Posted on 01/21/2014 7:03:33 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The Catholic teaching on salvation is exactly the same as it has been for 2000 years. Salvation comes from a combination of faith in God and good works. Those who do not have faith in God and do not have good works on earth cannot be saved.
Protestants have a difficult time understanding this simple concept because because you believe in the false doctrine the "faith ALONE in Jesus Christ" will save you, so apparently ANYONE who doesn't believe in Jesus is doomed to end up in hell no what they do on earth. Dalai Lama must be destined to burn in hell for all eternity.
Except, I guess, Jews can reject Jesus as much as they want and they'll fine (one of your fellow protestants even pointed out on this thread that there is a brand of protestant theology that teaches EVERYONE must accept Jesus EXCEPT Jews. Bizarre stuff.)
I don't know how anyone "Bible belivin" Christian could go with such a bizarre doctrine, but hey, to each his own. Hopefully you don't ascribe to the "A devout Sikh who loves God and America is going to hell for being a non-Christian but Leopold and Loeb are somehow saved by virtue of being born Jewish". I imagine the vast majority of protestants would reject such nonsense, but given the comments around here lately, it seems some believe it.
Pope Francis "couldn't change anything even if he wanted to" but, you say all the popes that came before him were infallible and the things they DID change were okay? Do you really believe no Pope ever made changes to Catholic dogma? At one time, Catholic priests were married and not automatically expected to take a vow of celibacy but that changed, didn't it? What makes you assume future Popes won't change it so women CAN be ordained as priests? According to Catholic church dogma, the Pope has authority AND is infallible in matters of faith and morals when he exercises that authority, right? What makes you assume a Pope will never change anything? They already have - numerous times - on both matters of faith and morals. I think Conservative Catholics have good cause to be concerned...we'll see, won't we?
The Supreme Court does indeed have a lopsided Catholic majority, with no protestant representation on the court. Of course, the reverse was true for many years, and nobody complained about how the court was "packed" with protestants in the 20s and 30s, or that they had an unfair monopoly on the court. A sizable number of Americans have still never had "one of their own" on the court, including Orthodox Christians, Mormons, Pentecostals, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs.
It's surprising the liberals would target Sotomayor for her Catholicism and taking a case from Catholic nuns, however. The left's argument was generally to rant and rave about when Republicans appointed Catholics, but when Democrats appoint them, it's a-okay. And Sotomayor is a non-practicing Catholic anyway, so while her appointments adds to the numbers, her presence on the court doesn't give it more a Catholic influence in decisions anymore than Barry Goldwater's election as President would put "Jews" in charge of the executive branch.
I agree though, the Supreme Court simply isn't as conservative as we'd like, and I sincerely wish there WOULD be something there to justify liberal alarm that the court is "dangerous", but there's not.
Priestly celibacy isn't "dogma", it's a regulation. Regulations CAN be changed. In other words, there's no religious dogma in the Catholic faith that says a married man is unable to perform the duties of a Catholic priest, but the current REGULATION in place since the 1100's stipulates that men must take an oath of celibacy before they can be ordained. The regulation was not mandatory prior to the 1100s, and the Pope could remove the regulation tomorrow if he wanted to.
On the other hand, a religious DOGMA, like God consisting of three persons -- father, son and holy spirit -- CANNOT be changed, and has been part of the Catholic faith since early Christianity. Those who rejected the trinity were rejecting Christianity, and thus were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church didn't have this dogma, it wouldn't be the Catholic church.
So, what? I've met and talked with plenty of Catholics who insist that outside of the Catholic Church no one can be saved. Thing is, your religion actually HAS stated that many times in encyclicals, bulls, councils, catechisms, etc. Have some of these official words been softened? Yes, they have and it is why some people today think that Catholicism leaves the door open to salvation regardless of a person's religion if they "sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." (Lumen Gentium). The two extremes right there!
Since we are talking about what individual posters say on these threads, there ARE the two extremes presented on a pretty regular basis so there is no need to exaggerate in order to "bash" Catholics - it's just stating the truth. Do these "plenty" of Evangelical Protestants you've met speak for all Evangelicals? I'm one and I would disagree if someone said they were the ONLY true Christians - no matter what faith tradition they came from.
Maybe, just maybe, it might be a good idea to stop referring to disagreements as "bashing" or "bigotry" or, even, "hatred" especially when they are not.
Have you ever tried exercising a little faith alone in only Christ alone?
Have you ever tried exercising a little faith in good works?
Rather than the "All Buddhists are goin' to hell 'cuz they don't accept Jesus, and if the Pope is friendly and nice towards them instead of telling them that to their face that they're heretics so he can save their souls, then he's an idiot who hasn't read the Bible" tone?
Just a suggestion.
Married clergy is not dogma. Woman ordaination was squashed by both JP2 and Francis. Francis has already said there is no need in discussing women becoming priests, ain’t happening. Dogma is no homosexual “marriage”, no abortion, no women priests. JP2 said it best “I can not change what Christ started, and the 12 apostles were men”. End of story.
