Skip to comments.In Christ Alone (Happy reformation day)
Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
click here to read article
No, I am afraid I don't see. Elizabeth had an ongoing pregnancy indeed but that does not in any way attach "immediacy" to the foretold Mary's pregnancy. Besides, Mary's reaction (v 34) preceded the Angel's response to which you refer me.
On "these threads" (which and where?) I see plenty of questions about the Catholic faith in general and asking for Catholic explanations of certain passages. I also see the explanation then causing further questions, some stemming form lack of understanding, others from curiosity, yet others from a desire not to leave the field after the game is over. I do not see any instance where a biblical passage would be posed to me and I would not be able to give a Catholic explanation, other than, of course where a miracle not subject to laws of nature is discussed. If there is such an instance, please point it to me by thread and post number. You will do me a favor by also reviewing for yourself the answer I gave to that post before we go into circular posts.
Metmom: How do you know that church tradition reflects what God had to say?
In the same way you believe the Holy Scripture, by believing the witness of the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church.
You were supposed to answer the question, posed in irony, in your own head, Mom.
Then Judas really didn't betray Jesus, he only acted according to God's will?
In my translation I don't see any conflict in word or intent: Deut. 30:14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
The Hebrew version says "so that you may do it." And what is the "it " in this case? Paul, however, misquotes Deuteronomy 30:14, and introjects faith in it to support his novel theology.
The problem is your Bible version (NIV), FK, which is notorious for ad libing and "doctoring" the Bible to fit Protestant doctrine. In this case, the KJV, English Standard Version, Young's Literal Version, etc. agree with the Hebrew. The Catholic NAB version, strangely says "observe it" thereby translating the Qal as a Niphal! But the NIV choice (obey it) is not in the lexicon for Hebrew asah.
Paul's correct starting point is that it is God Who gives us our faith and that by faith we are saved.
But there is no faith mentioned in the Deuteronomy 30:14. Paul added it. We can's say he was using the Septuagint, because the Septuagint also says "do it" (poiein).
Paul is very clear in his teachings that this Christian heart is not something that we earn through works or because we are "good" enough.
But that's not what Deuteronomy 30 is all about, FK. Paul alters the holiest of Jewish scriptures (the Torah) for his own doctrinal purpose. That's fraud.
satan's will is certainly subjugated to God's, as we see at the beginning of Job. But I think whether we should characterize satan as "doing God's will" is a matter of semantics. In one sense "yes" because nothing can overrule God's will and everything that God wills, happens. In another sense, "no" because of course God hates all sin and is the author of none of it.
I hope you realize that this is untenable. If it is merely semantics, then it is insignificant (something like Clinton's "is"), a way to wiggle out of a logical corner. You can't serve two masters, not even the devil. If God is in charge than what's with the final "battle" between the good and evil? A show?
Naturally if we took the time to give individual thanks for all that is due God, then that is all we would be doing every waking minute.
And what is not due to God?
So, Christians understandably focus on giving thanks for those things that are easily understood. But of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't give thanks for what is painful. Paul gives us a perfect example...2 Cor 12:10 That is why, for Christs sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Do I take it then that your Church gives thanks to God for the tsunamis, the Holocaust, and the like? Do you thank him when someone falls ill or dies? It's funny that I find the Protestant attitude as a direct opposite of showing any delight in being weak, or giving thanks to God for persecutions, insults, and so on.
As far as other Protestants, I don't know how many would agree with the way I am expressing these ideas, but I know that every Reformer would agree with my sentiments that nothing trumps the will of God, and that whatever God wills is done.
So, when do Reformers celebrate the Andrea Yates Day?
Absolutely, couldn't have said it better myself! Isn't it glorious? :)
No wonder, FK, that Calivnsits make up only 10% of Baptists...
I still disagree that everything is God's "doing" just because He wills it.
LOL! Does that include the Bible?
Now, if evil was a part of the plan and God "injected" evil into a person thus forcing the desired result then you would be right.
Evidently you must have missed the passages where God intentionally sends evil and confusing spirits into someone to get what he wants.
But I say it doesn't work like that.
Oh yes, that makes all the difference...
Diversity of practice is good. It is also good among the Protestants. Diversity of doctrine is a sign of traditions of men, not a good thing. It is true that "the core belief in salvation by faith alone in Christ alone" is common to all Protestants, but that is not the fullness of faith, nor is it an agreement with your own Bible Alone since it is not to be found, and is directly controverted, by the Bible in the second half of James 2.
You have, for example, a serious division between the Armenians and the Calvinists, the High Church and the Low Church, and even in how you interpret your cardinal error of Faith Alone. On occasion, for example, I come across posts that could be validly made by a Catholic, on the other hand, posts grossly discordant with the Scripture. Interestingly, when I adress the latter, I am told that in fact I shoudl not generalize about all Protestants. Is it not then a sign of doctrinal disunity among the Protestants?
