Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExnTlIM5QgE ^ | Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7

In Christ Alone lyrics

Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;

In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm

What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand

In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save

?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live

There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again

And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ


TOPICS: Prayer; Theology; Worship
KEYWORDS: reformation; savedbygrace
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,951-7,0007,001-7,0507,051-7,100 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: MarkBsnr

You don’t know much about monarchies and how they are passed down, do you?

They don’t elect kings, you know.......


7,001 posted on 01/11/2011 10:49:40 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6998 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Thank you. I’ve seen glimpses of niceness in you before. :o)


7,002 posted on 01/11/2011 11:38:39 AM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6982 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I’ve seen glimpses of niceness in you before. :o)

"Uglier things have been spotted in the skies, but not by reliable witnesses."
-- Douglas Adams, The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

7,003 posted on 01/11/2011 11:59:40 AM PST by Alex Murphy ("Posting news feeds, making eyes bleed, he's hated on seven continents")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7002 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

The genealogies of both Matthew and Luke establish the Jewish
background of Jesus by Joseph, Jesus legal father by his adoption of Jesus.

From the genealogies of Nehemiah chapter 7 we see it was the SONS who had established their legal status as Jews not daughters.

So not correct at all.


7,004 posted on 01/11/2011 1:29:07 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6946 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Wow. You consider the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy Christians?

What about some hit man for the Mafia? What about those priests who molest children?

If they were baptized Christian, they were Christian at one point.

Show me where, in the Bible, believers are called *Catholics*. Followers of Christ are called Christian by Scripture

And so we are. The term Catholic was used in the late first century; St. Ignatius' epistle is the earliest written record we have of it ca. 115 AD.

You can claim all you want that Catholics are by default Christians, but considering what some Catholics live like, I'd hardly call them *followers of Christ* or *little Christs*.

I didn't say that. I stated that the two names were identical. Not every man who cries Lord, Lord is a follower of Christ. There are many supposed Christians that are unrecognizeable in their imitation of Christ.

The fact that you equate the the term *Catholic* and the term *Christian* and don't see a problem with that, by your own admission, demonstrates a degree of spiritual blindness that is staggering.

I'm not the one who prates completely unScriptural and novel concoctions of recent men. The Church is One, Holy and Apostolic. If you are by your own volition not a member, not believing in the Creed, for instance, what kind of Christian would you be? Similar to Mormon or Jehovah's witness.

7,005 posted on 01/11/2011 2:32:30 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6984 | View Replies]

To: metmom; Quix
Never heard of them. Yet we have Robert Tilton, Rex Humbard and other Pentecostals hucking all kinds of wondrous things. Any Catholic Bishops do the same? I don't think so. Quix, you like hankies; here's a used one from Peter Popoff's own hand that he spoke personally to the Holy Spirit about:

And don't forget the sales pitch:

From Peter Popoff: December 97

"FOR YEA I THE LORD THY GOD WOULD SPEAK UNTO THEE SAYING, THRU THIS LETTER I SHALL DIRECT THY STEPS TOWARD THE BLESSING YOU HAVE LONGED FOR. I CAN NOT MAKE THEE FOLLOW BUT I WOULD SAY UNTO THEE, FOLLOW. AS YOU READ THE WORDS OF THIS LETTER THEY SHALL BE AS THE HOLY WIND OF MY SPIRIT WHISPERING IN THINK EARS. YEA, FOLLOW THESE STEPS WHICH MY SERVANT SHALL REVEAL UNTO THEE, FOR EACH SHALL BE A "SPIRITUAL STEP" TOWARD THY BLESSING, YEA, TOWARD THY MIRACLE. FOR THIS SHALL BE THE BEGINNING OF JOHN'S "DECADE OF REAPING."

December 1997

John Smith

123 Main

Chicago, ILLINOIS, USA

Dear Brother Smith,

I've gone through the names on my prayer list and you were one that the Holy Spirit led me to write...and I want you to understand that this is not some kind of professional fund raising letter. I am sending you this letter as always...under the anointing of the Holy Ghost...and thru it...I will minister to you anointed by the gifts of the spirit

You must not, in Jesus' name, lay this letter aside. because this letter is a Holy anointed message of personal ministry to you from HOLY SPIRIT through me, Peter Popoff, God's Prophet for this DECADE OF REAPING.

Wait just one minute...God just spoke to me to anoint my hands with Holy Oil as I type this letter...There is about to be a RELEASE OF THE MIGHTY MANIFESTATION OF GOD'S MIRACLE WORKING POWER in your life. MIRACLES FOR YOU. . . in your home life . . . in your finances . . . in your health.

GET READY: THIS IS IT...the anointing is all over me and I must minister to you through the Gifts of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of Miracles, Discerning of Spirits, and the Word of Knowledge I Cor. 12:8-10. As you read on you may think, REV. POPOFF IS READING MY VERY THOUGHTS. . .but. . . I SAY, NO, THIS ISN'T MIND POWER, IT'S HOLY GHOST POWER. Praise God.

NOW READ THIS VERY CAR carefully thru’ the Spiritual Gifts I SEE five hindrances in the area of your health (check any one that applies to you.)

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I SEE a back condition, sometimes weakness and pain!

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I SEE leg problems, perhaps in the knee area but in the leg!

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I SEE eye problems, throbbing, weakness and dim vision!

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I SEE problems with pressure, low blood, high blood!

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I SEE breathing problems especially at certain times!

The Holy Spirit just spoke this to me...for YOU. I see you praying concerning divine guidance for your life. IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes.

I SEE these Hindrances that hold you back from the peace LOVE and HAPPINESS you desire.

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I see a person speaking words of hurt that cut deeply and hurt. Has someone hurt you this way?

IS THIS You? ( ) yes, I see someone is always trying to cause trouble on the job. Is someone doing this to you?

IS THIS YOU? ( ) yes, I see a person who is always working to stir something up. Is something upsetting your peace?

I SEE these HINDRANCES in the FINANCIAL area. (check one or more)

IS THIS YOU ( ) yes, I SEE a deep desire to help the poor and down and out.

IS THIS YOU ( ) yes, I SEE a deep desire to do good for others but something always holds you back.

IS THIS YOU ( ) yes, I SEE dreams of a business or success in business and as of yet things just have not worked out.

IS THIS YOU ( ) yes, I SEE someone wronged you concerning money loaned or owed in some way ..perhaps a settlement of some kind.

PLEASE, PLEASE give me the name of the person or company who wronged you _____________

I must take them to Jesus in prayer.. name here.

I will tell you right now, IF you checked yes or more times then this is a SIGN FROM GOD that this letter is ordained of God to be in your hands.

Things are going to turn around this year for you. You are going to step into God's full Manifestation of MIRACLES, this is your "DECADE OF REAPING."

"For yea I would say unto thee, do not doubt. Did I not speak unto l Gideon and select the ones that would work with him to bring about the miracle? I have joined thee with this ministry, I have selected thee, I have chosen thee, just as I have given thee this sign I shall give unto ,thee another sign, for, yea, did not Gideon place a fleece before me, and I did answer. I have not changed, I am a god that still answers with signs, wonders and miracles. Just as I delivered the enemy into the hands of Gideon and those I selected, I shall deliver think enemies into think you hands. Enemies that desire to hinder thy finances, enemies that have desired to hinder thy health from coming forth and yea, enemies that have desired to hinder thy peace, love and happiness. Put a fleece before me and I shall show thee that I am a god who still answers with signs, wonders and miracles. And yea for forty years I did keep Gideon in peace and his enemies could not touch him, and I would say unto thee, dost thou not believe that I can keep thee in peace? I can keep thee and think enemies can not touch thee...again I would say put out thy fleece and I thy god, the god of Jacob, the god of signs, wonders and miracles, shall answer. For these steps shall lead thee into a decade of reaping, and I shall fill thy barns with plenty, thy debts shall be paid, think enemies shall be brought to naught, and thou shall be in peace saith god."

Praise God, we are going to step into God's Full manifestation of MIRACLES. Glory, I know you can feel this. THIS IS IT. GET READY, IS IT.

Wait a minute ... God told me to cut this FLEECE (lamb's wool) out and send it to YOU. Something is about to happen. We are going to step into God's Full Manifestation of MIRACLES. It's your DECADE OF REAPING. UNANSWERED PRAYERS are going to be answered. Someone in your family is going to be turned around, I must say this again SOMEONE IN YOUR FAMILY IS GOING TO BE TURNED AROUND. We are going to stop Satan in his tracks. THIS IS IT.

HERE IS WHAT THE HOLY GHOST IS DIRECTING ME TO DO... I must obey God, we must obey God. God told me to build an ALTAR, a HOLY alter of graver. He said, He would give me the exact plan to build it just as He gave to Moses in Deut 27. By the time you get this letter I will have built the altar. From this altar UNANSWERED prayers will be ANSWERED with MIRACLES.

HERE'S you must do. must obey God, we must obey God. In Judges chapter 6:37, Gideon placed a fleece before God and God answered with SIGNS, WONDERS and MIRACLES. I have already cut the FLEECE (lamb's wool) for you and enclosed it in this letter as directed by the HOLY GHOST. I have taped it to YOUR "DECADE OF REAPING MIRACLE PRAYER FOLDER."

PLEASE DO NOT, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP THE FLEECE. I want you right now to take the "decade OF REAPING MIRACLE PRAYER FOLDER" with the FLEECE taped to it and print your needs, URGENT needs. PLACE THE PRAYER FOLDER WITH THE FLEECE STILL TAPED TO IT UNDER YOUR PILLOW TONIGHT. . . as you sleep ONLY.

Then ... in JESUS' NAME RETURN IT TO ME IN THE MORNING. I must have it back here no later than the 29th [webmaster note: this letter arrived on the 30th!]. I must place it on the HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER God has directed me to build here and leave it there for 37 hours. I must leave it there for 37 hours because the 37th verse tells of the FLEECE.

SIGNS, WONDERS AND MIRACLES ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, according to the scripture there are 14 MIRACLES listed that can happen in your life as I place this FLEECE on the HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER. Did you hear me? I said, 14 MIRACLES are going to happen, Praise God and I have Bible for each one of them. (I AM NOT RELEASED OF THE HOLY GHOST TO TELL YOU NOW BUT WHEN I ANSWER YOU, I WILL NAME EACH ONE OF THEM.)

WHEN, I send this FLEECE back to you along with instructions, I will also send a list of over 14 MIRACLES that will, I said WILL, happen as we do this GREAT ACT OF FAITH AND OBEDIENCE. I am telling you my dear friend, as God's prophet for a DECADE OF REAPING, I MUST HAVE THIS "DECADE OF REAPING PRAYER FOLDER" back, so I can place it on the 'HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER'. It is here God is going to speak, it is at this HOLY ALTAR OF prayer the angels of God are going to share revelation with me for you. It is here, prayers of SIGNS WONDERS AND miracles ARE GOING forth Don't let anything that has ever happened to you, KEEP YOU, from answering this.

THIS IS it. we are going to step into GOD'S FULL MANIFESTATION OF MIRACLES, it's time for your DECADE OF REAPING. Rebuke Satan and all his hindrances and OPEN THE WINDOWS OF HEAVEN'S BLESSINGS. See, Signs, Wonders, and MIRACLES. Gideon found favor with God as he used the Fleece and MIRACLES happened. this IS IT.

NOW I ANOINT THIS LETTER WITH THE OIL GOD TOLD ME TO ANOINT MY HANDS WITH, "I PROPHECY BLESSINGS UPON YOU AS YOU OBEY GOD IN RETURNING THIS LETTER, I PROPHECY SIGNS WONDERS AND MIRACLES IN JESUS' NAME, I PROPHECY THAT 14 MIRACLES WILL HAPPEN AS I PLACE THIS ON THE "HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER."

When you receive this FLEECE back, and this list of 14 MIRACLES for you with my special HOLY GHOST INSTRUCTIONS YOU are going to shout because you are going to see, SIGNS, WONDERS and MIRACLES.

I KNOW THIS IS GO God the Holy Spirit Spoke to me to lay a $37 offering on this new holy PRAYER ALTAR to receive a NEW blessing in this NEW YEAR. I want you to obey God with $37 and the $37 is in honor of Judges Chapter 6 verse 37 ... this is your FLEECE OFFERING. I must lay your offering on this "HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER" and dedicate it to God's Work. THEN ask Him to return it to you 100 fold. Yes, I feel 100 fold.

