All Roads Lead To Rome (A Southern Baptist's Journey into the Catholic Church)

Confiteordeo ^ | John David Young

[Kolokotronis]

Its a fabulous book, guys. Buy and read it; you won’t regret it.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

You’ve read way too much into what I said.

Faith is what saves, not the Eucharist. Faith is what saves, not outward acts. Faith is what saves, not Hocus Pocus.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>You mean like, if I say the magic words, “I accept Jesus Christ as my Saviour”, I’m saved?<<

Exactly.

You’re mistaken if you think I believe the “sinner’s prayer” holds any merit. It’s become a “Close your eyes and repeat after me if you want to be saved” spectacle akin to “Say 5 Hail Mary’s and you will be forgiven”, and sprinkling water on a baby.

Vain acts and repititions.

[HarleyD]

Looking back at I-O-T-N’s comment, I would have to agree that perhaps you’re reading a bit more into the comment. It is somewhat understandable because when someone says, “Try faith.” we immediately assume that we must apply our faith. Calvinists do not believe it that interpretation and I’m sure neither does I-O-T-N.

But that does raise an interesting question. Don’t you M-D believe that man has to exercise his faith? So you should have found I-O-T-N’s comment agreeable. Which leads me to my question, what distinguishes a Catholic who believes they must exercise their faith from a Protestant (non-Reformed) who believes the same thing?

[wagglebee]

I’ll order it this week, if my local bookshop doesn’t have it.

[Mad Dawg]

You said, "Try Faith. It works". I didn't read anything into those words.They say what they say.

Is trying an action or not? Who should perform this action? Clearly the person addressed. That's what the imperative mood means.

WHY should he perform this action? Because it works.

I'm not sure what you think I read into the words, "Try faith," or "It works."

My Point was that we often say things loosely. I knew you don't think that a work will save -- whoever you were talking to. But you spoke as if you did think so.

A lot of religious language is like that.

Faith is what saves, ...

God doesn't save? WHOSE faith saves? Does someone do something to gain faith? If so, isn't that a kind of works theology, and your complaints about Eucharist, outward acts and hocus pocus (in case I hadn't managed to pick up on the vibe that you REALLY disapprove of what we believe) - don't they amount to saying this work, "trying faith" is a better kind of work than the kind you do. And that's still works theology. And if one doesn't do anything to gain faith, then the advice "Try Faith" is useless. I'm not "Reading in", I'm thinking carefully about your words. I'm not looking for offensive characterisations of them, I'm just looking at what the words you said mean.

"Try faith. It works." I would rather turn to God than to faith, IF that's a meaningful choice.

[Mad Dawg]

“Say 5 Hail Mary’s and you will be forgiven”

Has anybody on this forum ever heard a priest say those words or any like them -- that is words which predicate forgiveness or absolution on the basis of performing a penance?

If not, then I say they are a slander without facts in evidence. I certainly have never had those words said to me.

It is far easier to attack s doctrine that does not exist than to attack one which does. But he would be a fool who thought himself brave or witty for winning such a fight.

[Mad Dawg]

Well, what DO Calvinists mean by "Try Faith. It works." AS I said to the writer, I just read the words.

But that does raise an interesting question. Don’t you M-D believe that man has to exercise his faith? Boy, is that a tough question! I have tried three times to answer it. And I keep deleting my answer.

I think it's because I don't really trust the faith-grace/works-merit dichotomy as the principle hermeneutic for Life in Christ.

I might as well say that my faith exercises me!

How about, "A man who has faith will exercise it -- 'has to' doesn't enter into it."

I don't pray Rosaries, go to Mass, undertake (and mostly fail at) various spiritual or corporal works of mercy or piety or whatever to rack up points or to "get" saved.

I rationalize doing them because I owe God worship, it is fitting to worship Him. I owe Him obedience. It is decent to try to conform my will to His -- intrinsically fitting, not because it produces a result or procures a reward. What good to me or to anyone is a will or a life NOT conformed to His?