You must have me confused for another poster.
My question is very simple.
It’s been said it takes just a smidgeon more faith, than no faith whatsoever, to have saving faith.
Keep it simple.
Start with basics.
Exercise simple faith alone in what He provided on the Cross when speaking with Him. He’ll handle the rest. Then just remain in fellowship with Him in all things and the good works He has planned for eternity past, will happen through faith in Him easily.
Rather than the "All Buddhists are goin' to hell 'cuz they don't accept Jesus, and if the Pope is friendly and nice towards them instead of telling them that to their face that they're heretics so he can save their souls, then he's an idiot who hasn't read the Bible" tone?
All to often it appears that you guys think you are talking to each other instead of talking to people who actually know some bible, beleive some bible and understand some bible...
Jesus nor his disciples never let an opportunity slip by without preaching the gospel...
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Co 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
2Co 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
2Co 6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
Col 1:28 Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:
Luk 7:23 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.
Jesus never gave a second thought about offending someone...
Act 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
Just a suggestion.
Sure...You can see what God thinks of your suggestion...
In a nutshell, Yes.
This only bothers people when the focus of their thinking, isn't through faith in Christ nor in the Father. Instead, they hold the status quo of sinners as the standard by which our eternal destiny is determined, rather than the standards provided by God for us.
Christ on the Cross, once and for all time, established His victory over human good and evil. Only Divine Good has merit at the bema seat. At the Great White Throne Judgment, human good works performed without faith in Christ are simply good for nothingness.
That is correct. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. (Acts 4:12)
Those who declare the faith AND works gospel prove the fallacy of it when they just as easily remove the faith part and start saying someone can be saved because of their good works. That IS what you have done, Billy Boy. You said the Dalai Lama, for example (a good man, no doubt), couldn't possibly go to hell just because he wasn't a believer in Christ because he did good works therefore God has to let him into heaven. What you are advocating is a gospel of good works and NO faith in Christ. You sure that's where you want to take this?
As Cvengr has correctly stated, it is ONLY through Jesus Christ that we can be made righteous enough to enter heaven. All our good works and merits are counted as dung and filthy rags compared to the righteousness we MUST have to ever see heaven and dwell with Almighty God. Why else did Christ die for us? Why else did He subject Himself to the torture, shame, agony and humility of the cross if we could try hard enough and be good enough all on our own? Nope, sorry, NO ONE can be saved without receiving Jesus Christ, believing and trusting in Him to save us by His precious blood. There IS no other name but Jesus. That is what GRACE is all about.
Nope. The Catholic faith makes it explicitly clear that salvation comes from Faith AND Good works. Having one without the other simply doesn't cut it. A person can perform all the good works he wants, but if that person knowingly REJECTS God and turns away from Jesus' love, they CANNOT be saved.
Good works and NO faith is against Catholic teaching, and anyone who claimed that will result in salvation would be preaching false doctrines. The opposite viewpoint, namely the protestant viewpoint that FAITH ALONE in Jesus, and no good works = salvation, is also false. Of course the Bible itself points this out ("Faith without works is dead"), which explains why Martin Luther and other protestant reformers wanted to remove sections of the bible that didn't gel with the theology they were preaching.
I guess we'll all find out on judgement day what happens in the afterlife and if catholics are right or protestants are right. In the meantime, if you want to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is destined for hell, but an unrepentant murderer has a guaranteed ticket to heaven as long as he believes that Jesus was divine, that's your business. The main difference is I'm going to go around trashing protestant ministers doing positive things and bringing people to Jesus because they beleive that false doctrine. Unfortunately your side has no qualms about attacking Catholic Popes making a positive difference in the world.
Nope. The Catholic faith makes it explicitly clear that salvation comes from Faith AND Good works. Having one without the other simply doesn't cut it. A person can perform all the good works he wants, but if that person knowingly REJECTS God and turns away from Jesus' love, they CANNOT be saved.
Good works and NO faith is against Catholic teaching, and anyone who claimed that will result in salvation would be preaching false doctrines. The opposite viewpoint, namely the protestant viewpoint that FAITH ALONE in Jesus, and no good works = salvation, is also false. Of course the Bible itself points this out ("Faith without works is dead"), which explains why Martin Luther and other protestant reformers wanted to remove sections of the bible that didn't gel with the theology they were preaching.
I guess we'll all find out on judgement day what happens in the afterlife and if catholics are right or protestants are right. In the meantime, if you want to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is destined for hell, but an unrepentant murderer has a guaranteed ticket to heaven as long as he believes that Jesus was divine, that's your business. The main difference is I'm not going to go around trashing protestant ministers doing positive things and bringing people to Jesus because they believe that false doctrine. Unfortunately your side has no qualms about attacking Catholic Popes making a positive difference in the world.
Yes, I know that is what y'all say, but let me remind you that my comment was in response to what you stated:
So, which is it? The Pope can or cannot change anything?
Then the "Catholic" faith has changed from what the Apostles AND Jesus taught. Scripture is crystal clear that salvation is by grace through faith and NOT by works. A genuine faith WILL result in a changed heart that seeks after God and is demonstrated in the good works God has prepared for those who walk in Him, but those works we do have NOTHING to do with how we are saved. Your own past Popes HAVE declared ex-cathedra that no one can be saved apart from being in the Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesia Null Salas). And let me remind you, it wasn't me who said the Dahli Lama wouldn't go to hell because he was a good man. Do you think he hasn't knowingly rejected Jesus Christ as Savior?
Good works and NO faith is against Catholic teaching, and anyone who claimed that will result in salvation would be preaching false doctrines. The opposite viewpoint, namely the protestant viewpoint that FAITH ALONE in Jesus, and no good works = salvation, is also false. Of course the Bible itself points this out ("Faith without works is dead"), which explains why Martin Luther and other protestant reformers wanted to remove sections of the bible that didn't gel with the theology they were preaching.
Once again, the Christian faith BEGAN as believing in the grace of God which saves us and whatever good things we do are done through the indwelling Holy Spirit. For God saved us and called us to live a holy life. He did this, not because we deserved it, but because that was his plan from before the beginning of time--to show us his grace through Christ Jesus. (II Timothy 1:9) The just live BY faith. That is why when James says "faith without works is dead", he isn't saying that works save us but that a genuine faith WILL result in good works - it is a living faith. The Reformers certainly understood that and was why they disputed with Rome on this point. The Catholic Church DID pervert the gospel of the grace of God, among other foibles.
I guess we'll all find out on judgement day what happens in the afterlife and if catholics are right or protestants are right. In the meantime, if you want to believe that Benjamin Netanyahu is destined for hell, but an unrepentant murderer has a guaranteed ticket to heaven as long as he believes that Jesus was divine, that's your business. The main difference is I'm not going to go around trashing protestant ministers doing positive things and bringing people to Jesus because they believe that false doctrine. Unfortunately your side has no qualms about attacking Catholic Popes making a positive difference in the world.
Thankfully, it's not up to me to see into a man's heart and know whether or not he has saving faith. Only God can do that. But tell me, is God not able to save a truly repentant murderer? Is His grace not so great that it can't work in the hearts of the worse among us and bring about a new creation from the dregs of society? I don't know Netanyahu, I don't know what he thinks or believes about Jesus Christ, but God certainly does.
He has not dealt with us according to our sins, Nor rewarded us according to our iniquities. For as high as the heavens are above the earth, So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him. (Psalm 103:10-11)
Nope, you have it backwards. Scripture never mentions "Faith ALONE", and it abundantly clear that salvation is through both faith AND works. This what Jesus taught, the Apostles taught, and what all Christians taught, continuously from the beginning of Christianity until the 1600s. Then a guy named Martin Luther showed up on the scene and began preaching "Faith ALONE" as a new form of Christian theology.
If you can find any example of mainstream Christianity preaching "Faith ALONE" prior to Martin Luther, let me know.
This isn't the first time this topic has been tossed out there. I don't know what your habits are in reading the Religion Forum, but it has been hashed and rehashed numerous times. Though I sincerely doubt it will make much difference to minds already made up, I will nonetheless give you a condensed answer.
It should be sufficient that ALL of Sacred Scripture speaks of the grace of God in His dealings with mankind. Even before Jesus was incarnated the feasts, sacrifices, rituals, laws, examples and people testified to His coming to earth as THE once-for-all sacrifice for sin. Whatever men did FOR God was only as in response to what God did FOR man. It has ALWAYS been by faith that we respond to God. What all religions teach (many not even called "Christian") concerning how man "binds himself back" to God - the word religion means "to bind back" - is what man does of himself to merit or deserve the ultimate end of the religion (i.e., heaven, nirvana, happy hunting grounds). Christianity - genuine Christianity - is opposite of them all because it is not what man must do to earn a place with God but what God has done to bind man back to Himself. God offers us eternal life by His grace and He calls to us to respond in faith, by faith, to receive His gift.
So, no sorry, the idea of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone to the glory of God alone is certainly NOT some novel, new form of Christian theology. It IS what God has ALWAYS said. Jesus taught it and His Apostles taught it and they taught others to carry on the tradition of the teaching. You bring a challenge to show you where anyone taught salvation was by faith alone prior to the Reformation. Let me show you what Luther had to say about that addition of the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 and, as a bonus, you will see that MANY church fathers taught the same thing. It's from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:
“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”
Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28 Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Catholics ignore, and most Protestants are not aware of:
“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.
The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”
At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.
Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).
John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).
See further:
Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.
Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).
Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.
Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.
Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”
Are you satisfied or do you want more?
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.