Matt. 22 37 says, "JESUS SAID UNTO HIM, THOU SHALT LOVE THE LORD THY GOD WITH ALL THY HEART, AND WITH ALL THY SOUL AND WITH ALL THY MIND." There it is, verse 37 again. Help me do God's Good work and sacrifice a $37 FLEECE OFFERING.

Let's pray, "HEAVENLY FATHER, WE SAY WE LOVE THEE, AND WE DO. BUT HELP US TO LOVE THEE WITH ALL OUR HEART, AND TO SHOW IT BY OUR GIFTS UNTO THEE. THERE ARE SO MANY NEEDY HEARTS IN THE WORLD, AND WE WOULD HELP THEM IN THY NAME. TO THAT END BLESS THESE GIFTS WE BRING AND PLACE ON THE "HOLY ALTAR OF PRAYER" THROUGH JESUS CHRIST, OUR LORD, AMEN."

You may have to take this offering from something else, but I know what God can do. Seed you sow, is the harvest you grow. I feel a 100 fold blessing is coming ... and I really feel $37 in honor of Judges 6 verse 37 Oh, do it my friend and be blessed.

Remember, fold your FLEECE OFFERING inside this entire letter, along with the "DECADE OF REAPING PRAYER FOLDER" and the FLEECE and get it back here before the 29th.. this IS IT.

Yours for God's s full manifestation of MIRACLES

Peter Popoff

Remember to exchange hankies with Peter Popoff and get fleeced.

7,006 posted on 01/11/2011 4:57:40 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6985 | View Replies]

To: metmom
You don’t know much about monarchies and how they are passed down, do you?

Far more than the average American, thank you.

They don’t elect kings, you know.......

And this is relevant to the discussion how?

7,007 posted on 01/11/2011 5:16:34 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7001 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
A third installment in response to yur post. The previous two are 6930 and 6958

you are ignoring that this justification by faith out of a poor and contrite heart is contrary to one meriting eternal life

It is not contrary. One does work pleasing God out of love of God and this merits eternal life because God promised it will. You insert the meaning of "merit" as in "demanding by rights". But the merit of good works rests on the sovereign grace of God,-- at least that is what the Church teaches.

a saving faith is not of a character that is alone, but is or will be accompanied by works

I know you wrote a long syllogism designed to obscure this plain biblical teaching, but that short statement alone is sufficient to say that in order to save anyone, faith must be accompanied by good works, and so we are not saved by faith alone. It is not complicated.

Without the precise distinction men will presume their works merit justification, essentially like men presumed works of their law did.

Why should they not presume that their good works merit justificaton if the Bible tells them they do (Matthew 25:31-46), and the Bible tells them the works done out of a legal obligation do not (Romans 3:28)? All they need to do is to read the scripture once in a while and listen to Protestant sophistry less, and they will know what God wants of them in order to place them to be with Him in heaven.

You miss what “therefore” [in Romans 12:1] establishes, a justification by faith not merit

No it doesn't. The previous discourse is about sovereign grace, not any kind of "faith alone":

[32] For God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all. [33] O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways! [34] For who hath known the mind of the Lord? Or who hath been his counsellor? [35] Or who hath first given to him, and recompense shall be made him?

[36] For of him, and by him, and in him, are all things: to him be glory for ever. Amen.

[1] I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.

(Romans 11-12)

The same pattern as in Ephesians 2:4-10: God in His Mercy and Grace chooses to save us, therefore "walk in the good works that He had prepared for you". This passage, cited above, unlike Ephesians, does not mention faith even in passing.

Extended: [...] Rm. 9-11 establishes that election is purely by grace, and the Gentles are warned that the because of unbelief they [the Jews as a whole; the natural branches] were broken off, and thou standest by faith. That summary of the first ten chapters of Romans is more or less correct, I think. The letter is about Christian unity: St. Paul explains the Romans that they, despite the uncircumcision, may be saved whereas Jews, even though circumcised, may not be. The unifying fact is our faith, wich is, of course, something anyone, Jew or Greek, can have all the same.

here again it is faith, with cps 11-15 exhorting living out that faith, as faith that justifies is of a character that will follow Jesus

But nowhere does St. Paul offer that that faith is unaccompanied by works. The idea that works "live out our faith" is not in itself heretical. It is even common sense: one cannot do works of self-denying love unless one had faith. But you continually make the assumption that because good works require faith as a necessary component, works do not "merit justification" as you favorite expression is. Works and faith form a single package and together they merit justification -- not as a debt to us but as a sovereign will of merciful God.

7,008 posted on 01/11/2011 6:49:00 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6657 | View Replies]

To: annalex
annalex to daniel1212; Kolokotronis; kosta50

Sorry for the delay, but let me say first that this has been educational and edifying, but it is taking up a lot of time, and despite simplistic and superficial characterizations of the conflict, which i myself know are easy to make, there is a reason why the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification took 30 years, and within a coherent conclusion on the main issues was a long time coming. Below is my latest additions to this addition to this, and due to time and energy constrains, and before the snow hits, i am sending it without all the editing it should have, nor will i likely continue to engaged in this almost month-long thread much longer. While you must accept what Rome says, I am attempting to let the truth lead where it may, while i see the issue being more than precise definitions, but how they translate into Biblical conversions, which is my larger burden. Souls need to come to God as per Ps. 34:18, with “in my hands no price i bring, simply to Thy cross i cling,” resting in Christ as Savior, becoming born again, and responding to Him as Lord, to the glory of God. And i find what Rome and certain institutionalized Protestant churches officially and or effectually teach as working against that.

Sola (not “solo”) Scriptura, or the supremacy of Scripture, in which the Scriptures are the only supreme and assuredly infallible objective authority on earth for spiritual truth and morals, normally formally sufficient to save, and materially providing for the church and its magisterium, but it and all other mortals and teachings are subject to the Scripture. This is set in contrast to “Sola Ecclesia,” in which the Roman Catholic assuredly infallible magisterium (being infallible whenever it speaks in accordance with its infallible defined criteria) is the only supreme, assuredly infallible authority on earth.

My objection is to the to "onlys". Indeed the Scripture is inerrant as written by its human authors. But from nowhere does it follow that it is the only inerrant thing in matters of faith and morals.

One sentence here can be “inerrant” and Rome can teach something that is, but the issue is assured infallibility, and as Scripture is the only objective source that is wholly God-breathed and thus it is uniquely assuredly infallible, while nowhere is there a promise that whatever the church magisterium ever teaches in accordance with its criteria will be infallible truth. If thre was, it could infallibly claim it was that church based upon its infallible interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. The faith of Israel was preserved apart from an AIM, and God know hows to raise up men whose authority is attested to by their works and Scriptural conformity to reprove those who ought to ensure such but officially fail. See also replies below.

It is also true that the Magisterium of the Church is "subject" to the scripture in the sense that it may not teach contrary to it.

No, it can claim it is, and thus it is, according to itself. It is even doubtful that in defining something that its reasoning behind its conclusion is considered assuredly infallible. Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible.

However, the scripture itself poses no objection to the authority of the Church, -- in fact it asserts it; the common sense tells us that Sola Scriptura could not have been the rule of faith at least in the Early Church where the relevant to the Christian scripture was simply not written nor that that was in due course written, canonized.

The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine then it becomes the authority by which continued revelation or influence must be judged by. (Many SS churches regularly hope that God “speaks” to believers hearts, especially during the offering!) The authority of Moses, Jesus and the apostles was established by their character, works and Scripture substantiation.

The truth is that the Hoyl Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.

What magisterium? Most of the Bible was from the Jews, writings being established as Divine apart from an AIM, and even then a large portion came through prophets who reproved the official magisterium, and whose authority did not essentially rest upon hereditary formal conference as with the Levites, but by Divine attestation, and were subject to death for abusing their authority. There was a reason why Jesus referred to the baptism of John and His own works and Scripture as proof of His authority, and as said, such is the basis for authority now, in due proportion to their claims. And essentially writings themselves came to be established as Divine due to their heavenly qualities. And while official decrees help by ratifying what has been manifest as from God, that does not confer assured infallibly to that body.

The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a proper definition of Sola Scriptura yet if Sola Scriptura were the true rule of faith, it itself would logically have to be in the scripture.

The salient facts are that the scripture does not contain a “proper definition” of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, transubstantiation, Purgatory, etc., but most Roman Catholics apologists have no reticence about insistenting they are Scriptural (and the 1st 2 are). And like as the Deity of Christ is established due to His coming forth from the Father and attribution of attributes unique to God, so Scripture alone is said to be God-breathed, being given through holy men “moved by the Holy Ghost,” and able to make men perfect unto every good work, (2Cor., 3:16,17) materially providing for the church.

The salient fact is that Jesus surely did establish the Church (leaving aside for a moment arguing whether the Church He founded was Catholic in the narrow or some broader sense), -- but He never instructed anyone to write down anything. Christ intended the Church to be the rule of faith, and the Church produced the Christian scripture as part of her mission.

The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious, as there are other things we can disallow by it (homosexuals try). The fact is that God commanded His words to be written numerous times, as that was the norm for revelation, and referenced them for authority. And they have a power all their own, even apart from the body God uses to express them. That God uses men to express His word (and writing Scripture was not a formal work of the magisterium) and compile it does not render them the infallible interpreters of it, even though conditional obedience to Scriptural authority may be required. And the authenticity of the church is dependent upon Scriptures and its attestation.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) and only the Scriptures assuredly are, and by faith the church has its members (1Cor. 12:13) and endures by faith in the Christ (1Jn. 5:5) of the Scriptural gospel of God. (Romans 1:1-2; cf. Rm. 16:25,26)

and the majority [of the liberal Catholics are] in the West

Very true. Another reference to Kuraev's book. He says that while in the West the ecumenically-minded Roman Catholics are theological conservatives who long for an injection of Orthodox fundamentalism, in Russia the voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals whose hope is to water down that very fundamentalism. I think he is correct on that.

The issue is who needs to move.

Or did you mean political liberalism and political conservatism? That, I think is due to the poorly defined political terms in the US. Catholicism is by definition conservative in the sense that it is oriented to the past event of the Incarnation and the Resurrection. We view the intervening time as something that is an obstacle to salvation of the souls, rather than any kind of "progress". But naturally, Catholics are more receptive to the forms of primitive socialism of the Early Church, condmenation of greed as a motivating factor, charity to especially the poor, -- the kind of things that the American Left pretends to have an interest in as well. On the other hand, the cultural liberalism of today: the indifferentism toward sexual norm, moral and philosophical relativism, the notion that a law is valid as soon as it is democratically enacted -- Catholicism would fight to the death, whereas there is no shortage of Protestant denominations falling over to the dark side on that.

No, and no; had you looked at the stats you should have seen that it was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values, and in which your adversaries fare much better, though as in both cases, less each year. An RCA here once argued that such declension by Catholics was proof that Rome was the OTC, as the Bible foretells great apostasy. As for liberal Protestant denominations, they are typically closer to Rome in being institutionalized, treating all as Christians based upon birth or membership and nominal morality, with rote professions and lack of strong preaching, including the need for conversion. Rome has nothing to fear from them.

Roman Catholics show more concern over a liberal Catholic who becomes a conservative born again evangelical than when he was a nominal Catholic

Of course. The falling off the Mother Church is a consciously taken step toward death. One can sympathize with one who struggles with Catholicism from the outside and fails to find it. Falling off the embrace of the Church once experienced is simply a horrific act of deliberate destruction. The grief is the same grief as over the fall of Adam. Of course, the responsibility for the Reformation and its evil fruit is entirely with the Church, and that adds to the pain.

So if a John Kerry an multitudes like him could become a Bible believing born again Baptist then he would be taking a step toward death, and is like the fall of Adam?! Tis enough to make you a sedevacantist wishing for the days when Rome could imprison her enemies (do you?)

On the other hand, a shift in political affiliation is not really a big deal, so long as it is not in itself defying the Church. To put it in a few words, it bothers us when one joins the liberal reservation on the Catholic non-negotiables, - abortion, human cloning, gay "marriage", euthanasia and artificial insemination of humans. If one joins the liberals for some other reason, it is his choice.