And I can't conform it, not on my own toot. It's all up to Him. But I take some solace in my confidence that it is fitting to serve Him and the people He has made AND that such service also amounts to nagging Him. And I take the parable of the widow and the unjust judge as an injunction to nag God. So I nag.

Differences between me and the other non-reform Prottie-guy:
I think the Sacraments provide real and reliable help in nagging God. I'm not saying God limits His helps to the Sacraments. But the other guy does not have the assurance of the benefits of the sacraments.

I have some intellectual clarity (IMHO -- YM obviously varies) about God and what He wants and recommends and all that. A devout "Anglo-Catholic" Episcopalian or other Arminian type does not have the helps of the "magisterium" - or of a bunch of people who know pretty much about what the Church teaches.

We have the cults of the various saints. Yeah, I know you guys look askance, some KIND of askance, at that. But it is a help in motivating one towards seeking the knowledge and love of God. It is someting I think most Protestants would be very upset about. Fr. Brian claims Terese of Lisieux as a friend. I feel that a certain French Vincentian was amused by my suspicion of all things French and of such ju-jus, mojos, amulets, and knick-knacks as the "miraculous medal", and has taken me under her correction or something.

And because of the hugeness of the clumsy Catholic Church, I always have people to bymp up against, people who are VERY unlike me. So I ahve another help. I can neither envy others nor give myself airs in this very diverse company of not many wise or famous people.

Is that kind of thing responsive?

I want to say again, the main burden of our differences is just not important to me in my everyday life. I do not go to confession more than one a month because I feel very guilty, and fear damnation but because I want to be a better servant of Him who has given me so much. The discipline of self-examination is useful. The practice of telling someone things that shame me, is VERY good at reminding me of the importantce of God's Love and telling me to put my money where my mouth is about all my faith being in God, and not in my own self-esteem. And the absolution is a gift.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

This is your standard MO, and I refuse to play along. You know full well what I meant.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

Thank you. It’s because you don’t have an RCC agenda to puch - lol

[HarleyD]

Well, what DO Calvinists mean by "Try Faith. It works." AS I said to the writer, I just read the words.

This goes back to the two calls of God. There is the outward call and the inward call. Man is charged with providing the outward call. The Holy Spirit is charged with providing the inward call. Christians, of all sorts, can preach-and do preach-to "have faith", "try faith", "give your heart to Jesus", etc. These messages will not have ANY effect on man unless the Holy Spirit opens up the heart to receive the message. But this is exactly the way God set up the system. I should also note that this is consistent with Augustine's understanding when he prayed, "Command what you will, and grant what you command."

I rationalize doing them because I owe God worship, it is fitting to worship Him. I owe Him obedience. It is decent to try to conform my will to His...

And this is the sticking point. We all owe God our worship but none of us want to give it to Him. If it wasn't for the Holy Spirit leading and guiding, we would all be lost.

The scriptures do tell us to "put on the new man" and exhorts us to be conformed to His will. But the other side of this Augustinian coin is without God it is impossible. He has commanded but He must also grant the will and ability to carry it out. All good things come from Him. Our failings are our own.

Differences between me and the other non-reform Prottie-guy: I think the Sacraments provide real and reliable help in nagging God.

We don't need to nag God. God knows perfectly well what is going on. We rest upon His promise that what He has said He will do, He will bring it to completion. He has told us He will bear fruit through us, comfort us and take care of us. He has also said it won't be a rose garden but He'll be with us every step of the way. We rest on these promises.

We have the cults of the various saints. Yeah, I know you guys look askance, some KIND of askance, at that. But it is a help in motivating one towards seeking the knowledge and love of God.

There is no motivation except through the Holy Spirit. What this underlines is that you are resting upon things of this world to motivate you when you should be trusting the Holy Spirit to motivate.

[Mad Dawg]

First that's a personal assault.

Second I don't understand what I did wrong. Seriously. I am trying to discuss the difference between what I think you meant and wha tyou actually said.

Third I KNOW, and I said I knew, that you didn't MEAN exactly what you said. As I said in my first response to your post. this is about the language of piety which is, I think, distinct from the language of theology -- but when I said that, I was rebuked as though it were a bizarre idea, and the idea itself was dismissed as though it were worthless. But here was an example.

