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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,051-7,1007,101-7,1507,151-7,200 ... 7,351-7,356 next last
To: annalex; metmom; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; Belteshazzar; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums
Do you disagree that al have sinned, and that the whole human race of accountable souls “are all under sin,” “all gone out of the way,” and so “all the world may become guilty before God,” as stated in Rm. 3:9-19) and that “in me [and you] (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing,” and are damnable and destitute of any way of escaping our just punishment in Hell fire or deserving eternal life, but must by saved by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteousness?

Yes. That mercy can come sooner for some according to Christ's grace, such as His mother, but as human material in general, yes, I agree. That is Catholic teaching.

If only all her teaching was so, but the Immaculate Conception was the product of long term theological evolution, not something taught in Scripture, and the logic used in attempting validate thereby does not. Nor is this a result of unanimous consent of the fathers. Scripture evidences that it makes notable conditions evident, and a normal human being who knows “how to refuse the evil and choose the good” remaining sinless is most notable, and thus Jesus is thrice stated to be without sin, (Jn. 8:46; 2Cor. 5:21; 1Pt. 2:22) even though this need not be said due to His being Divine. How much more are such statements needed in the case of created mortals. But this is never said of Mary, but

RCs reason that God had to have a sinless vessel to bring His sinless incarnated Word into the world. And that being “full of grace” she could not have sin.

However, this presupposes that she was preserved “in the first instance of her conception...from all stain of original sin” ((Ineffabilis Deus) which is contrary to what is stated on the subject, (Ps. 51:5; Rm. 5:12) while there is no necessity for such, for not only was Mary's own mother not so preserved, and Jesus body was prepared by God, (Heb. 10:5) but God brought forth His sinless pure spoken and written Word into the world using holy but fallen men who had sinned.

As for “full of grace,” the only person who is said to be “full” (plērēs) grace (charis) is the Lord Jesus Himself, (Jn. 1:14). Lk.1:28 simply says “hail” “grace” or graced, thus can be rendered “Hail, favoured” while if “full” is added it can easily refer to the contents of her womb, and or to her having been chosen, rather than a sinless quality of Mary. Believers themselves are said to be graced or favoured (charis) in Eph. 1:6, and can be “filled with the Holy Spirit.” (Eph. 5:18)

man is fallen[...] because they yield to their inherited Adamic nature

I wouls be careful with the word "nature" though. A Catholic would say "condition" or "state". Christ has human as well as divine nature, and His nature is not fallen. The human nature is not fallen, man has fallen away from his nature, which is as perfect as God made it.

It can have different meanings, depending on context, but this i know, that believers “were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.” (Eph. 2:3)

Annalex: You are saved again thanks to a confession no matter how perfunctory. That is because, no matter where you put "works" in the plan of salvation, the Holy Mysteries of Baptism, Confession, Eucharist are not our works. It is God Who works, "according to his own purpose and grace".

Daniel: The idea that a mere perfunctory confession saves is more heretical than supposing infants are born again by proxy faith.

So in your mind it is a human effort that forgive sins. So who has works salvation now? The Church is empowered to forgive sins (John 20:23). There are many ways to invalidate confession, lack of contrition is primary one. But a confession done properly -- that is, the sins are told as they are remembered and contrition is expressed sincerely -- is valid if the priest absolves the sin. The Church supplies what was lacking in the penitent, if anything.

Your assume that mere perfunctory confession was not what such as “lack of heart contrition” referred to, and or that “saves” does not refer to the faith behind it. Such contrition God's grace works in one that is to be justified by faith, and which prep work is not contrary to sola fide, as much explained already. But the church cannot make a conversion of confession valid if one does not believe with all his heart. (Acts 8:37)

The infants are cleansed by baptism for a similar reason, because it is God Who provides the "laver of regeneration". The faith of the sponsor is necessary but it is not the faith that cleanses, it is the Sacrament itself, ex opere operando.

Which is contrary to the explicit requirements for conversion and baptism. (Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:37) God does have regard to faith in showing grace to others, but the infirmity of the palsied man was only physical, not cognitive, and was able to himself believe and obey. God also forgave souls in Lk. 23:34, but did not equate to redemption. And i do not agree that infants are guilty of sins but that they are innocent.

As for ex opere operando, the recipient must be properly disposed, and normally the minister is to be of God and appropriately gifted.

And since the OTC which you would have us convert to include them, then it is not simply official RC faith that is the issue, but the church itself

I don't know what OTC is (I know you probably explaiend it somewhere but it doesn't come to mind). The statement though is wrong insofar as you mean "because the Catholic Church has political liberals in it I don't want it no matter hat faith you have". It is wrong in the same sense as saying "because there are political liberals in that hospital I will treat my wounds at home". you just don't know what church is.

One True Church. The point is valid in relation to the promoting of Rome by Rome and her (RCAs) Roman Catholic apologists who attack Prots as deficient in grace. What a person or entity really believes is shown by what they practice, and what they teach is shown by what they effectually convey.

TD[Total Depravity of man] is no more unreasonable than original sin, which is where it comes from

I agree that some aspects of total depravity doctrine are bridgeable with Catholic teaching on original sin and therefore bridgeable with the Scripture. Others are not. That it originated, such as it is, from "souls honestly seeking to be consistent with Scripture" is neither here or there. Perhaps Calvin honestly sought something, perhaps not. The end product is bunk. For a thorough treatment of the TULIP doctrines and in what part they are Catholic (in some ways all five are) see A Tiptoe Through TULIP

I do not subscribe to all as defined.

(do) you seem to have a real aversion to yourself being a sinner who is worthy of Hell and unable to save yourself except by the mercy of God in Christ, by His blood and righteous, not matter how it is appropriated?

No, I do not have such an aversion. There is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. So those outside of it by the time they die according to their heart will not be able to save themselves, and those in it by the time they die according to their heart will be saved by the blood and righteousness of Christ, and again not because of anything in them as creature.

So this means formal membership, and or at least with the required trust in her assuredly infallible magisterium? And are those Catholics who suppose they are somewhat morally worthy of eternal life, lost? Do you support a Roman monarchy? And what should be done with doctrinal heretics? Answer.

its not really about evangelical not working out their faith, but about not working out Rome's.

It is about theological error of Sola Fide. We "in Rome" have no problem with Evangelicals' good works as such and on some of these works, -- e.g. pro-life causes and the role of religion in public square -- we can cooperate.

Faith without works is dead. Rome largely is, and I have been there in both conditions, and what committed souls she has are mostly preaching a particular brand name institution which their life centers around more than Christ and a relationship that transcends its living organic manifestations. About the only souls one can have some degree of actual fellowship in Christ with are a few charismatics. And the movement, inspired in the last century of Protestants (though it had prior sanction by Rome), has been largely reeled in.

Paul and the early church had nothing to do with disciplining those without

So did the Inquisition, at least as conceived. It is an internal ecclesial court whose top penalty is excommunication of errant Catholics from the Cathoic Church.

You left out the other part, while actions show what was believed. The heretical Cathars and Waldensians in the Medieval Inquisition certainly felt outside, but the point is, whether in or out, the New Testament church did not use such carnal force to discipline its members or those without, nor was it constitute to do so, including using theocracies to punish men merely for matters of belief. While the Inquisitorial victims have been exaggerated, it was a long term practice as Rome became much like the world in organization and means. Calvin learned it also.

Rome in contrast, persecuted Bible Christians

But you are not "Bible Christians". You have some beliefs that are Catholic and then you have some beliefs that you need kilobytes of verbosity to paper over the chasm between Protestantism and the scripture.

Rather, Rome has some Biblical beliefs which we affirm and have diligently defended against those who deny them, which deviation is due to allegiance to authorities higher than Scripture, but thus we must contend against Rome's inventions which are due to the same mutiny. As for verbosity, it is mostly Roman Catholics who constantly seem to feel they need to advertise their church on FR and elsewhere, while my lengthy responses are much due to their refusal to be objective and their need to defend Rome at every point. If eating meat on Fridays was still forbidden they would still be seeking to defend it, as they do the unScriptural church law mandating a celibate clergy. They do not support seeking truth as Bereans, but must defend an institution as the infallible authority above the Scriptures.

1 Cor 3:8-15 [...] is specifically about the works being burned up and one losing rewards [...] Purgatory on that other hand, is about the interior self being purged

The passage in 1 Cor 3:8-15 equates the man to the building and then the inferior stuff is purged by fire from that building. So yes, the allegory of the building refers to the purification of man interiorally.

It is you are are engaging in forced entry. It says nothing about the building being believers whose interior is purged by fire! It is about the manner of material used to build te church, and the gold are those whose faith endures, (1Pt. 1:17) while the wood” are the lost who have not true faith. (Mal. 4:1; Mt. 3:12) Rome's own stamped NAB commentators state, “The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.” You are wresting texts to defend Rome, to your own hurt.

“Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble.. "..the fire shall try every man's work [labor] of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

"For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1 Thessalonians 2:19)

“If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy.” (v. 17) This speaks corporately, and those like Ananias and wife who defiled the church are to be burned.

To prove your conclusion, please show where taking part in the Lord's supper was preached as the means to get life in you.

Why, in John 6 in several places Chirst says that "eating His flesh" gives eternal life, and that He will give us His flesh to eat. Then, at the Last Supper He did. Then, at Golgotha, He gave His life in order to give us eternal life. What is not clear about that?

Why is it not clear that (as shown before) “eating” has a high metaphorical use, while John calls Jesus many things thusly (Lamb, door, shepherd, etc.) and contrasts the physical with the spiritual, and all through John and onward believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ made one alive and gave salvation/eternal life. (Jn. 3:15; 10:28; Rm. 6:23) More on Jun. 6 here.

And as Jesus “lived by the Father” by doing His will, which was His “meat and drink.” (Jn. 4:34) so believers are to “live by” God's word, (Mt. 44:4) doing his will. And nowhere is one made alive by taking part in the Lord's supper nor is any connection made with receiving salvation by so doing, the Holy Spirit only mentioning it in one other book, and in which communal Christ-like love for the corporate body of Christ is the issue. Nor is it mentioned when John provides the characteristics of true believers so they may know they have eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) while purity and love for the corporate body of Christ is.

The very idea that physical food feeds one spiritually is antithetical to the gospel of John in particular

Well, the Eucharist is not simply physical food: "It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing". But the spirit is fed in the Eucharist, as the gospel says: "my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him".

Well, the way go get life in you, so that the Spirit can abide, is by believing the gospel. (Acts 10:43:-46; 15:8,9; Eph. 1:13) Supplementing what i just said, physical food feeding the spirit is contrary to what Scripture reveals, which is that hearing the word of God does so, as by faith comes, (Rm. 10:17) and by believing it souls are born again, (Jn. 1:18) as it is “the Spirit that giveth life.” John also says that Jesus words are to abide in Christians, (John 15:7) “and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit [not a wafer made flesh] which he hath given us.” (1Jn. 3:24)

Rather than allowing 6:63 to interpret what Jesus meant, which conforms to what John says elsewhere, you must try to wrangle eating literal food out of “the flesh profited nothing.” In short, v. 63 is “not a reference to a eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6,” contrasting one with the other, with the Spirit resulting from believing the gospel.

7,101 posted on 01/19/2011 3:32:24 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 7077 | View Replies]

To: annalex
confessional” in Rm. 10:9 specifically refers to mouth and promises salvation, but confess cannot be restricted to mouth and includes living it out.

Yes. That is when it starts, with internalized faith. That is what I said.

And as sinful thoughts in the heart can defile a man, (Mk. 7:21-23) so hearts are purified by faith, and Abraham believed God and his counted was counted for righteousness, which God does to “him that worketh not but believeth,” with a faith that is active by nature. And the preparatory work in one heart which precedes justification by sola fide is also by the grace of God.

the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)

Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
The disagreement here is what this requires. There is no “do” as in doing works of repentance prior to baptism that day, nor does the context indicate that they did such, but repented of unbelief and the heart behind that hour and “same day,” and were baptised in faith, which would results in doing works which correspond to repentance, (Acts 26:20) which again, distinguishes the internal change from its external consequence. This is no mere intellectual exercise, again, any more than sins of the heart are. If “penance” means coming to God out of a broken heart and contrite spirit, signifying repentance, and which God promises to look to and save, (Psa. 34:18; Is. 66:2) — which is a work of grace, and out of which actions will result — then it is a Scriptural need, and Sola fide presumes faith comes out of such a heart. But if you require that evident formal or prescribed acts of contrition must always be exercised before forgiveness, though such may be seen, then you are fostering legalism and denying “contritio caritate perfecta” and baptism by desire. Souls must obey some light before they can be saved, but even choosing to hear a gospel message can be evidence of such, and God knows the heart.

"without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering" is your arbitrary qualification on what "do penance" must in your opinion, mean.

It is you who provided examples, such as the criminal on the cross.

[42] And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. (Acts 10)

I don't see anything about salvation predicated or not predicated on penance in this passage, other than "judging" ordinarily implies some form of temporal punishment.

It was predicated upon having the aforementioned heart, and which at least Cornelius evidenced, consistent with the preparatory work sola fide recognizes, yet that did not justify him, but Peter said God purified their hearts by faith, (Acts 15:9) being born again before baptism.

[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul. [15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (Acts 16)

Yes, but baptism of an adult mandates penance (Acts 2:38).

As defined above.

the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul

No it doesn't because St. Paul never taught "justification [...] to be procured by faith not merit". He taught that is if offered for no merit of ours, -- that is, offered in grace -- but he never taught that it is apprehended by faith alone (Eph 2:5-10).

See prior recent comments, regarding making “not by works of righteous” or “without works” or works apart from the law, or by the law and “to him that worketh not but beleiveth” to mean the unGodly did works of love which first justified them.

despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them

Well, so long that you understand that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, I will not argue over words. There is a brand of Protestantism that reads "imputed" as in opposition to transformative justification; that one is in error.

Sola fide holds that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, and is concomitant with justification but that justification is not based upon ones interior holiness, but a faith that is counted for righteousness, as Scripture clearly states. (Rm. 4:3,6) But which again, results in practical outworking enabled by regeneration. The main thing to me is that it happens, and that morally destitute man rests in the Lord Christ as His Savior, and thus responds to Him as Lord.

Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.

I don't know how you can call anything that requires kilobytes of inane commentary "refuting". I would think that reading the actual gospel which says things like "flesh indeed" and "this is my body" is self-evident.

What is self evident is that it is not comprehensive analysis but such superficial rendering which ignores obvious allegory that is inane: “Showing a lack of intelligence or thought; stupid and silly.” That kosher disciples would unquestioningly eat flesh and drink blood, understanding what it was, while Peter was aghast that Jesus would even wash his feet, and protested violating kosher law, while the abundant allegorical use of eating easily conforms this and Jn. 6 to Scripture. Otherwise one might as well conclude that the Israelite were cannibals, (Num. 14:9) and that Jeremiah ate scrolls, (Jer. 15:16) or that Jesus did likewise, (Jn. 6:57; cf. Mt. 4:4) and that David experienced transubstantiation. (1Chron. 11:17-19) And which explains the allegorical use in the New Testament. But as if have already shown this extensively, and you are not allowed to see anything different from what Rome teaches, then extended discourse can merely be tactic to take up my time.

as for weekly service with a priest with his back turned to the people, that is not in any description of the New Testament church.

That is consistent with the Mass being a sacrifice to God (not a repeated sacrifice but a sacrifice), where the priest leads the congregation rather than opposes it. It also excludes the false understanding of priesthood as ministry to men. But I agree that there is no fixed position of the priest that would be apparent in the scripture, and in fact, like it or not, most Masses nowadays are served ad populum.

Again, apart from apostles, elders/bishops were the pastors of the church, being one office not two, (Titus 1:5-7) and were not a separate class of sacerdotal priests. All believers engage in sacrifice, (Rm. and there is nothing in all the instructions given to pastors that teaches they are to instrumentally transubstantiate bread and wine into Jesus corporeal flesh, but are to be and work to make the church an manifestation of Christ by their character and works.

7,102 posted on 01/19/2011 3:32:52 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 7076 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The full phrase is justification by grace alone through faith alone, and again, it is not of a character that is alone, but alone as the procurative means of appropriating IR, though it may be concomitant with an outward expression.

I am sorry, I did not commit to memory your system of acronyms and really would not want to go back and find the decoder that you once provided. What is IR? If you were to say that good works MUST be concomitant with faith, you are saying what the Catholic Church teaches, namely that works are necessary for salvation. How you say it, that works merely may accompany faith, you are off the biblical grounds of Eph. 2:5-10, Romans 2:7-10, Matthew 25:31-46.

IR=Imputed Righteousness. By a kind of faith which , if able, produces works corresponding to the will of its Object.

Rome comes close to the sola fide position in holding souls as being initially justified apart from any merit, or in baptism by desire, and affirms “God's unconditional justifying grace” but then has them meriting eternal life through her sacramentals.

The sacraments are not works at all, bacause it is God Who does all the saving work. "Sola Fide" could mean something Catholic as follows: True or mature faith in Jesus Christ would embrace the entirety of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, and that necessarily would involve developing the virtues of good works as a corollary. So we can, at a risk of becoming sloppy of language, say that we are saved by mature faith alone.

“Would” is the key word.

However, I don't think anyone who takes the Holy Scripture seriously should contemplate a language merely to please the Protestants. The scripture plainly says that we are not saved by faith alone, so we are not.

Sola fide hold not by a faith that is alone, as such results in obedience to its Object. The CCC is more broad in its wording:

1260b "”Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

847 Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.

This may be interpreted to be a means to an end, but which woulds at least allow for becoming Protestant, but i think the sedevacantist understanding is right on this one. As for conciliatory language:

CCC 838 The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.

“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...” LUMEN GENTIUM

Conflicting interpretations exist in Rome regards this, and many other things.

early fathers seemed to teach sola fide, as seen here

I scanned your link and saw phrases like "In him and by their faith in him they were saved", which are clearly scriptural. I do not see anything that says that we are justified by faith ALONE. Again, this is what both the scripture and the consensus patrum teach:

St. Clement does say "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", but that passage is immersed in several chapters that urge good works: "let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength". So clearly, to St. Clement, faith includes good works rather than is separated from them.

And Sola fide literature does likewise, while holding that God-given faith is the actual instrument which procures justification, and being such a faith, it is thus coupled with works in expression. But straw men burn easier.

if baptism by desire is allowed, which Rome does, then it testifies to one being saved without works

This is a non-sequitur on two levels. First, like I mentioned before, sacraments are not works to begin with. To be sure, to hold a baby and dunk him in water, etc is work, but the real saving work of baptism is done by the Holy Ghost: mothers wash their babies every day and that operation does not save them. Second, that is is possible in some scenario to be saved without works (nailed to a cross like St. Dismas, paraplegic, etc.) does not disprove the general proposition that works are ordinarily required for salvation.

It is completely relevant as to the issue as to whether one must show works of faith obtain justification. If a paraplegic who never heard about Jesus can be saved in his last minutes by hearing and believing what Peter preached in Acts 10:36-43, then one can be saved through faith, though if he lived this faith would be shown in baptism, etc.

i have, even recently and in (my usual) extended manner corrected a leader who taught one is saved as long as they believe God's promise of salvation, even if they live contrary to it

Ah, good. Thank you.

I am glad if yoy are thankful, as it is not a RC church. And yet his (Baptist) church shows more works of love to the lost in both temporal and spiritual realms, in relation to their size, than any i know of, and manifests a high moral character as they focus on what faith is to do in obedience. But which does not excuse their doctrinal aberration and confusion.

The Mass, therefore, no less than the Cross, is expiatory for sins [quote from Catholic lit.]

That is because the Mass IS the Cross.

That is heretical. Reenactment illustrates but does not do what the Jesus did on the cross, in which "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit," (1 Peter 3:18) being ”once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28) for “once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." (Hebrews 9:26) By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. " (Hebrews 10:10)

The Lord's supper commemorates that by remembering His unselfish shedding of blood and death by way of the symbols, and which the church partakes in it by being as He was in purchasing the church with his own blood, (Acts 20:28) by unselfishly loving each other in holy love. And failure to do so was the sin shown in 1Cor. 11:20-34.. And can while God has regard to man;s intercession, and forgiveness requires confessing with a heart that forsakes the sin, and restitution is to be made for wrongs where possible, forgiveness is obtained by the atonement of Christ, (1Jn. 1:9) which not only purifies, but saves from the wrath to come. (Jn. 3:38; Rm. 5:9; 1Thes. 1:10; 5:9) The Lord's supper is not set forth as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins.

On the rest of your "extended" quote, I generally would agree that a nuanced position on justification can be found among Catholics and Lutherans (as well as Anglicans and Methodists), but any such position would not leave any content worth calling "faith alone". It may be "faith manifested by good works", or "faith which leads to good works" or something like that, but never "faith alone".

As often stated, “alone” does not mean a faith that is alone, that will not produce obedience, nor does it mean conversion does not have preparatory works by God's grace, but that “to him that worketh not BUT believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly,” “unto whom God imputeth righteousness WITHOUT works,” refers to faith alone being the actual instrumental means of essential justification by imputed righteousness, though since a faith that does not evidence itself (if able) is dead, works make it complete in its evidential sense, and confirm that one has salvation. And those who deeply realize they have nothing to offer God whereby they may morally merit eternal life eternal life with Him, but that their works instead damn them, and who thus look to Jesus to save them, like as the snake-smitten helpless to heal Israelites did toward the serpent in the wilderness, (Num. 21:6-9; Jn. 3:14,15) are the one who most manifestly shew their faith by their works, (cf. James 2:18) versus those who have confidence in their own moral worthiness and or the power of their church.


,

7,103 posted on 01/19/2011 3:33:08 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 7078 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Thank you for another well done treatise on the subject.

I appreciate all the effort you put into bringing the truth to those blinded by deception.


7,104 posted on 01/19/2011 3:41:16 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7101 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
you decided to edit out all "extraneous" names of my "To:" list

I edited nothing on the 'to' list. I sent that post to you just as it was when I responded to it....so it appears it did just go to you reagardless of who was listed on your to: post.

7,105 posted on 01/19/2011 4:09:26 PM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7100 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
We know nothing of Linus, correct. That is surprising?

Clement was the Bishop of Rome with no "supremency" over the other Bishops. There was no such title as POPE!

That is true, the word Papa is of a later origin, and it was originally a term of endearment. The formal title is Bishop of Rome to this day. St Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians to instruct the Church in Corinth regarding some defrocked priests. That was far from Roman local jurisdiction.

7,106 posted on 01/19/2011 6:01:14 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6835 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
“He brought His sacrifice across time to the Apostles BEFORE it occurred.”

Yes. He is God, remember?

7,107 posted on 01/19/2011 6:05:10 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6895 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Thank you, too.


7,108 posted on 01/19/2011 6:05:52 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6900 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; caww

Annalex could just create a ping list like the rest of us do.

I take names out of group pings that I don’t want in them. I do it regularly and it takes seconds. Annalex has easily demonstrated the mental facilities to manage a task like that.

Making it my responsibility that caww is getting pinged to annalex’s posts by annalex is blame shifting and just plain silly.

Every ping list I manage is arranged in alphabetical order to avoid duplicates. When I got the homeschool ping lists, there were a number of duplicate names because of them not being organized. I was able to trim the list size by alphabetizing them and have made that my policy since then.


7,109 posted on 01/19/2011 6:14:25 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7097 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Annalex: the fact that Mary adopted John, and a few others, are in the scripture does not mean that the only thing Sts Luke and John knew about her is wholly contained in the scriptures that they wrote. St. John, in fact, writes that he did not write down everything Chirst did -- what makes you think in the case of Mary all he knew were the Wedding at Cana?

Count-your-change: Then you know of some writings of Mary or Luke or John that are NOT contained in the Scriptures?

No, of course I don't, and possibly netieghr of them wrote anything else, but how does that negate what I wrote?

Mary adopted who? John? John was not a little child, was he? and who else did Mary adopt?M

Christ declared Mary mother of John and John son of Mary (John 19:26-27). When someone becomes a mother to someone else, that is called adoption where I come from.

she likely told a number of people that Luke could’ve consulted

Possibly, but note that the Magnificat (Luke 1:46-55) especially is written as a direct quote. Moreover, St. Luke counts himself among the direct witnesses of what he sets out to write (Luke 1:2).

7,110 posted on 01/19/2011 6:14:59 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6905 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; OLD REGGIE; Kolokotronis; metmom; count-your-change; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy
NAB also presents (usually) the oldest manuscript versions known

I did not know that, but since it is a dynamic translation, what good does it do anyway?

7,111 posted on 01/19/2011 6:16:36 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6909 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; daniel1212
Μετανοια, indeed, means more than simply changing one's mind about life and one's relationship to God. It means at least self examination followed by intense penitential prayer and even physical action.

As exemplified by St. John the Baptist the Forerunner. Note that all St. John did was action: he baptized, he wore a hairshirt and fasted, and lived in the desert. Other than profecy about the "axe being taken to the root", we don't know what exactly he taught his disciples. But we know he taught them certain praxis (Mark 2:18 and all four gospels). To speculate that somehow St. John's favorite word was referring to a pure state of mind is ignoring the evidence of the Gospel.

7,112 posted on 01/19/2011 6:25:58 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6917 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Kolokotronis; metmom; count-your-change; kosta50; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy
the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops

I did not dispute that part. I simply want to point out that the Church does not operate as a top-down command structure, like a military. The governing principle is subsidiarity: the decisions are made at the lowest instance capable in principle of making the decision.

7,113 posted on 01/19/2011 6:29:45 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6920 | View Replies]

To: annalex; OLD REGGIE; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom
The formal title is (false) Bishop of Rome

Corrected.

7,114 posted on 01/19/2011 11:32:49 PM 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 7106 | View Replies]

To: caww; annalex
you decided to edit out all "extraneous" names of my "To:" list

I edited nothing on the 'to' list. I sent that post to you just as it was when I responded to it....so it appears it did just go to you reagardless of who was listed on your to: post.

I stand corrected. Yes, you chose to reply to "Old Reggie" and no one else. Others, including me, simply copy the "To:" list under the assumption that the poster meant to include the entire group.

I generally am among the group which copies the "To:" list editing out only my name.

It appears to me to be a matter of choice with no firm and fast rule concerning the proper protocol.

I have no argument with you or annalex, you each do it your individual way.

7,115 posted on 01/20/2011 8:35:53 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7105 | View Replies]

To: annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg
We know nothing of Linus, correct. That is surprising?

No, not surprising. Rather, it is typical. little is known of the lives of any of the so-called "unbroken line of Popes" for hundreds of years. Some cynics may even call it a fictional list. (sarc)

Clement was the Bishop of Rome with no "supremency" over the other Bishops. There was no such title as POPE!

That is true, the word Papa is of a later origin, and it was originally a term of endearment. The formal title is Bishop of Rome to this day. St Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians to instruct the Church in Corinth regarding some defrocked priests. That was far from Roman local jurisdiction.

Clements' letter was of a pastoral nature and certainly did not illustrate anything resembling a universal "Supreme Pontiff".

7,116 posted on 01/20/2011 8:52:59 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7106 | View Replies]

To: metmom; annalex; caww
Annalex could just create a ping list like the rest of us do.

I take names out of group pings that I don’t want in them. I do it regularly and it takes seconds. Annalex has easily demonstrated the mental facilities to manage a task like that.