Oh sure, that's why good German Lutherans and Spanish Catholics make really tasty blood sausages. :)
I need to visit Greece again. However, the inner ear says "μπρε".
Though I’ll not take time to search the dictionary for you, I’m confident that it shows “conceived” has not the same meaning as “cleansed” despite your claim that it’s just timing.
“The difference is in the moment of the cleaning, but that is not indicated in the scripture you cite”
That statement makes no sense.
Is that a rhetorical question? I'll give you an answer anyway so you cannot come back and say I never did. We are reminded, exhorted, encouraged, etc., to good works because we are still here. Simple as that! As long as we are in this human flesh, we still have the old nature within as well as the new. Paul spoke about the battles he still had with the sin nature - doing what he didn't want to do, and not doing what he did want to do - and he had been saved 25+ years or so when he wrote it.
Certainly you understand that just because a person is a Christian, it doesn't mean they never sin again. In fact, I think the devil tries even harder to tempt believers into sinful living - especially those in ministry - so as to discourage them and cast shame upon the name of Christ. The clerical scandals within your own church are ample proof of that. The unsaved need no temptation as it just goes along with their natural self. Children of God have within them the new nature, the spiritual nature, and they have a strength as well as the desire to not give in to the sin nature. That is what is meant by good works naturally following true faith. It is a byproduct of the new nature and if a new convert says he has faith but his life shows no change towards a godly life or even a desire TO change, then we may conclude that their faith is not genuine.
Not everyone is the same, obviously, so we all have our own walk with the Lord, our own race to run, so to speak. So we should be exhorted and encouraged in how to walk and run in the way that brings glory to God. We "work out our salvation" not to get it but because we have it and we need to grow in grace and in the power of God.
I don't know why God leaves us here on earth to sometimes fall, other than I have seen these lo 40+ years with him that he uses every trial, every sin, every failing to bring me closer to him. Through it all I've seen that he has never forsaken me, never lost me, never cast me out or left me but, as the father of the prodigal son, he was always drawing me back to him. My sins have brought me to a deeper remorse and repentance than I ever would have had as an outsider. So, yes, we are a new creation in Christ that God leads and directs and disciplines through his Word. I am a far different person spiritually now than when I first was saved. That is what this new nature causes to happen within us and it is how we can know that we really are His, we are really born again.
Finally, you say "I choose to do good works because the Bible tell me I will not be saved otherwise" . What this proves to me is that you don't grasp the meaning of grace for, if you did, you would understand that no amount of works we can possibly do can bring us salvation. If they could, Christ is dead in vain. I and others have given you verse after verse that says this and only you can answer why you don't see it. But, I mean this from the bottom of my heart, I pray you one day will.
Did they? You mean the Jews worship "Portestant" style? Nehemiah 8:6 And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshiped the LORD with their faces to the ground
The Hebrew text Tanakh) says "and they bent their heads and prostrated themselves to the Lord on their faces to the ground."
Now, I have yet to see Protestants prostrate themsleves face to the ground...
Lifting up the hands is not the same as stretching out arms of the arms, but turning their palms upwards, boatbums.
This is like night and day what the Portestants do...
Technically speaking you may be right. The word is I believe Turkish.
based upon faith, presumably due to some evidence
Yes, and the evidence is twofold. First, it is the scriptural evidence (like the Bereans). I do not see anything in the scripture that the Catholic Church does not teach, -- as opposed to things some interpretations insinuate contradict the Church, while the Church has its plausible explanation that fits the context better. Second is the guidance of the Holy Ghost manifest in continuing survival and adaptibility of both the Catholic Church and her Eastern sister Orthodox Church. That is contrary to the spirit of the times so perfectly catered to by the Protestantism. No other pre-medieval institution survives today in such historical authenticity. One coming close is the Roman Republic, but you win no arguments today in the American Senate by saying "Romans did it" or "Cicero wrote it". An analogous argument today in the Catholic Chruch has not lost any potency -- it usually wins.
Rome is the OTC
OTC is Old Testament Church? We don't claim it. The Catholic Priesthood is Melchizedek, not Levi. We claim provenance with the pregnancy of Mary in some mystical sense, and the Pentecost in the Upper Room in the formal sense. The "OTS" is at best a type, such as Abel, or the baptismal types in the Flood, the Exodus and Joshua, or David impersonating Elizabeth and the leaping John with the Tora scroll.