And yet Catholics overall much support such, except abortion, but they still get more of them. I do know there is a line between tolerance and comprise, and do not want to judge, and all have different degrees of light and discernment, but I would dare to say that if one who voted for men like Ted Kennedy — and there are multitudes like him - are either not believers or who are much need of enlightenment. And that goes for the many churches who vote as if race and radical leftist ideology trumps Christian faith.

7,009 posted on 01/11/2011 8:47:11 PM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6926 | View Replies]

To: annalex

the overall historic evangelical Protestant position has been that faith and works are separate as far as to what actually procures justification

No. Not separate. Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works.

Grace and works are not separate as grace enables works, but in reality grace works through faith producing works.

Works of the law -- in fact any works done for some purpose rewarded in the temporal life --- are naturally not bearing an eternal rewatd of salvation. If there is anything in the prooftexts that you offer (Rm. 4: 5,6; 9:11; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 or any other) that contradicts what I just said, please, devote a post to just that and explain textually why. Do not forget to examine the immediate context: for example, Tutus 3:5 is incomplete unless the entire passage is apprehended.

I will further.

Paul's argument in Rm. 4 begins earlier, in which he places all under “the law:”

"{19} Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. {20} Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin. " (Romans 3:19-20)

As if anyone could be justified on the basis of merit, by a system of works-righteousness, it would be by the law, and yet the law condemns those who presume such, thus both Jews and Gentiles need salvation. Paul thus goes on to establish how:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: {25} Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; {26} To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. {28} Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. {29} Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: {30} Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. {31} Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

We see then that it is through faith in Jesus (of the Scriptures) blood, in His death and resurrection, that one is justified, this being called “the law of faith” in contrast with the system of works-merit under which man may boast. But if we have done works which save us then we could boast. Yet this does not separate faith from works, as the former births the latter, but it excludes works as a means of meriting justification, or acquiring it by merit of works, which Paul on to explicitly disallow, in contrast to faith.

"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. {4} Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. {5} But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:1-6)

Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly who do works in order to be merit justification. And despite attempts to disallow imputed righteousness, of faith being counted for righteousness, that is precisely what it says. It also must be understood that the works he rejects are not works of the law, but works done before the law, as these fall under the system of law in disallowing justification by merit, as opposed to faith:

"How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. " (Romans 4:10)

Next Paul speaks about the result of Abraham's justification and its implication for lost humanity:

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: " (Romans 4:11)

The texts is not contrasting works of the law versus works of faith, but makes faith the appropitative means of justification, and Abraham having been justified, is then circumcised, which is allegorical to baptism.

But what of the texts which follow:

"{12} And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. " (Romans 4:12)

One can assert that this means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works, and then was circumcised, and in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality. However, as we also recognized, salvation means we are saved, and are being saved as in practically becoming what we positionally are, citizens of heaven, and will be saved, this being the full realization when faith becomes sight, if such faith is salvific.

Paul proceeds to reinforced his thesis that under the law and thus any such system which justifies one on the basis of merit and damns one for falling short, one cannot be justified, but that by recognizing his destitute, helpless condition, being unable to gain justification — just as Abraham was to birth multitudes of descendants — and placing his faith in the power and willingness of God, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rather than promising man that by God's grace he could do works which would justify him in God's sight, in which case God would be justifying the Godly, he states that "Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all, " (Romans 4:16)

"And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara's womb: {20} He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; {21} And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:19-22)

"{23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:23-25) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:” (Rm. 5:1)

Here again it is Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not his works, though the two are so intertwined that one presumes the other, yet it is believing that is set forth as the means of being justified. Thus it was not by works of a reformed life that one appropriated justification by, but by faith in Christ to justify one who could not justify himself.

Paul goes on to show that “the gift of righteousness” which is by faith is how “grace did much more abound:” (Romans 5:17-20)

In chapter 6, rather than such being persons who had done works of faith such as Abraham in Gn., 22 in procuring justified, Paul appeals to them as souls that believed in the Lord Jesus with all their heart, this being a contrite heart of faith wrought by God, manifested in baptism, and positionally were crucified and risen with Christ to “walk in newness of life.

"{1} What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? {2} God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? {3} Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? {4} Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. " (Romans 6:1-4)

Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did, as "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;.." (Romans 9:11) "{16} So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. " (Romans 9:16) "Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace. {6} And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work. " (Romans 11:5-6)

To be sure, justifying faith is one that is expressed in works, as by the Spirit the justified work to fulfill the righteousness of the law, (Rm. 8:4) but one is saved through God-gifted faith, “not of works” as if eternal life was gained by them, though God does bless obedience.

Upholding that justification is by faith, not of works, while also stressing that is not a faith that would not work, is not unique to the Reformation, as writings from some some early church leaders show them doing so, while other quotes stressing works more may be found from the same class.

Clement of Rome: And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. — ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

Clement of Rome: “We also, being called through God's will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves, neither through our own wisdom or understanding, or piety, or works which we have done in holiness or heart, but through faith." Epistle to the Corinthians.

Ambrosiaster (fl. c. 366-384), on Rom. 3:24: “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God.” — Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 101

Augustine (354-430): Now the apostle could not mean to contradict himself in saying, "the doers of the law shall be justified," as if their justification came through the law, and not through grace, when he declares that a man is justified freely by his grace without the works of the law, intending by the term "freely" nothing more than that works do not precede justification. For in another passage, he expressly says "if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." But the statement that "the doers of the law shall be justified" must be so understood, that we may know how unable men are to become doers of the law unless they be justified, so that justification does not subsequently accrue to them as doers of the law, but precedes them in that character. For what else does the phrase "being justified" signify than "being made righteous, " - by Him, of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly man instead? "On the Spirit and the letter," Page 201,02 The works of Aurelius Augustine: A new translation, Volume 4 By Saint Augustine (Bishop of Hippo.)

Augustine: “But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” — John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.

Andreas (c. 7th century), engaging in the difficult task of reconciling Rm. 4 and with Ja. 2, states,

“Now someone might object to this and say: “Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works. And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith?” How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them.” Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, Vol. XI, James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), p. 32. See J. A. Cramer, ed., Catena in Epistolas Catholicas (Oxford: Clarendon, 1840), 16, where he is commenting on James 2:21. More

The well know Reformed theologian A. A. Hodge responds to the question of whether good works are necessary to salvation by saying,

Good works] are necessary to the attainment of salvation, not in any sense as a prerequisite to justification, nor in any stage of the believer’s progress meriting the divine favor, but as essential elements of that salvation, the consubstantial fruits and means of sanctification and glorification. A saved soul is a holy soul, and a holy soul is one whose faculties are all engaged in works of loving obedience. Grace in the heart cannot exist without good works as their consequent. Good works cannot exist without the increase of the graces which are exercised in them. Heaven could not exist except as a society of holy souls mutually obeying the law of love in all the good works that law requires. Eph. v. 25 — 27; 1 Thess. iv. 6, 7; Rev. xxi. 27. [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works"

Scottish Presbyterian (1795 – 1863) and Westminster commentator Robert Shaw states,

Good works are essentially prerequisite to an admission into heaven. Though they do not merit everlasting life, yet they are indispensably necessary in all who are “heirs of the grace of life.” Believers, “being made free from sin, have their fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”-Rom. vi. 22 [from his commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 16, "of good works"]

While such exclude works “as a prerequisite to justification,” as seen before historic Protestant recognized that arriving at the place of faith required conviction of one's deep need for salvation, with fear and love of God, which conviction preaching works to produce, directly or indirectly, and without this work of grace there will be no real conversion. And this conviction can result in formal evidences of repentance before conversion, while conversion itself signifies a basic turning in heart from darkness to light. (Jn. 3:19-21)

Present day evangelical Calvinist Oxford theologian Alister McGrath points out,

“It can be shown that a distinction came to be drawn between the concepts of merit and congruity; while man cannot be said to merit justification by any of his actions, his preparation for justification could be said to make his subsequent justification 'congruous' or 'appropriate.'”

Speaking of such preparation, the English Presbyterian clergyman John Flavel (1627–1691) stated, “The foolish child would pluck the apple while it is green; but when it is ripe it drops of its own accord and is more pleasant and wholesome” (The Mystery of Providence p. 139).

The famous Anglican preacher George Whitefield recounted, "I did then preach much upon original sin, repentance, the nature and necessity of conversion, in a close, examinatory and distinguished way; laboring in the meantime to sound the trumpet of God's judgments, and alarm the secure by the terrors of the Lord, as well as to affect them by other topics of persuasion: which method was sealed by the Holy Spirit in the conviction and conversion of a considerable number of persons, at various times and in different places in that part of the county." - George Whitefield by Arnold Dallimore, (Carlisle, Pennsylvania, Banner of Truth), Volume L 417.

Noted Protestant Reformed preacher J.I. Packer states that

“God converts no adult without preparing him; but “God breaketh not all men’s hearts alike” (Baxter). Some conversions, as Goodwin said, are sudden; the preparation is done in a moment. Some are long-drawn-out affairs; years may pass before the seeker finds Christ and peace, as in Bunyan’s case. Sometimes great sinners experience “great meltings” (Giles Firmin) at the outset of the work of grace, while upright persons spend long periods in agonies of guilt and terror. No rule can be given as to how long, or how intensely, God will flay each sinner with the lash of conviction. Thus the work of effectual calling proceeds as fast, or as slow, as God wills; and the minister’s part is that of the midwife, whose task it is to see what is happening and give appropriate help at each stage, but who cannot foretell, let alone fix, how rapid the process of birth will be.”

However, the emphasis upon the Sovereignty of God did and has led some Calvinists to marginalize the work of preaching designed to awaken the sinner of his plight, which the famous sermon mentioned before by Edwards did.

And rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account of Purtians during the early American period that notes, “as soon as one attempts to present in any detail a normative sequence of experience or even a normative set of ingredients to true conversion there is a strong temptation to go beyond the scriptural data and prescribe rules by which the grace of God is bound.” “My own impression, however, is that differences have been rather exaggerated and that the essential unanimity of the New England preachers about the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues. They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”

Rome also recognizes preparatory priority but largely promotes perfunctory professions which it misrepresents historic Protestantism as believing in.

In Rome's soteriology justifying faith is made alive by works of charity, so that rather than living faith justifying one and producing works, “faith receives life only from and through [works of] charity,” so that “over and above faith other acts are necessary for justification,” such as formal acts of penance as alms giving.

But it also allows that “if the contrition be perfect (contritio caritate perfecta), then active justification results, that is, the soul is immediately placed in the state of grace even before the reception of the sacrament of baptism or penance, though not without the desire for the sacrament (votum sacramenti). If, on the other hand, the contrition be only an imperfect one (attritio), then the sanctifying grace can only be imparted by the actual reception of the sacrament.” (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cc. iv and xiv)

By such statements she judges all those who were born again before baptism as having perfect contrition, while others who did not are regenerated in baptism. This actually somewhat similar to what i have expressed, that one is justified by the kind of faith which baptism both expresses and demands, which faith can be alive and justifying before any formal expression of faith, but for others an act of obedience is a catalyst to bring forth faith, in which the heart is opened and saving faith is realized in obedience. How Rome differs from this will be seen further on, but i wish to consider physical healing as being somewhat analogous to spiritual salvation.

