Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII and XVI
Council of Trent ^ | January 13, 1547 | Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII

Posted on 12/15/2012 2:10:56 PM PST by narses

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII

When the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, "without which it is impossible to please God" and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, "if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise," as the Apostle says, "grace is no more grace." The Council also reiterated the relationship of good works to man justified by faith.

Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. XVI

Therefore, to men justified in this manner, whether they have preserved uninterruptedly the grace received or recovered it when lost, are to be pointed out the words of the Apostle: "Abound in every good work, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord. For God is not unjust, that he should forget your work, and the love which you have shown in his name"; and "Do not lose confidence, which hath a great reward." Hence, to those who work well "unto the end" and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
The Bible is clear that faith holds a first and prominent role in the salvation of every person.

Heb 10:38 But my just one shall live by faith ... Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him (God) ... The Bible is equally clear on the saving role of good works in the lives of the faithful.

1 Pet 2:12 Maintain good conduct among the Gentiles, so that if they speak of you as evildoers, they may observe your good works and glorify God on the day of visitation. Rev 2:2 I know your works, your labor, and your endurance ... Mt 5:16 Just so, your light must shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father. Mt 16:27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. Mt 25:34-36 Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' The Bible makes it clear that there must be a balanced relationship between our faith and its expression in good works.

James 2:14-18 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well," but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. Indeed someone might say, "You have faith and I have works." Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. 1 Cor 15:58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be firm, steadfast, always fully devoted to the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain. Heb 6:10 For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love you have demonstrated for his name by having served and continuing to serve the holy ones. James 2:20-22 Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. Mt 16:27 For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct. 1 Cor 3:8 The one who plants and the one who waters are equal, and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor. Col 3:23-24 Whatever you do, do from the heart, as for the Lord and not for others, knowing that you will receive from the Lord the due payment of the inheritance. The Bible indicates that it is wrong to disturb the balance of works expressing a life of faith. Man is not saved by faith alone.

James 2:24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. Nor is man saved by works alone.

Rom 9:31-32 Israel, who pursued the law of righteousness, did not attain to that law ... because they did it not by faith, but as if it could be done by works. Gal 3:11 And that no one is justified before God by the law is clear, for "the one who is righteous by faith will live." The Bible declares that salvation is a gift of God alone and constantly reaffirms that faith has a primary role in that salvation.

Eph 2:8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast. Heb 6:1 Therefore, let us leave behind the basic teaching about Christ and advance to maturity, without laying the foundation all over again: repentance from dead works and faith in God, Heb 9:14 ... how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God. 2 Tim 1:9 He saved us and called us to a holy life, not according to our works but according to his own design and the grace bestowed on us in Christ Jesus before time began, Titus 3:4-5 ... the kindness and generous love of God our savior appeared, not because of any righteous deeds we had done but because of his mercy. Rom 3:27-28 What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith. For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Gal 2:16 (We) know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

1 posted on 12/15/2012 2:10:57 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; scottjewell; ...

Here in Advent many who attack the Church do so with falsehoods about what we believe. In an effort to help dispel those, I post this.


2 posted on 12/15/2012 2:12:22 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
“But finally, God Himself, rich in mercy, sets His Son before us in the Gospel as atonement. And those who through faith take recourse to that Son the Mediator, and apprehend Him by faith - those the Father justifies from the charge placed by the Law and from the sentence of condemnation; that is, He absolves for the sake of Christ, and, by imputation of the obedience and death of Christ, declares righteous and awards life eternal. . . .

[F]aith justifies, not because it is such an outstanding work of God and virtue in us, but because it apprehends Christ, who is our propitiation and righteousness, and relies and confides in Him.”"

But why does Scripture ascribe justification to faith?

First, to show that our righteousness before God is not to be built on our works and merits . . . . Second, . . . that we might be sure how, when, and through what means it might be applied to us, so that it might be ours, and that we might be able confidently to rejoice in it and safely rely on it as on completely sure comfort . . . ."

-Martin Chemnitz

3 posted on 12/15/2012 3:10:30 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew (double trouble, here we come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: narses
The Bible indicates that it is wrong to disturb the balance of works expressing a life of faith. Man is not saved by faith alone.

James 2:24 You all see that it is because of actions that a man is pronounced righteous, and not simply because of faith.

There is a difference between what people see and what God sees. Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks at the heart (I Samuel 16:7). From Barnes' Notes on the Bible:

    Ye see then - From the course of reasoning pursued, and the example referred to.

    How that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only - Not by a cold, abstract, inoperative faith. It must be by a faith that shall produce good works, and whose existence will be shown to men by good works. As justification takes place in the sight of God, it is by faith, for he sees that the faith is genuine, and that it will produce good works if the individual who exercises faith shall live; and he justifies men in view of that faith, and of no other. If he sees that the faith is merely speculative; that it is cold and dead, and would not produce good works, the man is not justified in his sight. As a matter of fact, therefore, it is only the faith that produces good works that justifies; and good works, therefore, as the proper expression of the nature of faith, foreseen by God as the certain result of faith, and actually performed as seen by men, are necessary in order to justification.

    In other words, no man will be justified who has not a faith which will produce good works, and which is of an operative and practical character. The ground of justification in the case is faith, and that only; the evidence of it, the carrying it out, the proof of the existence of the faith, is good works; and thus men are justified and saved not by mere abstract and cold faith, but by a faith necessarily connected with good works, and where good works perform an important part. James, therefore, does not contradict Paul, but he contradicts a false explanation of Paul's doctrine. He does not deny that a man is justified in the sight of God by faith, for the very passage which he quotes shows that he believes that; but he does deny that a man is justified by a faith which would not produce good works, and which is not expressed by good works; and thus he maintains, as Paul always did, that nothing else than a holy life can show that a man is a true Christian, and is accepted of God.

James does not contradict Paul's writing to ALL Christians to understand that:

God who saves us showed how kind and good he is. We were not saved by any good things we did ourselves, but he saved us because he is so kind. He washed us clean. We were born again as a new person. The Holy Spirit has made us new.