in no place do we see the church being promised that it would be infallible whenever it universally spoken on faith and morals, in union with the Pope, while Jesus reproof of magisterial presumption teaching things which were contrary to Scripture, some of which they could have argued was derived from it, argues against Rome's presumption in doing likewise
We see the promise of not failing in Matthew 16:18, in Peter having the prayer of Christ to confirm his brethren in Luke 22:31-32, -- the promise made even more substantial because it contains the admission of human frailty of all Pertine successors, starting with Peter himself. As I admit, were I to see a scripture that is in contradiction to the teaching of the Church, that would possibly destroy my faith, -- but it would by the same token destroy my faith in the Scripture also, because one cannot have faith in the product while not trusting the deliverer of the product. But I do not see such contradiction, and I sure asked you Protestants to show it to me. I see perceived contradictions, but nothing I cannot see with a Catholic eye as a harmony.
insofar as belief that the Roman Catholic magisterium eliminates the doubts, confusion and misunderstanding which inevitably results from individual interpretations (see below) this is a rather specious claim, as [7 points follow]
Well, it eliminates doubt where the Magisterium desires to eliminate doubt. For example, one who does not believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (belief coming form the Holy Scripture) or efficacy of prayer to Mary and the saints (Holy Tradition) or the intrinsic evilhood of abortion (Living Magisterium) cannot make a reasonable mistake of being Catholic. Where there is leeway is because the Apostolic Church does not intend to have a single determination (e.g. what language to use in the liturgy, whether married men can be priests, whether the donkey literally spoke to Balaam, whether divinely authored evolution is a possibility). Both certainty and incertainty serve the same purpose, to lead men away from error and allow healthy exchange of ideas at the same time.
the cult-like requirement of implicit trust in a teaching magisterium, which in times past implied loss of salvation by failure to do so
It still implies a danger of losing one's salvation. However, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus is often misunderstood by Protestants because of their Faith Alone instincts. We are judged by our works (Rm 2:6-10, Mt 25:31-46). One dissenting from the Living Church of the Living God endangers his salvation because of the sustenance that the sacrament of the Church would have given him. It is not a direct, or automatic result of his dissent. For example, a Protestant cut off from the living water of the Church still can read the scripture and be inspired to his feat of faith. If he follows the call to holy life, he will be saved and die Catholic.
a highly presumptuous stretch
So test the presumtion. 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.
Catholics come in close to last in Bible reading, and substantially disagree with her and each other
You are inserting a Protestant yardstick to get a Protestantism-favoring response. The Catholic may not read the scripture because they do not get the essentials of the faith from the scripture alone. They hear the scripture in a larger percentage than in a typical Protestant sermon in the course of the Mass; they know the lessons of the scripture. The Catholics are not trained to deliver chapter and verse prooftexts. That skill is a sport, not knowledge. When a Catholic, such as the Catholic Answers crew, or even yours truly, gives the idea of learning scriptural prooftexting some attention, we do just fine. There is not a verse in the New Testament that in context contraverts any Catholic doctrine. Whether many Catholics cannot prove it is not the point: the Priotestants, as I demonstrate daily, cannot prooftext their point either, and they sure try.
Catholic unity is based upon confidence in the church itself
Yes. Which stands in stark contrast to the Protestant unity based on a few prooftexts from Pauline epistles that do not say what you pretend they say and came from the same Church in the first place.
It would appear, Kosta, that your awareness & convictions about such practices is as flawed as your awareness and convictions about God, His Ways and His Word generally, these days.
Further, It's highly likely that the Old Testament outstretched arms, lifting 'holy' hands up to God was the same as in Pentecostal circles.
1. Pentecostals do it both ways.
2. Old Testament Jews likely did it both ways.
3. The outstretched arms way is obeying Scripture in Christ's own words about coming to God as little children. Perhaps you've seen a 2 year old with outstretched arms reaching for Daddy to pick her up.
4. There are times when "assuming the position" [i.e. "the position" of waiting expectantly receptively on The Lord--with hands held palms open and up--held half-way up at slightly above or at waist level] a la your Jewish pic, suddenly becomes inadequate. One's worship rising up within, Holy Spirit rising up within--compels one, urges one, fosters one, leads one, to stretch as far as possible TOWARD DADDY GOD.
5. I'd have thought that someone purportedly as versed in the Old Testament as you, would have recalled the WAVE OFFERING of the Old Testament. One doesn't do a "WAVE OFFERING" with arms held half way. GOD is virtually NEVER THAT interested in HALF-WAY WORSHIP. WAVE OFFERINGS by their very NATURE are with OUT-STRETCHED ARMS.
And thou shalt put all in the hands of Aaron, and in the hands of his sons; and shalt wave them for a wave offering before the LORD.
And thou shalt take the breast of the ram of Aaron's consecration, and wave it for a wave offering before the LORD: and it shall be thy part.
And thou shalt sanctify the breast of the wave offering, and the shoulder of the heave offering, which is waved, and which is heaved up, of the ram of the consecration, even of that which is for Aaron, and of that which is for his sons:
His own hands shall bring the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the fat with the breast, it shall he bring, that the breast may be waved for a wave offering before the LORD.