In the gospels many were healed by simply believing, with one being a seeker who was made whole by asking and believing, and who then followed Jesus in the way. (Mk. 10:51,52) Some other seekers of mercy were healed as they went on their way to fulfill the Masters command, and the full healing of one who returned in praise and worship was confirmed by Jesus, saying, “Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole.” (Lk. 17:11-19) In another case, Jesus encountered a blind man whose eyes he anointed with mud, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power, and who then required the man to wash, and who thus came back seeing. (Jn. 9:5-7) In response the man later defended Jesus and reproved the Jews, and then Jesus revealed who He was and the man believed, being saved without a further work being then required of Him. (Jn. 9:15,24-39) A somewhat similar case is that of a man who was looking for healing — not necessary by Jesus — and Jesus healed him, but again, without identifying Himself or necessarily requiring faith in His power. Jesus later found him and revealed that He was Jesus, and told him to “sin no more lest a worse things come upon” him. The works-response of this man was to report Jesus to the Jewish authorities. (Jn. 5:1-15)

Thus in one case a seeking soul was made whole the moment he believed and so followed Christ, while another seeker was healed as he went to fulfill a command and came back and worshiped, his full healing then being confirmed, while one not actively seeking required more ministering and a response in order to see, and another was simply healed but not converted. Since regeneration always is revealed as requiring personal repentant faith, and healing could be had simply by looking for mercy and believing, or not even seeking the Lord by simply by a non-costly act obedience, healing does not fully correspond to regeneration. But they illustrate that a seeker could be made whole by believing, but that such saved sheep follow the Shepherd, (Mk. 10:46-52; Jn. 10:27,28) and that those of whole faith are those who respond to grace, worshiping Jesus, (Lk. 17:11-19) while simply being healed does not necessarily mean salvation, but that one who is touched by God's mercy and obeys light that he has will find revelation of Christ and be saved just by placing faith in Him, (Jn. 9:5-7; 15,24-39; cf. Acts 10) while the ad-hoc recipient of manifest grace from God who hears the call to obey basic moral truth, but who chooses the culture, even that of religion, is more damnable than if he had never received grace. (Jn. 5:1-15; cf. Heb. 6:1-8)

So far it is evident that Historic Protestant largely agrees in a preparatory work preceding justification, and in which a soul may have to do formal works of repentance, and that no soul comes to Christ without an honest repentance heart, but that it is not such works that makes a faith living, but that the God-given faith of the elect is alive on arrival, and pregnant with good works which God has foreordained them to do. And so such a faith is one that justifies, even before baptism (though that ought to be the norm at the time of conversion, and can take place any place), and thus it shows forth works.

God can call a person to do things which bring forth real faith, and baptism as the demand of a good conscience requires such, as may an altar call. I have no doubt that on the day of Pentecost forward, the occasion of coming to faith and being born again was in their baptism, while for others it was on the way, but the preaching which convicts souls of their destitute condition and desperate need for salvation is what is critical, and increasingly missing today. But i oppose infant baptism (versus dedication) as there is no need, and find calling and treating souls as believers in lieu of it to be most damnable, who have not had a definite day of salvation (they need not precisely which day) as a result of being convicted

So both Rome and sola fide churches understand the need for preparatory work, as well as the inseparable union of faith and works as regards the former expressing the latter. And in allowing for baptism of desire, Rome comes close to sola fide. But what divides them is not simply that sola fide holds that it is precisely the faith part that procures justification, and that it is by imputed versus infused righteousness, but that of Rome making baptism something which works ex opere operato, so that that “the sacramental grace is not conferred by reason of the subjective activity of the recipient,” but that “the sacramental grace is caused by the validly operated sacramental sign.” (Ott) And is effectual to regeneration in infants in recognition on the faith of another. And what follows is a highly systematized process of doing works meritorious for salvation, with a strong focus being on ritual and the power and primacy of the church to make one a Christian and gain one eternal life through them. In contrast, in Protestantism personal repentant faith in the gospel is a prerequisite to baptism, with the focus being on an transformative conversion encounter with Christ, and the resultant direct relationship with Christ through a faith which transcends churches, and Scripture-based obedience living out practically what they are positionally. Ritual has its place, more on baptism and the Lord's supper, but preaching emphasizes blessing as a result of day-to-day Scripture-centered obedience to God more in general, with conveyance of grace via ritual being more seen in Pentecostalism which came later.

It is not that i completely differ with Rome's soteriology, but most fully with its result. On one hand it states that that “nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification, For 'if it is by grace, it is no longer by works; otherwise,' as the apostle says, 'grace is no more grace." (Trent, Decree on Justification 8). ” though this is not in the sense that Rom. 11:6 refers, while she turns salvation by God-given faith into a bureaucratic system which promotes confidence in one's works for salvation, rather than the destitute sinner resting upon the finished work of Christ and thus responding to Him as Lord, striving to be practically pleasing to Him, to be practically the citizen of heaven that he positionally already is. (Phil. 3:21)

Even if it were possible to reconcile all the bare bones of Romes soteriology with the Bible, and i can do so more now, its application becomes the major issue, and the effectual result of which is a system which promotes a mere form of Biblical faith profession, with confidence in ritual and the power of the church and ones own merits for eternal life, versus the very type of preparatory conviction and repentant faith which characterizes Biblical conversions. To a lesser degree this is seen in Protestantism, usually where infant baptism is practiced and strong evangelistic preaching is absent, and or where faith in the promise of the Lord Jesus for eternal life to them that believe is illogically disassociated with who and what the promise giver fully represents.

The salient points I need addressed:

1. "Works" in general are a badly defined term. Most anything we do other than cogitate are works. It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.

It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification, and reading into them works of faith gaining eternal life versus a faith that works. And it is not activity that is being targeted, but the basis for justification, any system merit by works-righteousness versus faith. Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them, but a type of faith that would follow the Lord found was counted for righteousness.

2. Liturgical "works" are works that God works. Man is merely asking His presence and His will. You did not mention that specifically, but I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.

No, God can work through them as He can with any act of obedience, and in such things as laying on of hands the instruments of conveyance must be right with God and gifted, while as for the Lord's supper, that does not make one born again and a recipient of the gift of eternal life, but obedience to it as prescribed works “life” and blessing, as does other acts of obedience.

3. Certain works, under the general category of works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46 (it is not the only place where such are commented upon, but that is the clearest, spoken by Christ Himself, and with direct consequence of eternal life in Christ or eternal life of damnation, -- i.e. salvation).

You are ignoring what i have said as regards hermeneutics. You either have such texts as “not by works of righteousness which we have done” — written to an originally uncircumcised Greek — referring only to works of a certain motive, or works in general, while Mt. 25 either refers to eternal life because of such evidential faith, with works attesting to saving faith, or good works gaining eternal life by their merit. It cannot be the latter, but which system is what Rome promotes.

4. James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone. It places the need for works to cooperate with faith in the context of justification. It does not pass the scriptural test to dismiss that as reference ot what the justified by faith do after they are justified: it says literally that they are justified because -- not by a prior faith but because, -- their works cooperated with their faith and not justified by faith alone.

Either we have a contradiction with Moses and Paul versus James, or the latter is referring to how a man is justified by a type of faith that works, in contrast to mere intellectual faith which has none, not as regards what component actually appropriates justification. “Thru faith,...not by works” and “To him that worketh not but believeth” — referring to both works apart from the law as well as them by it — is saying it is the component of faith that is counted for righteousness, but such faith is not separate from works in nature, and so the doers of the law are those who have such a faith.

Further, I am far more lenient toward Luther (if that is your reference to historical Protestantism), and generally to some thought put into the role of works as opposed to latter-day Protestant mindless sloganeering on the subject. Keep that in mind. I think that historical Protestantism really missed an opportunity with the Joint Declaration on Justification. I would like some comment on why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?

Rome was not lenient toward Luther, and today would not have dealt with him as it did, yet he would not had the same exact protest. He might have been on FR though. But i am speaking about the period from the 1600's through the early 1900's. As for Lutheranism (i am not), if the East finds the papacy an insurmountable barrier, Lutheranism certainly would, as well as with tradition being equal with Scripture and things like praying to the departed, etc.. while Anglicanism is far looser in its doctrines and has much departed from historic Protestantism.

SS can result in a transdenominational unity that is manifestly effectual to the salvation of souls

I see how Sola Scriptura furnishes some basis of interdenominational Protestant unity. That is what slogans generally do: they unite diverse factions under some sufficiently vague banner. But that is not the unity Christ prays for in John 17, where the unity of the Christendom is seen as hypostatic unity of the Holy Trinity. Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.

It is not simply SS that works its interdenominational communion, but as said, the unity of the Spirit resulting from a shared common conversion by repentance and faith in Christ. As for Jn. 17, we cannot see the Son being in discussion about ascertaining any truth, and if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out, and is no better than any one Protestant church could be, while on the lay level she comes short of cults who share the same basis as Rome for official unity. But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one due to shared nature with the indwelling Spirit, "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. " (John 17:21; Eph. 4:3)

The Roman Catholic may argue that cults such as the LDS do not have the historical evidence for their claim, but the efficacy of this argument depends upon the interpretation that formal historical descent is a basis for authenticity, which it is not (and never was totally).

I never mentioned LDS, so I don't see how does that fit in our conversation.

It was relevant as to the basis for claiming to be the OTC. You both have a AIM, by which Scripture and history are infallibly interpreted.

I also agree that formal historical descent is not a basis for authenticity even when undisputed. I beleive I gave that example already: the Anglicans and some Lutherans DO have a historical descent from the Apostolic Church. That helped for a while, but in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious.

And by what means is it established who is the OTC is? Formal ecclesiastical descent is no surety either, while as much as the EO is considered valid, the elephant in the room has not been moving. It also differs in aspects of soteriology with both sides.

The distinction you make is that the believer goes in faith in order to glorify God, assuming this is in conflict with making his calling and election sure, which it is not.

Well, if it is not, then how do you say that justification is by faith alone? If I want to get to point B from A, and if X is something that makes sure my arrival then I would say, X is necessary for my arrival.

The P in Calvinism's TULIP stands for Perseverance of the saints, in which those who are elected have faith that follows Christ, and will finally preserver, dying in such faith. Yet even in a probationary soteriology, the souls is drawn by God and granted repentance (and i would say persuaded) and given faith and justified thereby, with again, it being a type of faith that works, but man is given choice so that he may choose to recant, and he realizes his need for grace and faith to continue. But in both camps the believer is still saved by trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, not supposing that by God's grace he has done works of faith which merit or make him worthy of eternal life, though they testify of his faith. .

yet Rome disallows being confident you are saved

For that very reason. The scripture says that one has to walk a certain way to "make sure his calling and election". So how can we condone one who has not completed the walk to be confident?

So why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39 and life verses.

Rome is the one who is unScriptural here, as it has the convert being made actually righteous in heart by “infused righteousness” via baptism [...] so he is formally justified by his own personal righteousness and holiness (causa formalis). This is in contrast to righteousness being imputed to him

There is no "so". A baptised child (or a man of any age) is not instantaneously becoming righteous. The difference that the sacraments furnishes is that Christ is asked by another believer to protect the child. Yet, it is not imputed righteousness because the child is for the time being actually infused with grace. It would be in fact ridiculous to ask God to "cover up" the sin of a eight days old baby. The baptismal prayer asks God to protect the child from future sin and accept him if he dies before commiting any sin. Truly, now that he is baptised, he "shall be saved" (Mark 16:16), as his belief is his naturally sinless, believing state.

This is a yes. They are made instantaneously righteousness according to Rome, though as i said, it is not by IR. And of course such must grow in grace, if they ever were saved. “The Catholic idea maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God (cf. Trent, Sess. VI, cap. vii; can. xi). Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis)”

The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, cap. vii) defined that the inherent justice is not only the formal cause of justification, but as well the only formal cause (unica formalis causa);

“..grace imparted to children in baptism does not differ essentially from the sanctifying grace imparted to adults,..”

The sanctity of the soul, as its first formal operation, is contained in the idea itself of sanctifying grace, inasmuch as the infusion of it makes the subject holy and inaugurates the state or condition of sanctity. So far it is, as to its nature, a physical adornment of the soul; it is also a moral form of sanctification, which of itself makes baptized children just and holy in the sight of God.

The two moments of actual justification, namely the remission of sin and the sanctification, are at the same time moments of habitual justification, and become the formal operations of grace. The mere infusion of the grace effects at once the remission of original and mortal sin, and inaugurates the condition or state of holiness.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06701a.htm

And Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity.

The manner of baptism would only matter in two cases. First, it would matter if actual washing were taking place. In that case not really immersion would make a difference, but use of soap. However, we are told by St Peter that washing of dirt is not the purpose (1 Peter 3:21).

I am sure you could have thought of the real reason it is used, which is that it corresponds to the term “baptismo” and description. (Acts 8:38,39)

Second, that would matter if it were directly commanded in the gospel, such as the certain interpretation of the Eucharist is fixed in John 6 and 1 Cor 11.