Theologically speaking, you would never say, "Try Faith, it works," unless I am mistaken about you.

But we are always saying things kind of like that to one another. The example I used was "Prayer works."

(The difference is that when a Catholic says something like that, Calvinists go into paroxysms about "works righteousness." Talk about an "agenda to push"!)

Now a week or more ago, I mentioned this, and I think it was to Harley, but it might have been to somebody else. And the reaction I got was incredulous and contemptuous, as though there were no such distinction, and it were silly to suggest one.

Now, if you think I have a standard MO I would like to know what it is. I will cop enthusiastically to TRYING (and mostly failing) to read what people actually write rather than use what they write as a kind of Rorshach which reveals only what I expect to see. But I don't see anything wrong with that. But I think I'm educable.

AND while you know and I know that "faith" doesn't really "work", it is good and helpful to this kind of difficult discussion in which participants circle each other like angry jackals to be careful, at least sometimes, about how we express ourselves, a nd to doulbe check. If we rely on others "knowing what we mean" I think we'll get a lot of misunderstandings.

When you said,"Try faith. It works." I suspected that, like most Calvinists, you decided to characterize me as NOT trying faith, as not trusting God, as relying on my works, blah blah blah. You put yourself in a position superior to me, where you could give me advice, and you assumed the worst of my religious thinking and practice. Yeah. I guess I did know what you meant. I thought the charitable thing to do was to rise above it.

[Mad Dawg]

Wow, I have to say this is a fantastic example of eisogesis!

I KNOW God doesn't need nagging. Just how stupid do you think I am? ,P.(Wait, don't answer that! ;-) )

But I also know that Jesus (at least as I read the parable) told us to nag Him. WHERE did I say that God needed Nagging? You read that IN to, not out of, what I said.

Prayer (glib formulation coming up - kanguage if piety, not theology) is about me asking God for A and B or C - for what I think I want and need, while God graciously takes the opportunity to conform me to His will.

What did I say that implied anything other than that we cannot come to God in prayer and cannot even WANT to come to God in prayer unless He calls and, in the Spirit, prompts, chivvies, prods, pokes, etc. us to do so? Do I have to say everything at once? Wasn't my answer long enough?

There is no motivation except through the Holy Spirit. What this underlines is that you are resting upon things of this world to motivate you when you should be trusting the Holy Spirit to motivate.

DUH!

Lord almighty I am just about fed up with the eagerness with which falsehoods about us - falsehoods based on carelss, unexamined, and prejudiced assumptions are casually tossed around!

DUH, Harley, DUH! WHAT on earth have I ever said (unless it was when I quoted, "Try Faith. It works - an expression you are eager to forgive and explain away though it makes NO mention of the Holy Spirit) that led you to think that I think that the HOly Spirit does not lie behind every good and holy motivation.

I assume you read a book from time to time, like say by Augustine. I assume you discuss your faith with people, hear sermons, sing spiritual songs and the like.

So, in those assumptions, shall I then remind you that sermons, books, poeple, and songs are all creaturely and that in doing these things you are ignoring the Holy Spirit? NO, I shall not because I impute to you a modicum and more than a modicum of sense and piety.

I am confident you did not mean to be offensive, but in your presumption of what I think and mean, a presumption seemingly unshakeable by my words or deeds, you give HUGE offense!

This segues with the "Try faith. It works," conversation. You (rightly) excuse that SEEMING invitation to works righteousness. But you quite wrongly assume that I think there is any way to communicate with the Saints or to be encouraged by them that does not involve the Holy Spirit.

And this is the sticking point.

Were you looking for sticking points? Did I say anything either way about wanting to worship God and where that wanting comes from? Did I say anything at any point that implied that the Holy Spirit was NOT involved in my perception that worship is decent and should be done?

IOTN claims I have a standard MO and that it's vicious and to be shunned. He seems to suggest I have an agenda. Is there no agenda here?