God is rich. And he gave the Holy Spirit to us because of Jesus Christ our Saviour. He did this so that we can be put right with God, by his kindness. He did this so that we can become his children. So now we can look forward to everlasting life. (Titus 3:4-7)

4 posted on 12/15/2012 3:27:20 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Exactly... but no one reads the book of james.. they have one verse out of context and bet their eternity on it... it is a fools bet


5 posted on 12/15/2012 6:31:53 PM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: narses
James 2:24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29

6 posted on 12/15/2012 7:08:32 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

The cannon following these doctrines (and doctrines of Islam and LDS) are why I took my screen name.

The RCC is so like the Pharisees, twisting the plain sense of the Word of God to further its own power. The outward signs of works and the self-righteousness of scholarship take precedence over the God given convictions of the heart.

May God bring those who love Him out of such unworthy religions.


7 posted on 12/15/2012 7:08:32 PM PST by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: anathemized; narses

Anathemized:

I would contend that it is you that are more like those groups in that you and your views are what determines what is correct doctrine. That is ultimately the baby that came out of Protestanstism in that rationalism and individualism became the determinant of what is correct Doctrine. Protestantism is ultimately about Sola EGO, in that it is me and the Bible and I will decide what is sound doctrine. In many instances, your philosophical approach to dermining doctrine is no different than Joseph Smith, who was after all a King James Protestant and eventuall “his reading of the Bible” led to Mormomism.

Catholicism is rooted in the ancient Church as expressed by the Creeds and reflects the constant and consistent teaching of the Church Fathers and great theologians down tru the centuries.

You will not find the Protestant doctrine of justification in the early Church in either of the Latin Fathers or the Greek Fathers, whose writings are foundational for the Greek Orthodox Church and their theology on justification is nothing similar to what you are any other Protestant here posits.


8 posted on 12/15/2012 7:49:51 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: anathemized

anathemized:

Here is a link from the Orthodox Church [not Catholic] that cites heavily from the the famous Protestant Church History Scholar of the 19th Century, Philip Schaff. I hope you enjoy the read.

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2011/04/on-justification-faith-and-works/


9 posted on 12/15/2012 8:07:52 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; anathemized

Edit to my post, the link is from a lay Orthodox Christian, not an official Eastern Orthdodox Church link. The article does have some of the cited works of the Protestant Church Historian from the 19th century, P. Schaff, all the same.


10 posted on 12/15/2012 8:15:51 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: narses
Council of Trent, On Justification, Ch. VIII and XVI
Course on Grace: Grace Considered Extensively, Justification in the N. Testament [Catholic&Open]

Essays for Lent: Justification
Joint Declaration on Justification
JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Catechism: 1987-1995 Justification is a transformation
Catholic, Lutheran and Methodist leaders to mark 10th anniv of Joint Declaration on Justification
Setting the Record Straight [Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification]
The Basic Catholic Doctrine of Justification by Faith
Pope notes progress in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue over justification
On St. Paul and Justification
The Early Church Fathers on Justification - Catholic/Orthodox Caucus

11 posted on 12/15/2012 8:53:44 PM PST by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

Thank you for the link, I’ll read it tomorrow, I trust in the Bible before the results of some of these later councils.

When the early Bishops start to order the murder (killing) of those who disagree with them is when the Holy Spirit has left their church.

I am blessed in the ability to actualy read the Word of God and hear it preached in my own language, unlike the Jews of Pharasitical times or the centuries under RCC rule, I am therefore obliged to consider it with my own mind.

You denounce this, God loves it.


12 posted on 12/15/2012 9:11:52 PM PST by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: anathemized
Here are a few good links to see that there were MANY early church fathers who preached and believed in justification by faith APART from works:

http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/07/justification-by-faith-alone.html

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/seeds-of-reformation.html

http://gracethrufaith.com/selah/eternal-security/osas-the-whole-story/

13 posted on 12/15/2012 11:56:01 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

14 posted on 12/16/2012 12:29:01 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: narses
New International Version (©1984) He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

Question - how much faith is required to provide the necessary good works? Can one assume the presence of faith due to good works? How many have been shown to have even the mustard seed of faith that Jesus told the disciples they lacked? Can we really qualify God's requirements for entry to Heaven in a definitive way that goes beyond admitting and repenting of our sins to Jesus and proclaiming Him our Savior by inviting Him and the Holy Spirit into our hearts?

There is no "gotcha" in my questions, I realize that those who came up with much of religious doctrine actually studied many documents that did not appear in the Bible and sometimes they appear to belie some of what the Bible tells me. For Instance - Jeremiah indicates that the New Covenant that God is going to bring about will result in an event that allows us to become pure in God's eyes:
“The days are coming,” declares the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. 32 It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to[d] them,[e]” declares the Lord. 33 “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. 34 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest,” declares the Lord. “For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more.”

And, Paul lamented how he did that which he would not do and did not do that which he would do - even after having met the risen Jesus and becoming a workhorse in carrying the Word. What amount of Faith/good works is required to tip the scales away from our natural human sinfulness? What caveats did Jesus put on whether His Blood would wash away our sins and cause God to stop recognizing our sinfulness as actual sin?

15 posted on 12/16/2012 3:52:22 AM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Here in Advent many who attack the Church do so with falsehoods about what we believe. In an effort to help dispel those, I post this.

The Church is a bit confusing when it comes to understanding what it believes. It's a small wonder that it confuses the rest of us. There is much that can be picked on from the Council of Trent; 1) how the teaching of "free will" differs from the Council of Orange, 2) how the doctrinal misunderstanding of working for our salvation is at odds with the concept of grace, or 3) how the interpretation of predestination goes against some of the early fathers teaching on the matter (like Augustine), to name but a few items.

However, in the spirit of Advent one can only simply ponder that if God could save Mary with "special grace" and refrain her from sinning, why doesn't He do the same thing for everyone since He shows no partiality? The world would be a better place for it. Of that I'm sure God would agree. But then, that is another erroneous Church teaching.

