpretation of this passage then. I see it as a twofold refutation: against works in general for salvation, and against sacrificial eucharist.
Right, Eph. 2:10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
What is the point of these good works? Certainly they are redundant if they amount to salvation in Christ. How can we work to be saved, but have these works were prepared for us when we are in Christ?
You wrote:
"Like I've said before, the key is that justification - which is what James talks about with regards to works - has two distinct meanings in Biblical language. No one has seemed to notice this assertion. Would you care to take a look?"
I think that you need to show this to be the case... so far as I can tell you have not shown this.
You're correct. Does anyone see this as worthwhile? I'll outline it when I get back to my room.
You probably also need to show that James is using "justified" in a manner distinct from the manner in which Paul is using this since it seems to be integral to your argument. Quoting a Reformed commentary that says so won't sway many a Catholic/Orthodox person... just a word to the wise...
Actually, what I was more suggesting is that salvation is not to be taken in the same light as James' justification. And no, no Reformed commentaries. Obviously they wouldn't get through.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
Baptism
::sigh::
Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?
LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....
: Cearnaigh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:17:51You wrote:
"Indeed, that is precisely the issue: equivocation. Justification, works, faith and so on are all defined differently (even contradictorily) between us, yet these are precisely the questions being put."
I think that if I were an Orthodox Christian reading how they were using the terminology, I would probably say the same thing (re: equivocation), but... As you know, these terms are **not** contradictory **within** their system.
Actually, I was referring to the definitions of Orthodox and Reformed being in many ways contradictory to eacg other, and not referring to internal contradiction per se.
That said, I do believe Reformed theology is self-contradictory, particularly since its theological view is one of absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity. But that's another thread.
Ek Pyros,
I have a little more time to interact with you in this post... let's hope I can give you some worthwhile ideas...
You wrote:
"Thank you for your comments Cearnaigh. I confess that most of my posts concerning Catholicism are not as thorough as they ought to be. Perhaps this is because I consider it to be a) a lost case, and b) obviously errant."
You're welcome!
Yes, I see what you are saying, but... if you are going to be arguing as an apologist (be it contra Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Scientology even), it's better to know exactly how and why said theology/philosophy is deficient. If your critiques of a religion to a practitioner of that religion are full of errors and (or) half-truths they are going to have a low view (and rightly so) of your understanding of their (what you call) "errors." They may think, "How can he call my religion a 'lost cause' if he doesn't even understand it?" And that would be a fair question for, for instance, a Catholic to ask after having read what you wrote about Peter and his wife. ;)
That's just a word to the wise... ;)
You wrote:
"Since you seem to have some knowledge on the subject, do you know whether the dogma against meats on Friday is similar?"
Sure. I will be glad to be of help in any way I can.
I would not classify the abstaining from meats on Fridays during Lent as a "dogma" of the Catholic Church, but, as an example of what is called the "law of abstinence." It is the deprivation of a certain thing for a spiritual good. The reasoning behind fasting is similar for obvious reasons... :)
So, yes, there is a certain aspect of similarity between the celibate priesthood (in the Latin rite only) and the ordinance about abstaining from eating meat on the Fridays during Lent (although not required, it is recommended that a Catholic abstain from meat eating on all Fridays), in that both are non-dogmatic ordinances that good Catholics are required to follow, but not "de fide dogmas" of the Catholic Church. Ordinances can change... dogmas cannot.
You wrote (in reference to Hebrews 10:10-14):
"Perhaps I should ask for the Catholic interpretation of this passage then. I see it as a twofold refutation: against works in general for salvation, and against sacrificial eucharist."
Perhaps, although I think you'll find that the chap you are dealing with (CDHealy) is an Orthodox Christian, and not Catholic. :)
Seriously though, I think it would be good to ask for CDHealy's understanding of this passage. I am almost *certain* that he can read the same words and not see in them what you say you see so clearly.
I have to say that I see nothing against the Catholic (nor against the Orthodox, for that matter) idea of how works are related to final salvation (terminology you should familiarize yourself with in your studies) in the passage itself. I also have to admit the what you see as an argument against the Eucharistic "Sacrifice" (or "Holy Oblation," if our Orthodox friend prefer) is based on how you are understanding the "once and for all" offering that Christ made relates to your conception of justification. Remember that Catholics and Orthodox *do not* understand justification in the same way that you do, so they aren't going to see what you see as problematic/contradictory aspects of the "offering" as it relates to justification via grace alone, though faith alone by vehicle of the imputed righteousness of Christ to the elect sinner, etc... You get the point. :)
The Catholic or Orthodox person reading these passages will agree that Jesus sacrifice was a "once and for all" sacrifice, but they will disagree with how that sacrifice was (is - a key point) applied. For instance, they will agree that the "we are" and "sanctified" (v. 10) are present tense verbs in the Greek, that "we" (Christians) *are indeed* sanctified (presently) by Jesus "cross-work." But *how* were are sanctified by that work, how it was applied... there is where you need to do a bit of study so that you can better compare and contrast the understandings of those things. They would agree with you that He has perfected "for all time" those who are sanctified (as the verse clearly says), but the real disagreement is **how** that action is applied.
Another point would be to look at the history, for instance, of how justification has been understood from the dawn of Christianity until the present day. I would also recommend taking a look to see if the Eucharist has been understood as a sacrifice in the past. Since when? How could the ECFs have read that passage in Hebrews you quoted and still call it a "sacrifice." Only when you understand these things more comprehensively can you really critique them. :)
You asked:
"You're correct. Does anyone see this as worthwhile? I'll outline it when I get back to my room."
Yes, I see this as worthwhile. :)
You wrote:
"Actually, what I was more suggesting is that salvation is not to be taken in the same light as James' justification. And no, no Reformed commentaries. Obviously they wouldn't get through."
Right. I think the "trick" is to show that James is using justification in a different manner than is Paul. Remember that you will be pushed on the point that they both mention Abraham. :) You must learn why that is important... why you might be pressed on that point.
I wish you the best of luck as you mull these things over.
Blessings,
Cearnaigh
CDHealy,
Thanks for clarifying, continuing the discussion... :)
You wrote:
"Actually, I was referring to the definitions of Orthodox and Reformed being in many ways contradictory to eacg other, and not referring to internal contradiction per se."
Gotcha! Again, thanks for the clarification!
You wrote:
"That said, I do believe Reformed theology is self-contradictory, particularly since its theological view is one of absolute (or definitional) divine simplicity. But that's another thread."
You believe Reformed theology to be self-contradictory in what way(s) - apart from your charge about 'absolute divine simplicity' (and, surely, soon to be related to the energies-essence controversy and an exposition on the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas - which really are for another thread - and really are things I don't have unlimited time to get into)?? :)
Am I to assume that something about the self-contradictory nature of Sola Scriptura is soon to follow...? ;)
I hope you are well!
Blessings,
Cearnaigh
Cearnaigh:
Yes to both of the last.
But their monergistic soteriology is also problematic.
CDHealy,
Thanks for the discussion thus far...
"Yes to both of the last. But their monergistic soteriology is also problematic.
Ok. Can you go into (a bit) why you find their monergistic soteriology to be problematic?
Thanks,
Cearnaigh
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 18:33:30
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
Baptism
::sigh::
Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?
LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....
Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.
You can lead a horse to water...
(I'm interested in how Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.)
Alright, here goes:
Romans 3:23 - For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
James 2:24 - You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Ephesians 2 probably applies, but let's keep it specific.
Perhaps you would argue, "Paul is only referring to works of the Law, not the same works as James." Well, if that is a question you have, tell me what good work doesn't fall under Levicitus 19:18b (you shall love your neighbor as yourself)?
Alright, so it would appear that if justify is being used in the same way by both authors we would have a contradiction. The former says faith apart from works, while the latter says works and not by faith alone. So what about the example of Abraham? Well, in Paul's Romans (chapter 4), Abraham is justified before circumcision (i.e., Genesis 15). But James has him justified when he offers up Isaac; apparently not justified until Genesis 22.
The discrepancy dissolves (or resolves itself, if you will) when we understand the two meanings of "justify" in the Bible. Borrowing from R.C. Sproul (don't worry, the commentary will be expounded fully):
The term justify may mean 1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of His law or 2) to demonstrate or to vindicate.
Let's look at some evidence of this. When Jesus says in Luke 7:35, "Wisdom is justified of all her children," does He mean that "wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from His wrath"? No. Merely that wisdom is demonstrated or vindicated by her produce. How do we spot wisdom? By its result. Likewise, how do we spot faith? By its works (cf. James 2:17-18).
In Romans 3, Paul's use of justification is clear: he means it in the "ultimate theological sense." But why do we differentiate between Paul's use and James'? Besides the fact that to not do so would present a clear contradiction, we are right to do this because James has a different focus. He establishes this in verse 14 (What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?). The point he makes in chapter 2 is that faith without works is dead, and thus, not real faith at all. It is not that works contribute to justification (as in, salvation), but that they justify faith. There is no such thing as faith without works; genuine faith produces or involves good works. What kind of faith is needed for salvation? Faith alone (Paul). And how is faith evidenced? What is true faith? Faith justified by works (James). The claim to faith is justified--vindicated--when manifested by the fruit (works). This is why James calls Abraham justified by his works. That is, his faith--Genesis 15--is vindicated by his works--Genesis 22.
James 2:22You see that faith was working with [Abraham's] works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.
This is really why you (CDHealy) can give me no answer (as far as scripture goes) as to how much work one must perform to achieve heaven: works are justification (vindication) of faith, not one's status redemptionwise. It is the faith that saves, but there is no such thing as faith without works.
Hopefully this has been clear and intelligible.
Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 15:48:18
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 18:33:30
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 17:52:57
: ravenlorre Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 16:25:32
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Mon Apr 07, 2008 - 14:34:44
Everyone:
Define "justification" in 30 words or less.
Jarrod
Baptism
::sigh::
Any chance of you using a word that isn't loaded, and defined differently by everyone to define the other loaded word that's getting defined differently?
LOL - I thought the only parameters were 30 words or less....
Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.
You can lead a horse to water...
But, you can't make him get baptized. ::crackup::
: DCR Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 21:39:05
: Wycliffes_Shillelagh Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 15:48:18
Just trying to cut to the heart of the matter.
You can lead a horse to water...
But, you can't make him get baptized. ::crackup::
I baptize you!!!(http://www.funtalking.com/images/nacho_jack2.jpg)
: EKJustification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
This better not be copy righted I'm using it.
FTL
: Ek Pyros Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 17:51:31
(I'm interested in how Sola Scriptura is self-contradictory.)
Scripture nowhere teaches us, nor gives us an example, nor commands us to rely on Scripture alone.
In fact, more to the point, we are commanded to follow the tradition that has been given to us--which includes the Scripture.
: Ek Pyros Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 17:51:31Alright, so it would appear that if justify is being used in the same way by both authors we would have a contradiction. The former says faith apart from works, while the latter says works and not by faith alone. So what about the example of Abraham? Well, in Paul's Romans (chapter 4), Abraham is justified before circumcision (i.e., Genesis 15). But James has him justified when he offers up Isaac; apparently not justified until Genesis 22.
The discrepancy dissolves (or resolves itself, if you will) when we understand the two meanings of "justify" in the Bible. Borrowing from R.C. Sproul (don't worry, the commentary will be expounded fully):The term justify may mean 1) to restore to a state of reconciliation with God those who stand under the judgment of His law or 2) to demonstrate or to vindicate.
Let's look at some evidence of this. When Jesus says in Luke 7:35, "Wisdom is justified of all her children," does He mean that "wisdom is restored to fellowship with God and saved from His wrath"? No. Merely that wisdom is demonstrated or vindicated by her produce. How do we spot wisdom? By its result. Likewise, how do we spot faith? By its works (cf. James 2:17-18).
In Romans 3, Paul's use of justification is clear: he means it in the "ultimate theological sense." But why do we differentiate between Paul's use and James'? Besides the fact that to not do so would present a clear contradiction, we are right to do this because James has a different focus. He establishes this in verse 14 (What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?). The point he makes in chapter 2 is that faith without works is dead, and thus, not real faith at all. It is not that works contribute to justification (as in, salvation), but that they justify faith. There is no such thing as faith without works; genuine faith produces or involves good works. What kind of faith is needed for salvation? Faith alone (Paul). And how is faith evidenced? What is true faith? Faith justified by works (James). The claim to faith is justified--vindicated--when manifested by the fruit (works). This is why James calls Abraham justified by his works. That is, his faith--Genesis 15--is vindicated by his works--Genesis 22.
James 2:22You see that faith was working with [Abraham's] works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected.
Nope, you're off base here Fire. It's not an equivocation of justification we need to examine, but two types of works. You're close, but no cigar.
: Ek Pyros Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 17:51:31This is really why you (CDHealy) can give me no answer (as far as scripture goes) as to how much work one must perform to achieve heaven: works are justification (vindication) of faith, not one's status redemptionwise. It is the faith that saves, but there is no such thing as faith without works.
Nope. There is no contradiction whatsoever in my understanding of biblical justification. See above.
It's unfortunate that the RC Catholic church has invented it's own tradition over the centuries instead of holding fast to the tradition of the original apostles.
If they had held fast, your argument might hold weight... but since the catholic church so miserably failed in its duty to shepard the gospel and the meaning of the original apostles.. where is any sane christian to turn to?
Well, with a start like that, Tantor, I can see the beginnings of a bunch of open and respectful dialogue.
(Careful, your closedmindedness is showing.)
: CDHealy Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 11:49:02
Well, with a start like that, Tantor, I can see the beginnings of a bunch of open and respectful dialogue.
(Careful, your closedmindedness is showing.)
I would require a personal apology from the pope before I would desire to talk about the catholic religion.
QED
: CDHealy Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 11:49:02
Well, with a start like that, Tantor, I can see the beginnings of a bunch of open and respectful dialogue.
(Careful, your closedmindedness is showing.)
Yea, Tantor is not the easiest person to talk to on these matters...
Why?.. because I tell it like it is and dont really care if I offend?
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 12:23:50
I would require a personal apology from the pope before I would desire to talk about the catholic religion.
You must be kidding....and why should the Pope apologize to you?
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 13:14:47
Why?.. because I tell it like it is and dont really care if I offend?
No....
You aleady have your mind made up on a few things. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Your hatred of the Cathloic faith saturates your very being. You simply cannot talk to someone like that. But that is ok...I am sure you are a nice guy.
: broach972 Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 13:17:16
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 13:14:47
Why?.. because I tell it like it is and dont really care if I offend?
No....
You aleady have your mind made up on a few things. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Your hatred of the Cathloic faith saturates your very being. You simply cannot talk to someone like that. But that is ok...I am sure you are a nice guy.
I dont really hate Catholic's anymore then say, Hindu's, Budists, Shintoists, Islamists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, etc... they all need the blood of Jesus Christ to be saved. Catholic's are lost just like all he other false religions of the world.
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 13:14:47
Why?.. because I tell it like it is and dont really care if I offend?
Well, it's clear you don't care that you offend and hate.
But you are manifestly not telling it like it is but offering lies and deceptions. An honest Christian who is unafraid of the truth would not do that.
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 13:30:31Catholic's are lost just like all he other false religions of the world.
Especially the hate-filled ones.
It's not hate... the scriptures tell us to stay away from those that teach false doctrine.. I'm just abiding by what Jesus and the Apostles told us to do.
Hey, rationalize it anyway you want to. If you spread false and deceptive accusations and refuse to honestly listen to those you disagree with, well if it ain't love, it's hate.
Oh, and of course, you have no proof that it's false doctrine. At best, it's just that you disagree with it. But then it's your interpretation you have to justify.
My proof would come from Jesus and the disciples OWN words.. which you do not hold in high esteem. So a discussion would be fruitless, since you believe all sorts of added on traditions of men. i.e. the eucharist, priests, praying to saints, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.
In the end its fruitless, because I believe what I can read, while you believe what you have been told to believe.
: Tantor Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 14:47:23
My proof would come from Jesus and the disciples OWN words.. which you do not hold in high esteem. So a discussion would be fruitless, since you believe all sorts of added on traditions of men. i.e. the eucharist, priests, praying to saints, perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.
In the end its fruitless, because I believe what I can read, while you believe what you have been told to believe.
Your utter disrespect and hate are proven by your own words. Words, by the way which are lies and deceptions, and which, then, give some hint of your spiritual ancestry.
You don't know me from Adam, and you clearly have not examined or read anything that I have written, nor explored my blog site linked in my sig line.
When you start acting like a loving disciple of Jesus, perhaps people will listen to you instead of dismissing you for the hatemonger your words prove you to be.
I should have known better than to think these boards would have improved in the last year. These things degenerate, and it definitely has here.
I read some your blog... and it was very hard to keep from physically throwing up... honestly when I read such things I really do come close to being physically ill. (and I am not exagerating).
It's like taking the bible and the pagan religions of old and sticking them in a blender and hitting the puree' button.
: Ek Pyros Tue Apr 08, 2008 - 17:51:31
Justification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
::amen:: When discussing this matter a few years ago, I said the following regarding justification by faith, and the words of James in chapter 2 of his epistle:
: James Rondon Mon Mar 08, 2004 - 12:57:39
As far as the latter part of that passage, someone else once said something of this nature when commenting on James and the matter of faith and works, "We are saved by grace through faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Considering the context of James chapter 2, one might also phrase it like this, "We are saved by grace through faith alone, but the faith that saves is not one of mere profession".
And that faith, of course, being faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. James 2:1).
: Harold Thu Apr 10, 2008 - 11:57:09
: EKJustification is by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
This better not be copy righted I'm using it.
See Martin Luther, et al.
CDHealy - is that all you have to offer? "We're talking about two different types of works." Ok, elaborate, please.
: CDHealyScripture nowhere teaches us, nor gives us an example, nor commands us to rely on Scripture alone.
In fact, more to the point, we are commanded to follow the tradition that has been given to us--which includes the Scripture.
Note Proverbs 30:5Every word of God is tested;
He is a shield to those who take refuge in Him.
6Do not add to His words
Or He will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
: CDHealy Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 14:33:15
Oh, and of course, you have no proof that it's false doctrine.
The BIBLE does that.... and you have not proved that Tantor has hate for anyone, I notice that it is a common tactic of the "Religious" person to accuse those who denounce their religion as hating. That is not so.
You can have disdain for the practices without hating those who blindly follow it. I don't hate any one Catholic... but... the teachings are false for salvation. The praying, the statues, the priests, the Pope, the mass, confession, purgatory ... all contrived of men for control of people. Nothing to do with a free will salvation given as a gift by God.
: kensington Tue Apr 15, 2008 - 17:50:46
: CDHealy Mon Apr 14, 2008 - 14:33:15
Oh, and of course, you have no proof that it's false doctrine.
The BIBLE does that.... and you have not proved that Tantor has hate for anyone, I notice that it is a common tactic of the "Religious" person to accuse those who denounce their religion as hating. That is not so.
You can have disdain for the practices without hating those who blindly follow it. I don't hate any one Catholic... but... the teachings are false for salvation. The praying, the statues, the priests, the Pope, the mass, confession, purgatory ... all contrived of men for control of people. Nothing to do with a free will salvation given as a gift by God.
I've only been here for a couple of days, and in that time period, I have spent most of time reading. Kensington, have you noticed that a lot of people have had a problem with the way you deliver your message? Is that ok with you? You have been corrected many, many times regarding your ignorance associated with Catholicism, yet you persist in your lies and distortions regarding the RCC. I am wondering why?
Kensington is not the only person - just the person that reminds me of Ann Coulter the most. It is sad to me that a board that claims to welcome all people who accept the Nicene Creed, yet allows members to attack people who are not in the Reformed tradition.
I think I have seen enough. Thank you CD and the silent majority of decent Christians that have not chosen to attack.
Please cancel my membership.
Hi Ravenlorre here,
I am also disappointed with the current atmosphere of this site. I have decided to move on. Thanks to all who have made me feel welcome.
blessings
ConsideringCatholicism and ravenlorre,
Sorry that you feel you must leave. In my experience,
some Restoration Movement folk are very anti-
Catholic, so I can understand how you feel.
One of the features of boards is that people speak
honestly and very directly. Don't let it get you down.
Hope you learned some things from the boards here; I have.
In Christ,
trifecta
Good grief... what is this... Considering ... you are going from topic to topic stalking me posting these same , EXACT SAME comments about me. I've not posted to you, I don't know you and you don't know me.
I believe this may be against a rule here. I stated I do not hate Catholics, but I stand up for knowing that the Catholic doctrine is full of much that is false and even wrong by the word of GOD... you accused me of this in a topic I haven't even posted in since September... I have to ask... are you lurking or stalking?
You had to go looking to find posts of mine that far back... this is more than you just stumbling in here and noticing that I am a voice against the doctrines of Catholicism... this is a focused effort directed at me. And now after this 3rd post... I'm reporting it.
: kensington Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 04:48:50
Good grief... what is this... Considering ... you are going from topic to topic stalking me posting these same , EXACT SAME comments about me. I've not posted to you, I don't know you and you don't know me.
I believe this may be against a rule here. I stated I do not hate Catholics, but I stand up for knowing that the Catholic doctrine is full of much that is false and even wrong by the word of GOD... you accused me of this in a topic I haven't even posted in since September... I have to ask... are you lurking or stalking?
You had to go looking to find posts of mine that far back... this is more than you just stumbling in here and noticing that I am a voice against the doctrines of Catholicism... this is a focused effort directed at me. And now after this 3rd post... I'm reporting it.
Kensington
Don't let it get you down, that's how they work.
By anethematizing justification by faith, and requiring additional propitiatory works, Romanism despises the atonement of Christ; far from being a crime it is an obligation to cry out against it.
Ps 119:128
Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.CRP
: Circuitridingpreacher Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 07:47:09
Kensington
Don't let it get you down, that's how they work.
By anethematizing justification by faith, and requiring additional propitiatory works, Romanism despises the atonement of Christ; far from being a crime it is an obligation to cry out against it.
Ps 119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
CRP
Your comments are a disgrace to the faith and frankly demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you are not alone on this. It is comments like these that are forcing people like Ravenlorre to leave. I may not be far behind him.
: broach972 Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 08:17:39
: Circuitridingpreacher Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 07:47:09
Kensington
Don't let it get you down, that's how they work.
By anethematizing justification by faith, and requiring additional propitiatory works, Romanism despises the atonement of Christ; far from being a crime it is an obligation to cry out against it.
Ps 119:128 Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.
CRP
Your comments are a disgrace to the faith and frankly demonstrates your lack of knowledge about the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you are not alone on this. It is comments like these that are forcing people like Ravenlorre to leave. I may not be far behind him.
Actually, the strange thing is that it is your comments that demonstrate your own lack of knowledge about the Catholic faith. You think it might actually save you.
If you hurry, you might be able to catch Ravenlorre...
CRP
I can just feel the love oozing from kensington, 'circuitridingpreacher', and the other anti-Catholic folks.
If that's 'Christian love', I don't want to be a Christian. What lousy examples you all are.
Love the sinner, hate the sin... thats what christian love is all about.
And then there is the issue of dealing with imposters that are twisting your religion seeking inclusion that really gets my goat. We are told to stay away from said individuals... any good christian would do themselves a favor to stay away from the Catholic church as far as humanly possible.
Love has its place, but I dont think that love is to be extended to those that pervert Jesus' teachings.
: don has a plan Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 09:04:08
I can just feel the love oozing from kensington, 'circuitridingpreacher', and the other anti-Catholic folks.
If that's 'Christian love', I don't want to be a Christian. What lousy examples you all are.
You people need to get off Kensington's case, seeing how this new "CC" person singled her out of everyone and attacked her without cause. Kensington has every right to discuss her beliefs and voice her disagreements without having people jump down her throat for doing so.
I personally believe the roman church to have some of the most despicable doctrines to ever blight the teachings of Christendom. And just because I believe that or talk about it doesn't mean I am attacking anyone or acting unchristian. And the comments I see here leveled at Kensington and Circuitridingpreacher are less than I would expect from those counting them not as an enemy but admonishing them as a brother (cf. 2Th 3:15)
[or sister in Kensington's case].
And Don, if you base your relationship to Christ on surrounding people and not on what he has done for you; you are in worse shape than anyone you would cast your judgments at.
Unfortunately for all those protesting their defense of promulgating deception about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, the issue for us Catholics (Roman and Eastern) is not that you all disagree with us. Heck, I'm all about the give and take of disagreements in arguments.
But only so long as the truth is being stated.
The reason we Catholics are outing you all has nothing to do with your disagreement with what the Church has believed always, everywhere and by all, but rather that you deceptively distort and flatout lie about what those teachings are. When we defend ourselves by not only denying and giving rational arguments and evidence supporting our denials, you turn right around, ignore what we've said and still promulgate your deceptions about our teachings. You then, in violation of Christ's prohibition and by use of pseudo-Freudian analysis, go on to insinuate about our motives and that we are either willingly self-deceived (mindless automatons simply accepting without question what we're told--which in my case is absolutely laughable) or willfully deceptive.
This is hateful and unChristian. If you all want to create a haven for bigotry and hatred, go for it. Just don't claim that it's Christian.
: CDHealy Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 11:27:05
Unfortunately for all those protesting their defense of promulgating deception about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, the issue for us Catholics (Roman and Eastern) is not that you all disagree with us. Heck, I'm all about the give and take of disagreements in arguments.
But only so long as the truth is being stated.
The reason we Catholics are outing you all has nothing to do with your disagreement with what the Church has believed always, everywhere and by all, but rather that you deceptively distort and flatout lie about what those teachings are. When we defend ourselves by not only denying and giving rational arguments and evidence supporting our denials, you turn right around, ignore what we've said and still promulgate your deceptions about our teachings. You then, in violation of Christ's prohibition and by use of pseudo-Freudian analysis, go on to insinuate about our motives and that we are either willingly self-deceived (mindless automatons simply accepting without question what we're told--which in my case is absolutely laughable) or willfully deceptive.
This is hateful and unChristian. If you all want to create a haven for bigotry and hatred, go for it. Just don't claim that it's Christian.
Come on Healy,
The catholics here have done the very same things. You can't call everyone that disagrees with the RCC and EO all bigots and hateful because you don't agree with what they are saying. For one its against the rules to call people bigots on the board, and secondly the very same tactics and ploys you accuse the "anti-catholic" of doing are being done by the proponents of your camp. Seriously, you've had some catholic people here banned for their hateful and on one occasion violent remarks.
So don't be a hypocrite and claim that all the protestant are deceptive liars, since then you would be no different.
: CDHealy Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 11:27:05
Unfortunately for all those protesting their defense of promulgating deception about what the Roman Catholic Church teaches, the issue for us Catholics (Roman and Eastern) is not that you all disagree with us. Heck, I'm all about the give and take of disagreements in arguments.
But only so long as the truth is being stated.
The reason we Catholics are outing you all has nothing to do with your disagreement with what the Church has believed always, everywhere and by all, but rather that you deceptively distort and flatout lie about what those teachings are. When we defend ourselves by not only denying and giving rational arguments and evidence supporting our denials, you turn right around, ignore what we've said and still promulgate your deceptions about our teachings. You then, in violation of Christ's prohibition and by use of pseudo-Freudian analysis, go on to insinuate about our motives and that we are either willingly self-deceived (mindless automatons simply accepting without question what we're told--which in my case is absolutely laughable) or willfully deceptive.
This is hateful and unChristian. If you all want to create a haven for bigotry and hatred, go for it. Just don't claim that it's Christian.
Healy
Would you like to be the first Catholic I know to answer the following question in the affirmative?
Do you HAVE
EVERLASTING life?
John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.CRP
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 11:41:04Come on Healy,
The catholics here have done the very same things. You can't call everyone that disagrees with the RCC and EO all bigots and hateful because you don't agree with what they are saying.
How many times do I have to say it? It's not a matter of
mere disagreement. It's a matter of deceptively claiming the Roman Catholic Church teaches and practices things it does not teach or practice, especially in light of evidence and argument that it does not in fact teach and practice what you all are claiming.
And the fact that you continue to construe this as simply we Catholics being tetchy about disagreements--even when I have repeatedly and explicitly denied such a claim--just goes to prove what I'm saying about the anti-Catholic bigotry and hatred.
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 11:41:04For one its against the rules to call people bigots on the board, and secondly the very same tactics and ploys you accuse the "anti-catholic" of doing are being done by the proponents of your camp. Seriously, you've had some catholic people here banned for their hateful and on one occasion violent remarks.
I haven't had anyone banned for anything.
But, if anyone, Catholic or otherwise, makes bigoted and violent remarks, then, yes, they should be banned. Due process should prevail, of course, but once proven, ban 'em.
: Charles Sloan Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 11:41:04So don't be a hypocrite and claim that all the protestant are deceptive liars, since then you would be no different.
Once again you deceptively misconstrue what I've said. I've NOT said that all Protestants are deceptive liars. I've simply said that anti-Catholic bigots come on here and distort and misconstrue Catholic teachings, and when called on it by argument and evidence, don't back off their bigotry and hatred.
The evidence on these boards of such is pervasive.
Don't you support..
1.) An artificial class of celebate priests?
2.) Belief that prayer to inidividuals (dead or alive) other then the trinity is effectual?
3.) Belief that Mary has some sort of role in salvation?
4.) Belief that man can appoint 'saints' that God will abide by.
5.) Belief that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church.
6.) Belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin?
7.) Belief that priests have the power to forgive sins or are some sort of mediator.
8.) Belief that there is some sort of festival or holy day structure that believers are to follow?
9.) Believe that the lords supper is something other then a time of remembrance.
If you believe any of the above we really dont have much to talk about because they are all anti-scriptural and looked at as heresy by the protestant church at large...
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:10
Don't you support..
1.) An artificial class of celebate priests?
It's not artificial--it's straight from the NT--and not all our priests are celibate (note spelling).
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:102.) Belief that prayer to inidividuals (dead or alive) other then the trinity is effectual?
Depends on how you mean "prayer to." No, we do not pray to individuals as we pray to the Holy Trinity.
We DO however ask any Christian, living on earth or in Jesus' presence, for prayers.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:103.) Belief that Mary has some sort of role in salvation?
Didn't she sort of give birth to God the Son? So, yes.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:104.) Belief that man can appoint 'saints' that God will abide by.
No. God makes them saints. We simply recognize that.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:105.) Belief that the Bishop of Rome is the head of the church.
I'm Orthodox, so no--if by "head" you mean universal jurisdictional authority.
Of course, if, as I suppose, you mean "head" in the sense of Christ, then, no, again, only Christ is head of the Church, his Body.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:106.) Belief that Mary is a perpetual virgin?
Of course. I'm on record there. It's the undisputed ancient belief of all Christians.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:107.) Belief that priests have the power to forgive sins or are some sort of mediator.
No. Let me quote from the rite of reconciliation: "O Lord God of the salvation of Your servants, merciful, compassionate and long-suffering; Who repents concerning our evil deeds, not desiring the death of a sinner, but that he should turn from his way and live. Show mercy now on Your servant [name] and grant to him (or her) an image of repentance, forgiveness of sins and deliverance, pardoning all his (or her) sins, whether voluntary or involuntary. Reconcile and unite him (or her) to Your Holy Church, through Jesus Christ our Lord, to Whom, with You, are due dominion and majesty, now and ever and unto ages of ages. Amen.
May our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, by the grace and compassion of His love for mankind, forgive you, my child, [name], all your transgressions. And I His unworthy Priest, through the power given me, forgive and absolve you from all your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen."
Of course, this is nothing more than the fulfillment of Jesus' promise in John 20:23.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:108.) Belief that there is some sort of festival or holy day structure that believers are to follow?
Of course. Just as they did in the NT.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:109.) Believe that the lords supper is something other then a time of remembrance.
Of course, don't you? It's a NT doctrine and practice: see John 6:53-57, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17 and 11:17-34.
: Tantor Wed Apr 16, 2008 - 14:23:10If you believe any of the above we really dont have much to talk about because they are all anti-scriptural and looked at as heresy by the protestant church at large...
Actually, as I've shown, they ARE Scriptural and if the Protestants see them as heresy, well, then the Protestants are anti-Scriptural, aren't they?
CDHealy,
What is the purpose of continually calling people bigoted, hateful, lying, or deceptive; or using other inflammatory remarks about myself or others? Does this somehow gratify your cause, or does it make you feel better to call others names with whom you disagree with and put them down? Or maybe this is what James called your "alarmist rhetoric"...
I figured you for better than such behavior, but once the truth comes out I guess so do the colors.
And just remember Healy, this is all about disagreements. You think your right, and we think you're wrong. Its no more complex than that. You can get all up in arms and claim misrepresentation, deception, lies and propaganda; but this all stems from a difference in beliefs.
::alert::
This is getting out of control. I am locking it until tempers cool.
::alert::