Allow me to make a suggestion: Go back and re-read my post as though it were written by someone whom you trusted to have cast all his cares on God and to put all His confidence in Him. In other words, go back and read it looking for ways it might be right, rather than ways it is wrong.

To reawd what I wrote and to come up with a notion of my piety and thought that is diametrically opposed to the reality of it is quite an achievement.

You trapped me -- or tried to. You asked for a difference between me and the other guy. You did not ask for similarities in thought and practice. So I gave you differences. And on the basis of those differenceces you go haring off in another direction entirely.

I don't presume to know what the Arminian you described thinks about the HOly SPirit. I assume the best. Evidently the Reform thing is to assume the worst of everyone who doesn't toe the Reform line.

[Mad Dawg]

Serious questions:

(1) Is it possible to have a conversation that is not a dispute rife with assumptions about the wrongness of the person on the other side?

(2) Would either of you be interested in such a conversation?

(3) If the answer to (2) is 'Yes', and you think I am frustrating cuh a conversation, would you please tell me how, so I can stop frsutrating it?

Gotta go.

[ItsOurTimeNow]

>>First that’s a personal assault.<<

First I would say, “Suck it up, buttercup”, we’re all adults here.

Second it’s not a personal assault. You have a history of reading way too much into what someone posts, twisting it, and using it as a launching point for further misinterpretations in your ‘debate’. You and I have gone through this before.

>>”Try Faith, it works,”<<

Again, you’ve read far too much into what I posted.

The original comment was in response to a list of links that were posted on the Eucharist. “Try Faith”, as in, “Substitute the word Faith for the intended actions of the Eucharist ceremony.”

As in, “The Eucharist pomp doesn’t save, Faith in Christ does.”

As in, “Faith is what works, not the outward act of a blasphemous ceremony”

“Try” is not an action verb in the context of my post, it’s linguistical substitution.

MD says, “I went to the store today”
IOTN says, “Try FLEW to the store today!”

You are being purposely disingenuous in your assumption. You know full well from our previous conversations, and anything written on my profile that I am not a ‘Try on Christ, he’ll make your life better!’ evangelist. Save that for Rick Warren.

Faith alone, by grace alone, in Christ alone, by the scriptures alone, for the glory of God alone.

[HarleyD]

First I would say, “Suck it up, buttercup”, we’re all adults here.

LOLOL!!! I was simply going to say, "Chill out, man...". :O)

[HarleyD]

To be perfectly honest, going back over my post I see nothing offensive. You've asked a question on how we could say, "Have faith." and I believe I've answered that question. What I sense you are most uncomfortable is the realization that the work of man can only be accomplished by the work of the Holy Spirit. Man and the Holy Spirit are not co-equals in God's salvation plan. We are servants to our Lord. I know that you know this, but it is not what your soteriology is teaching.

[Mad Dawg]

(The days schedule has changed.(

I am NOT being purposefully disingenuous. I deny it. It's not so. I have no such intent.

And as for the "Suck it up buttercup," If that's meant as evidence of the adulthood of the participants, we're in trouble. There are allegedly some rules to the religion forum.

You said, "Try faith. It works." As a matter of fact I haven't been in enough exchanges with you for me to remember who you are and what you think. But I WILL henceforth remember that you don't seem to believe that words mean things, and that the literal expression of Catholics may be used against them without fault, but when a Catholic looks at the words you use, it is vicious.

But I wasn't really tangling with you so much as trying to say almost exactly what you are saying: that the words were loosely used and that to say that you are - whatever kind of person you say (I don't know who Rick Warren is) - would be silly.

But when WE use words as you did it is taken as proof that we are enmeshed in works righteousness. Two sets of rules.

[Cronos]

you know, I really had to point out this hilarious site that a Baptist poster here sent me on another thread: exorthodoxforchrist.com —> the funniest thing is that the site attacks Catholics for our perceived focus on “the brain”, “philosophy” and attacks Orthodox for “making everything a mystery”. The point where it says we just have to shut up and listen to Church Leaders completely misses the point of Obedience

[Cronos]

The thing is that many folks hate The Church because of lies they’ve heard about The Church and here’s an example (other’s being we worship Mary etc. etc)