Making it my responsibility that caww is getting pinged to annalex’s posts by annalex is blame shifting and just plain silly.

Every ping list I manage is arranged in alphabetical order to avoid duplicates. When I got the homeschool ping lists, there were a number of duplicate names because of them not being organized. I was able to trim the list size by alphabetizing them and have made that my policy since then.

Yes, annalex could creat a ping list but has chosen not to.

Certainly it is not your responsibility to assure any post of yours to annalex does not include caww. It is simply that it is not unreasonable (in my opinion) for annalex to respond to your entire ping list under the assumption that your intention was to include the entire group.

If annalex posted directly to caww or added caww to a ping list I believe it would be every bit as improper as leaving a person, who had been discussed in the body of the post, off the ping list. Otherwise, I don't feel it's any big deal.

7,117 posted on 01/20/2011 9:13:18 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7109 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

Ok..then it’s the copy paste deal which does it. I don’t copy and paste...I address those who posted their post. And if I want others to know I add their name in the to: slot.


7,118 posted on 01/20/2011 9:14:50 AM PST by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7115 | View Replies]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; metmom; count-your-change; kosta50; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy
the Supreme Pontiff is the boss and only he can remove, "put on the shelf", and reassign Bishops

I did not dispute that part. I simply want to point out that the Church does not operate as a top-down command structure, like a military. The governing principle is subsidiarity: the decisions are made at the lowest instance capable in principle of making the decision.

Yes - as in the military. The "Chain Of Command" structure of the Military and the Catholic Church follow the same principles.

7,119 posted on 01/20/2011 9:20:46 AM PST by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7113 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; annalex; boatbums; The Theophilus; metmom; Quix
"Papal infallibility" wasn't even declared a dogma of the Roman church until Pius IX decided to crown himself omnipotent during the First Vatican Council in 1870.

"If anyone therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the prince of all the apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema."

An old song, but it never loses its charm, does it?

7,120 posted on 01/20/2011 9:27:48 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 7116 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg

I guess instead of counting sheep

RC’s can count their convoluted flip-flops in dogma, rubberized history etc.


7,121 posted on 01/20/2011 9:50:34 AM 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 7120 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Kolokotronis
The NAB is the official Bible of the U.S. Conference of Bishops

Hopefully, not for long. However, I am not an American Catholic, I am Catholic who is also an American (naturalized, in my case). The Catholic Bible is the Vulgate; the NAB is approved for liturgical use in the vernacular. I am not disputing a liturgical point of the vernacular; it is not likely that you are. The Vulgate says "poenitentiam agite". That is the accurate translation.

[Metanoia is] a change of heart which resulted in a change of life

Exactly. Quite often, the change of life includes oblations such as fasting and abstinence of creature comforts, -- see the monastic practices of two thousand years tat follow the pattern set by St. John the Baptist. "Must" (your contention in 6922, see word in bold) the life long work of conversion follow "formal public physical manifestations of repentance"? Well, no. No one is forced to be a monk. It is just a good idea. I will have a gereatwer repect for modern Protestantism when I see some asceticism voluntarily practiced.

saved in one day, as the 3k souls at Pentecost

When a Protestant says "saved" he often implies that the work of faith has been complete in that person. Do you imply that?

7,122 posted on 01/21/2011 5:23:31 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6923 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
You are reading [in Matthew 25:31-46 and Romans 2:6-10] a description of rewards being given for works, in which faith is not even being mentioned, so it is not dealing with the theological issue of faith or works, or the type of works or faith, both of which the epistles do, and could easily be used to justify salvation on the basis of works of mercy

Yes, it could be thus justified. That is the reason these were written: we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.

texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology

I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around. Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)

it is either a system of justification by the merit of works, which, if possible, would be under the law

There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.

texts such as “not of works” (Eph. 2:19) “not by works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) “to him that worketh not,” (Rm. 4:5) go beyond merely works of the law but logically excludes any system in which works are the basis for justification.

Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.

Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.

Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness

First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11). What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.

if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers

The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)

i see salvific grace granting repentance

Correct. All salvific works that we might do are granted us by grace of God.

despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.

We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him. To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.

more later...

7,123 posted on 01/21/2011 6:00:47 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6924 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
This is a continuation of my morning post directly above, to the same 6924.

Annalex: Where is the "artistry"?

Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."

But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".

may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation

The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.

if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.

It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning. Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.

The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.

No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.

If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.

No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".

it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word

If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water. Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.

in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.

Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.

Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)

46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.

Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it. However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?

the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.

But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.

...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.

No argument there.

non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist

That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).

it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with

We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.

you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard

Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.

Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation

That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.

7,124 posted on 01/21/2011 6:55:54 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6924 | View Replies]

To: annalex; metmom; Quix

he NAB is the official Bible of the U.S. Conference of Bishops

Hopefully, not for long. However, I am not an American Catholic, I am Catholic who is also an American (naturalized, in my case).

Which in practical terms means?? Catholics can read that and other Bibles, in contrast to much of her history, but I do not think Rome would allow your condition to forsake the use of the NAB in Mass if you were a priest. But this is just one more thing which Catholics take issue with their church about, partly for legitimate reasons. The NAB impugns upon the integrity of the Word of God by its adherence to the discredited JEDP theory, and Catholics themselves have complained that it relegates numerous historical accounts in the Bible to being fables or folk tales, among other denials, along with other problems and gender inclusive language.

The USCCB owns the copyright for the NAB and the RNAB, and a Catholic podcast Lectionary even got a quick "cease and desist" letter for violating copyright However, their Bible text had to be amended for the lectionary because the Vatican rejected it for Mass no one in authority seems inclined to incorporate these same emendations back into the RNAB.

Also, the NAB footnotes assert alleged contradictions in Scripture, and Catholics are divided on whether the Vatican Two statement in Dei Verbum, which was the result of a behind-the-scenes debate at Vatican II about inerrancy, and states that the Bible “teaches without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation" supports the position that the Bible is only immune from error within a certain limited domain, which at least one frequent Roman Catholic poster here seems to think, if that, versus what Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus states. Of course, there is also disagreement as to whether all encyclicals are infallible, or how much therein is. Also debated is whether the Bible teaches geocentrism.

saved in one day, as the 3k souls at Pentecost

When a Protestant says "saved" he often implies that the work of faith has been complete in that person. Do you imply that?

If you mean a faith that is alone, having no fruit, and no growth in grace, then that is a superficial, if convenient, understanding, and you should have know my answer by now. If you mean that at that moment the person is washed, sanctified and justified, (1Cor. 6:11) accepted in the Beloved, (Eph. 1:6) spiritually baptized into body of Christ, (1Cor. 12:13), and translated into the the kingdom of God and made to sit together in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6) and would go to be with the Lord that day if he died, but who is to become more and more practically what he is positionally, to one toward completeness, yes.

7,125 posted on 01/22/2011 9:29:57 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7122 | View Replies]

To: annalex

we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.

There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.

Paul does not simply exclude works of the law, but broadly excludes works as being the moral basis of justification. If you read Titus 3:5 you should see “not by works of righteousness which we have done” is not simply referring to formality of law.

Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness

First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11).

No, in Rm. 4 Paul is not “merely quoting the O.T. as regards the paternity of Abraham,” but in order to describe how man is justified before God. As stated before, Abraham was helpless to have children, and could only believe God that He was willing and able to do what he could not do, that”what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:21,22) Likewise sinful man unable to justify himself before a holy and just God, and can only “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rm. 4:24,25)

That saving faith must be one that continues, and must be a faith that produces works (if able) in order to finally realize the end of faith is also true, (Heb. 6:9-12) but the fact is that Abraham was justified by such faith. And in so stating this Paul is not only excluding works of the law as procuring justification, but works that Abraham did prior to believing the promise, and prior to circumcision.

Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.

Rm. 4 does NOT only refer to works of the law, nor does Eph. 2:8,9 or Titus 3:5 (written to a Gentile), but broadly contrasts faith and works as disallowing anything as meriting justification, while the later exhortation to do good works show what justifying faith. Produces.

Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.

It is most evident that Catholics cannot admit any understanding of the Bible that conflicts with the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus must make the effect of initial justification its cause, and infer justificatory moral merit to works.

texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology

I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around.

Wrong, an a fundamental error within Roman Catholicism. It is self evident that Divine revelation is overall progressive in nature, and thus we understand the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, and the obscure in the light of clear, and historical narratives in the light of doctrinal explanations. Among the gospels, besides the narrative of Jesus mission and its relation to prophecy, the synoptics contain much moral teaching and the gospel of the kingdom, while John is most revelatory about the nature of Christ and of salvation to all who believe. Acts shows application of things Jesus taught, with conversion happening in one day, even in a desolate place to a man who likely was ignorant of a church, while the epistles explain the theology behind such, complementing it with additional revelation which Jesus promised. (Jn. 16:12-15)

And in which the apostle Paul is the chief revelator and theologian of the N. Covenant, being given “the gospel of the grace of God” which he neither received of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:2) And who most fully deals with how one is justified as concerns faith or works, grace justifying one through faith, but a kind of faith which is expressed in works, eternal life being a pure gift of God, versus morally merited by works.

Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)

You are construing the contrast between grace through faith versus works to mean “For by grace you are saved... not by works — but “by works of mercy“ of faith. What the texts is stating is how one is saved under grace, which is through faith, not of works, while affirming works by stating that believers are God's works, made to do good works, as faith effects such.

despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.

We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him.

One is a Christian by virtue of Christ, received by faith, which is shown in baptism. And infants need not baptism nor can they meet the requirements for baptism. (Acts 2:28; 8:37) That God chose the elect from before time that does not negate the need for conversion.

To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.

Good works do not “produce“ faith, though a command to do something can prepare a soul to believe, and the act can be the occasion when faith is realized.

What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.

So “good works eventually produce faith,” and one is “saved by works of mercy” done in faith, but “faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work.” Under the last provision Rome affirms sola fide, by a kind of faith what will work. I agree faith and works are so much conjoined that it is hard to separate them, but while all that man does is by grace, works have no merit themselves that save; man has nothing to offer God that he may escape hell to gain glory, but can only place his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which is counted for righteousness, appropriating forgiveness and justification, which he then lives out, having been regenerated. The latter is the necessary attribute of saving faith, assuming opportunity, and one can be said to have been justified by works of faith, as establishing one is a saved soul, in contrast to a barren faith.

if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers

The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)

The lost Pharisees hope of reward was not simply for this life, and they had faith that God would count them morally worthy of reigning with the Messiah. Likewise the Judaizers Paul combated.

Saving faith is confidence in the Lord and not one's own worthiness. One can have faith that God will be faithful to reward his sufferings and works, but he can never suppose his works make him morally worthy of God and eternal life with Him, which is only gained by Christ on His blood-expense and righteousness, and is received by the damned destitute soul by faith. Works of love and suffering wrought as a result of being accepted in the Beloved will be rewarded, but do not morally merit eternal life.

While Roman Catholicism may define merit in a way that excludes moral worthiness, and make a distinction in what type of works are recompensed, unless souls are made to face their sinfulness and moral destitution, and absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness, then they will go one presuming that to some degree or another their morality and or the power of their church will gain them eventual cohabitation with almighty God. And which is what Rome effectually fosters. And such will tragically die in their sins, to their eternal horror.

7,126 posted on 01/22/2011 9:30:10 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7123 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Annalex: Where is the "artistry"?

Daniel: You know that the issue is not with what is commanded believers, but what makes them Christians in the first place. And as i have responded before, the New Testament does not make the Lord's supper the means of regeneration, of having “life in you,” (Jn. 6:53) which believing the word does, (Jn. 3:36) and Jesus lived by the word of God, (Mt. 4:4) and doing His will was His “meat.” (Jn. 4:34) And Jeremiah said “Thy words were found, and I did eat them.” (Jer. 15:16) That is plain Scripture, while contriving John (of all writers) into making Jesus body physical food to be eaten is "artistry."

But John 6:53 nevertheless speaks in no uncertain terms of the connection of the Eucharist to the eternal life. It is not a passing reference to faith, but rather a lengthy discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disiples his actual flesh to eat. That is just plain reading of chapter 6, and of course general calls to faith are not in contradiction to that. This is a part of Christian faith, to believe Christ when he predicates eternal life so categorically on "eating His flesh".

It is not a passing reference, as being consistent with John's gospel and epistles, eternal life is received by believing in no uncertain terms. Again, you cannot find any place where one is made spiritually alive by eating and drinking, but by believing on the blood of Christ, while living out that life as by a guide is done as Jesus did, (Jn. 6:57) according to God's word and will, which did not involve eating blood to do so. See more below.

The discourse on whether Jesus is going to give His disciples his actual flesh to eat parallels what the Lord did in Jn. 3 in speaking enigmatically about being “born again,” resulting in Nic supposing Jesus referred to being born again physically, like as the carnally-minded Jews in Jn. 6 thought Jesus referred to physical food. And those that are not born from above try to conform the physical plane to their physical understanding. But in both cases the Lord made a difference between the flesh and the Spirit, with the latter giving life, showing He was speaking analogically, likening physical birth to spiritual birth, and physically eating to spiritually eating. And which is the only interpretation the rest of the New Testament supports, as showed.

may just as well suppose David believed in transubstantiation

The Old Testament is filled with such prefigurements, so perhaps yes. Surely you would not dispute that the flood and the crossing of the Red Sea are types of the other sacrament of the Church, baptism. Jesus Himself points to the manna being a prefigurement of the Eucharist.

The water itself does nothing, and the dietary and purification practices prefigures the spiritual in the new, and thus the temple itself was a prefigurement of the spiritual church, and surely you would not dispute that the allegorical use of eating and such things as David equating the water gotten at the risk of their live of his men with that of their blood would prepare the Lord's apostles for His words in the Last Supper. Again, to presume such kosher Jews would consume Jesus' literal flesh and blood without a word of query like as Peter did later in Acts 10, when right up to the supper and even in it they are shown to question things that troubled them, is absurd. And in no place do we see a miracle in which Jesus was physically in two places at once, such as being in the disciple's stomachs while sitting before them.

if you really think that Jn. 6:63 is speaking about physically consuming Jesus then it is honestly a negative commentary on Roman Catholic exegesis.

It is a case, like several others, where the Catholic exegesis is simply taking Jesus's words at their direct meaning.

So when Jesus says He is a door, (Jn. 10:9) then Rome holds that a in the church is transubstantiated so that a door is really Jesus while maintaining the appearance of wood? Maybe they could say that this is how Jesus got through closed doors. (Jn. 20:19,26)

Again, it is not an isolated verse but a long discourse that cost Jesus some of His disciples. To explain that away as something Jesus surely could not have meant is not explaining the Scripture, it is explaining it AWAY.

It is Rome that explains the defining conclusion away, in which, after stating He would not even be there physically, He states, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." (John 6:63) Rome explains this away (the the NAB footnote on “Spirit . . . flesh:” says “probably not a reference to the eucharistic body of Jesus but to the supernatural and the natural, as in John 3:6) to disallow that this means spiritual consumption, like a Jesus lived by the Father, and which the rest of the Scripture concurs with. Thus Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Jn. 6:68.69) Rome tries to make this refer to Jesus words in Jn. 6, but nowhere does John or any other writer have eternal life being received by consuming the Lord's supper. Instead, we have words such as in the next chapter,

"In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)" (John 7:37-39) And Scripture confirms this life is realized by becoming born again, such as in Acts 10:43ff.

And then in the next chapters we read,

"I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am, ye shall die in your sins." (John 8:24)

"Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God? He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him? And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee. And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him." (John 9:35-38)

"And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true. And many believed on him there." (John 10:41-42)

"Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world." (John 11:25-27)

As for losing disciples, those who left Him were those who had come for physical food, (Jn. 6:26) their minds being on what is below, and those who try to turn bread into Jesus might as well try to be physically born again. However, “Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent,” (v. 29) and which, consistent with what is written, means those who believe the gospel message realize life, and live by His word. While this includes keeping the Lord's supper, they get life by believing, and they way they live it out is by His word, of which the Lord's supper is only an occasional (“as oft as ye do this”) part and is to help show this life of love for each other.

Jesus words were “legally” authoritative. (Jn. 12:48)

46] I am come a light into the world; that whosoever believeth in me, may not remain in darkness. [47] And if any man hear my words, and keep them not, I do not judge him: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. [48] He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him; the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. [49] For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say, and what I should speak. [50] And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak.

Every Protestant who thinks that John 6 does not talk of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read this passage, and then read it again. This is why we, Catholics, obey everything Christ taught, as He taught it.

Rather, every Catholic who thinks that John 6 talks of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist should read that passage, and Mt. 4:4 which Jesus quoted to the devil who also took things quire literal, and then read all the verses again on how one gets spiritual life, and what and how one lives.

However, the earlier point was that the moral judgement is inherently non-legalistic, in line with Matthew 5-7. Do you dispute that?

That was never in disputation, and if you read my replies you should realize that i affirmed that believers are to fulfill their righteousness of the law, which confirms their faith as salvific, but to the degree that they do does not make them morally worthy of eternal life. Do you dispute that you are not?

The problem is not the avg. Catholic, but with the assuredly infallible magisterium as it must be the one to define which of the hundreds or more of potentially infallible of pronouncements are infallible.

No, that is to its credit, to the extent that it is true. What kind of teacher says: "A, B, and C is infallible and E, F, and G I am not myself particuarly sure about"? The faithful should take the entirety of the Magisterium as face value, just like we take the Scripture at face value. If there are reasons to wrestle with a particular part, one can wrestle, but he should do so from the presumtion that the magisterial teaching is true as written and he happens to misunderstand it.

It seems that your “no” is yes, which it is. Catholics can disagree to varying degrees with non-infallible teachings, and just what is infallible magisterial teaching is far from settled.

If Rome actually manifested that it was the same church as the 1st century most would not be leaving a dead institutional looking for life.

No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".

What Roman Catholic church do you belong to? Your own NAB Bible and the vast majority of Roman Catholic scholars deny you this assertion, as do most Roman Catholics. Meanwhile it is evangelicals who are accused by Roman Catholics of being guilty of literal interpretation. You really seem to see the Roman Catholic through rose colored glasses and evangelicals through the opposite, but i have lived all my life in Roman Catholic “country,” and have been in both and know the difference.

it requires heart surrender to Christ and His Word

If you are speaking of Protestantism, then in any of its multiple variants do I see a surrender to Christ and His word. I can point out to many words of the Scripture Protestant have lengthy evasions about, -- in fact we discussed quite a few of them. Christ's apostle says "you are not saved by faith alone", and the Protestant runs away from that statement like devil runs from holy water.

It is Roman Catholics you are not surrendered to the very Scriptures you condescending use, as they are a secondary authority for them at best, and their conclusions are not by comprehensive objective analysis, which they seem to disdain, but as you continue to show, are ordered by allegiance to Rome. And rather than running from Roman Catholic misconstruance of Scripture we are prone to contend for them, and relatively far and few between are the Roman Catholics who even will debate them. Meanwhile the idea that SS Protestantism is contrary to works of faith is contrary to the facts, which show Roman Catholicism is the one that marginalizes such obedience, due to confidence in their morality, and their church to make up for the lack of it.

Christ says "this bread is my body", and the Protestant explains the meaning of "is" to me. Some surrender.

Christ says, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” which is clearly defined as believing the gospel and living it by His word through the Spirit, but Roman Catholics refuse to accept the Bible interpreting itself and surrender to it, and instead rely upon an a self-proclaimed infallible interpreter. Indeed, “some surrender.”

in accordance with her infallible declared formula, which makes her declaration that she is the OTC to be infallible.

Well, I do not impress the Catholic truth on you by pointing out that they are infallible, do I? We discuss based on scripture and logic, and that is how one discovers the authenticity of the Church, -- not by papal fiat.

One cannot be sure of faith and morals except by the assuredly infallible magisterium, and polemical Catholic appeals to Scripture as the supreme authority which one can ascertain truth by has at its goal the convincing of one that he cannot, but is to implicit trust the AIM of Rome. And being bound to defend Rome militates against arriving at objective logical conclusions.

the Catholics cannot look to Scripture as the supreme authority, the evangelical must.

But the Evangelical doesn't. He looks at the scripture, reads something that sounds too Catholic (like "you are not saved by faith alone") and runs off to check with his pastor.

This is just another indication of how dedication to Rome might determine perception. Protestants are actually typically accused of rejecting the teaching magisterium and just going by Scripture, and indeed rather than running to pastors first they are trained to examined all teaching by Scripture. In contrast, it is Catholics who speak of relying upon men, and who rush to see what their pastors says rather than objectively seeking to ascertain truth by the Scriptures! Such responses makes this interaction closer to an end.

...confirmed the Divine authority of the Scriptures.

No argument there.

non-ordained (by men) John the Baptist

That is funny. You realize that it is the Protestant pastors who are ordained by men, -- they do not even claim otherwise? The Holy Orders is something you may or may not have faith with, but that is a divine institution according to the scripture: "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21); "the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God" (Acts 20:28).

It is not humorous or ironic, as while it is a foundational divine institution (Heb. 6:1) which Protestantism has always practiced, you missed the point which is the fundamental basis for authority. Which is not by formal historical decent or conference but most essentially is that of holiness, teaching and effects which correspond to the Scriptures, being attested to by God.

it is Roman Catholicism which most resembles a “club” unity, as despite widely disagreeing they still drink at the same bar they all identify with

We Catholics are free men, we disagree where we can disagree. But that Divine Bar we drink at is called Communion for a reason: it is the true boundary of the Church. That is, preciely, the unity of essence.

Placing implicit trust in an office of men means your mind is in cult-like bondage. If Rome were more doctrine and disciple intensive like the WTC, then it would be more extreme.

you both characterize Protestantism as having promoted easy believism while inferring that Roman Catholicism holds to a much higher standard

Yes, I do. For example, we do not take a teaching that is so astonishingly antiquated as the believe in the Eucharist and seek to explain it away as medieval superstition. That IS a much higher standard.

No, it is a lower standard, as it elevates the opinions of men and interpretations thereof above that objective authority which alone is affirmed to be wholly inspired of God, and thus is assuredly infallible.

Yet the historic evangelical gospel is one that doctrinally requires the manner of abasement of men as sinners before an infinitely holy and perfectly just almighty God, and trusting in the mercy of God in Christ for salvation

That is fine, so long as this "abasement" does not lead one to forget of the temple of God that one is, even as a sinner.

It is i how have much affirmed that a believer must realize who/what he is in Christ, though being one who sadly yet does sin, but I am honestly disturbed at your seeming attitude expressed here and in other replies on this issue, as if men realizing their damnable and destitute condition and utter inability to escape their just punishment in eternal Hell fire or gain eternal life with God by any moral merit of their own — and thus trust in the mercy of God in Christ, for Him to forgive them right then and there, and make them His own, receiving the gift of eternal life life — was a pre condition that was just “fine, and not necessary. We should be alarmed any teaching that such a faith and condition does not mean it must continue if real, and seek to on to perfection, and do works that will be rewarded, but one cannot do such unless they are first made accepted in the Beloved, to the glory of God.

7,127 posted on 01/22/2011 9:30:40 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7124 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212

Well put.


7,128 posted on 01/22/2011 9:44:32 AM 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 7125 | View Replies]

To: annalex; daniel1212; Quix; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; caww; ...
There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.

The Law defines good works. Anything outside of that is not a good work. So this reasoning that there is now a new set of works outside the Law that we now have to obey to enter heaven is fallacious.

Jesus came to fulfill the requirements of the Law because we can't. He did and offers us His righteousness for simply believing Him. That's the work of God, to believe in the One who sent Christ. We are then clothed with Christ's righteousness and God does not count our sins against us.

Works are important. They do please God and people will hear a *Well done thou good and faithful servant* from Him.

However, works are the fruit, the natural product of the new life of God in an individual. They are evidence of that Life and they are what demonstrates the power of God to heal and forgive. It's what draws others to Himself and what He uses to draw others to Himself.

But they are not the means by which anyone is saved. Jesus even said that there would be many who appealed to their works and said, "'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?'" and He will say that He never knew them.

They obviously believed that Jesus was who He said He was and they obviously thought that the works they added would save them. It was their faith that was deficient, not their works.

It didn't. Don't make the same mistake.

7,129 posted on 01/22/2011 9:58:39 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7123 | View Replies]

To: annalex
No, everyone would leave. People are weak, they would much rather have some modern feel-good version of Christianity. It is a miracle that over 1 billion Catholics remain. Without God, that would not be possible. and, by the way, anyone who doubts that theCatholic Church is the very same 1 c. AD Church only needs to look at how the Catholics take everything the scripture says as literal truth, and the modern versions of Christianity invent comfortable to them convolutions to explain that food is not really food and "is" is not really "is".

Then you've changed your position on the perpetual virginity of Mary?

Scripture does say Jesus had brothers and sisters.

There is no way to read those verses as anything other than Mary's and Joseph's children after he knew her after the birth of Christ.

Likewise with her alleged sinlessness. For ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and there is none greater among men born of woman than John the Baptist.

7,130 posted on 01/22/2011 10:15:14 AM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7124 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Describes the JDOTDJ fairly well, but typically not FR

JDOTDJ? IDKWTM.

7,131 posted on 01/24/2011 5:19:19 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6925 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; daniel1212; kosta50
It is equally, if not more, true [that the Orthodox voices clamoring for speedy reunion with the Western Church are the liberals] with the Greeks and the Arabs.

I did not realize that. This points to the fact that the planets are not aligned at this time for reunification, contrary to what I thought.

7,132 posted on 01/24/2011 5:24:07 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6929 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
we understand that the NT Scripture is massaged by the Church and harmonized during the first six centuries

So then that finished product is inerrant. The New Testament truly is a collective product of the Church; naturally, its creation was a hstorical process. Its inerrancy is, however, "as written" by that collective process, primarily by Sts Matthew, Mark, etc. but possibly by the clarifying and editorial work done in later centuries, over a body of manuscripts available at the time and now lost.

7,133 posted on 01/24/2011 5:29:27 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6933 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Cronos; metmom; Gamecock; 1000 silverlings; Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; ...
there is nothing in here about the composition of the physical bread they ate, but not discerning or judging the "Lord's body" refers to either effectively denying what His death represents by their selfishness, as per v. 20 - "this is not to eat the Lord's supper" - or by failing to recognize the other members as part of the body and to them justice according.

It is true that the Lord's supper passage in 1 Cor. 11 is in the context of the Chruch being one body. It establishes indeed that the Sacrfiice of the Mass is necessarily a community-building sacrament, one that defines the body of the Catholic Church as it exists in the local parish. However it does so precisely because there is a sacrifice of Christ that is at the center of the sacrament. It "shows the death of Jesus", -- it is, therefore, a sacrament rather than a memorial meal. It then is scripturally without warrant to read the phrase "discerning the body" as referring to the body of the believers. The immediate context is death of Jesus; the immediate scriptural reference is the words of consecration, "this is my body", in the synoptic gospels, that St. Paul repeats. The "body" of 1 Cor. 11:29 is then that very body shown the disciples in the appearance of bread: Jesus's.

This passage is not fully understood unless the doctrine of the real presence is understood, most fully taught in John 6.

7,134 posted on 01/24/2011 5:43:54 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6978 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Nay, your affirmation that it is a community-building sacrament is consistent with the interpretation you deny, as you must, to replace it with one that is based upon supposing that “this” means “turned into” rather than “represents.”

However, as said before, the latter of which is what the immediate and larger context and allegorical use of eating/drinking most warrants, rather than having normally inquisitive apostles simply drinking blood, without a word of explanation for such a novel, radical miracle, and which they had to understand was such in order for it to be efficacious.

And in which believers sppdly receive life in them by literally eating and drinking a cup, which they must continually do, rather than the Scripturally proven means of believing the gospel and becoming born again before ever eating anything.

And which, unlike what RCs overall daily show by eating the wafer and drinking the cup, results in manifest change. And who live that life out as Jesus did, by the scriptures, (Mt. 4:4) which was Jesus example of how to live by eating him in Jn. 6:57, and the doing of which was His “bread.”(Jn. 4:34)

Rather than go one and explain this more, as has been done, it is obvious you cannot even consider any other explanation so i must leave you to Rome’s ritual and its developed doctrine.


7,135 posted on 01/24/2011 6:24:42 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7134 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Joint Declaration...


7,136 posted on 01/24/2011 6:25:53 AM PST by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7131 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212; Kolokotronis; kosta50
almost month-long thread

It was posted on Halloween, I believe.

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.

From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32. But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.

Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible

But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.

The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...

That seems self-contradictory, is it not? That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.

Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.

Daniel: What magisterium?

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).

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

Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies. In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.

The “Jesus only” hermeneutic is a fallacious

I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).

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)

The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.

who needs to move.

No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.

was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values

On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?

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?!

Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.

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

Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.

7,137 posted on 01/24/2011 5:59:17 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7009 | View Replies]

To: annalex; MarkBsnr
Mark: we understand that the NT Scripture is massaged by the Church and harmonized during the first six centuries

Alex: So then that finished product is inerrant...

By fiat? There is no objective evidence of that. It's a demand placed on the faithful by the Church since Trent.

Its inerrancy is, however, "as written" by that collective process, primarily by Sts Matthew, Mark, etc. but possibly by the clarifying and editorial work done in later centuries, over a body of manuscripts available at the time and now lost.

The only thing that was lost was the original understanding of things in Judaism, and their deliberate and forced mutation into something unrecognizable. Without radically changing the meaning of words, misquoting (even rewriting) the Old Testament, etc., Christianity would have no leg to stand on.

When I was originally faced with this prospect, I was appalled, even angry. But evidence is too compelling which is why it is so well filtered by the Church. When was the last time you had a rabbi give a sermon on how the Jews see the Passover Lamb and what the Christians innovated from it? Jews are considered perfidious (unbelieving) "apostates" and all their views are heretical (kettle calling the pot black) and labeled.

One way the Church obtained its 'inerrancy," Alex, is by paraphrasing what her adversaries were saying, but never actually showing what they had to say, be it Arius or Pelagius. It started with the Gospels and never stopped. All the whitings of the heretics were destroyed or should have been. Thankfully, not all were destroyed, so we can dispel the myth of "one" church, and one catholic faith from the get go. Unfortunately.

7,138 posted on 01/24/2011 11:46:37 PM PST by kosta50 ("Spirit of Spirit...give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again" -- Mithral prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7133 | View Replies]

To: Quix
RC’s can count their convoluted flip-flops in dogma, rubberized history etc.

Mommah; are we gonna stomp some devil to-naaaght?


7,139 posted on 01/25/2011 5:36:00 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 7121 | View Replies]

To: annalex

almost month-long thread

It was posted on Halloween, I believe.

Then it may be about time to try to wrap it up and give more attention to other threads and posters.

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.

From scripture alone, we have both assurances regarding the authority of scripture and the authority of the Church; for the latter see Matthew 16:18 and Luke 22:31-32.

We do, but extrapolating a perpetuated Petrine papacy and formulaic assured infallibility to that office is Rome's interpretation of them, and was a later development, refuted by Scripture and history, and the authority of said interpretation effectively rests upon itself; that her interpretation is infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria. This does not mean a church cannot speak infallible truth, but the formulaic assuredly infallibility of Rome is the issue.

But the Church, in the persons of the Evangelists and the Apostles, and the clergy that copied, edited and canonized it produced the New Testament to begin with. You cannot put the product before the producer.

God produced it, and the instruments of Divine revelation are to be subject it. God first revealed Himself to man, and confirmed the faith and holiness of those believed Him, and ensured it would be passed on and become written, and which became the standard by which later men and revelation would be tested by, but at no time did Scripture establish a perpetrated formulaic assuredly infallibility, but God preserved the faith amount a remnant by raising up and confirming certain men from outside those who sat in Moses seat.

As for product versus producer, the stewardship=infallibility principle would require submission to the Jews who consistent to your statement “produced” the “product” but were manifestly not infallible interpreters of it. Roman Catholic apologists do claim the infallible magisterium follows the Jewish magisterium. And the latter lost it due to disobedience to what was written, and God can raised children of Abraham from stones. (Mt. 3:9)

Scripture is the only objective authority which were are assured is 100% inspired of God and thus alone is assuredly infallible, and which Jesus reproved those who (were explicitly affirmed to have) sat in Moses seat by, as they supposed they could teach contrary to Scripture.

The RCC claim to producing the Scriptures relies upon her premise to be the New Testament church, the certainty of which claim is based upon her premise to infallibly interpret history, tradition and Scripture. In providing an “infallible” compilation of Scripture for herself, she could ratified a collection of what had been overall established as being such, but as said before, the majority of Holy Writ was recognized as being without an infallible magisterium.

In addition, Rome had no infallible canon until over 1400 years after the last book was penned, with some dissent existing through the centuries and right into Trent, even among some of the best scholars as concerns certain books, such as Roman Catholic historian (and expert on Trent) Hubert Jedin (among others) writes. While apparently what Trent ratified was not exactly the same canon a what was affirmed by such councils as Carthage and early lists which RCA sometimes assert where infallible.

Its claim to infallibility does not rest on manifestation of the truth but effectively rests on its own declaration to be infallible

But no one forces you to become Catholic; further, if you hold heretical doctrines of Protestantism, we ask you to leave (see Trent). So, no, the teaching of the Magisterium stands or falls on the merit of its content. This is, incidentally, no different than the authority of the scripture: many people read the New Testament and believe it, others read it and don't. Some read it and riducule it. Infallibility is not the same as coercive power.

The claim to the infallibly of the teaching of the Magisterium is not subject to establishment due to its qualities, and or that she is attested to being God's supreme infallible authority due to things like the ground opening up and swallowing all her opponents, but it rests upon her claim that whenever she has or ever will speak within a certain content and scope then she is infallible, making her decree to be infallible to be infallible. We can assent that Rome spoke infallible truth in the Nicene Creed, but not that did always did or always will whenever she speaks according to her formula.

The principle behind SS does not require canonization, but at any given time once a writing is established as Divine...

That seems self-contradictory, is it not?

At any time a writing becomes established as Scripture, then it becomes the standard by which all is judged, and while Rome makes tradition equal to it, she effectively makes herself the supreme authority, yet she does not have an fallible list of all infallible teachings, or of all tradition, nor had she an assuredly infallible list of all books until 1546.

That is what canonization means, establishing of the Divine origin.

No, as said, Holy Writ becomes effectively established as being such like a true man of God does, by heavenly qualities and Divine attestation, which conforms and complements that which God had prior established by His power. Such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)

Annalex: the [Holy] Scripture itself is a product (in varying senses ranging from authorship to canonization and proper exegesis) of the Living Magisterium at the time.

Daniel: 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....

In the case of the Old Testament, the Church made a determination to include the Septuagint in her liturgy; Luther later questioned the Deuterocanonicals. These are magisterial acts of the Church, or in case of Luther, an attempt to act as magister. In the case of the New Testament, the Holy Apostles and the Evangelists wrote it under divine dictation not as freelancers but as founders and bishops of the Church, claiming rightly the status of messengers of Christ (1 Corinthians 4:16, 11:1; 2 Peter 1:16, Jude 1:1-3).

This does not change the fact that again, while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it, while again, Rome's claim to be the 1st century church is based upon her premise that her interpretation of Scripture and history is infallible, and that formal decent confers authenticity.

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.

And it is, as it being the only objective authority which is wholly inspired by God, while it materially provides for the church. And while oral preaching could also be the word of God (and in the informal sense can be today in preaching its truths), yet examining it by the Scriptures is commended, and the Scriptures are abundantly used to examine and establish teaching and persons by. Yet the canon being closed, to hold any body of revelation to be equal with it is to essentially add to the canon, while again, no complete list of all tradition exists, or infallibly defined doctrine.

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 insisting they are Scriptural

Well, indeed, -- but the Roman (as well as Eastern) Catholics never say that these doctrines automatically derive from the scripture alone. Surely you know that there is no shortage of non-Trinitarian communities of faith that all, -- at least those that came into existence after the Reformation -- claim direct and clear scriptural proof of their heresies.

Actually, “non-Trinitarian communities of faith” such as the LDS, the WTS and fundamental SDAs, etc., typically manifest, like Rome, a reliance upon an authority, a person or office which effectively presumes supreme infallible interpretive authority, and often require implicit trust in them and sole allegiance to their particular org. The more they do such the more extreme they tend to be. In contrast, churches which manifest they rely upon demonstrable Scriptural warrant and hold to shared core Truths which result in regeneration and interdenominational fellowship, have been foremost defenders of the core truths we both agree upon, and which were formalized in an earlier age with Scriptural validation. But due the their holding to supremacy of Scripture, these “Biblicists” likewise contend against teachings of those of Rome or cults which fail of Scriptural warrant.

In the case of the Scripture alone, the burden is on the adherent of this strange doctrine to prove it from scripture alone. There is not similar burden on the Catholic Church that has divine authority to explain the scripture.

Indeed they must be subject to Scripture as the supreme judge, being warranted and conformable to it, and thus the concurrence in shared core truths spoken of, while the aberrant tend toward elitism, and assume supremal authority over it by Divine authority, and require implicit submission, all of which they share with Rome.

I don't know what "Jesus only hermeneutics" is or why it is fallacious. We certainly can assume that Jesus encouraged or directed people to write down things but we do not have a scriptural evidence of it, and we do have a scriptural evidence that Jesus established the Church as authority on his behalf (Mt 16:18, 18:18, Mt 28:20, Jn 20:21-23).

It means only what Jesus personally said is authoritative. We see much evidence that writing revelation down was the norm, which is why we know the church was established by God, whose members affirmed this word was from God, and as it is, then it is the only objective source which is assuredly infallible, and does not support Rome's claim to perpetuated formulaic assuredly infallibility. God knows how to preserve the faith by raising up men to correct those who presume too much, as the Jewish magisterium did, and as Rome has done, but like the Jesus, she persecutes those who dare to do so.

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)

The error in this statement is "only", and that one comes without a scriptural corroboration.

Thus you deny that only the Scriptures are assuredly the word of God (which of course, is meant the formal sense)? Thus rather than judging all by the Scriptures, you presume Rome is the supreme judge, promulgating teaching which need not be established by Scriptural warrant.

who needs to move?

No one: the Orthodox Church is essentially Catholic as it is. They have some problem with us, we do not have a problem with them.

This is rather imaginary. While Rome can define that “that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff," (Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, Bull promulgated on November 18, 1302) to even include Protestants (even if you may not), the refusal of the Orthodox to ascribe the full primacy of the Pope in the Roman sense (despite their present degree of concession), as well as papal infallibility, Mary's IM, etc. is a problem with Rome.

was mainly liberal as regards key beliefs moral values

On "social justice", perhaps. On life and family, the Catholic Church is staunchly conservative. Which other community of faith teaches that contraception is mortal sin or marriage after divorce is impossible?

This was not speaking of official statements, as conservative as they sound, but what is overall effectually conveyed and fostered, and in that case your assertions of overall greater support for moral values over her evangelical counterparts is a consistent myth, especially on birth control. And the and the granting of annulments and the breath of criteria for such fail of Scripture warrant, and potentially means multitudes of married Catholics never really were.

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?!

Yes, he would be. There is a lot wrong with John Kerry, including his defiance of Catholicism, but Catholicism in itself, and to the extent that he believes like a Catholic, is not one of those things.

Incredible. Even a living dog is better than a dead lion. (Eccl. 9:4) Besides that such would most likely mean a real Christian Kerry, you sound increasingly like a sedevacantist, who reject post Vatican Two changes (and i think they have some historical warrant), in which baptized Prots are overall regarded a separated brethren, “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.”

The latter term used in distinction to churches “in the proper sense,” such as Orthodox, though by Baptism they are incorporated in Christ and have a certain communion with Rome, albeit imperfect, with the Church. (Dominus Iesus)

Also answer clearly my previous question whether you favor a Roman Catholic monarchy in the US, and as you are a fan of the inquisition, what should they do with Protestants, and if the use of physical punishment of those who doctrinally disagree with Rome was right.

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

Yes, of course. But those who vote for pro-death politicians do so against the will of the Catholic Church.

Which openly liberal politicians rarely see any real discipline, which conveys to other members that what is critical is that, despite all the promotion of Catholics about believing in works versus those sola fide types, what really matters is dying in the arms of Rome, versus a manifest conversion by faith resulting in works thereof, such as vast multitudes of conservative worshipful evangelicals (though i wish we all were more so) have realized through the centuries, after departing from Rome, but which you must oppose in loyalty to a particular church, which is sadly largely a dead lion.

7,140 posted on 01/26/2011 12:21:53 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 7137 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Among other corrections that should have made if i proof read it more (sorry),

“while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it,”

the last word was supposed to refer to an assuredly infallible magisterium.

Eccl. 12:12


7,141 posted on 01/26/2011 1:54:33 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 7137 | View Replies]

To: kosta50
The only thing that was lost was the original understanding of things in Judaism, and their deliberate and forced mutation into something unrecognizable. Without radically changing the meaning of words, misquoting (even rewriting) the Old Testament, etc., Christianity would have no leg to stand on.

Remember that during the second and third centuries, the OT was very much neglected and the concentration of the Church was on the message of Christianity, not its divergence from Judaism.

When I was originally faced with this prospect, I was appalled, even angry. But evidence is too compelling which is why it is so well filtered by the Church. When was the last time you had a rabbi give a sermon on how the Jews see the Passover Lamb and what the Christians innovated from it? Jews are considered perfidious (unbelieving) "apostates" and all their views are heretical (kettle calling the pot black) and labeled.

Christianity is not Judaism, which was made clear in the Gospels and even clearer in Acts and the epistles. Why were you angry? Was the Torah rewritten? The rest of the Tanakh? What changes were made in the translation of the Septuagint - inadvertently and deliberately? We have some evidence, as we have evidence of the NT massaging.

I believe that the changes were required because of the inability of man to properly understand God, so we view Him, as we do everything else - through our anthropomorphic and current societal filters. I have no proof - but I do believe that this is what happened, just as I believe that the bishops converged in their meeting room in Nicea were led by the Holy Spirit to make the decisions that they made. Same as the cardinals in the Vatican when they are shoveled into the Sistine Chapel and told to stay put until a new bishop is chosen.

I have no proof except for the longevity of the practice and the fact that it makes sense to me on an experiential basis, as well as a theological one.

7,142 posted on 01/26/2011 5:06:16 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 7138 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
Grace and works are not separate as grace enables works, but in reality grace works through faith producing works.

Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture:

[5]…there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. [6] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. [7] What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it (Romans 11, similar 2 Timothy 1:9)

[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. (Eph 2)

No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man:

by works faith was made perfect (James 2:22)

[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages (Hebrews 11)

in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity (Galatians 5:6)

Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4. Regarding Romans 3:19-20, 24-31 you have this to say:

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.

And

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.

The problem here is “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”, and the earlier reference to “by a system of works-righteousness”. These two references make Paul say what he did not say, that works of love (“faith working through love”, -- his expression) also are opposed to faith, no different than works of the law mentioned in verses 19-20 and works of “boast” in v.27. The reality is that the kind of works that oppose faith in Romans 3 are these two kinds of works precisely: works done under the law (Romans 3:19-20, 28) and works done for boasting (Romans 3:27, Eph. 2:9). It is, of course perfectly reasonable: both works done under the law and works done for social recognition are the kind of works done for a temporal reward. That is the reason they do not merit an eternal reward:

when thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward (Matthew 6:2)

You attempt to improperly tie the works of temporal reward together with works of faith by stating “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”. Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do. It is true that one who does some charitable work and then boasts of it has invalidated the salvific merit of his work (Matthew 6:2). It is not true that every time a good work is done it is thus invalidated. The righteous “sheep” in Matthew 25, for example, do not seem to be aware that they are righteous (“Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee?”). The Good Thief on the cross does not seem to be boasting of his good work defending Jesus (Luke 23:40-43). What you needed to say in order to make the clean sweep of all works as not salvific is to say “there are none saved because if anyone were saved that one would boast of it”. But you cannot say it, -- there is nothing in St. Paul to justify such a sweeping statement, but there is plenty in the writings of St. Paul alone to indicate that good works exist and remain good (Gal 5:6, Titus 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:7, 1 Corinthians 13:13). So lumping together works of charity with works for a temporal reward is a mere speculation on your part – it is not in the text you are commenting upon.

You then introduce Romans 4:1-6, skip verses 7-9 and then cite verse 10, and comment:

Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly There is nothing about the godly in that passage, and therefore we cannot conclude from it that faith justified only the ungodly, if that were what you are saying. But probably not, so moving on: 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

The works he rejects are circumcision. It is repeated 6 times between verses 6 and 10. Circumcision is works of the Jewish law. So Abraham was not justified by the work of circumcision. True, -- the Catholic Church teaches that also. But the lumping up of all possible works together with circumcision fails in application to this passage also.

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. This is in reference to the verse 11 that you added to the scope. None of that passage, verses 1 through 11 is contrasting of the law versus works of faith, just as you say; it is contrasting justification with circumcision and concludes that faith of Abraham contributed to his justification and circumcision did not. Here you are attempting to make two analogies: between works of the Jewish law and good works of faith and love, and between circumcision and baptism. But neither works of love or baptism are in the text. Yet good works St. Paul himself declared salvific in the same letter, Romans 2:7-10 and baptism was said to save us both by Christ Himself (Mark 16:16) and by St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21). So you are building analogies without scriptural support. One can assert that this [Abraham might be the father … to them also that follow the steps of the faithful] means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works

Yes, of course one can assert that. St. Paul himself asserted that in Hebrews 11, as the entire chapter lists glorious works by Abraham and other Old Testament saints. At the same time, no we have not seen that “he was justified by faith not by works”; we only have seen that he was justified by faith not circumcision.

in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality

Justification is a reality for the Romans as it is a reality for Jew or Greek, because Christ dies for them also. There is nothing in the next 2 chapters to support your lumping up circumcision with every possible kind of work.

Here [Romans 4:19-51] 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

Intertwined they are, but where is “not his works” in that passage? Remember, you do not need to prove me that people are justified by faith intertwined with works; you need to prove to me that we are justified by faith alone without the good works intertwining.

Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did

Not “strictly”. St. Paul writes this:

[11] For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

What it says is that election is strictly by grace. That is Catholic teaching. It does not say that it is “strictly not because of anything man did”, it says rather the opposite, namely that if one did not do “any good or evil” then the purpose of election “might stand”. It teaches Grace Alone, not Faith Alone. The verses that you also cite, “if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (Romans 11:5-6) reinforce that Catholic point.

No treatment of Romans can be complete without the passages that bracket chapters 4-11. The explanation of salvation being primarily by works is in Rm 2:7-10; this is a concise restatement of Christ’s sermon on salvation in Matthew 25:31-46; it is given without any qualifications that the Protestant mind likes to attach to any biblical statement on the salvific nature of good works. That fits the theme of the early chapters of the letter that strive to show universality of the plan of salvation as well as the universality of the hold that sin has over the mankind, and insufficiency of legal remedy devised by men. Salvation is not by the law but “by the law of faith”, -- a formulation that again points to an active, doing character of Christian faith. To see chapters 4-11 as some statement on “faith alone” is to accuse St. Paul of stating the opposite in Chapter 2 and then changing his mind.

The rest of the letter likewise would be impossible to comprehend in the Protestant jaundiced light. If chapters 4-11 were supposed to be about faith alone, why does chapter 12 begin “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”. Faith alone “therefore” is not alone but demands a “living sacrifice” and a “reasonable service”. St. Paul, in short is as much a good Catholic in Romans as he is in any other letter.

In the inset, you give me numerous quotes. I will comment on some and treat the rest summarily. I will firstly deal with the patristic quotes, while reminding the reader that no Church father is himself infallible in the same sense in which the Holy Scripture is infallible, the councils are infallible, or the solemn papal declarations on faith and morals are infallible. Especially, the Western Fathers, often separated from the core patristic tradition by their use of Latin translations and simply the passage of time, should not alone be taken as gospel with all their views. St. Augustine, for example, while man of soaring intellect and style, should not be taken as a representative of the rest of the Church in his often off-center writings on justufucation.

St. Clement of Rome writes:

Chapter 32. We are Justified Not by Our Own Works, But by Faith.
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. Romans 9:5 From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven. All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. 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

Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

Note that the context is of the Old Testament righteous, whose election was surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches. While St. Clement does say “not by ourselves … or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith”, one needs to examion what, to Clement, that faith meant. We only need to peek into the next chapter, one immediately following the concluding Amen of Chapter 32:

Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works
What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immovable foundation of His own will. The animals also which are upon it He commanded by His own word into existence. So likewise, when He had formed the sea, and the living creatures which are in it, He enclosed them [within their proper bounds] by His own power. Above all, with His holy and undefiled hands He formed man, the most excellent [of His creatures], and truly great through the understanding given him— the express likeness of His own image. For thus says God: Let us make man in our image, and after our likeness. So God made man; male and female He created them. Genesis 1:26-27 Having thus finished all these things, He approved them, and blessed them, and said, Increase and multiply. Genesis 1:28 We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.

(Ibid)

It is also worth noting that the sequence in St. Clement’s letter follows Titus 3:5-8, where the idea of salvation being not of works of love does not even arise since St. Paul speaks only of “works of justice”.

Ambrosiaster indeed concludes “sola fide justificati sun” commenting on Romans 3:24 (“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus”). So the Scripture says “grace”, he thinks “faith”. The rest of the commentary is though on grace and is Catholic: “Gratiam Dei in Christo esse testator; quia voluntate Dei a Christo redempti sumus, ut manu missi justificaremur” (I quote from In Epistolam Beati Pauli AdRomanos). Ambrosiaster is not an important father of the Church and alongside St. Augistine relied on pre-Jerome Latin translations.

The first quote of St. Augustine does not say anything about works of love; it is plain and quite Catholic discourse on works of the law being opposite of grace.

The second quote from St. Augustine is much better for your purpose. Here it is again:

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

So one CAN be justified by faith alone and following repentance. We can certainly see that in people unable to work due to some disability or circumstance. However, the general principle is not following here: it is true that exceptionally one can be justified without good works, but it is still not true that anyone as a general proposition is thus justified.

Who is Andreas? His comment is a speculation that Abraham had “pre-baptismal faith” and “post-baptismal faith”, and the pre-baptismal one was unaccompanied by works. This is silly: there is nothing in the scripture about either Abraham’s two faiths or his baptism. Quite simply, Abraham’s justification, just like yours or mine, was a process. One stage of it was unaccompanied by works; other stages are very much inseparable from works.

The rest of the inset are quotes from diverse Protestant thinkers that advocate for the idea that faith precedes and is a precondition for justification while good works follow. That, in itself, is an acceptable thought for a Catholic Christian, provided that justification is understood correctly as a lifelong process and not necessarily, nor usually, a single event. They quote various scriptures in support of this Catholic doctrine. If you think there is something in their output that need special addressing as regards the meaning of the scripture or the Catholic teaching in general, let me know and I will.

This is long enough. I will address the portion of your post 7010 following the inset later.

7,143 posted on 01/27/2011 5:44:05 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7010 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Remember that during the second and third centuries, the OT was very much neglected and the concentration of the Church was on the message of Christianity, not its divergence from Judaism.

The OT was neglected at first because it was believed, by some (such as Marcion) that the OT God was not the God of the risen Christ. Also, Christians were doing everything to make the Jews look like the bad guys. It was +Irenaeus who, at the end of the 2nd century, realized that without the OT Christianity had no legal appeal, and began to integrate the OT and the NT.

Christianity is not Judaism, which was made clear in the Gospels and even clearer in Acts and the epistles. Why were you angry?

I was angry, as a believer, that my Church had to resort to corruption and manipulation in order to establish what it claimed to be the true dogma. The Gospels, actually affirm Jesus' teaching as Judaism which, unless it was written from ignorance by non Jews, seem rather deceptive. The first defection from Judaism is Paul's antinomialism.

I believe that the changes were required because of the inability of man to properly understand God

Mark, the changes were required to create an a whole new religion using Judaism as its legal authority pretty much the way Mormonism was created.   

Was the Torah rewritten?

No, some of the changes are quite subtle. A good example of manipulation of scriptures are found in such instances as when the suffering servant is said to suffer for our iniquities instead of the Tanakh's from our iniquities.

Other issues revolve around the idea of sprinkling of the blood of the innocent victim atoning for our sins. Jewish customs required animal sacrifice only for things committed inadvertently (unintentionally), and in no instance did it ever involved sacrificing a human being, especially a Jew.

For intentional sins, the OT is very clear that no man (or animal) can atone for, except the person who committed them. And that he can do only by repentance and prayer. So, Christian teaching that Jesus was like a sacrificial animal whose blood atoned for the sins of the world is alien to Judaism, yet it is presented by Christians as being part of it. Furthermore, the blood had to be sprinkled on the altar in the Temple.

Another example is the idea that Jesus was like the Passover Lamb. The blood of the Passover Lamb was not shed to atone for anyone's sins, but to show the Egyptians that their god (they worshiped lambs the way Indians worship sacred cows) is no god; it was an act of desecration of an Egyptian deity demanded by God of Israel. Equating Jesus with the Passover Lamb is to the Jews like saying Jesus was a false god. But the Christians weaved a different story around that story.

This is no different than the Mormons saying their trinity is one god in purpose and not in nature. It is a complete distortion of the core Christian dogma used to create a new religion.

Now, I am not interested in challenging your beliefs, Mark. I merely state what I know And I know the Church never told me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, it seems it fabricated its own truth and I think I can see pretty clearly why it took it 300 years to cook that stew.

7,144 posted on 01/27/2011 7:24:33 AM PST by kosta50 (Pagan prayer to Mithra: "give me over to immortal birth so that I may be born again")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7142 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
This is part two of my response to 7010, addressing the parts following the inset. Part one is in my previous post.

Annalex: 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.

Daniel: It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification[ …] Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them

Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works. Beside the taking of the promise of progeny on faith, there were also the crossing of the desert, the act of hospitality to the Angels, and the sacrifice of Isaac, all works that cooperated with his faith to make it perfect (James 2:22) and continue the process of Abraham’s justification.

Annalex: I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.

Daniel: 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

Well, that is contrary to John 6 where Christ says nothing about obedience but a whole lot about the Eucharist granting eternal life to whom who “eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood”.

”Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.

Annalex: 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

Daniel: 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.

Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works. So I don’t know what “hermeneutics” are needed to conclude that good works contribute to our salvation and their absence contributes to our condemnation, and therefore we cannot be saved by faith alone. Also note that the works mentioned in Matthew 25 are not at all like works of the law and therefore your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.

Annalex: James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone

Daniel: [James 2] 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

Yes. A man is justified by faith that works. Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does. Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”, -- if you do, you are contradicting St. James who called that faith dead and not appropriating anything.

There is, of course, zero contradiction of what St. Paul and Moses had to say on the matter, as hopefully you can see from my previous post.

Annalex: 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?

Daniel: 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.

OK, I agree. In short, there is a whole complex of protestant “protests” and not any kind of technical issue such as justification. It is also cultural: the modern evangelicalism for example is just too modern in its psychological makeup to stomach Catholicism in any measure.

Annalex: 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.

Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out

How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.

But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one

Ah, yes. Good point. So is the Communion of Catholics, -- of supernatural nature (Romans 6:3, Luke 22:32)

Annalex: 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

Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?

By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost; Christ refers to her in the future tense in Matthew 16:16. There sure were types of Church in the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the covenant and Blessed Virgin Mary, but for the birth of the actual Church we look at the New Testament and specifically the Acts.

Which is the true Church is established by continuity of doctrine to the Apostles as well as the continuity of clergy to the apostles. That criterion leaves the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. The disputes that we have with the east do not rise to the level of doctrinal dissonance, at least from our perspective. I think, often the Orthodox provide a necessary corrective to the Western Church that at times is caught in its disputes with the Protestants and becomes infected with Protestant legalisms.

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.

What is he “supposing” does not really matter. If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation, you cannot get from A to Z bypassing them.

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

You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.

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<./I>

This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them? Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?

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

That is a reason to practice full immersion when practical, but there is no reason to hold to any particular form of baptism because of that instance with the Eunuch. As two people are traveling, it is natural to seek water for baptism in an existing reservoir. When people are in a home, already stored water can be brought in for the occasion: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized”(Acts 10:47). It is hard to imagine that in arid Palestine all baptisms were with full immersion. The words itself has to do with lowering down, but it is not exclusively used for complete immersion, consider “divers washings” – “διαφοροις βαπτισμοις” (Heb. 9:10), a reference to ritual washings, for example, before meals.

There is a greater reason to criticize this incongruent case of ritualistic formalism on the part of the Protestants. In general, while the operation of a Sacrament is subject to the will of God alone, its form is within the capacity of the Church to determine (“whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” , Mt 18:18). It is entirely within the purview of a local bishop to define the exact manner of baptism as he sees fit for the economic and climatological condition of his diocese. Now, the Protestant system does not recognize sacraments altogether and instead sees in baptism an external sign of an internal change that already occurred. So what am I to make of this insistence on a particular sign? You yourself admit that “mode is not a salvific issue” later in your post. It seems to me, a modern designation, for example a framed diploma or a wearable badge would be much better suited in a Protestant setting.

The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6

To argue that, you offer a link to The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood? , which says about John 6 this:

In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.

[…]

If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have "life in you", which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved

I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him. In John 6 He says: I will give you bread that is my flesh, and food indeed. At the Last Supper He actually gives people bread – not words – and says that this is His body, and tells them to eat it. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 Speaks of the bread being eaten in which the body is to be discerned on the pain of damnation. Not faith or word, but the body of the Lord. Yet all that is metaphorical because to read the scripture for what it says destroys the Protestant narrative.

If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?

The Eucharist is something for one who is already born again. The rebirth is baptism. The unbaptized do not take the Holy Communion. That is the simple answer to your question why the Apostles call for baptism and not for the reception of the Eucharist.

Your theory of the “body of the Lord” in 1 Cor 11:29 being the mystical body of Christ which is the Church is ridiculous as well, because the body in v.29 is a reference (by quote, v.24) to the body Christ gave out at the Last Supper where He says “this is my body”. Not “this is the Faith” or “this is the Word”, but this is the body given up for you. Next you will be telling me that it was a metaphor hanging on the Cross.

availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.

So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?

Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture

So, “not by faith alone are ye saved” and “take, eat, this is my body” is not something we want an emphasis on, but an inference that because the Eunuch and Deacon Philip went to a natural source of water they must have immersed themselves fully is giving the scripture emphasis?

7,145 posted on 01/28/2011 5:55:15 PM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7010 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Rather than being much redundant, i will address the main points which could benefit from clarification and or expansion, with some organization.

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.

Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture: [Rm. 11:5-7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8,9] No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man: [Ja. 2:2; Heb. 11:8,9; Gal. 5:9]

I have affirmed the separate place each have, but in context, you fail to grasp the manner in which they go together, in relation to how faith and works go together. Nor is it that good works eventually produce faith and that faith originates in the heart of man, as faith is a supernatural gift from God, enabling one to effectually believe revealed truth beyond the ability of man.

God, in His grace, gives faith, which results in works.

You also appeal to Rm. 2:7-10 as teaching salvation by works, but which describe what saved persons do, which is works of faith, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) and which i fully affirm. One is justified “by faith alone” in that God-given supernatural faith is what is counted for righteousness, though it is expressed in works. Man comes to God, being drawn to Him but destitute and damned, and out of a poor and contrite heart believes in Him who justifies the unGodly, not the Godly, and their faith is counted for righteousness, an dare given the gift of eternal life. Those who continue in the faith, trusting in the Lord Christ to save them, not their works or goodness or that if their church, do works of faith, led by the Spirit, which only believers can do, and will finally fully realize “eternal life” and recompense for their suffering and works, in the mercy and grace of God.

Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4.

A point by point rebuttal of your rendering of this is not necessary as it is a continuance of your insistence on reading into the text what you want to see.

While Rm. 3 excludes both Jews and Gentiles from having any moral fitness whereby they could merit acceptance with God, and instead renders them are all under sin and need of justification by grace, and even though Rm. 4 plainly teaches that if Abraham had done works that merited justification then he could boast, (Romans 4:1-3) you state that he did do justifying works he could boast of, that “Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do.” And rather than what Paul is teaching, that if works could merit justification than man could boast, you attempt to make the exclusion of works to be that of boasting of such works, or ones done for temporal gain, while sanctioning doing works to gain eternal life. Supposing that the Catholic system only supports doing works of love for not other reason than love for God is a fantasy, while one must be justified to do works of such love.

The works of the law also provided spiritual benefits, but which system is excluded because it is based upon moral merit by obedience (Gal. 2:20) rather than faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which again, Paul has been laboring to show both Jew and Gentiles they are in need of, being unable to be morally worthy by works.

And when Rm. 4 contrasts Abraham being justified by works before he was circumcised or under the law, you insist this only means works of the law being disallowed, such as circumcision and works done for social recognition, when again, in reality it is part of his contrast between works morally meriting justification, as under the law, versus faith procuring it, in which he clearly states the latter is counted for righteousness. Thus it is of faith, that it might be by grace, by which faith is given, resulting in works led by the Spirit. (Rm. 8:14)

And as man cannot do anything that would make him actually worthy in God's sight, Rm. 4 concludes with justification being something which man cannot gain except by faith. For Abraham was unable to gain the promise, but his faith was counted for righteousness, and which resulted in actions which produced a nation. “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" (Romans 4:21-24)

In contrast, if you have man doing works meriting justification which he could boast of but does not, and if your criteria (as stated in other responses) for such salvific works are works of love by one who imitates Christ, then you have souls doing Christian works of love in imitation of Christ before they are justified, in order to be justified!

In this and other examples you confuse what faith does with the actual means by which justification is appropriated, though faith and work go together. Thus when you see Titus 3:5 and Eph. 2:8,9 which contrast faith and works in an unqualified manner, you invoke verses which speak of what faith effects in order to assert they are causative of justification.

Moving on, your continuing commitment to either argue against a straw man or failure to read or comprehend this oft stated definition and its distinction results in your supposing that Rm. 12:1,2 is contrary to sola fide. If any faith has historically taught or fostered works of faith it is those who hold to sola fide.

As regards Rm. 11:11-16, you again misconstrue how grace works in order to force it to conform to salvation by grace through merit, when an unbiased reading of the text would allow you to see that it is teaching that the elect are chosen as such before they did works, and thus it is purely by grace, under which repentance and faith is given, resulting in works which confirm the saved state of the soul.

When you come to the patristic quotes, after giving the necessary qualifier,” that no Church father is himself infallible,” you misconstrue Clement's words to mean that their election was “surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches,” meaning that they were saved by grace through works of merit! That Clement exhorts them to works, just as those who hold to sola fide do, cannot be used to make his words, “we 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 mean justification is by works out of merit. Again, sola fide teaches that the faith that the faith that saves is a faith that follows, but it is the God-given faith aspect which procures justification by imputed righteousness.

For Ambrosiaster, you assert that “faith” in “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” is supposed to be “grace” in order to support justification by grace through works which merit it.

Faced with Augustine, 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” you allow that “one CAN be justified by faith alone and following repentance. We can certainly see that in people unable to work due to some disability or circumstance. However, the general principle is not following here: it is true that exceptionally one can be justified without good works, but it is still not true that anyone as a general proposition is thus justified.”

I am glad you allow this in a qualified manner, except that inn this context repentance is part of the act of faith, and if one can be justified by faith alone in the case wherein a soul has no ability, then it affirms sola fide, the difference being that in the sola fide i describe, no man has the ability to do works which would morally merit justification, but that God gives faith which procures it, with obedience following.

For me, it is not the sequence that is critical, but the recognition that no man can morally merit justification, being morally destitute, and that instead he is damned due to his works, and must be granted repentance and given faith, albeit a faith that will produce obedience towards its Object, insomuch as the possessor of said faith is able (and which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so), and which faith is counted for righteousness. But yet while eternal life is given as a free gift, one must continue in faith, and works are the gauge by which faith is evidenced, and thus the doers of the law are those who are justified, and works of faith are recompensed beyond the gift of eternal life.

7,146 posted on 01/31/2011 4:22:09 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 7143 | View Replies]

To: annalex

Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works.

This is dealt with in the previous response to your gospel which has souls doing works of a believer in order to become a believer, while the texts does not make the qualification you desire, but shows that if works Abraham could justify one than Abraham would be able to boast, but that before he was even commanded to be circumcised his faith was what was counted for righteousness, though it was expressed in works.

Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works...your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.

Certainly they do, in the sense that works evidence faith. Those that are “charged” with the Holy Spirit are known by the light they shine, and because they are believers they are blessed with the inheritance of the saints. It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards. But the saints come to God with no merit to justify them, being as helpless as Abraham was to birth a multitude of peoples, but their God-given faith procures imputed righteousness, which they live out.

Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does.

It is a kind of faith that works obedience, but “worketh not” as regards moral merit, nor it is merely intellectual, as meaning a faith that would not show obedience, when able.

Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”

Surely you are not contradicting that one CAN be justified by faith alone to one unable to work, while i extend inability to all, as being unable to do works which merit acceptance with God. Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion, which as established before, process sola fide recognizes, but was forgiven and regenerated by believing. And then was baptized.

If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation,

In this evidentiary sense, as having a faith that will work obedience, yes, but not based on moral merit, as one comes to God with nothing.

Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.

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

You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.

It would be helpful if Roman Catholics understood the distinctions, as most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense, although as substantiated before, Trent allows for knowing you are one of the elect by “special revelation,” which certainly is subjective PI.

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.

This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them?

Calvinism and Arminian have a different “Ordo Salutis.” but both camps confess being washed, sanctified and justified (1Cor. 6:11) is all one event. Calvinism does get into precision with its terms, and equates the awakening of the soul to believe as regeneration, and among Arminianism faith & repentance usually go together, as they must, though the evident works of repentance follow. (Acts 26:20)

As for practical me, i see (to reiterate again) the main thing being man being destitute of any means whereby he can morally merit glory of God, (Rm. 3:23) and instead his sins damn him, (Rm. 3:9-20) thus rightly abasing man and exalting God, in which position he can only look to God for mercy in Christ, who justifies the UnGodly through faith, "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference" (Romans 3:22)

As for order, I see (through a glass, darkly) God preparing souls for salvation by conviction of need, (Jn. 16:8) and drawing souls to Christ, (Jn. 12:32) and opening the heart (Acts 16:14) and granting repentance and faith, (Acts 11:18) with as many as were ordained to eternal life believing, (Acts 13:48) being washed — forgiven of all trespasses, (Col. 2:13) justified — by imputed righteousness, (Rm. 4:5,6;22-24) and sanctified — by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but which is also progressive. (2Thes. 2:13)

Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?

I have indeed provided much substantiation that Sola fide neither supports a kind of faith that would not produce obedience towards its Object or that it excludes any preparatory work by God in the heart of those who are to be justified. Yet as the imputed righteousness is understood to be that of Christ, who as the scapegoat, became sin for us, then it holds that this cannot be increased, but that its practical outworking is always to have a greater realization, having “its fruit unto holiness, and in the end, eternal life.”

availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.

So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?

First you tried to support non-immersion baptism by suggesting Peter was looking for a water held around a house in a bucket, and when i pointed out to you that the house was by the sea, you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon? He is not even mentioned, but contextually Peter is responding to “they of the circumcision” who found this hard to take, and in any case it does not support Peter looking for a bucket over immersion.

Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.

Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word, but if you do not you have no life in you. (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:8.9)

I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him.

John, of all the apostles, makes that clear. Hearing and believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ is always what resulted in life in one, and to “live by” something in that context refers to the word of God, and only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so, not to promote it as a means of regeneration or worshiping the elements and making it a means of expiation for sin.

If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?

You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again, because they mistook Jesus enigmatic speech as referring to the physical, and with that mind also rejected His talk of ascending “up where he was before.” However, Jesus words in Jn. 6:63,64 refer to believing in Him who “hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68) in the sense where it elsewhere in John does, that which Peter confirms in v. 69, “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” This this just what Mt. 16:16 confesses, and what John Mary does in John 11:25-27. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."

And as stated before, believing the gospel is always what gave life, and believers eat and drink Jesus the same way Jesus explained it: " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) which was not by literally eating His body, but by living according to His word, the doing of which was Jesus “bread.” (Jn. 4:34)

As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” Not recognizing transubstantiation is not in view here, but how Jesus death was remembered by the breaking of bread is, and contextually refers to showing the kind of love for the corporate body of Christ that He did in purchasing it with His own blood, as briefly explained on FR here. That “body” is what Paul continues to focus on in the next chapter. If Roman Catholics will not see this, then they need more than additional explanation, and the insistence on making the apostles out to be drinking blood and Jn. 6 to refer to spiritual life through such is a testimony to loyalty to men over objective exegesis.

Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out

How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.

Other churches can have similar, but what was meant by comprehensive doctrinal unity is that of completeness, and while churches from Rome to cults boast of some degree of comprehensive doctrinal unity, this has never been realized in completeness, which is exceedingly extensive, though in the Bible the early church heart had a unity of the Spirit in surrender to Christ and the core salvific light they had, which is possible today. Some issues would be dealt with more, but not exhaustively all, and to be of the same mind and judgment can mean we recognize what are clear core salvific essentials and allow some degree of inquiry and disagreement in others, in the context of a right heart before God.

It was deviation from basic truths and carnality that was targeted for censure in the epistles, and the Lord reproved a sectarian spirit among His apostles. (Mk. 9:38-40) On this spiritual level, i known quite well what manner of unity Rome has amongst itself, despite disagreements, versus that of evangelicals, despite disagreements, and which i have already commented on.

As for doctrinal unity, as said before, Rome has official defined little of the Bible, and those pronouncements are themselves in need of interpretations, while limited disagreement is allowed in non-infallible teachings, though disagreement reigns as to what all is or isn’t. Meanwhile, i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny but evangelicals typically contend for.

Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?

By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost;

I would not use it ether here: it means One True Church, as explained before. As for the latter statement, another FR Roman Catholic apologist here contends it started in the gospels. Yet, as said before, the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth, which disallows evidence to the contrary from determining it.



Responding to these has taken a lower priority by now, with other things needing attention.

7,147 posted on 01/31/2011 4:22:57 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 7145 | View Replies]

To: daniel1212
they are prohibitions against further seeking to validate what Rome has infallible declared

One is free to leave the church at any time, and many do. If one wishes to stay, he has to form his faith accordingly.

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.”

Yes, -- before one debates the Catholic doctrine it is good if one knows it himself. It is conceivable that at times only consecrated life of a priest provided sufficient education; it may come to this again. I certainly ask anyone Catholic to correct me in the event that I misrepresent the Catholic doctrine; I would not wish to speak my opinions and peddle them off as something valid. Private interpretation of scripture is something amusing and alluring, but it really should not be something the Catholic mind should busy itself with. Here, compared to the Protestant approach, a great and important division needs to be understood. The Church is not a debating society nor is it s research institution. Rather, it is a transmission belt between the historical events that occurred in the ministry of Christ on earth and us. We don’t sit around in a Bible study and wonder what we think the Bible might really mean. We simply ask, and get an answer from the mouth of the Church as she is a timeless supernatural institution divinely endowed by the gift of infallible transmission of the Truth Who is Christ. For example, with you, it might seem that I debate. I do not. I explain what the Church teaches. In the process, the facts of scripture and logic come to light that defeat the Protestant theological fantasies, and hopefully, put you and other Protestant heretics on the path of doubt. But conversion that I so much desire for my Protestant friends is not going to come about because of any debate. Note that Christ never debated with His disciples; they became disciples because He called them. This is how people come to His Church also, because they want to be taught rather than be debated with.

I said primary [disagreement with the Orthodox is primacy and infallibility of the papacy], and what i said remains true

With that, I don’t argue, although I would remark that primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not disputed but rather his infallibility outside of the Church councils. My remark was addressing your other point, that Rome “rises and falls” on the papacy. That is not so: most of Catholic theology was not shaped by popes and in fact what we argue with the Protestants for example, is mostly contained in the teachings of the seven councils of the unified Church. Even today, the Pope has a far stronger command line to the bishops of the West than of the East, and there is no doubt that in the re-unified Church the papacy will be in line with what is was in early Middle Ages, where the individual bishops had great autonomy, as the various Catholic Churches of Eastern Rites enjoy today.

will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?

The doctrines that Rome developed without the cooperation with the East will most likely remain an optional belief in the East, till such time that a council including the East should adopt them universally. It is just my opinion. Note that the bulk of the Orthodox objections are not to the beliefs themselves but to the unilateral adoption of them. They can be reintroduced in a council and adopted by it in some form.

without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God

I agree. We have seen several reformations in the Church that were very salutary: the monastic movement in the early Middle Ages, Scholasticism, St. Francis in the West and Palamism in the East, Trent, and now we see the beginnings of some reform even though the actual implementation of the Vatican II left the Western Church nearly in ruins and will have to be backtracked. The problem with Protestant Reformation is not in its stated initially desire to reform the Church, -- that was accomplished at Trent, but with their gradual abandonment of solid scriptural theology from Trent on.

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.

The scripture clearly assigned the infallibility to the Church (Mt 16:18, 18:18). Whether the prayer of Christ for specially Peter in Luke 22 amounts to actual infallibility can indeed be debated, but surely St. Peter is singled out among other apostles as a greater authority in these instances.

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

Ah, OK, so you actually agree to the above. Now as to perpetuation. It is reasonable that the ecclesial structures set up by Christ are perpetuated as He set them up in not in some other form; note as well that we do see episcopacy being perpetuated explicitly in the scripture (the entire two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are on this subject). Secondly, this shows the intention of St. Peter to perpetuate his office:

[12] …I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness (2 Peter 1)

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.

Were the Early Church Protestant, I am sure she would use this Protestant system of treating the scripture as a manual to be blindly followed. But since the Early Church was Catholic, she instead followed the actual needs of the growing flock rather than some rigid arithmetical scheme. We see actual apostolic succession in action in the two Timothys and Titus, based on discerning the vocation (Titus 1:5-9), education (2 Timothy 14-17), and sacrament (1 Timothy 4:14).

Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural

God raised up many saints and doctors, and some of them became bishops and popes in that manner. That the Church finds talent when talent is needed is no contradiction to the sacramental system of Holy Orders. Note that St. Paul made sure to bring his extraordinary calling in conformance with the hierarchical system of the Church (Gal. 2:9)

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.

Sorry, I only meant to make a short reference to your longer sentence. The assuredness of the infallibility comes from the mandate to bind and loose on earth, which is guaranteed to hold in heaven (Mt 16:19, 18:18). Thank you for focusing me on the real issue. Regarding ποιμαίνω, “to feed” is really one of those dreadful “dynamic” translations, the verb describes a relationship of a pastor to the flock of sheep.

thus the church is autocratic

She is, more precisely, monarchic. That is bad?

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

Being a good person is a start, but no, salvation does not depend just on that if your reference is to the Catholic Church.

Rome's claim to be as infallible as they [The Jerusalem Council] were

That is because the promise to bind and loose in heaven what they bind on earth was not time-limited in any way, and we see apostolic succession in action right in the scripture (1-2 Timothy, Titus).

that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy

That it could, this is why I was careful to say “if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox. ”

Quoting Cantate Domino 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

That Lumen Gentium might cause some to cringe is very true but the essence of the teaching is the same: that last chance of salvation comes from the Catholic Church at the time of one’s death, even though formal and sacramental conversion might not be available. There are no non-Catholics in heaven.

Thus you sanction their deaths

What I said was this: “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”. I don’t think I “sanctioned” anything. Tyndale, by the way, was executed by Protestant England, but of course we can pray for all of them even today.

the apocryphal 2 Maccabees [sanction prayers for the dead] for evident idolaters

2 Maccabees has been in every Christian Bible since Luther decided he did not like it. How is that “apocryphal”? On this subject, the Old Testament would not of course be dispositive any more than on eating of pork, -- the prayer for the dead is simply something that the Jews did as we see from the Maccabees episode. It is a good thing to do because God knows your prayers before you prayed them and can condescend to your petition at the time of the judgement, regardless of the time of the petition being offered. Besides, the souls in Purgatory depend on our prayers directly.

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)

You are right, what you wrote is not comprehensible. If works are basis for judgement that saves you, then you are saved by your works.

leaving their church means losing their soul […] a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do

Rome does say so now. While there is a greater appreciation that membership in the Catholic Church need not be formal when at the hour of death one converts, the conversion is necessary for salvation. However, we are saved by our works. One who attained sanctity through his works is essentially Catholic; such are for example the Orthodox whose works of piety often surpass nominal Catholics. The danger is that without formal conversion one may actually reject the Church and therefore reject Christ.

“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.

Again, this is incomprehensible sophistry. If faith that “appropriates justification” (whatever that combination of words means) is inseparable from works, and indeed it is, -- then we are not saved by faith alone, exactly how the scripture teaches.

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.”

Well, there are personal reasons for each one, but it is also true that one who carefully examines every apparent scriptural contradiction with Catholicism, the contradiction melts. Whereas “we are not saved by faith alone” or “this is my body, eat it” cannot be melted away other than by kilobytes of transparent sophistry of the sort ‘“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification […] though [faith and works] are basically inseparable’.

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)

You are saved by your works of faith, not by reading anything. A life-long dedication to the virtues described in the scripture will get you saved indeed, but not familiarity with the scripture alone.

Observe, that in the Acts the conversion following a sermon is described thus:

[41] They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. [43] And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. [44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. [46] And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; [47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

(Acts 2)

They were added to the Church and they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. The process of their salvation began with the sermon; it did not end with it.

Annalex: It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass

Daniel: 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

They continued the scripture tells us not only in the word but rather they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. In other words, the Holy Mass was a part of the perseverance. Yes, abuses of the Holy Mass existed (1 Cor. 11), and probably will continue to exist. However, for the modern abuses of the Holy Mass I would blame the ill spirit of the Reformation that continues to infect the Western Church

neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.

This is a bizarre change of words, as scriptural “presbyter” is translated by Protestants as “elders” and by authentic Christians as “priests”; in the authentic Churches the classes of priests do exist: priests and bishops (from “episcopos”), but both can offer the sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, the priest is enabled by his bishop and offers Mass upon his authorization. The laity and deacons cannot do it, but for that reason they are not called “priests”.

Is the separation of priests as an order than can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass scriptural? Surely it is: the model for the Mass is the Last Supper at which Jesus as Priest offered the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Apostles. He did not say “let us offer one another the sacrifice of By Body and Blood” but rather he offered it Himself. Then He told them to “do this”, so at that point He consecrated them to do what He did and be priests. In fact, when the Protestant system impersonates true priesthood it also separates those who offer the breads and the grape juice from those who partake in that ritual.

Is, finally, the sacramental nature of the Holy Orders scriptural? In Titus 1:5 we read

For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee

And in 1 Timothy 4:14:

Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood

So, yes, presbytery (however translated into English) is a sacramentally consecrated order and not merely an occupation like for example a Protestant minister is an occupation or an electrician is an occupation.

So they [Catholic] can convince souls not to look to Scripture

When the Catholic doctrine is discussed in the Scripture, it is easy to see that what the scripture teaches is Catholic. For example, our distinctive beliefs, in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of works alongside faith for salvation, the ability of true priests to forgive sin, the monastic life being the highest form of discipleship – are all directly visible in the scripture, whereas the Protestant notions of scripture alone, faith alone, the Last Supper desacralized into a memorial snack – all are mental convolutions far distant from the plain text of the scripture.

Annalex: I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?

Daniel: And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible […] the laity [according to that claim] 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

No it does not rest on the infallibility at all. Where did I on this thread, for example, tell you to agree with me because I speak in defense of the infallible Church? It is me, Catholic, who reads “this is my body” and believes it. It is me, Catholic who reads “you are not saved by faith alone” and believes it. You invent theories intended to contradict these simple statements, and to bring your theories to some phony compliance with the Holy Scripture you need page upon page of mental contortion. That the Church is infallible is very true, but in order to ascertain for yourself that what the Church teaches is true and what Protestantism teaches is counterscriptural nonsense one only needs to read the scripture with an honest eye.

Annalex: 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.

Daniel: 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

In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus blesses souls who did works of love and condemns souls who did not. So, we are judged by our works and therefore are not saved by faith alone, as Protestantism falsely teaches. Nowhere does St. Paul draw the distinction between “appropriating justification” and being continually justified, and nowhere does he exclude all kinds of works from that initial appropriation, but merely works done for a temporal reward.

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.

Yes, that describes Catholic faith quite well. I don’t think it describes a Protestant faith well, because Protestantism is built upon resisting plain scripture and often plain words of Christ, in favor of deceptive and artificial constructs.

7,148 posted on 02/02/2011 10:48:44 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7011 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
Not the same construction, no action was stated in that example that would terminate what the field was called

The implied second action in Matthew 27:8 is the arrival of the day when Matthew is writing his book.

Amen I say to you, that there are some of them that stand here, who shall not taste death, [eos] they see the kingdom of God coming in power. (Mark 8:39)

According to you, the verse means that the moment the kingdom of God comes, all will taste death (and while dead, see what is going on).

7,149 posted on 02/02/2011 11:09:15 AM PST by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7041 | View Replies]

To: annalex

No, it doesn’t and No, I don’t.
How you can draw such a conclusion is a mystery since the verse says “some” not all and puts the seeing BEFORE tasting death and nothing about “the moment”.

Until really is not a difficult word and trying to redefine it to support an idea not in the Scriptures simply won’t do.

Mark 8:39? Maybe Matt.16:28?


7,150 posted on 02/02/2011 12:40:53 PM PST by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 7,051-7,1007,101-7,1507,151-7,200 ... 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