Pure delusion. The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6 and i have dealt with it much, as well as the “not discerning the body” in 1Cor. 11 which contextually refers to hypocritically not recognizing the hungry members as being part of the body of Christ - the interdependence of which he further elaborates in the next chapter – contrary to the import of their commemoration, not transubstantiation.

But there is no such scriptural fix. St. John baptized in a river but St. Peter once asked is water for baptism could be denied (Acts 10:47), suggesting a water held around a house in a bucket. Palestine is an arid place, -- surely a river or pool nearby was a rare occurence. This all being said, the Church does recommend that a full immersion be made wherever practicable.

No, availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside. (For good reason as he was a tanner.)

It is sure strange to see an insistence on full immersion made by people who ordinarily do not believe in any sacraments or, as they call them, rituals, to be ordained by Christ.

That idea again is much a straw man. Reformed type churches do call them sacraments, and most all Protestant churches recognize at least baptism and the Lord's supper as mandated regularly practiced ordinances, while also validating ordination and anointing of the sick and marriage, if not more, but not calling them all sacraments or ordinances (over reaction i think). Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture, but what is surprising is some SS churches hold to paedo baptism and sprinkling. Yet mode is not a salvific issue.



7,010 posted on 01/11/2011 9:02:46 PM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6926 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Scripture is disallowed by Roman Catholicism as the means to ascertain truth, and her infallible definitions do not render her reasoning and Scripture arguments to be infallible, but only the definition, so you really do not need to do as the Bereans did, according to Rome that is

The examples of the requirenments of Catholic Faith that you posted rpeceding this statement are simply description of faith such as it is. They are not prohibitions against an examination, perhaps critical, of the Catholic Faith, -- it would be a good thing if such examination is undertaken.

Of course they are prohibitions against further seeking to validate what Rome has infallible declared. “..having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?”

"Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned.”

He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

They tell us at which point the faith ceases to be Catholic. The demarkation is in itself helpful. For example, many people believe with the Catholics because of the conviction that the Catholic Church is the historical Church founded by Christ. For this historical approach is is very helpful to know what historically was held as crossing a line into heresy.

They do more than that, and while educating oneself is one thing, examining things objectively as to ascertain the validity of what Rome has officially taught is to doubt it. At one time (changeable) canon law (open to some interpretation) generally forbade lay persons from engaging in debate question of dogmatic or moral theology with “heretics.”

the primary Orthodox disagreement is a fundamental one, the very primacy and infallibility of the pope upon which Rome rises and falls

Rome does not "rise and fall" on that.

I said primary, and what i said remains true.

We are well aware that the historical developments particularly in the West (consider the feudal fragmentation not fully experienced in the East and later the Protestant heresy) -- priduced a highly centralized Roman Church, whereas the Orthodox East that had to deal with military enemy of the Islam rather than a heresy -- had to develop the precisely opposite, decentralized model in order to survive. Rome does not hold the same rigid line vis a vis the Uniate Churches who are not infected with either Protestantism or relativism. We repeatedly have said that the Eastern Orthodox Church is, as far as we are concerned, ready for reunioon as it is today, with the concept of papacy that it holds today.

On what conditions did she say that to the “defective” EO? Or will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?

“The Orthodox Church cannot accept the papal or institutional concept of the Church, for many reasons. Orthodoxy strives to remain faithful to the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church. As can be seen from a study of the decisions of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise anything close to the kind of power now claimed by the Popes during this crucial period of Church history.” http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076

As regards the interesting causual theory, the papacy can also be explained as a result of the Roman church largely taking on the form and function and means of the Roman Empire. But in self-criticism (even though i am not bound to defend a monolithic communion), Protestantism itself, being of necessity (Acts 11:19) born of division, too easily resorts to such, even if it does typically work against atrophy and for continued growth in the body of Christ, resulting from such cell division versus remaining within an institutional organic entity. And without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God.

Usually wins??” Only as defined by her

Naturally. I do not get your references to some possible misconduct, but the fact remains that Rome views itself as an apostolic, that is one preserving an historical deposit, church.

If she says so. I was referring to her “natural” use of the sword and forgeries to gain or maintain power.

that is called a extrapolation, as what you see is a promise made to an individual, not to posterity [in reference to the promises of the infallible Church and papacy in Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32[

No, the text does not suggest that. First, there is nothing in the text to suggest anything less than a cosmic promise. To offer "the gates/powers of Hell shall not prevail against my Church" or "thy brethren will be sifted like wheat but I pray to thee to confirm them" in the context of a divine revelation asserted to be given to Peter and the solemnity of the Last Supper is to severely understate the gospel. Second, the person of Peter is significantly undermined in those very passage: Peter is one who will deny Christ, and one who tries to persuade Jesus to abandon His mission.

And what is not promised in formulaic assured infallibility. God preserves His church as He preserved a remnant of true Israel, using men and leaders, and in the NT church stones like Peter who also effectually confess Christ but who did not possess assured infallibility, who thus become autocratic demi-gods.

Christ being it [the Rock]

That is exactly the point. Were Christ not typified by the rock, we might say that it is one of forms of praise, like calling John an dJames the sons of Thunder. But here we have a real delegation of authority, and it is the only context in which "feed my sheep" makes sense.

The delegation and “leader among brethren” status of Peter is not what is in dispute, but its perpetuation what Rome imputes to that leadership.

when James the brother of John died (Mt. 10:2; Acts 12:2) no successor is mentioned, nor a provision made for selecting one as was made for Judas. It is incongruous that the Holy Spirit of truth would not have made that manifest if it were to be so, while the criteria for ordaining elders/bishops (same office, and not a separate class of sacerdotal priests) was faith and character, (1Tim. 3:1-7) which would exclude many papal successors from even being church members. (1Cor. 5:11-13)

St. James' martyrdom was in the context of a Church fully functioning. For example, St. Paul -- not a natural apostle -- was already active as an equeal to the apostles bishop of the Church. The Church was no longer a Hebrew institution. That must mark the time when the pivot from the Church of the Twelve to the Catholic Church of very many was accomplished.

Which does not solves the problem. If apostolic succession will use Acts 1 as a precedent then it needs to maintain 12 with the same level of credibility, chosen by lot, while the absence for a successor for James and no manifest provision being made for Peter, unlike that for Moses in the Old Testament, serves as a precedent for a local bishops in corporate leadership after the death of the apostles. Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural attestation. (Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12)

The very idea that preservation of the faith requires [a magisterium] is a contradiction

Where in the scripture do we see it? I see where it is scriptural: "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts Of Apostles 20:28).

Good verse corresponding to corporate leadership, though the word for rule/tend can also be rendered “feed” (Jn. 21:16; 1Pt. 5:2; Rev. 7:17) , but where do you simply see magisterium in my sentence and why did you replace “AIM” with magisterium? That changes the whole point. You must know by now that SS affirms the church magisterium, and the assuredly infallible status is the issue.

you won't get far in any most evangelical denominations if you disagree with fundamentals either, and historically those who have were marked as heretics

The Catholic Church allows a great lenience in interpreting of the scripture while she is quite specific as to what doctrines are Catholic. That is consistent with the Catholic method whereby it is the Church rather than the scripture which is the rule of faith.

And thus the church is autocratic, beyond reproof when she says something that she says is so.

The fault that I see here is not in the Catholics avoiding to fix an interpretation to the scripture we already hold inerrant, but with the Protestants who would allow notions that cannot at the same time be true, like whether or not there is a free will, -- to co-exist.

And which does not equate with a dead gospel, as with the latter repentance is granted, faith is gifted and souls are persuaded, though they exercise a degree of free will, and as sinners helpless to gain justification by works, they rest on Christ for salvation and respond to Him as Lord. In contrast, institutional religion is full of multitudes whose hope of eternal life is based upon them being a good person, without ever having made a conscious decision for Christ and realizing regeneration. I have talked to multitudes of them over the past 30 years, and its about how good they are and or their church affiliation.

disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses, is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture

Certainly, if you are of the opinion that the Old Testament iterprets itself, the you should keep kosher and reject Acts 15 which contravened the Mosaic law. But if you consider Christianity to be true religion, then i=you have to understand that the law of Moses was replaced in Christianity by law of grace.

You misunderstood the argument (below), which contextually was not about what Acts decreed, but Rome's claim to be as infallible as they were, while they practice “allegorizing historical accounts, or counting them as fables, which approved Roman scholars do, and disallowing the law being given by the hand of Moses [holding to the Documentary Hypothesis theory], is contrary to how the Bible interprets itself, and this and more is contrary to her claim to be the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.

seeking to be like a Berean and continue to use their means

.. is a good thing and I am convinced that anyone who honestly examines the Holy Scripture wil end up if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox.

You may be convinced, including that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy, but the evidence among those who esteem Scripture and do not implicit trust men indicates they leave for green pastures. One must not simply look at official doctrines, but what they result in as regards faith among those within it as compared with the Scriptures.

EENS is yet disputed among Roman Catholics and Vatican Two is in contrast to the most historical understand of it, but Rome lost her secular teeth needed to carry out her animosity against men like Huss, Tyndale, etc.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is understood as it always has been, that when an dif one is saved, he is saved as a Roman Catholic.

No. The context was unity of doctrine, with the point is that it is not universally understood the same way, at least since Vatican Two.

Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino (1441): "The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Pope Pius IX (1846–1878), Encyclical Singulari Quidem March 17, 1856): “There is only one true, holy, Catholic Church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded on Peter by the word of the Lord (St. Cyprian, Epistle 43), outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church (ibid, On the Unity of the Catholic Church). ... Outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control."”

Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 14: "They could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it."

But i think the likes of Boniface 8 would cringe to read words such as in LUMEN GENTIUM: “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. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26) 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. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) 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 [Protestant] communities...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...” (15)

And then you have the closest degree of fellowship found between Roman Catholic charismatics and Pentecostals, which in modern times began within Catholics in America after influence from the latter, but which does not affirm all that may accompany either.

We don't know if Hus or Tyndale were saved. Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic.

Thus you sanction their deaths, by the sword of men no less, and damn them if they were not Roman Catholic, which is an abomination. (Prv. 17:15) Those are effectively your words, while today they likely would be “separated brethren.” And while the Jewish Scriptures nor the New Testament sanction no prayers for the dead, though the apocryphal 2 Maccabees did so for evident idolaters, seeing as real heretics even by Rome's standards are buried by her daily, then they had better see to their own house first.

Annalex: We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46).

Daniel: And rightly so, as how can faith or love be judged except by what it does?

Indeed. So works are how we are justified.

You either cannot comprehend or refuse to that the cause of works can justify one as a believer while works are shown to be a basis for judgment, because its effects manifest that he is. Jesus was God, but He said to believe Him due to His very works sake. (Jn. 4:11)

Mormons say the like

I did not know that the Mormons claimed to have the sacraments, but if they do, it should not be our criterion what they mistakenly think of themselves.

Meaning leaving their church means losing their soul, as if the body of Christ was restricted to them, a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do. While assuming the elect would died within the visible church, Augustine stated, “Just as many sheep wander without, so many wolves lurk treacherously within.” (B.6.1.1)

What typical passes for religion in Rome is perfunctory professions

No. Professions are means to an end, but they are not "religion". It is, in fact the cornerstone Protestnat error to think that confessional faith is alone salvific. A profession of faith that is deeply held, and a profession of faith that is "perfunctory" are equally irrelevant to salvation.

Again, while that may be technically accurate, it neither has conversion being alone as apart from conviction and the means of it, which includes the working of men, nor that a faith that was of a character of would no follow Christ was salvific. “Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.

The saving faith does the works. The perfunctory faith feels the feel.

The former is true, but the latter is mere form.

Annalex I have not seen a verse that cannot be easily and in context explained, again, barring attempts at explainign the miraculous. Many tried, on this thread alone.

Daniel You made the assertion, now you must prove it.

Prove it how? I stated, there is no X. Prove to me by showing X.

The statement was not that there is a verse countering Rome that you would allow as valid, but that you must prove your statement that “The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.” And as said, “They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.”

Catholics last in Bible reading, with one study (Rasmussen) also showing 44% of Catholics rarely or never read the Bible (apart from church)

Naturally. It is not a good thing, but it shows that Bible reading in itself is not anything salvific.

So one could not read Peter's sermon Acts 10:36-43 and be saved? “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15)

Any way you cut it, just going to Mass will NOT give a functional knowledge of Scripture.”

It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass. The scripture read at Mass is essential scripture and it combines the Old and the New Testaments together so that a deeper understanding is acheived. I don't know what "functional knowldege" is; I agree that biblical apologetics among the Catholics is poor.

What a contrast to the book of Acts where souls were first saved and then they continued in the word, and the services were not that of watching a type of play every week but ranged from highly participatory meeting (1Cor. 14) to preaching service (Acts 20:7ff) to a agape feast, with the latter being about as close as you will get, but its not a mass, neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.

the Lord and His disciples were good at proving their claims by Scripture.

It is something the Catholics need to get better at.

So they can convince souls not to look to Scripture to ascertain truth by, unlike what the Bible examples and commends.

the Immaculate Conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and Assumption, praying to the departed, mandated Priestly celibacy (except some converts), more resembles the work of cults. That is because these do not depend upon Biblical warrant,

No, they do not. so why do you mentin them?

Because most RCAs contend as if they did.

I diod not say, "everything the Church teaches in in the Bible". I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?

And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible.

Rome's claim to authority rests upon self-proclamation of her supreme authority, not Biblical manifestation of the truth.

It rests on the authority you can ascertain from the Bible, such as the authority to "bind and loose" (Mt 16-18). It also rests on the continuing existence of the same church through 2 thousand years. Howeverm, no one is claiming that no interpretation of the Bible can be found that is not in a seeming contradiction to the Church. It is just not a real contradiction.

No, as the condemnation of PI and the requirement for the AIM is based upon the premise that the laity cannot derive surety of doctrine from Scripture. If order to do so one must submit to the AIM, which again, infallibly interprets Scripture and history as rendering her assuredly infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula.

your judgment must be dismissed as you cannot concede that anything in opposition to Rome's official teaching can be true

I do say that. But you are still at liberty to offer your opposition, and if I do not have a reasonable argument for Rome, the reader will see that. so far, I did not see anythign that would objectively be a challenge to Rome;

Thank you for your honest admission, and readers can see your commitment, and this extended argument shows mine as well, but also that if anyone is trying to be objective i think it is I.

I have seem agreement on the essential point, that works of charity and faith are necessary. I also have seen much backpedaling form that biblical fact.

From the beginning you have seen affirmation that works of charity and faith are necessary, in contrast to a largely straw version of historic Protestantism, with the “fide” aspect of “sola” being restricted to what actually procures justification.

I really would like to get that part of the argument done with, so if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.

That should be put to rest, as well as the latter, which is a matter of hermeneutics, and of your seeing a description of Jesus blessing souls because they had a kind of faith that works by love as making that the precise means of appropriating justification, which Paul does for faith, clearly excluding works as meriting it. We can argue that faith and works are are so inseparable that the former speaks of the other, and so an event in which faith is manifest can be seen as justifying one, but a distinction is made, with justifying faith in the heart causing the works which confirm one is saved.

We should both be able to agree that God can justify and purify hearts by faith before they were baptized (Acts 15:8,9) as baptism by desire allows. The importance again is of a soul having a poor and contrite heart that sees he is damnable and destitute of any way to escape Hell or gain Heaven except by casting all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, and does so, trusting and thus calling upon the risen Lord to save him by His blood and righteous, and which is a type of God-given faith that is confessed, expressed in baptism (normatively) and works of faith, led by the Spirit. And that saving faith is one that continues in the faith, repenting when convicted of not doing so, which i have many times defined it as.


7,011 posted on 01/11/2011 9:03:17 PM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6928 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

you are correct on the Jewishness point. Thank you for responding in such a “genuinely-seeking-to-inform-and-teach” tone.


7,012 posted on 01/12/2011 12:05:56 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7004 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

Cheers!


7,013 posted on 01/12/2011 12:31:18 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7012 | View Replies]

To: metmom
1. A true Christian is a person who has put faith and trust in the person and work of Jesus Christ, including His death on the cross as payment for sins and His resurrection on the third day

2. The person i.e. nature of Christ, the nature of God is encapsulated perfectly in the Nicene Creed. Do you believe in God as described in the Nicene Creed? Do you believe in ONE God, creator almighty of all that is seen and unseen? Do you believe in ONE Lord, only begotten Son of God, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life who with the Father and Son is worshipped and glorified? Do you believe in the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead and life everlasting?

3. Note that neither the first definition nor the Creed talks about your deeds or actions -- you asked Would Jesus act like any of them? -- Is Salvation according to you based on Works? --> don't worry, that's not a gotcha, but I'm just bringing a point up that our definition of a Christian (whether Catholic, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc.) is always based on what a person confesses to believe rather than their actions.

4. If one says the only true Christian is a person perfectly following Christ then that is a different matter. Is anyone in this current age perfectly following Christ? Everyone here on this forum and each living person on this planet is a sinner. None on this earth satisfy the lofy conditions to be trully Christ-like in actions or deeds

5. But Christ came for sinners -- so a sinner who truly strives to be like Christ, who trusts and believes in Christ and Christ's message is a Christian.

6. Are Ross Perot (Presbyterian), Clinton (SBC), Al Gore, Jimmah Carter etc. Christians? Are the molesting pastors like Reverend Young Key, 47 Gold Coast Presbyterian minister (received 8 years jail sentence after being found guilty in Brisbane District Court of rape, digital rape and indecent dealing with girl, aged 14, in 2000 at Nerang, south of Brisbane.) or the former pastor of Presbyterian Church of Mount Kisco The eight charges, unveiled at the presbytery's regional meeting at Webb Horton Memorial Presbyterian Church in Middletown, outline abuse of boys under 18. Among the allegations are that Miller invited a child into the shower with him, that he had oral sex with a minor on numerous occasions over two years and that he made inappropriate sexual remarks and propositions. (THE JOURNAL NEWS, December 5, 2002)) or Jeffrey Cheseboro Presbyterian youth minister at the Presbytery of Elizabeth at Pluckemin -- are they Christian?

7. I won't judge on these Presbyterian molesters except to say that I hope God has mercy on them and brings them to repentence. I say the same for the 1 %of bad priests, for the scout masters for the pastor of the ECUSA who said "abortion is a blessing" (actually wait, I don't say any good about that lady, I can't).

8. Mafia hit men, Russian Mafia, gangsters from various Protestant groups -- there were many from varied groups. Are they Christian? What if they as you say "have a personal relationship with Christ" or "confess their sins to God and accept Christ as their personal saviour" or "talk in tongues and confess God"? are they Christian? I think their actions disqualify them as representatives yet Christ came for sinners. If they put their faith and trust in Jesus Christ, I will leave their fate to their Maker.

9About Pelosi, I believe she should be hounded out and publically excommunicated yes, and I believe that her actions supporting baby murder no longer qualify her to be called Christian, let alone Catholic, hence I don't refer to her by either term. I'd rather call her CINO, Christian in Name only.

10. And, finally to the end point of this discussion which I indicated in points 1 and 2 -- the Nicene Creed perfectly encapsulates what we understand of the person and sacrifice of Christ. Groups that do not hold to this Creed are Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, etc. -- all of us here acknowledge that we do not consider these to be Christian. They may be good people, but they deny the divinity of Christ which we consider fundamental to our understanding of Christianity -- correct?
7,014 posted on 01/12/2011 1:04:24 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6992 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

Nope. Do you have a problem with Jewishness?


7,015 posted on 01/12/2011 1:05:45 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6990 | View Replies]

To: metmom; MarkBsnr

Actually, you’re wrong about that. Saxon kings were elected. Ditto for the Holy Roman Empire, Polish kings and Scandanavian kings.


7,016 posted on 01/12/2011 2:32:59 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7001 | View Replies]

To: metmom; count-your-change; MarkBsnr
Now, as cyc correctly pointed out, Jesus was adopted by Joseph, hence his Jewishness was adopted since His Father was not Jewish, but His mother was.

Your point about sin nature descending through the males not the female line -- this has a problem.

Sin is not passed on through "flesh". Adam we agree was made, "flesh" without sin. Sin nature came about when he "sinned" i.e. performed a sinful ACTION. No genetic changes happened in Genesis 3. Sin nature is not "fleshy" -- it's not just that Adam's body, genetics was given the sin-nature, we humans are more than just water and flesh. Similarly, even demons are sinners, but they have no "flesh"
7,017 posted on 01/12/2011 3:33:11 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6991 | View Replies]

To: metmom

And the question still holds — do you and your group hold to the tenets encapsulated in the Nicene Creed?


7,018 posted on 01/12/2011 4:18:29 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6986 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I think there’s a bit to be said contrary to both your lines of logic.

In Romans 5:12, a Scripture I and many others have quoted frequently for support, Paul says “death SPREAD” to all.
Interesting word that ‘passed’ or ‘spread’ as the word Paul used, “dielthen” has as a meaning to travel through a country or to passage from one place to another.

Hence Paul is speaking a progressive effect rather like a damaged printing plate continually making copies of its flaws and not something done to each copy individually.

In vs. 14 Paul goes on to say that even those who did NOT sin in the way Adam had were still subject to king death down to the time of Moses.

But then, What IS sin? Paul used the wore “hamartia” which has a literal meaning of “missing” a goal or marked aimed for and was used to describe actions too that failed to meet ethical standards.
“death spread to all men” because none could hit the mark of perfection as Jesus did.

Adam and Eve evidently understood what the consequences of their actions would be for their off-spring, they covered their reproductive parts realizing they could only pass on the death that had entered through Adam.
They had, in effect, killed everyone by their actions just as much as an airline pilot who fails to heed warnings and instructions and takes his charges into the ground.

“Sin is not passed on through “flesh”. Adam we agree was made, “flesh” without sin. Sin nature came about when he “sinned” i.e. performed a sinful ACTION. No genetic changes happened in Genesis 3”

I disagree. Peoples bodies began to wear out after a time, for Adam a very long time, and that time became less and less as that original vigor of perfection was lost.

Noah was born just decades after Adam died yet look at he drop in human life spans, the errors in the original copy were not being corrected but are increasing like a damaged printing plate making copies that are likewise damaged. It wasn’t that their sin was greater but that the flesh was weakening. Sin changed their fleshly inheritance too.

Further as you said,

“Sin nature is not “fleshy” — it’s not just that Adam’s body, genetics was given the sin-nature, we humans are more than just water and flesh. Similarly, even demons are sinners, but they have no “flesh”. “

In deed we are more than “just flesh and water” which would explain why no amount of genetic tinkering or good clean living can overcome the effects of our inheritance of imperfection.

“..death spread to all men because they had all sinned”.

The example of those angels that made themselves ‘demons” by sinning brought these questions to my mind:

What effect did their sin have upon their heavenly bodies?
The Bible is silent.

Can Christ sacrifice act as a ransom for these ‘demons’.
The Bible indicates No.

Since these non-fleshly creatures do not reproduce can they claim they inherited imperfection?
Again, the Bible indicates No.

But they DO miss the mark, sin, and suffer the consequences.


7,019 posted on 01/12/2011 9:32:19 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7017 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Romans 5:12
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

15But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

16And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.

17For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
very good points. I need to study them and scripture and pray a little before I "think" :-P
7,020 posted on 01/13/2011 2:35:23 AM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7019 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Quix
First in probably two or more responses to one post.

Annalex: your point, that you are at liberty accepting A but not B from the Church is, of course, valid, but I am not making that point at all.

daniel1212: you are unable to accept A and B from Scripture if you obey the requirement that you do not question the church.

This seems to speak to a point I am not making, -- I agree that you can in logic accept that the Scripture is valid as written (A) but not accept that Mary was forever virgin (B), even while seeing that both the scripture and the knowledge about life of Mary come from the same group of people, the Early Church. But I would like to comment on "obeying the Church". That requirement exists, but not in a way to forbid questioning. Rather, a Christian should examine the doctrine in order to understand it and without prejudice. Second, if he understands it, there is no confict of conscience. If he doesnt't understand, or if he thinks that he understands, but his perceived understanding is contrary to the doctrine, then as a good Christian he should continue internal work on it (that usually means seeking competent help) and in the meanwhile not speak against the doctrine. All that time, including the time when he is in internal conflict with the doctrine he remains a faithful Catholic. If he obstinately declares that he does not believe the doctrine and does not wish to further develop his understanding to bridge the conflict, and especially if he makes a public stand of it, then he has left the Catholic Church: he has excommunicated himself and joined a view that is under anathema. Freedom of will is also a freedom to err, but the state of error cannot be held in God's house which is the Church.