16 posted on 12/16/2012 4:40:25 AM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
You will not find the Protestant doctrine of justification in the early Church in either of the Latin Fathers or the Greek Fathers, whose writings are foundational for the Greek Orthodox Church and their theology on justification is nothing similar to what you are any other Protestant here posits.

One would think that a religion which usurps the name of Christians would at least try to stay a little closer to the Christian Bible...

Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified

Gal 3:11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Gal 5:4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

Catholicism is rooted in the ancient Church as expressed by the Creeds and reflects the constant and consistent teaching of the Church Fathers and great theologians down tru the centuries.

I would posit that your teaching, creeds and great theologians weren't so great after all...We have the plain, clear words in the scripture that are right from the Source, bypassing the opinions of your great theologians...

And it's ludricrous to suggest anyone in your religion is better qualified to understand what God taught in the scriptures than average Christians sitting in pews of churches thruout the world...That's why so many millions of Catholics left your religion when they read the actual words of God in their own languages...

When your church fathers and great theologians disagree with the scripture I posted, they are not to be believed nor trusted with your soul...

And Joe Smith?, obviously he didn't take to the King James Bible like you suggest since he wrote his own to his liking...Kinda like a catechism...

17 posted on 12/16/2012 7:02:08 AM PST by Iscool (You mess with me, you mess with the WHOLE trailerpark...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses

How very telling that you would post a yawn picture when scripture is quoted.


18 posted on 12/16/2012 7:52:52 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: anathemized

anathemized:

Really, where did Christ say that individuals need to read and determine their own doctrine. God formed a people, the people of Israel and saved them as a community, which prefigured the Church, founded by Christ who was sent by the Father and thus Christ sent the Apostles. THere was no Sola MEO everybody doing their own thing.

As for killing, that has been a problem long before a Bishop did anything, and I am not sure what Bishop ordered the killing of anyone. Do you have cites from academics and Historians?

Of course you will trust the Bible, Arius had his view of the Bible, Nestorius had his view, going back to the 2nd Century, Marcion and the Gnostics had their view. The funny thing is everybody claims that they are reading the Bible and they have the correc interpretation. So, you join a great tradition of folks thinking they have read the Bible and come up with orthodox Doctrine.


19 posted on 12/16/2012 9:03:48 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

Iscool:

1) Catechism is a summary of Faith, it is an summary of Creed [Nicene and Apostles], Sacraments [All Seven], Moral Theology [a teaching on the 10 commandments in depth, i.e. Murder is not just the unjust killing of an innocent, Abortion and Euthansia are also connected here], and Prayer

2) You are still the Iscool I remember, you post Scriptures and never investigate what they mean, you post them as if they mean what you want them to mean, when there are countless down thru the centuries who don’t interpret them the ways that “You” do.

3) You are free to posit that the Creeds and Councils of the early Catholic Church [Both Latin/Roman and Eastern Orthodox] are not correct. That is not surprising. That is why Protestantism at the Theological level is nothing but Chaos and every Sola Meo Prostant for themself. THis does appeal to the modern man, in that Individualism, has been stressed to such a degree what folks that have that philosophy are attracted to the notion that “I Will Read the Bible” and “I will decide what is orthodox in Doctrine” apart from the continuity of the Faith down thru the centuries.

I will stay with the historic Catholic Faith, founded by Christ, then handed on to the Apostles who then handed it on to the 1st group of Apostolic Fathers, i.e. the Church Fathers who new some of the Apostles such as St. Polycarp, along with St. CLement of Rome, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Ireneaus of Lyon. All of these orthodox Fathers believed in the 3-Tier ministry of the Church, Bishop/Presbyter/Deacon, CLement and Ignatius expressed the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, as did St. Irenaus [stating Rome, because of its founding by Peter and Paul has maintained orthodox doctrine and thus all the Churches should be in communion with it], all had a very stong sacramental theology [particularly St. Ignatius], and on, and on, and on.


20 posted on 12/16/2012 9:14:20 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Except that did not teach what you are saying they taught. If you say, justified by Faith, yes, but never did they say that it was Faith alone in the sense of Luther and Calvin and more to the point, you will never find Calvins Monogersim. It was always Christ saves thru his Grace [that is where the alone stops] and faith is necessary but Faith has to expressed thru the Christian virtue of Love as Christ said over, and over, and over again as well as St. Paul [cf. Gal 5:6] and among the three Theological Virtures, faith, hope and love, it is love that is the greatest [1 Cor 13:13].

As GK Chesterton stated, the Reformers right on many things they affirm, but they are always wrong on what the reject. So affirming Faith, absolutely, but separating it from living the Christian moral virtues [10 commandments, Beatitudes] of which Love God with all your heart mind and soul and neighbor as yourself fullfill.

Protestant thelogy separates these which is why Calvins Forensic Imputed can’t ever reconcile God’s Love, if God Loves me, he never comes into communion with me under Calvins Forensic Faith alone/Divine Monogersim. Love implies a giving of ones total self just as CHrist did on the Cross, in response to his call and because of Grace [ALone here is fine with me], we come into Faith and Live the virtue of Christian Love, both of which we can only do because of God’s Grace, which would be more synergestic [both the Catholic and Eastern ORthodox view]


21 posted on 12/16/2012 9:25:32 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

You and your heretical cut-n-pastes, out of context and off point are boring.

That you denigrate those who are Catholic or choose to worship on Sunday or celebrate Easter and Christmas and even those who venerate the Cross tells me and all how small and narrow the cult you adhere to is.

BORING. REALLY BORING.


22 posted on 12/16/2012 11:00:19 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narses

I don’t denigrate those who are Catholic. I feel sorry for them for having been duped by the RCC.


23 posted on 12/16/2012 1:42:59 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

“I don’t denigrate those who are Catholic.”

You claim they are not Christian, you also denigrate those who celebrate Easter, Christmas and venerate the Cross as “PAGAN”.

And you are a BORE.


24 posted on 12/16/2012 2:28:40 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: narses

When have I denigrated them? I have simply stated my views on the subjects. What they do with that information is not my problem. If it causes them to feel denegrated for whatever reason is not a reason to stop explaining what my views are.


25 posted on 12/16/2012 2:58:44 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Calling people PAGAN is a denigration. And you are a boor and a BORE.


26 posted on 12/16/2012 3:01:12 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: narses

Saying I believe something is pagan is only saying it is pagan. If the person feels it applies to them and feels denigrated it’s not my problem. It certainly would be something they would need to do some self examination to understand why they thought it applied to them however.


27 posted on 12/16/2012 3:13:45 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

28 posted on 12/16/2012 3:57:18 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

“The Church is a bit confusing when it comes to understanding what it believes.”

Not at all. Unless you think Our Lord is confusing, and many do.

Matt. 7:18 - Jesus says that sound trees bear good fruit. But there is no guarantee that a sound tree will stay sound. It could go rotten.

Matt. 7:21 - all those who say “Lord, Lord” on the last day will not be saved. They are judged by their evil deeds.

Matt. 12:30-32 - Jesus says that he who is not with Him is against Him, therefore (the Greek for “therefore” is “dia toutos” which means “through this”) blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. This means that failing to persevere in Jesus’ grace to the end is the unforgivable sin against the Spirit. We must persevere in faith to the end of our lives.

Matt. 22:14 - Jesus says many are called but few are chosen. This man, who was destined to grace, was at God’s banquet, but was cast out.

Luke 8:13 - Jesus teaches that some people receive the word with joy, but they have no root, believe for a while, and then fall away in temptation. They had the faith but they lost it.

Luke 12:42-46 - we can start out as a faithful and wise steward, then fall away and be assigned to a place with the unfaithful.

Luke 15:11-32 – in the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that we can be genuine sons of the Father, then leave home and die, then return and be described as “alive again.”

John 6:70-71 - Jesus chose or elected twelve, yet one of them, Judas, fell. Not all those predestined to grace persevere to the end.

John 15:1-10 - we can be in Jesus (a branch on the vine), and then if we don’t bear fruit, are cut off, wither up and die. Paul makes this absolutely clear in Rom. 11:20-23.

John 17:12 - we can be given to Jesus by the Father (predestined to grace) and yet not stay with Jesus, like Judas.

John 6:37 - those who continue to come to Jesus He won’t cast out. But it’s a continuous, ongoing action. We can leave Jesus and He will allow this because He respects our freewill.

John 6:39 - Jesus will not lose those the Father gives Him, but we can fall away, like Judas. God allows us not to persevere.

John 6:40 - everyone who sees the Son and believes means the person “continues” to believe. By continuing to believe, the person will persevere and will be raised up. Belief also includes obedience, which is more than an intellectual belief in God.

John 6:44 - Jesus says no one can come to me unless the Father “draws” him. This “drawing” is an ongoing process.

John 10:27-28 - when Jesus says, “no one shall snatch them out of my hands,” He does not mean we can’t leave His hands. We can choose to walk away from Him.

Rev. 2:4-5 – Jesus tells the Ephesians that they abandoned the love they had at first and have fallen. Jesus warns them to repent and do the works they did at first, otherwise He will remove their lampstand (their awaited place in heaven).

Rev. 3:4 - in Sardis, Jesus explained that some people received the white garment and soiled it with sin.

Rev. 3:5 - Jesus says whoever conquers will not be blotted out of the book of life (see Exodus 32:33). This means that we can be blotted out of the book of life. We can have salvation, and then lose salvation by our choice.

Rev. 3:11 - Jesus says to hold fast to what we have, so that no one may seize our crown. Jesus teaches us that we can have the crown of salvation and lose it.

Rev. 13:10; 14:12 - we are called from heaven for the endurance and faith of the saints, keeping the commandments and faith.

Rev. 21:7 - we must conquer in order to share in our heritage and become a true son of Jesus.

Rev. 22:19 - we can have a share in the tree of life in God’s holy city and yet have that share taken away from us.


29 posted on 12/16/2012 8:59:42 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; anathemized
Really, where did Christ say that individuals need to read and determine their own doctrine. God formed a people, the people of Israel and saved them as a community, which prefigured the Church, founded by Christ who was sent by the Father and thus Christ sent the Apostles. THere was no Sola MEO everybody doing their own thing.

From http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2008/04/doctrinal-chaos-argument-one-of.html:

    Old Covenant Unity:

    There was no infallible teaching authority under the Old Covenant system, and this even resulted in a number of competing viewpoints once the idea of theology began to develop after the death of the last prophet. The Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, the schools of Hillel vs. Shamai were all sects in existence at the time of Christ. If God did not find it necessary to install an infallible teaching authority under this covenant with the competition of viewpoints that resulted, then why should we think that any disunity under the New Covenant is unacceptable?

    Of course, at this point, the Catholic or Orthodox apologist may retort that because there has been a change in covenants to a “better” covenant, the New, with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, then the gift of infallibility has been given and God’s standard of unity has changed. There are a few problems with this that come to mind. First, it assumes that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is supposed to cause institutional unity. Where’s the exegetical argument? Second, as it applies to the Roman Catholic Magesterium, the counter-argument assumes that the Holy Spirit would only be given to a teaching authority. Thirdly and related to the second point, Scripture, especially in the Old Testament prophets, says that not only will the teaching authority not be more centralized, it will be more decentralized! The prophets make it clear that what was given exclusively to the teaching classes of the prophets, priests, and kings, namely the charismata, would be given to all the members of the New Covenant:

    “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the LORD, “I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’ for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them,” declares the LORD, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.” (Jeremiah 31:33-34)

    “You will have plenty to eat and be satisfied and praise the name of the LORD your God, Who has dealt wondrously with you; then My people will never be put to shame. Thus you will know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and there is no other; and My people will never be put to shame. It will come about after this that I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; and your sons and daughters will prophesy, your old men will dream dreams, your young men will see visions. Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days.” (Joel 2:26-29)

Of course you will trust the Bible, Arius had his view of the Bible, Nestorius had his view, going back to the 2nd Century, Marcion and the Gnostics had their view. The funny thing is everybody claims that they are reading the Bible and they have the correc interpretation. So, you join a great tradition of folks thinking they have read the Bible and come up with orthodox Doctrine.

Comments such as this ignore the fact that even among the Apostles, their "authority" was not infallible. Peter, for example, had to be corrected by Paul concerning the doctrine over Gentiles needing to be circumcised to be Christians. God has given us His inspired (God breathed) Scripture so that it contains the infallible truths the Apostles DID teach and it insures we can remain faithful to those revealed truths even two thousand years later. On the essential doctrines of the Christian faith, there is unity - even among "Protestants" - as long as the Scriptures remain the authority that governs our rule of faith. From the same link above concerning the necessity of "unity":

    The argument begs the question of the importance of visible unity against Protestant ecclesiology which does not emphasize institutional unity at all. It uses Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox ecclesiastical standards and priorities to judge a theology that does not even accept those standards! To the Protestant, the Church is the mystical body of the elect united spiritually to Christ and to each other. The visible church is the congregate of that body (plus pseudo-believers of course). Whether the elect meet in one church building or another with slightly different beliefs is of little importance given Protestant ecclesiology since ultimate unity will be realized at the eschaton.

    In fact, according to Reformed theology, God in His providence allows for competition among viewpoints so that the truth will be revealed and refined (1 Corinthians 11:19). In this case, disunity is a means unto an end. Lastly, the appeal to John 10:16 and John 17:20-21 is eisegetical since the unity being spoken of there refers to a unity of all people groups (i.e., ethnic and diachronic) rather than an institutional unity (see John 11:51-52).

    In summary, to assume that the main function of one’s rule of faith is to be a problem-solving device which brings about visible unity simply begs the question in favor of high-church ecclesiology. Rather, the rule of faith is only supposed to show us what we should believe about God and our duty to Him. Thus, the argument is dead because it commits this fundamental fallacy.

    Overstatement of Division: The argument overstates the differences between Protestant groups. In reality, most Protestant groups are very much united doctrinally. As J.I. Packer noted:

    “The extent of unanimity among its adherents has been remarkable. If one reviews the historic Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Congregational and Baptist confessions, or compares, for example Calvin’s Institutes with the systematic theologies of F. Pieper the Lutheran, Charles Hodge and Louis Berkhof the Presbyterians, E.A. Litton and W.H. Griffith Thomas the Anglicans, W.B. Pope the Methodist and A.H. Strong the Baptist, or if one examines the preaching and spirituality of churches which actively upheld sola Scriptura as a principle for determining faith and action, what impresses is the oneness of overall outlook and the width of the area over which substantially identical positions were taught. Whether those involved felt close to each other as they sparred over points of specific agreement, or defended their denominations against criticism, is perhaps doubtful; but what is not doubtful is that those who historically have held to sola Scriptura, recognizing no magesterium save that of the Bible itself, have been at one on all essentials and on most details too, in a very striking way. If evidence tending to confirm the clarity of Scripture is called for, this fact will surely qualify.”


30 posted on 12/16/2012 11:02:04 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: narses; CynicalBear

I don’t think CB is a bore at all and continuing to call him that is making it personal - something that you seem to complain to the moderator about on a regular basis. I think hypocrisy is boring.


31 posted on 12/16/2012 11:07:50 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear
Saying I believe something is pagan is only saying it is pagan. If the person feels it applies to them and feels denigrated it’s not my problem. It certainly would be something they would need to do some self examination to understand why they thought it applied to them however.

Is it all that much different when we get called "heretics" and "anathematized" and going to hell because we aren't Catholic like them? I think some people would be delighted if they could stop others from posting their beliefs. That way, they could make Free Republic the All Catholic/All the time website. They certainly dominate the Religion Forum enough. One wonders why they continue to post provocative threads that denigrate all the Non-Catholics here and then complain when anyone dares make a peep in protest. I wonder how much money they donate collectively to this site?

32 posted on 12/16/2012 11:16:06 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

33 posted on 12/17/2012 5:13:37 AM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Personally I don’t get offended at whatever they call me. It’s interesting to me that they take it personally when we quote scripture which points to error in the RCC teaching. If one is assured in their beliefs and that they conform to scripture why would they be offended?


34 posted on 12/17/2012 6:26:29 AM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: narses; boatbums

The book of James was written to a converted church , not heathens seeking salvation . It tells them how their conversion is seen by the unsaved world . It is not about becoming saved or being saved. It is about the fruit of your salvation.

Jam 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
Jam 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

This is an amplification of the teaching of Jesus that we know a tree by the fruit it bears. It is how we know the saved from the unsaved. It does not declare that the man has faith ...but that he SAYS he has faith.

This addresses a hollow profession of faith , not a saving one .Can a hollow profession save him? NO, any more than works can save.This scripture says to the church that this faith is non existent , it is dead.

The bible is clear that it is God that gives the faith and it is God that ordains the works of the saved

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

Hbr 13:21 Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom [be] glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Phl 2:13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure.


35 posted on 12/17/2012 8:17:15 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses; boatbums

Quote the actual scriptures not YOPI


36 posted on 12/17/2012 8:19:41 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: narses; boatbums

Quote the actual scriptures not YOPI


37 posted on 12/17/2012 8:19:59 AM PST by RnMomof7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

boatbums:

You have articulated a Reformed view, which is a view that did not exist until the 16th century. Philip Schaff, the German Reformed Church Historian, who was among the 1st Protestant Church Historians to go back and examine the Church Fathers makes the point. If one believes that from the Time of Christ and then the death of the last apostle, that Christian Doctrine was absent till the 16th century, I find that totally heretical in that it goes against Christ and the Incarnation that he came and passed on the faith to the apostles and that faith was handed on and as Christ said, I will be with till the end of the ages and I will send the Holy Spirit to you to lead you to all truth. That occurred at Pentecost. So from basically from the death of St. John the Apostle, nobody had a source of orthdodoxy.

This line of thinking is similar to the Marxist, in that they hate “History” for to them, History has been shaped by Western Culture and Christianity. Therefore, it has produced a culture bias that goes against the marxist view that “We [a set group of marxist elite]” can shape the future into what “We [a set group of marxist elite” think it should be. In other words, History is shunned and the future is “what the marxist say it is in terms of morality, social virtures, law, family, etc”.

Now, not that I am suggesting that Reformed Christians are marxist. No, but the underlying principle is not dissimiliar in that both the Protestant principle of sola scriptura and modern secular individualism/marxism, etc are both rooted in the rationist thought that came out of the 16th century and was a direct consequence of the Protestant movement.

Packer can make that claim all he wants, I think he is an Anglican who is Reformed in his theology. I don’t even need to go any further than the Anglican Community that at the Doctrinal level [Individuals in any confession may embrace said Church’s doctrines at different levels, that applies to Catholics as well] is split among several factions, Reformed, Evangelical, those similar to the Methodist, those that are similar to the Unitarians (think Espicopalians in the U.S.] and those with more Catholic leanings [referred to as Anglo-catholics, many of which have recently come into full communion with Rome].

Now, I do agree with you that Jewish Beliefs were not monolothic, that is correct, but that doesn’t translate into thinking that Christ, who was the 2nd Person of the Trinity and thus was God’s Eternal Word, came into the world to leave humanity with no objective doctrine. That to me flies in the face of Incarnational Theology.

Christ became Incarnate to reveal the Truth of God [Truth/True and Love are the 2 words Christ used the most in the Gospels] thus I can’t accept that Christ when he founded a Church [St. Matthews Gospel states that He did, Mt. 16:18-19 and St. Paul refers to as the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, c.f 1 Timothy 3:15] decided to leave those followers who came after the Apostles grasping at straws to determine what is orthodox Doctrine.

Ulitimately, all of those Protestant groups you cite embrace some in total, or some in degree, the confessions of the 3 Main Reformed Protestant groups, Anglican [39 articles], Reformed [Westminister] or Lutheran {Aubsberg] and each of those where shaped by the theology of the authors, in the case of the Anglican it was Crammer then later Parker who shaped the final 39 articles, the Westminiser is JOhn Calvin and the Augsberg are Martin Luther.

Now, despite what A.J. Packer states, none of these are in agreement on the Justification [100%], Sacraments [100%}, Liturgy and Worshp [100%] and that is just the start. Yes, they all uphold to some degree sola Scriptura but that has not led to a Doctrinal consistency at the Confessional level, again, not withstanding that in any Protestant Confession as well as the Catholic Church, you will find individuals at various ends of the spectrum in terms of how much of said Confession they embrace.

Even though the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have not been in Full COmmunion since the 11th century, it is remarkable how similar they are in Doctrine and Liturgy [say 99%]. the Only thing really still a major stumbling block is the nature of the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome as even the Orthodox concede Rome did have a Primacy in the early Church, now what is the nature of it and how it is exercised is the major question there.

They embrace the Councils and Creeds [thus Holy Tradition] in the same fashion as the Catholic Church and maybe more so thus It is the Church and 1) Sacred Scripture and 2) Sacred Tradition that are one unified reality in that they all flow from Christ. It is the protestant position of sola scriptura that is the historical novelty and that is the reality whether you or any of the other Protestant guys/ladies here will acknowledge it.


38 posted on 12/17/2012 8:39:23 AM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564; boatbums

Totally heretical? But what of the novelties developed, then many times later rammed through various councils with the claim the Holy Spirit was behind the process? The fruit produced in 1870 was quite sour. The various Orthodox of the brethren to the East took offense at that one. Many bishops in the Latin church took offense too, though were eventually pressured to bend, facing the choice of submitting to decree, or become "Old Catholic". Since personal positions, office & mens' livelihoods were on the line, the stubborn & proud seem to have gotten their way, by hook, crook, & slide (subtle substitutions, both of precise phrasings, and implied meanings) causing a few notables whom opposed the process & it's eventual result, to need abandon their own previous understanding of both the Word, and "Tradition" itself! It's becomes apparent that it's always been that way (to limited but SIGNIFICANT aspect) the more carefully into history one looks.

Looking back merely to 1870, there is this analysis from an Eastern brother which closely examines details of the process concerning papal supremacy, over & above that produced of previous councils, was finalized (calcified?).

The process itself was appalling. The Vatican Dogma

Rationist thought a consequence of the Reformation? Yes, to an extent. Reason & investigation opposed to bowing before sola ecclesia, which itself is not the firmest of foundations, "evolving" as it can shown to have...
At the same time, it was much the Hellenistic "rationist" process long applied to scriptural understandings, which lead to all the man-made embroidered finery associated with interpretations of the texts themselves, producing such things as Purgatory & Indulgences (with all their extended meanings) the abuse of the latter being much a justification for challenging the then status quo in the first place.

So don't think! Surrender rational thought, if it lead anywhere but to bowing before Romish dogmatic proclamations, crafted under the loose mantle of "infallibility" which is found to be much like the hide of living animal, which scurries away when fully confronted, claiming then itself to be only strictly limited. IT IS NO WONDER MUCH OF THE WORLD IS IN REBELLION. They have been given yet another excuse for it, which is today quite difficult to overcome, by anything other than the Word, promised to not return to Him void.

Tradition must follow scripture. Not the other way around. Works (actual good works) follow, spring to life in the freedom of being cleansed of sin. That the cleansing is to occur repeatedly in process, can be seen in the foot washing Christ Himself humbled himself to perform. We of course should do likewise, for one another, not casting fears upon one another that the original sacrifice was not enough to seal us unto him (simply for reason of having dirty feet, from walking through the dust from which we were formed) with our baptisms signifying our own deaths to our own previous lives. For now, those of us whom have been born of Him & sanctified of Him, need only our feet washed...to better enter in to join Him at His Supper which we must partake of, or He will have no part with (in?) us. That food, is what gives us life, draws us closer to Him.

Is what I say here not lawful? By letter, spirit, and tradition? I speak of proper order of operations, putting not the cart of our own response, before the power of His own pull of ourselves to Himself (the Father) by Christ His only begotten, broken for us, so that we may live.

This is where the difference truly lay, between much of the way the process is spoken of, a "which comes first" then "what can follow". Our own efforts simply cannot suffice. It is ONLY Him in us, living within us, that brings the proper fruit, the works which will withstand the testing fires of His judgement. Romans chpt 7

That is backwards. Shall we once again need show here Patristric Fathers whom indicated that scripture itself must be foremost & final test of doctrine? that can be easily enough done. For the umpteenth time.

39 posted on 12/17/2012 3:16:52 PM PST by BlueDragon ( recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564

The bible says many times to individuals to seek and search
after the things of God. Paul writes of convincing and comparing words to scripture, calling the men of Berea “noble-minded”.

2Tim. 3:15 speaks of scripture giving the wisdom leading to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

God saves and chastens Israel as a group, but each individual Jew will be born again unto salvation, or not, as the rest of us, by his own belief in Jesus as Savior.

As for killing, I misread a history book, probably from my unloving heart, and posted here an unloving statement. It was stupid of me, further, to seem to tell the Holy Spirit
what He would do.


40 posted on 12/17/2012 3:42:31 PM PST by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: narses; metmom
Still bored? I found a way to add some excitement, possibly freshening a room, leaving the in the air a nice minty smell (and one's breath too, if the binaca used as intended, rather than as propellant)


41 posted on 12/17/2012 3:54:21 PM PST by BlueDragon ( recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Thanks for all you do, I love you.


42 posted on 12/17/2012 4:45:00 PM PST by anathemized (cursed by some, blessed in Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
Thank you for your response. Well said!

What I think should be more than understandable regarding the truths of the faith handed down to the Apostles and ultimately to us in the here and now is that there never really was an "Apostolic Succession" of authority that wasn't first dependent upon the revealed Scriptures. The example I gave of Peter being corrected by Paul concerning the "requirements" expected of Gentiles coming to the Christian faith should be more than adequate to demonstrate that, even in that first century there was no absolute belief in an authority intrinsic to the Apostles nor to their personally named successors. It was always dependent upon what was the truth and their faithfulness to what Jesus had taught them. Certainly, the Apostles were given authority by Christ to preach the gospel and to disciple others to carry on the ministry of reconciliation. But, he did not give them the authority to make it up as they went along. It was supposed to be as they were lead by the Holy Spirit and as he revealed the truths to them to pass onto the church.

That it was a succession of the teachings of Christ and not of the teachers, is pretty well attested to both in the New Testament epistles and the writings of the early church fathers. What Rome relies upon is the supposed perpetual "Seat of Peter" having ultimate authority over all the Christian faithful. But there is no evidence in Scripture that this was Christ's intent. It is the duty of the church to pass on the faith "once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). And I think we agree that the church is the “buttress and pillar of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). However, I think Catholics believe that in order for this succession to be valid, it has to be seen as primarily a succession "in person". Whereas, Protestants, on the other hand, believe that the primary issue involved is a succession in teaching, doctrine, and practice. That's why Roman Catholics will focus on the one to whom the succession is given, while Protestants focus on the teaching and doctrine itself, believing that the person who receives the succession is instrumental, but not integral. In the Apostles' time, they were very careful to train up church leaders and as Paul said to Timothy, "Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure." (I Timothy 5:22)

Rather than this way of thinking about church leadership and the working of the Holy Spirit in those doing the leading being a "new" or novel concept, I think it can be easily shown to be the way Christ designed and intended His body to operate. If not, then I hardly see the need for the Scriptures. If the succession of authority included the gift of "infallibility" and it could be miraculously handed down from one individual to his next in line, there would be no need for divinely inspired Scripture containing the teachings to be held by all. The special "prophet" could be entrusted to keep it all straight and he would also have the authority to develop doctrine as the need arrived since he has a direct line to God and all. Right? It seems to work like this for the Mormons. What could go wrong???

43 posted on 12/17/2012 4:49:49 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

BlueDragon:

I am well aware that the Vatican I Council and the definition of Papal Infallability is a problem for the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am honest enough to admit that. Nevertheless, unless you are dealing with the Monks of Mt. Athos, most of the Eastern Orthdox Patriarchs and Metropolitans will honestly concede that the Church of Rome did in fact exercise a Primacy. That is undeniable from the constant History and Tradition of the Undivided Catholic Church, of which both Rome and the East claim to 100% in continuity with and as both sides will admit [not the most strident internet layman], the differences between the 2 with respect to Doctrine is less than 1%.

And again, nobody in the first millenium of the Church held to sola scriptura. You can scream it to be true but it is not true. Since you mentioned the Eastern Orthodox, who are not part the Western-Latin-Roman Christian Tradition, and split from Rome in the 11th century, they no nothing of “sola scriptura” nor of any of the Reformed doctrines of justification. So if you are going to bring up the East on the question of the Bishop of Rome and Vatican I, which is a “legitimate question to raise with me and other Catholics”, then it should also follow that you should consider what the Eastern Orthodox thinks about the Reformed view of sola scriptura, sola fide, its view of Liturgy and Worship, its view of Sacraments/Holy Mysteries [as the East calls them], what the East thinks of how the Reformed view The Blessed Virgin Mary or as the East calls her the All Holy Panagia/Most Holy Theotokos, etc, etc, etc.

As for the Old Catholics, most of them are now similar to the Anglican-Episcopalians in that they have caved in on womens ordination and on modernity’s view of Marriage, etc. Only the Polish National Catholic Church [part of the Old Catholic Church is still viewed by Rome as having valid Sacraments and not changing anything in terms of Doctrine, Liturgy, etc, since Vatican I in 1870]. Someone can confirm that but I am pretty sure they are the only one of the Old Catholic Groups that Rome still views as having a valid Eucharist in the same fashion that Rome views the Eastern Orthodox as having valid 7 sacraments/Holy Mysteries, etc.

And as the Fathers and Sacred Scripture, again, the Bible alone is not in their writings. Saying that Sacred Scripture and everything needs to be in accordance with Scripture is not to say “the Bible alone” That is not what any of them meant. There are many excellent Church Historians in the Protestant World who don’t come to the conclusions that you do. JND Kelley and Chadwick, both Anglicans, J. Pelikan who was Lutheran when he wrote is series on the History of Doctrine [later became Orthodox] and Philip Schaff, the great Scholar from the 19th century, who was Reformed and in his work, sort of moved more to a Catholic position and even got critisized by the hyper Reformed types for working with the Tractarians/Oxford Movement Anglicans who were doing similar studies in Patristics and were calling the Church of England to move back in line with the Catholic Church and Rome, of course its leader, John Henry Newman and many others became Catholic.

Schaff wanted to move to Christian Unity and thought that Rome should take the lead, but he also questioned the need for Vatican I to define papal infallabilit knowing that once Rome defined it, there was no going back from it, and given the divisions between Rome and the Orthodox and the Protestant confessions, it would not help heal the breach.

Now you contend that Vatican I and Papal Infallability has soured Christian unity. Perhaps? I would contend that in the age of secularism, their is an foundation that is holding steady in the face of the secular onslaught. Here we are 142 years later and Rome and the Orthdox have the warmest relations between the Two Churches since the 11th century or maybe the attemp in the 15th century at the Council of Florence to establish full communion again [which of course did not happen]. As for how the Protestant world sees Vatican I, well I don’t know, I guess it depends on which Protestant Group you ask, some Anglicans see it now as a great defense against modernims and heresy [which is the way orthodox Catholics see it] and many of those guys have come back to Rome. Even some Lutherans see it that way, for example the late Father Richard J. Neuhaus, although not as many see it as the Anglicans with strong Catholic leanings. How the Reformed view it? well, probably not much different than what they did in the 19th century. at least that is my conjecture.


44 posted on 12/17/2012 4:51:45 PM PST by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

LOL! Kinda Rube Goldberg-esque, but it looks like it’ll work.


45 posted on 12/17/2012 5:08:06 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: anathemized

God bless you! Your words have blessed me, thank you.


46 posted on 12/17/2012 5:12:39 PM PST by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: narses

You forgot:

Rom 3:23 - Mary sinned.


47 posted on 12/17/2012 5:28:14 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CTrent1564
"...most of the Eastern Orthdox Patriarchs and Metropolitans will honestly concede that the Church of Rome did in fact exercise a Primacy."

A 'primacy' only of respect for what transpired in times long BEFORE the quotations made were trotted out near the millennium in those early efforts to claim some special charism should not only CONTINUE to exist due to geographical location, but could be safely inflated, bit by bit to where it is now. Regardless of that same set of ideas not being much found in the scriptures save for by way of special pleadings, and going much against scripture in more traditional understandings. Excusing it all away may work for you, but not one inch, for me.

It started long before that, as we both well enough know. The link I gave you outlined the despicable methodology employed for the "papist" contingent within the Roman Catholic church to elevate one chair above all, going fully against previous councils of their own church, not to mention more fully against traditions of those in the East. I notice you fairly skipped right over that part...focusing instead on rhetorical distraction in the way you employed mention of them in reply. I've had about a gut full of that sort of deception.

48 posted on 12/17/2012 6:48:19 PM PST by BlueDragon ( recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Thank you for your comments. Your reply can serve as further rebuttal for the time being. I'm tired of chasing down every denial and disproving them, each day like it's never been discussed here before.

Here of late I've taken to including some illustration or demonstration as am led, using theological principles & scripture best I can to get towards fundamental truths --- but few seem to get it, or just cruise right over it. Or it goes right past them somehow... It gets real old. I'm wearing down, and getting quite tired. I do wish they'd just hurry up and light that fire they'd like to burn me to a crisp with, like they did to "heretics" and others in opposition, when they could get away with such. It's like they keep jones'en for the good 'ol days.

As to the near impossibility we face on this forum, a convert from Rome to an unspecified Orthodox Church put it;

For non-Roman Catholics, it is almost impossible to comprehend the attachment a Catholic has for the Papacy and our reaction was highly defensive. In the past, when we came across serious works of history which contradicted the Roman Catholic position, we were skeptical and if we found that the author was Protestant, or the book came from a Protestant publishing house, it was given scant attention and if it contradicted a dogmatic belief it was dismissed immediately. Only Roman Catholic historians have a pure line to objectivity, especially when it concerns articles of faith. This is what Catholics are taught and it is this belief that will keep their faith inviolate. This teaching is best exemplified by Pope Leo XIII in his celebrated Letter to the Prelates and Clergy of France (September 8th, 1899). While encouraging them to the study of history he reminds Those who study it must never lose sight of the fact that it contains a collection of dogmatic facts, which impose themselves upon our faith, and which nobody is ever permitted to call in doubt. Cardinal Manning of England is even more blunt, The appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be divine. 10 At another time Cardinal Manning wrote, The appeal from the living voice of the Church to any tribunal whatsoever, human history included, is an act of private judgment and a treason because that living voice is supreme; and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy because that voice by divine assistance is infallible.


49 posted on 12/17/2012 7:43:01 PM PST by BlueDragon ( recalled with approval: in essentials, unity; in doubtful matters, liberty; in all things, charity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
"However, in the spirit of Advent one can only simply ponder that if God could save Mary with "special grace" and refrain her from sinning, why doesn't He do the same thing for everyone since He shows no partiality?"

It is Protestantism that is confusing and confused. Much of the Protestant doctrine of OSAS assumes for oneself the forgiveness for all future sins committed after the uttering of the magic words of redemption, but deny these same Graces to Mary only because she received them before conception and that is not "fair". In offering each unlimited and unmerited grace and a plan for Salvation God shows no partiality, but God does not assure us an equality of outcome.

Peace be with you

50 posted on 12/17/2012 8:17:32 PM PST by Natural Law (Jesus did not leave us a Bible, He left us a Church.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 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