And he put all upon Aaron's hands, and upon his sons' hands, and waved them for a wave offering before the LORD.
And Moses took the breast, and waved it for a wave offering before the LORD: for of the ram of consecration it was Moses' part; as the LORD commanded Moses.
And the breasts and the right shoulder Aaron waved for a wave offering before the LORD; as Moses commanded.
The heave shoulder and the wave breast shall they bring with the offerings made by fire of the fat, to wave it for a wave offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons' with thee, by a statute for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.
And the priest shall take one he lamb, and offer him for a trespass offering, and the log of oil, and wave them for a wave offering before the LORD:
And the priest shall take the lamb of the trespass offering, and the log of oil, and the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD:
And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete:
And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the firstfruits for a wave offering before the LORD, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the LORD for the priest.
And the priest shall wave them for a wave offering before the LORD: this is holy for the priest, with the wave breast and heave shoulder: and after that the Nazarite may drink wine.
6. However, Proddys likely welcome your being your habitual contrarianly wrong most any time, about Scripture and authentic Christianity. It's become a sad to an occasionally amusing FR !!!!TRADITION!!!!
7. Worshippers of The Living God in congregations not given to such practices are missing out on a very Biblical Blessing in their avoidance of a very Biblical practice. Avoidant, passive !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man are no more Christian and admirable or Godly than active !!!!TRADITIONS!!!! of man.
8. Both sacrifice a deree of, a measure of, obedience and of a Blessing strictly because of giving social pressure and what other humans think of one's actions, priority over God. I can't find a single Biblical example of God EVER being PLEASED with such an upside-down priority, practice.
Fantastic post—and how wonderful an example of how Papists argue always from a false premise.
I would echo rnmom’s query: does this poster KNOW what The Gospel is???
Be careful: you’re painting with a mighty broad brush...
“...rampant homosexualism, and rampant promiscuity...”
Those charges alone could be leveled at the priesthood of the RCC alone!!
“...embrace an omnipotent, omniscient, timeless, infinitely perfect God.”
Funny. If you would only do that, you’d leave the falsehoods of Papism behind.
Alex, shall I send Kosta the clip of a real Metropolitan? :)
“Scare tactics? Is that all you have?”
Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Psalm 111:10
And all those good Catholic Poles make duck blood soup.
And your point is?
All it means is that they are violating the directives given by God and reinforced by the Council of Jerusalem at which those called church fathers decreed that the eating of blood is prohibited. Peter was at that meeting as well. You know, the guy who Roman Catholics claim chaired the meeting and is responsible for the directives handed down.
I guess that doesn't make them so good After all, does it?
And so what are your pictures for comparison supposed to prove?
You cnn’t know how the Jews in the OT raised their hands to pray or praise. You weren’t there.
A staged picture of some guy posing is not *proof* of anything.
If you’re going to be the great skeptic that you claim and question Scripture because of evidence from the material world, I would hope that what you’re allowing to make you question your faith is of better substance than something like that. If that’s an example of the kind of evidence* you allow to challenge Scripture and your faith, you need to hold your standards of proof to a much higher standard.
Then you aren't frequenting the right Protestant churches. FWIW, I have.
Lifting up the hands is not the same as stretching out arms of the arms, but turning their palms upwards, boatbums.
Pivoting the hands at the ends of the arms so that the palms face upwards is not lifting hands up. *lifting up* means raising in elevation.
Honestly, your standard of prove as evidence against something is anemic at best. You really need to work on finding something of more substance.
If you're going to reject Scripture and the church, and by implication God, or criticize someone for being wrong, you ought to at least have some really good reasons for doing so.
And God provided the way for believers to boldly enter into the holy of holies by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10:19) so that they may commune with Him (not Mary. etc.). May we use this privilege more to worship and pray to Him.
But as for the blood, it will be pointed out by some that sins could be forgiven without shedding of blood, (Lv. 5:11-13) and indeed Jesus forgave sins before He made atonement. (Mt. 2:5) But it is understood that such was done under the rubric of the day of atonement, in which both a scapegoat and blood sacrifice was offered, this being commanded, “this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year.” (Lv. 16:34)
It is also pointed out that shedding of blood was for sins done in ignorance,which would seem to include being deceived, and without intent to sin, while those who sinned presumptuously, knowingly, willfully by commission or omission, such as Ex. 21:14; Num. 9:13; Dt.17:12; 29:19,20; Josh. 7:21-25, had no atonement, but had to bear their iniquity. (Num. 15:27-31)
This meant facing the consequences, and they were to be utterly (key word) cut off, evidently usually by death, such as the man who blatantly rejected the command to rest on the 7th day sabbath and gathered firewood, and was stoned. (Num. 15:32-35)
Yet terms such as “ignorantly” and “presumptuously” require more, understanding, and we have instances in which enlightened souls who perhaps did knowingly sin (2Sam. 12:13; 1Ki. 21:25-29; Ezra 10) were convicted in heart and able to repent and find mercy, though there were consequences, and in Ezra 10 their conscience appears to have been dulled, and there needs to be judgment in all this.