Lastly, I do not understand how under any form of obedience to the Church it follows that I am "unable to accept A and B from Scripture" so long as the Chruch teaches both A and B. It seems that the opposite would be true.

the Catechism is only infallible where it restates truths that have already been defined by the Magisterium

Yes.

some things may change, yet its teaching still requires an assent of the will and intellect

What you quoted to support that is a formal definition of lying that changed from 1994 to 97. Did the moral judgment of varyous types of speech change, or did merely a definition change? As you gave it, the definition was broadened to include cases of lying, say, to military enemy at war. Did the previous Catechism morally prohibited such and the next morally alowed for it? At most we are seing a minor correction, most likely, no change in the moral teaching at all, just a change in verbal delivery. Surely, if one is surprised by anything in the Catechism as to what is ethical or the rule of faith, he can ask his priest or bishop, -- that is, ask the living magisterium directly, where he would have the benefit written word does not offer, to ask follow up questions.

while Roman Catholics apologists condemn the PI method as relying upon fallible human reasoning if the conclusions conflict with Rome, they allow themselves to engage in PI when responding to evangelicals if it backs up Rome's claim

Private interpretation is a stage of reading the scripture that is inevitable, like a child must crawl before he can run a marathon. It is not a sin to engage in it; it may be helpful or simply amusing to do it. The Church has defined little as the only possible interpretation. I'll give you an example. Jesus on the Cross tells Mary and the beloved disciple to mutually adopt each other. St. John then records what happened rather idiomatically: "the disciple took Mary 'eis ta idia'". This is often liberally translated "took her to his HOME". The literal translation should say "to HIS OWN". So there is a range of interpretations here, from seeing here a fact of spiritual adoption by Mary of the entire Church to an economic arrangement between two people without much theological significance. The Church does not say that one interpretation is valid and the other is all wrong, but the Church teaches that Mary has a mystical connection to the Church and would cite this episode. The scripture is evidence of the fact and the fact is taught by the Church. The Church does not say that the scripture mathematically necessitates the fact. One can interpret the verse in a mundane way; he then loses use of an evidence, but his private interpretation is possible. Another apologist would interpret the same scripture in the highly spiritualized sense and it would appear that he derives the whole mariology from it. Both ar private interpretations, one unhelpful, the other helpful, but both are possible private interpretations. Naturally, a Catohlic apologist would prefer one and not the other, and at the same time point out to you critically that the mundane interpretation is merely private.

but you appeal to [the scripture] as if it were able to [alone ascertain truth] in condescension to Protestants

It is not necessarily condescension as a psychological attitude. It is a logical device. If you say that the Scripture is the sole rule of faith then I can point to you where the scripture would condemn your doctrine. Therefore either your doctrine is wrong, or your view on the scripture as the rule of faith is wrong. Classic example: you teach that salvation is by faith alone, but a verse in James 2 says exact opposite. You can interperet James 2:17-26 cleverly as not quite contradicting what now becomes a seemingly complex doctrine that somehow holds both "faith alone" and "not by faith alone". But the outcome is that either the entire complexity of the doctrine is not in the scripture or the apparent trust of the doctrine is condemned by the scripture. Either way, either the scripture is not the sole rule of faith for you or your doctrine contradicts the scripture.

At the same time, the Church considers herself the sole rule of faith. So, the scripture must only be consistent with what the Church teaches, but it may not contain everything that the Church teaches, and not every private interpretation of the scripture must agree with what the Church teaches. For example, our mariology is poorly supported by the scripture. If the Protestants had something poorly supported by the scripture, they would be under a logical obligation to drop it from their doctrines, because they state the Sola Scriptura. But Catholics reserve the right to teach outside of the scripture, -- they only need consistency with the scripture. So a few scriptural references to Mary, while not containing the entirety of the doctrine, do not contradict it.

Either you as Protestants fail by your rules or your rule fails you, but we are fine by our rules. Yes, the rules are different, -- but you chose your rules yourselves in 15c while our rules came from before the scripture was even written.

More later...

7,021 posted on 01/13/2011 6:09:29 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6658 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I could love these passages just for Paul’s mastery of the language as he contrasts and compares...but that is just a wee bit of the all right.

Romans has taken a fair portion of my study time (maybe I’m a bit thick) as I ask:

If all have sinned 12 how can sin not be imputed 13? If death reigned from Adam to Moses 14 why do people after Moses still die?

Anyway.....Cheers!


7,022 posted on 01/13/2011 6:20:20 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7020 | View Replies]

To: metmom; MarkBsnr
You can believe that [Jewishness is matrilinear] if you want. It’s just another thing the Catholic church gets wrong, I guess. Read the Bible some time. The genealogies are through the father

According to the Jewish law, those who are born of a Jewish mother are Jewish by birth. The patrilinear factor was/is important for the purposes of inheritance, not Jewishness.

And speaking of inheritance, Jesus could not claim to be the seed of David because that is a patrilinear requirement.

Just because Mary's own genealogy leads back to David is immaterial for that purpose.

7,023 posted on 01/13/2011 6:49:50 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6936 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; MarkBsnr; metmom
Scripture says, as Metmom pointed out, that sin came from Adam and because of Adam's sin we are all sinners

Why is it Adam's sin when Eve clearly initiated it? Even the punishment exacted by God for it seems to be harsher on the woman (painful birth) than man (toiling the field). And, wasn't it Paul who says

So, which scripture is metmom referring to?

7,024 posted on 01/13/2011 6:59:39 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6941 | View Replies]

To: Cronos; boatbums
Even later, Irenaeus in the 1st century cites 21 books excluding Philemon, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 3 John and Jude

Er, that would the end of the 2nd century (c. AD 180-200).

7,025 posted on 01/13/2011 7:03:54 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6943 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; metmom
The promise to David was that the throne was to be given to one of David's descendants

Correct; no legalities involved.

The term used is "seed" (John 7:42, Gr. σπέρμα, spérma; also Ps 89:4, Heb. zera') and seed implies patrilinear inheritance, which is synonymous with legality.

Of course, women were believed to have no "seed". The Jews believed that the woman is a "fertile field" on which man's "seed" (a term synonymous with offspring or descendants) would grow.

This is how the term "barren" or "infertile" originated for women who could not get pregnant. As long as man produced "seed" the "fault" was woman's. So much for bible-based "science" under spiritual guidance.

In Romans 1:3 Paul clearly states that (he believed) Jesus was the product of patrilinear Davidic line:

Inheritance could not be passed on through the mother as the mother did not have the spérma.

7,026 posted on 01/13/2011 7:35:14 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6998 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; boatbums; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; caww; count-your-change; ...
Why is it Adam's sin when Eve clearly initiated it? Even the punishment exacted by God for it seems to be harsher on the woman (painful birth) than man (toiling the field). And, wasn't it Paul who says
And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression—1 Timothy 2:14 So, which scripture is metmom referring to?

Yes, Eve was deceived but that doesn't change that Scripture attributes to the man sin entering the world.

Read Genesis again.

God gave the command to Adam, THEN created Eve. It was Adam's responsibility to pass on that ONE verse correctly to Eve.

Then there's this, nice guy that Adam was....

Genesis 3:1-7 1Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" 2And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'" 4 But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and

she also gave some to her husband who was with her,

and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

In verse one, Satan questions God's Word.

In verse two, Eve misquotes what God told Adam.

Adam was there with Eve watching this entire conversation. He did nothing to stop her. He watched her listen to Satan without correcting the error in her misquoting of the ONE verse they had to obey. He watched WHILE SHE ATE. Apparently, when he saw that nothing happened to her, he figured it was safe and ate as well.

It was after HE ate that the eyes of both of them were opened.

The responsibility was Adam's. God gave him dominion over the whole earth. He was responsible for his family. He failed. The sin was his for disobedience. He did not protect her and chose to disobey God when he had no excuse as he talked with God himself.

7,027 posted on 01/13/2011 9:08:10 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7024 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

7,028 posted on 01/13/2011 9:10:30 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7026 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Adam blames Eve (”the woman whom YOU gave to be with me”), Eve blames the serpent (”..it deceived me..) But the serpent, like Edgar Bergen’s dummy, Charlie McCarthy, can’t say anything in his own defense. Satan has deceived Eve in yet another way by making it seem a serpent spoke.

Just a sidebar to your comments.


7,029 posted on 01/13/2011 10:02:12 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7027 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Wonderful Scriptural lesson from Genesis, Metmom.

It was after HE ate that the eyes of both of them were opened.

The responsibility was Adam's. God gave him dominion over the whole earth. He was responsible for his family. He failed. The sin was his for disobedience. He did not protect her and chose to disobey God when he had no excuse as he talked with God himself.

A lot can be learned by simply reading the Bible. Life falls into place. Things make sense when our lives are aligned to His word. Men are the head of the household and men are responsible for the spiritual education of their family. When that order is denied or ignored, confusion and error follow.

7,030 posted on 01/13/2011 10:09:14 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7027 | View Replies]

To: metmom; boatbums; MarkBsnr
Yes, Eve was deceived but that doesn't change that Scripture attributes to the man sin entering the world

Oh, yeah, the woman gets excused. How convenient—the woman was deceived, but Adam did it intentionally...heard that before.

God gave the command to Adam, THEN created Eve. It was Adam's responsibility to pass on that ONE verse correctly to Eve

Eve was aware that God did not want them to eat of the tree and that the penalty for disobeying was death.

The rest of the story paints a pretty naive if not stupid woman who was told by the Serpent (it says nothing about it being Satan) that they will not die and she believed him.

Now, whether Adam was "right there" as you claim, I don't see that anywhere. Even could have brought the fruit to Adam to show him that it was good to eat, and he ate it. Which is why he says to God afterwords: "The woman whom You gave [to be] with me she gave me of the tree; so I ate." [Gen 3:12]

When he saw that nothing happened to Eve, he was deceived by her, because as his God-given companion he believed her more than he believed God, just as Eve believed the Serpent more than her husband, or God!

So, while Adam's in is in blaming God for giving him the woman, and Eve blames the Serpent. That's pretty much the way it is to this day, people blame either God or the "devil" for their deception or stupidity, but never themselves.

7,031 posted on 01/13/2011 11:08:20 AM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7027 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

Adam also blames God.

It was the woman GOD gave him.


7,032 posted on 01/13/2011 11:11:51 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7029 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
Now, whether Adam was "right there" as you claim, I don't see that anywhere.

Genesis 3:6 6So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Is there something about about the words "her husband who was WITH her" that is too hard for you to understand?

7,033 posted on 01/13/2011 11:15:17 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7031 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Is there something about about the words "her husband who was WITH her" that is too hard for you to understand?

I do not necessarily understand it to mean right next to her, or "right there" as you said. He could have been 30 feet away, picking berries or something, and not heard what transpired.

Eve could have tasted the fruit and then turned to Adam to get his attention, saying, "here Adam, eat, this fruit is good."

If only Adam is responsible for the fall, than only men would need to be saved, which is not the case. In God's eyes, both are equally guilty, but Eve committed sin first, and her punishment is also harsher then man's.

7,034 posted on 01/13/2011 5:27:26 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7033 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Quix
Continuation of my response 7021 to the same post.

what is it in the Scripture, beside the fact that the Church had canonized it, that makes it so distinct from things the Church also believed at the same time she canonized the scripture? [...] what is so distinct about basis for the claims of Rome [even past the set of beliefs of the Early Church] versus what the Scriptures reveal?

The answer is that the Holy Scripture is that part of the Holy Tradition that was available in written form by the close of the period of the Apostolic Fathers, was wholly consistent with the Deposit of Faith as the Church knew it to be, had clear Apostolic or near-apostolic authorship, and was used in the Liturgy. The rest is the beliefs that the Church held, at least in the sense that she collectively could tell orthodoxy from heresy. For example, as the trinitarian and christological dogmas were decided, they were decided based on the sense of orthodoxy that the Church possessed internally, rather than on the written Word. To that, over time, doctrines are added that clarify points not clearly expressed earlier, or points referring to the issues of the day that come along. For example, the Church could not develop doctrines to do with medical ethics till very recently when certain medical possibilities became reality. That latter part is the teaching of the Living Magisterium.

Annalex: Both the Lutherans and the Anglicans lost it despite canonical provenance of their priests, due to the doctrinal errors of theirs.

Daniel: And they say they same for Rome

Yes. So we are not Lutheran and they are not Catholic. These demarkations, by the way, do not exclude arguments that are "Scripturally substantiated and Divinely attested to". They simply mark doctrines that are inacceptable for the benefit of the flock on either side.

your distinctions [between temporal authority of the Jewish rabbis and eternal character of Christ's Church] are irrelevant here

I don't see how the fact that some typological comparisons can nevertheless be drawn between the two, makes the distinction irrelevant.

In like manner the apostles for their authority and preaching [used the scripture]

Yes. So does the Infallible Living Magisterium fashioned after the Holy Apostles. It is the function of the Church, among others, to persuade rather than to simply proclaim doctrines.

You cannot claim to defined both the exten of Scripture and its meaning and claim to be subject to it [etc...]

I am not sure I understand that paragraph, -- I have difficulty grammatically parsing it. The Church Fathers defined what the Scripture is. The Magisterium today is not them, even though it succeeds them. It can, in a thought experiment, go into apostasy. We have a divine assurance that it won't. So far it hasn't. If the Magisterium commits an act of apostasy, we shall find out, -- maybe not everyone, but some informed remnant will find out, and we'll know them by their orthodoxy. This is a part of normal live functioning of the Church where parts self-correct. Consider, for example, the near-apostasy of the Vatican II and how it is being corrected in the past two pontificates quite nicely by forces of traditionalism, often lay traditionalism.

The magisterial principle is constant, irregardless that the Jewish one ceased

No, it is not constant, because the Church lifted the centerpiece of the Mosaic Law (Acts 15) and Jesus himself taught His Church to read the Old Testament critically abd be aware of its limited pedagogical nature (Matthew 5-7, Mark 10:5). Yet the Church herself enjoys the promise of infallibility from Christ because she is sent by Christ as Himself (John 20:21, Luke 10:16, 1 Cor 4:16, as well as, of course, Matthew 16:18).

Moses chair was a prefigurement of the chair of St. Peter

"Prefigurement" it surely was, but it is Christ's Kingship that "will have no end". You are arguing from a type.

they [bad popes] cannot lay claim to saving faith

So? It is quite possible that there were some popes that went straight to hell. Only some popes are canonized saints; about the rest, you can have any opinion you want.

7,035 posted on 01/13/2011 6:26:46 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6658 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change
if you take the teachings of Jesus in the Beatitudes as the absolute pinnacle of Scripture, as Catholics are so wont to do, then you must think that everyone is a murderer and liar. Jesus made it very clear that it was the heart that determined sin.

But nowhere does Jesus say that everyone has a lustful or wrathful heart. As a general description of fallen man, I agree, Romans 3 is accurate. The issue is, does it apply to absolutely everyone? Its grossly exaggerated form testifies that is does not.

7,036 posted on 01/13/2011 6:31:05 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6665 | View Replies]

To: metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; count-your-change
Scripture could not be plainer that salvation is through CHRIST.

Yes. I argued otherwise?

There may be the TESTIMONY of the church but not the witness of it because nobody was there to witness everything Mary ever did.

Testimony is witness. It is possible that some events in the life of Mary are lost to history. In fac,t I am sure that most are. Her lifelong virginity, however, is witnessed by her contemporaries; this is how it had become the faith of the Church.

7,037 posted on 01/13/2011 6:34:48 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6681 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
you didn’t grasp what “until” means. What two phrases does it connect in the verse?

"Knew her not" and "until she gave birth to Jesus". So? Where does it say anything about what happened after? "I did not fire the gun until [eos] the turkey fell on the ground dead". Does it mean I fired the gun at the dead turkey? I gave you an example of "The field was called X until [eos] ths day". Does that mean the field got renamed after the gospel was written?

7,038 posted on 01/13/2011 6:39:45 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6683 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
The term used is "seed" (John 7:42, Gr. σπέρμα, spérma; also Ps 89:4, Heb. zera') and seed implies patrilinear inheritance, which is synonymous with legality.

Hate to quibble here, but the term used is that one of David's descendants would be the one - which the Jews regularly used to include legitimate as well as illegitimate offspring. Since the principal wife of the hareem was the legitimate one, all other male offspring were normally recognized in some fashion or other. They were not simply cast off. And were recognized as descendents. But not heirs.

Inheritance could not be passed on through the mother as the mother did not have the spérma.

Wealth and the distribution of it to the next generation was and is of concern to those who have it.

7,039 posted on 01/13/2011 7:07:52 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7026 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
A lot can be learned by simply reading the Bible. Life falls into place. Things make sense when our lives are aligned to His word. Men are the head of the household and men are responsible for the spiritual education of their family. When that order is denied or ignored, confusion and error follow.

That is correct. We'll have to watch the PCA to find out if they follow the same road as the Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, most Presbyterians...

7,040 posted on 01/13/2011 7:09:28 PM PST by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7030 | View Replies]

To: annalex

“Until” the terminus of the first is indicated by the second,
i.e., the first is no longer the case, it ends, when the second occurs.

“I gave you an example of “The field was called X until [eos] ths day”. Does that mean the field got renamed after the gospel was written?”

Not the same construction, no action was stated in that example that would terminate what the field was called. Had you you written “until the field was called “Y” then the construction would be the same and the same meaning and understanding would apply as at Matt. 1:25. (see Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament #2193)


7,041 posted on 01/13/2011 7:43:10 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7038 | View Replies]

To: annalex

thanks for the ping.

May try and respond tomorrow.


7,042 posted on 01/13/2011 8:14:33 PM PST by Quix (Times are a changin' INSURE you have believed in your heart & confessed Jesus as Lord Come NtheFlesh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7035 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Hate to quibble here, but the term used is that one of David's descendants would be the one - which the Jews regularly used to include legitimate as well as illegitimate offspring

Point well taken, Mark. However, the right to the throne could not be passed on to the descendants of concubines. Only the legitimate decadent can claim the throne, and be the anointed one [i.e. the Heb. mashiyah, Eng. messiah, Gr. christos]. And the messiah is the warrior-king in Judaism, of Davidic line of inheritance, a royalty by direct descent and entitlement to the title of king.

Such inheritance is not matrilinear, so Mary's pedigree is irrelevant as to his being the anointed king of Israel by birthright, except to Jesus' Jewishness. And Joseph's lineage is irrelevant because his branch did not have the right to the title, and because he was not the father of Jesus, so his pedigree, although listed, is a pointless smoke screen.

Remember, Matthew writes to the Jews and is pursuing a mumbo-jumbo Joseph's pedigree, as if Joseph was the father, and knowing that patrilinear inheritance is the only one the Jews would even take as worthy of consideration.

This flies in the face of what follows, considering that as soon as he is done with Joseph's genealogy, Matthew makes it clear that Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus! So, why go through that genealogical charade?

Luke, on the other hand, writing to the Greeks ignorant of the Jewish customs, is grasping at the straws to establish legitimacy via Mary's genealogy, but all he really mnages to establish is Jesus' Jewishness, and not his legitimate royal inheritance.

7,043 posted on 01/13/2011 11:18:16 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7039 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change

nah, you’re not thick, well no more than the rest of us :-P But seriously, to really grasp the meaning of verses, chapters, books, the entire Bible — it’s like asking how many really know why e=mc2


7,044 posted on 01/13/2011 11:51:12 PM PST by Cronos (Bobby Jindal 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7022 | View Replies]

To: annalex; count-your-change
"Knew her not" and "until she gave birth to Jesus". So? Where does it say anything about what happened after?

If I was honest all my life, then a statement "I was honest until I was 11 years old" is an oxymoron, Alex. The expression "until 11 years old" implies that something changed at that marker (i.e. until); otherwise the expression is pointless.

Matthew 1:25 certainly does not suggest she remained a virgin after she gave birth! If Mary's perpetual virginity was intended to be a universal biblical belief, then Matthew's way of expressing it is very strange, considering that simply stating "she remained a virgin all her life." would have removed any doubt.

I know the Church believed otherwise, but that is a matter of tradition, not scripture, and trying to defend Mary's perpetual virginity with scripture is a rather untenable, Alex.

7,045 posted on 01/13/2011 11:55:30 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7038 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

a rather untenable = rather untenable


7,046 posted on 01/13/2011 11:57:14 PM PST by kosta50 (God is tired of repenting -- Jeremiah 15:6, KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7045 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
I think the difference between the Scriptures and E=M(c.c) is one appears complicated but is elegantly simple while the other is just the opposite.

The complexity that underlies the material universe just might be beyond the intellectual capacity of humans to grasp for some time, certainly our vocabulary is already inadequate, unless one speaks in the language of mathematical equations.

Conversely it appears there are some few simple themes running through the Bible that may look complicated because of the length of time covered compared to our rather abbreviated lifespan and the progressiveness of their development but which, like acts in a play, are connected and explain what has gone before and tell us what to look for in the future.

Cheers!

7,047 posted on 01/14/2011 12:48:50 AM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7044 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I accept [the Gospel] with all my heart

I cannot look at your heart, but I can look at your posts. Some parts you do reject. The gospel says "you are not saved by faith alone" and "works cooperate with faith to make faith perfect" and "my flesh is food indeed", -- these you reject.

what I reject is your religion's assertion that only it can determine what Scripture truly means

The church surely can, being "the pillar of truth" (that part you reject also). But one does not have to know a thing about the Church to compare what Faith ALone teaches with the actual scripture.

I have also not turned down God's gift of eternal life that he grants by grace through faith, because I have received it by faith.

Well, God says, "You will have life eternal" and that part you have faith in. But God also said much that you do not accept by faith. You have some parts of the faith but not entire faith because you believe some paorts of the Gospel but not the entire gospel.

Those who insist that they can somehow "supplement" the gift by adding their own good deeds to it completely change it from a gift into debt that they then insist God owes them for their good deeds.

That is empty sophistry. Many gifts come with an obligation attached to the gift. A gift card, for example, cannot be used unless you go to the store with it. Money often are given for a particular purpose, for example, to be used on education. There is nothing in the nature of gift-giving that precludes obligation on the part of the recipient.

The amazing grace of God never stops calling us and only death seals our fate

Fate? You are kidding, no? Belloc once remarked that the greatest damage Calvinism did to human civilization was to reintroduce pagan fatalism into it. Here is an illustration.

your responses are getting more shrill with each post

Depends on the post I am responding to. In this case, I asked you to note that Titus 3:7, "being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting". That part should be read by every one who believes that he "was saved", especially by "faith alone".

Of course works matter, [...] Only faith in Jesus Christ as Savior brings eternal life in heaven

So works matter for what? And, before I get very shrill again, re-read Titus 3:7 and see how that sits with your statement.

7,048 posted on 01/14/2011 5:27:05 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6687 | View Replies]

To: caww
Instead you hear something, categorize it according to the template you have before you, and choose whichever talking point most closely approximates an item on the menu of your template. It is like talking not to a man but to a machine.

Good. Here's the template: I read the post. I select things that are incorrect in it. I look at the relevant scripture and next I look at the relevant context. I can understand both because I know Catholic theology well enough, having received thourough Religion Forum training (I have a FR diploma on my wall). I then present the scripture to the reader and explain it.

My 6676 is an example of that method. You made an assertion about a particular part of the scripture and decided to apply it to the entire scripture. I then looked at verses that contradict your generalization and cited them to you.

If you expect some different style of communication, you probably will not get it from me.

7,049 posted on 01/14/2011 5:34:00 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6689 | View Replies]

To: Quix
May the Good Lord Who received wounds for your salvation, heal yours.

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, amen.

7,050 posted on 01/14/2011 5:40:39 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6694 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 6,951-7,0007,001-7,0507,051-7,100 ... 7,351-7,356 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson