Posted on 11/02/2006 12:44:03 PM PST by Alex Murphy
I agree with the author.
Scott is lost in his own need for recognition , fame and fortune.
He is a mediocre theologian that would be an unknown or openly rejected "scholar" within the protestant community.
Any serious student of the scripture sees his errors and distortions.
But luckily for him he found an audience that is Biblically illiterate .
Anything that tickles their ears is considered worthy.
LOL. Canard?
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." -- Galatians 2:16
And further...
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5 "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
And how does a man receive faith?
Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them." -- Ephesians 2:8-10"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Thus all good works are the result of God's grace, not the cause of it. God is not in our debt. We are in His. Salvation is not earned. It is pure mercy.
Apparently Scott Hahn forgot who is responsible for any righteousness within him...
"For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- Philippians 2:13
Paul further explains...
"So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy." -- Romans 9:16
Mercy. Not retribution.
So do you see the "dragon" theory as correct?
Where did Scott find that theory?
Anything that tickles their ears is considered worthy.
How charitable of you to call Catholics illiterate.
Biblically illiterate not generally illiterate .
It's funny, having been a clergyman, I don't take clergy too seriously. So the priest is a jerk. It would be lovely to have good sermons, but the real deal, for me, is the sacrament. I guess having spent most of my allegedly professional life in small churches that were unable to provide things like good Christian Ed/ Sunday School/Confraternity programs, I've never depended on the clergy for much more than a sacramental ministry. We found other sources for instruction of our daughter. Subsidiarity, right?
So that would put me in the group of people that you might characterize as sitting on their hands. I don't know. I wasn't expecting much from the local parish. Years before I converted somebody once said, "It takes a lot of manure to grow good roses." I guess I took that to heart, and focussed on handing myself over to the rose grower rather worrying about the manure. Wheat and Tares, y'know. The indication certainly seems to be that there are going to be lots and lots of weeds around.
It's Assumption, not Ascension, to emphasize that Mary was taken to heaven by God's power, not her own.
I've found no evidence that St. Thomas rejected the Assumption at all. It was celebrated as a liturgical feast day for 500+ years before he came on the scene, in any case; for him to have rejected it would have been exceedingly odd.
St. Thomas rejected the Immaculate Conception (the dogma that Mary was conceived free from the stain of original sin), because he rejected the idea that ensoulment occurred at conception. (With no soul present, there could be no "subject" to cleanse from original sin, hence no Immaculate Conception.)
He thought ensoulment occurred at "quickening," and held that Mary was cleansed from original sin in her mother's womb prior to her birth.
Everything you just said in that paragraph is consistent wiht Catholic doctrine, and is what I believe.
ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
But luckily for him he found an audience that is Biblically illiterate
I guess it's only us "Biblically illiterate" Catholics who know that verse that starts out "Judge not, lest ye be judged ..."
Yes, that's what I was referring to. You paint with an awfully big brush. Not only that, but you've acted as judge over a someone's soul.
I knew a 28-year-old woman once who walked into my office, distressed and forlorn.
"What's the problem?" I asked.
"I'm so exhausted," she replied. "I'm writing my autobiography and I've just realized there's so much material I'm going to have to make it into two volumes."
Those who disagree with you are evil and (biblically) illiterate. Okay, I get that.
Whatever your religious affiliation, I am confident that there are folks who disagree with you who aren't Catholic. Heck. I bet some of them might even think they know their way around the Bible at least as well as you. What do you say to them? Are they just unserious or looking to have their ears tickled (NEVER on the first date ....)?
Works do not lead to righteousness, but the grace of God, but, by God you'd better know your Bible, be serious, and have unticklish ears ... you'd better do more than cast all your care on Him that careth for you (after all, Care-casting sounds a lot like a work), you'd better understand your way through the intricacies of the discussions of merit/grace/predestination, pre- and/or post- millenialism or I can't be in fellowship with you.
Did I say it right?
Any time you want to start talking about the same subject, let us know. Beating up the strawman of "works of the law" is amusing, but does nothing to further the discussion.
Catholics do not claim we are justified by "works of the law." Words mean things.
SD
lol, She's probably got DVDs out by now
You need to know whom you have believed. And why.
That is no joke. Many.
God is one unpredictable fellow.
The end finally came when they would do nothing about a homosexual lay minister in the church who - in his position in the church - was constantly hounding teen boys. After having endured two such episodes in my own family, we left.
I was willing to be ridiculed and ostracised, but I wasn't going to be a party to that, and my kids weren't going to become my family's latest victim.
If you haven't walked a mile in my shoes, don't judge.
By the way, my current church is quite conservative - no vaudeville acts there.
What do you think are "works of the law?"
Aren't the Ten Commandments the law?
Haven't you heard? We're not operating under the Old Covenant Law any more.
No Catholic believes he is saved because he does the things prescribed under the Old Covenant. Some of us even eat pork and shellfish.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.