All this corresponds to the N.T., in which souls are treated as deceived and ignorant before their conversion, (Titus 3:3) and thus the blasphemer and injurious persecutor Saul obtained mercy, because he did it “ignorantly in unbelief.” (1Tim. 1:13) 14)
But judgment is according to light, (Lk. 16:48), and so believers are the most accountable, and like as those who would not keep the Passover were cut off, in Hebrews 10:25-39 (cf. Gal. 5:1-4) we are warned that those converts who forsake the (persecuted) Christian fellowship, and go on in impenitent willful sin (including going back into their former faith) have effectively denied and despised the faith, and will be treated as adversaries, for “the Lord shall judge his people.”
Ananias and Sapphira are two examples of such accountable souls willfully, knowingly sinning, while Simon, who “believed and was baptized,” is implicitly warned of the like in Acts 8:13,18-24 - and gets the message. And John warns about a” sin unto death,” (1Jn. 5:16) of which he says “I do not say that he shall pray for it.”
Yet in 1Cor. 5:5, a man who is involved in a most blatant sin is delivered over to the devil as a means of restorative chastisement, which worked, and in 1Cor. 11:20-32, believers who hypocritically commemorated the selfless death of Christ by selfishly pigging out at the love feast while others went hungry - thus failing to recognize other members of the church as part of the body - were also supernaturally chastened unto repentance, though with some dying. And which restorative chastisement is necessary, if we will not be condemned with the rest of the world. (v. 32)
The primitive churches (plural) “walking in the fear of the Lord, and in the comfort of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied, (Ps. 9:31) and we are to “rejoice with trembling,” (Ps. 2:11) as we serve an awe-some and holy God, and so must i seek to better.
AMEN! AMEN! AMEN!
I am a terrible typist and I apologize for all my spelling errors, past, present and future. :) (trying to answer a post when it's way past my bedtime doesn't help either)
I agree with you that the manner of worship, or even what people believe is none of mine, or anyone else's business, including the Portestants [sic], :)
But the reality is that the Protestants as well as Catholics and Orthodox here engage in bashing each others' beliefs, worship and even sincerity.
However, I don't remember you ever admonishing your fellow Protestants for what you call juvenile and unbecoming.
Perhaps you have forgotten that, not so long ago, you yourself called me Losta, and tried to wiggle out of that juvenile and unbecoming pit by saying it was a "joke."
Well, my dear, so it is when I say the Protestant pray like the crazed pagan Kalimar crowd in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom," or when I say they are Paulianists. It's all a joke. I am sure you understand that, since you yourself admit to being a joker, a personal one too. So, what is the purpose of your post?
Now, joking aside, I am not sure why you hold me to Christian values, given that you think I am Losta and, as some people have hinted, don't even belong here because I doubt or don't accept their personal version of truth. Why should I be measured by Christian standards when even the Christians don't measure up to them?
The OT God threatens into obedience. What else is new?
I remember somewhere in Acts (maybe chapter 10) Peter has a vision while in a trance [!], hearing a voice from the sky, [!] that all food is good.
All it means is that they are violating the directives given by God
And you know someone mortal who is not? What is your point? What does it matter? The OSAS crowd doesn't believe works will condemn you since you have been "saved." Remember Luther's one thousand fornications a day?
Peter was at that meeting as well. You know, the guy who Roman Catholics claim chaired the meeting and is responsible for the directives handed down
Yeah, but then he had a "vision"...
How can you know? Were you there? I am simply saying the Jews don't pray like the Protestants (or, in all fairness, some Protestants), and both claim it's form the OT.
A staged picture of some guy posing is not *proof* of anything.
It's the proof how the Jews pray, lifting up their hands (not arms!).
If youre going to be the great skeptic that you claim and question Scripture because of evidence from the material world, I would hope that what youre allowing to make you question your faith is of better substance than something like that. If thats an example of the kind of evidence* you allow to challenge Scripture and your faith, you need to hold your standards of proof to a much higher standard
Wow, who was saying anything about faith? This is about the manner of worship. LOL.
Then you aren't frequenting the right Protestant churches.
Oh, so there are "right" and "wrong" Protestant "churches?" Could you give me at least a partial list of them so I have a better idea? And while you are at it, could you tell me what makes them right or wrong?
If you're going to reject Scripture and the church, and by implication God, or criticize someone for being wrong, you ought to at least have some really good reasons for doing so.
Any time you want to talk about it, please don't hold back. But, right now we are talking about the manner of worship, and two groups of people claiming the same source while worshiping in divergent ways (Jews and some Protestants), not about faith, Church or the Bible.
Not funny. There is no such thing as "papism", other than an offensive slur. For your information, the Pope doesn't "rule" anyone. He serves his flock by advising, guiding and defending Christ's Church.
Wow. Splendid. That's probably one of the few times a RC has acknowledged Protestants are united. And united on something as important as "faith alone" in Jesus Christ, made known to us by Scripture alone."
Thank God, we are united on these two righteous principles of Christianity which allude stubborn Rome.
God is good. Thanks for noticing.
Which Protestants? The Church of One?
Further, It's highly likely that the Old Testament outstretched arms, lifting 'holy' hands up to God was the same as in Pentecostal circles
Old Testament Jews likely did it both ways.
I don't think so.
The outstretched arms way is obeying Scripture in Christ's own words about coming to God as little children. Perhaps you've seen a 2 year old with outstretched arms reaching for Daddy to pick her up
One's worship rising up within, Holy Spirit rising up within--compels one, urges one, fosters one, leads one, to stretch as far as possible TOWARD DADDY GOD.
Reaching out "as far as possible" towards God? I thought God is everywhere. You don't really think God is "up there" looking "down" at you?
I'd have thought that someone purportedly as versed in the Old Testament as you, would have recalled the WAVE OFFERING of the Old Testament
I remember reading about it way back when. My understanding it that it was something done by the Temple priests (only), with body parts of sacrificed animals. It was a very specific priestly ritual, not something done by crowds waving wildly in the air.
However, Proddys likely welcome your being your habitual contrarianly wrong most any time, about Scripture and authentic Christianity
"authentic Christianity" established with such irrefutable "arguments" as "very likely" and misplaced snippets from the Old Testament? I guess I am a failure as a "Proddy," and find it strange when people wave their arms in the air like a bunch of crazed-out pagans trying to reach [sic] "as close as possible" to an omnipresent God!
One doesn't do a "WAVE OFFERING" with arms held half way.
One doesn't. You have to be a Temple priest to do the wave-offering, and then then he better have a bloody body part in his hands. :) (It is an offering after all! Empty hands are good for naught, LOL.) But since there is no Temple, even that is not an option any more, Q.
So, do some Proddys think they are Jews?
Worshippers of The Living God in congregations not given to such practices are missing out on a very Biblical Blessing in their avoidance of a very Biblical practice.
No Christians, to the best of my knowledge, not even the Pentecostals, wave slaughtered animal body parts in their hands trying to reach as close as possible to God, Q. What they do is a tradition of men that has nothing in common with the Jewish practice.
Then no rituals, not even waving of the hands, is necessary, no works, not even going to church. I just find it disingenuous when Protestants make fun of Catholics/Orthodox and their "empty rituals", while they themselves wave aimlessly in the air as if saying "I am here!" to an omnipresent omniscient God.
You’ve got mail!
It is the same God, who was and is and is to come.
Odd... I don’t seeing where said anything about the pope “ruling” anyone. Putting words in mouths again I see.
Odd still: everyone bows and kisses his ring.
Sorry. Tiny keyboard. Should be:
“I don’t recall seeing where I said anything about ruling...”
They ALREADY know God is within them.
So, who are they waving at? I just had another "Proddy" (as he calls himself) tell me they are reaching out to get "as close as possible" to God. Sometimes I think the Protestants really have no clue what they are talking about, or maybe they talk form both sides of the mouth.
You are coming from the RCC beliefs
Too much mind reading. I have never been a Roman Catholic.
You will never understand how/why Christians worship as they do since they KNOW God through fellowship.
Fellowship? They are fellows with their maker? The pot is a "buddy" (fellow) with the potter; the chair with the carpenter; the uncreated with the created? More doubletlak...but it sounds good.
Your scripture ref. immediately brought to mind the temple curtain being torn in half from top to bottom... evidencing Jesus had indeed accomplished for us what God required and which we could never satisfy...He satisfied Himself.. by His own blood.....which then led me to the Garden where God Himslef had to have slain animals in order to clothe Adam and Eve with their skins. So Pausing to reflect what this might have been like, visually in my mind, brings a great sense of humbleness and gratitude along with utter awe which cannot be put into words.... (As for Mary, of course she had no direct role in, she could only watch along with all the others.) It was all about Christ...and that for us.
I do not have a strong understanding of all the requirements the Jewish people had to do....the lists are broad as they are wide, so they had to have a means of atonement, it would be impossible to keep all those requirements. But I can see where the "scapegoat" comes in..and wasn't it sent outside the camp? Rather like Jesus was Crucified outside as well.... In fact it does become more clear that all the Jewish requirements and practices point to Christ directly and otherwise....
Truly astounding how the Bible does interpret itself when you study it....and you then can see it indeed could not have been authored any other way than by those directly influenced by His Spirit...it's just far too remarkable otherwise. Nor could it be understood without His Spirit since he authored it.
Sometimes it has been difficult to understand why Christianity is such a bloody religion....why God could have not gone some other way than this. But then I consider who He is and who we are without Him ... then it's clear there was no other way... for the depravity of man is far more serious then we see or understood in our day. Just as it's written...we sin like a cart-rope.. and think so little of the consequences...much less the cost.
I have rather gone on here but your posts generally cause one to look closer... and the Lord's Spirit takes it from there on for those who care to read and listen. Thank you for your words and instruction, though I know you will gladly give all the glory to Him..I still am grateful you are willing to share...it makes a difference to many I think. CW
All these prooftexts of "Faith Alone" are silly. All, taken in context, speak of "works of the law" or "works of justice"; if you read around them they all at the same time urge good works. The difference is, of course, that works done out of legal obligation are thereby containing their own reward, -- Jewishness, when that legally mattered, in the case of the works of circumcising oneself and one's children, or generally social recognition and temporal freedoms that lawful life offers. Good works, on the other hand, are works done for no temporal reward and instead at a temporal cost: continence, constraint of the passions, denial of self. These, the Gospel teaches, are works that save alongside of faith because, like faith they are possible thanks to divine grace. This simple teaching is brilliantly illustrated by Eph 2:4-10:
 But God, (who is rich in mercy,) for his exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,  Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,)  And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus.  That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus.  For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God;  Not of works, that no man may glory.  For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
Salvation is by sovereign grace of God alone; that grace is not of works. We receive His grace for no merit of our own and our response is twofold, faith and good works. God plants in us the former and prepares us for the latter. We are saved by grace alone through faith and good works.
Of course, it is also a historical fact that "Faith Alone" was a slogan that emerged out of the so-called reformation. People prior to Luther were suffiently informed in the Holy Scripture to know that according to it, we are not saved by faith alone (James 2:24).
Rather than teaching that a faith without works is salvific, it [historical Protestantism?] affirms Jame's teaching ...
No it doesn't. The slogan "by Faith Alone" is diametrical opposite of James 2:24. That all the Protestant leaders, old and new, offer up some incomprehensible mumbo-jumbo of which that paragraph is a sample, is not surprising. But so long as the slogan stands, "Faith Alone", so do the anathemas of Trent stand. You cannot believe "A" and "not A" at the same time.
You cannot have one Scripture declaring that a soul is counted righteous because of faith, in contrast to merit of his works, (Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9) and another (it is supposed) teaching that works merit eternal life, which Rome teaches. While she and her defenders seek to make eternal life both a gift to and a reward, the two are Scripturally opposed to each other. (Rm. 6:23; 11:6)
All three, Eph 2:8-10, Titus 3:1-8, 2 Timothy 1:6-10 mention the importance of faith and also of good works. You carved out parts that speak of faith and neglected to also look at the immediate context of each of the three major prooftexts that you offer. (You wisely do not offer anything from Romans and Galatians here, because it must be clear to you that these speak narrowly of works of Jewish law). So, no, the scripture does teach that "soul is counted righteous because of faith", but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of faith ALONE.
Let us turn our attention to your other scriptural references.
"Abram believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice". Indeed. Annalex believes that one must do good works because that is what God says in Matthew 25:31-46. Abram then believed God and crossed the desert on a near-suicidal mission. He also believed God and was ready to sacrifice his beloved son. Catholic saints believed God when God said that that one must do good works and built universities and hospitals, and fought off the Turks. These were all works of faith. Faith without works is dead. Abraham was not saved by faith alone, but rather his faith co-operated with his works (James 2:23, Hebrews 11). We are not saved by faith alone.
... is supposed to illustrate that eternal life is a gift rather than a reward. It is both, in fact: "Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works" (Rev. 22:12, note that the rest of the passage speaks precisely of the reward of eternal life given to holy people).
"And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace". Indeed. That is Catholic teaching: grace is not of works and we are saved by grace alone. You take a good and Catholic scripture that speaks of grace, and do a mental substitution of "faith" for "grace". That way, you can "prove" anything.
One either has confidence that his own works merit him acceptance before God, or he realizes himself a sinner
Why, there is no either-or here. St. Paul himself considered himself worst of sinners and at the same time understood that his works "fill what is wanting of the sufferings of Christ".
The apostle Paul clearly establishes that it is on the basis of God-given faith that one is justified by, not of works
Where, exactly? The prooftexts I am familiar with speak of works of the law but not good works of faith and love, to which St. Paul never tired of exhorting his reaers.
Consistent with what Paul himself taught elsewhere, what James is referring to is that the only faith that is salvific is the one that does work obedience, in contrast to one who simply professes but does not possess faith. Before Paul addressed the precise issue of faith versus works, he clearly stated, For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. (Rm. 2:13) And elsewhere he and other writers affirm that one can deny the faith by disobedience, (1Tim. 5:8; Gal. 5:1-5) and that it is those who obey Jesus who have eternal life. (Heb. 5:9) The key difference is that works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification.
Your examples are all good and teach the Catholic doctrine which you state well. Except, for no apparent reason, you conclude "works are a result of saving faith, not the cause of justification". That latter part is a theological fantasy not supported by scripture. If you substitute "grace" in that statement it becomes correct and Catholic, and also it then comes to reflect the scripture accurately. As you stated it, it reflects the Protestant error and nothing else.
salvation comes to the repentant who believe, (Lk. 16:9)
I believe you meant some different verse here. In general, yes, that is a true and Catholic statement that one who does penance and believes will be saved, because full and mature faith incorporates good works, including works of penance.
eternal life upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, (Jn. 5:24)
Yes, and what that faith really entails is explaned a few verses down, "And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment". Faith must be accompanied by good works. We are not saved by faith alone.
the obedient are given eternal life after consideration of their works. (Mt. 25:39-41)
The judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 is not a judgement of the obedient only, but rather of everyone, even, "every nation". The "goats" are clearly not among the obedient as they violated the commadnment given to all in Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33.
Romans 10:9,10 also testified that it to is a faith which is confessional in quality that justifies
That is probably the best prooftext for Faith Alone as the explanation of the good works that go into that saving faith is deferred to the next several chapters. However, even in isolation, consider that the conclusion St Paul drives towards is that any one -- Greek or Jew -- can have the confessional faith. The polemics here is still with the Judaizers and the pruiported need to obey the Jewish law. but anyone who thinks that St. Paul preched salvation by faith alone in Romans 10 should skip over to Romans 12 and read things like "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". That supposedly purely confessional faith of Romans 10:9 turns out to be nothing short of a living sacrifice. Faith Alone anyone?
MetMomThe verse you provided in no way supports your comment. You're talking about taking communion. The verse supports faith alone
John 3:15 does not teach faith alone. It teaches that one has to have faith. It does not in any way restrict that faith to being faith "alone". The reason I cited that is to explain to you that Christ promised everlasting life to some people. You had asked whether we believe that those taking the Holy Eucharist will have eternal life. I answered that yes, we do, just as you seem to believe in John 3:15. Or don't you?
Saying that [the saints are] alive in heaven is meaningless because all that's doing is taking one portion of the passage and interpreting it in a spiritual sense, and taking another portion and interpreting it in a literal, physical sense.
All passages about eternal life, in John 3, or John 6, or John 12:24-25 speak of tangible, real, literal life which is, just like our life, also spiritual. The difference is that it is not a life of the body just yet, but neither in John 6 Christ is promising the communicants life of the body. So this is how we believe all these verses, as promises of real tangible life in Heaven. For that reason, -- because the saints have real, tangible, eternal life now -- that we pray for their intercession.
If the Catholic church is going to demand that the host becomes the literal, physical flesh and blood of Jesus and that we must eat it literally and physically, then to be consistent in their interpretation, they must also teach that by doing so, the person will never die on this planet, that he will physically live forever here in this physical, material universe.
Why? Christ never insisted that eternal life is physical material life, quite the opposite (Luke 20:35-36); but he did insist that the Eucharistic species are His body and "food indeed" (John 6). We believe what Christ says. In stark contrast to the Protestant who believe their own theories.
the interpretation that communions is a symbolic representation of a spiritual truth
When the grain dies and wheat grows instead (John 12:25) it is not symbolic representation of a spiritual wheat but rather simply wheat. Read what is written, don't insert meanings you think should be there but aren't.
To reject that mercy and grace given freely as a gift by insisting on paying for it or earning it, is to spit in God's face
Indeed. Good thing we Catholics don't teach that. Grace is not of works, cannot be earned, and is given to all. It is a good idea to have a clue over what the Catholic Church teaches before opining about it. In fact, it is not a bad idea to read the Gospel every now and then before trying to figure out what eternal life means.
With Kolokotronis in 5848 I can only marvel where you people come up with this stuff.
Here's the side by side of the Greek original and Douay. Find your "eis", please. ("Eis" IS a Greek preposition, meaning variously, in, into, for, etc. It is not a form of the verb "to be". You see it in the last sentence of Luke 22:19).
Matthew English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) Matthew 26
26. And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. εσθιοντων δε αυτων λαβων ο ιησους τον αρτον και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και εδιδου τοις μαθηταις και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου Mark English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) Mark 14
22. And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. και εσθιοντων αυτων λαβων ο ιησους αρτον ευλογησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις και ειπεν λαβετε φαγετε τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου Luke English: Douay-Rheims Greek NT: Byzantine/Majority Text (2000) Luke 22
19. And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. και λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων τουτο εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν