Posted on 01/23/2014 9:29:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., "faith alone" and many other "Catholic" doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., "Scripture alone"), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don't therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the "theory" of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn't formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
(Excerpt) Read more at ourcatholicfaith.org ...
-—”Up to about 1970 the democrats were the socially conservative party in America. Most republicans could have cared less about abortion. Republicans gave us Roe v. Wade. When the South was solidly democrat do you think for one minute that Southerners were pro-abortion, anti-2nd amendment? Not hardly. When the democrats became the party of forced busing and abortion on demand and did everything in their power to encroach on states rights, the South began voting republican. But speaking specifically of abortion, the democrats and republicans are complicit in the murder of some 55,000,000 children since Roe v. Wade. Neither party had did a thing to stop the slaughter.”——
That statement above is a bag full of snakes, but the last sentence has it right. Both parties have done little to stem the genocide. I agree.
And in an indirect way Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon gave us Roe vs Wade through their SCOTUS appointments. So both parties have blood on their hands. It was through judicial fiat we have the worst genocide in modern history. The same institution is using their powers to bring us the defilement of marriage as well.
So baptism is what you see as the grace of God and not an appeal to God for a good conscience? If one keeps reading they will see the “active” for baptism explained. That would be the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That actual event, deed work. If one looks prior to verse 21 they see the OT shadow of baptism in Noah and his family in the ark. Who saved Noah? God or the ark Noah built? Now such a question brings us to Abraham again.
1 Peter 3:18-22 NASB
For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him.
If you have never known Christ through no fault of your own I do not think that you are automatically going to hell. How much sense would that make.
**There is ONE mediator between God and Ma,**
Glad your mother has a direct line.
Glad you’re perfect. It must be nice to be able to sit and point fingers.
We come into this world guilty sinners, all Hell-bound. That’s the spiritual reality. The bar — perfection — was set by God and only through His son. It matters not one bit whether we think it “fair” or not. We need to deep-six the concept of the “innocent savage”. There is no such creature — nor has there ever been. Thank you for your Biblically-correct posts. When Christ said “NO MAN comes to the Father but through ME”, we can assume He meant what He said. No one will. No one.
Luther wasn't a liar. Those who continue to accuse him of doing things he did not do are the liars and deceivers. Now, why do you think people continue to assert things they have already been corrected about so very many times??? He neither removed any books from his German translation of the Bible nor did he "distort" it to "serve his needs". Those accusations, curiously enough, CAN be directed to those who were responsible for the Vulgate (the Catholic Church).
For your benefit, Bike800, since I haven't seen your posts before, I provide the following to help educate you and to keep you from falling into the same deception others can't ever seem to climb out of:
From http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html
Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28 This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:
“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.”
4. 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.”
The first sentence has it right to. I’m from the South, and all my relatives were democrats before they started voting for republicans when Richard Nixon ran. Every member of my family and every Southerner I know was pro-life, pro-2nd amendment, and would laugh in your face if you mentioned special rights for homosexuals, and probably beat the hell out of you for good measure.
It makes perfect sense, actually, because they are sinners in need of a Savior. Without one, they are Hell-bound — as we all are without Christ. When Christ said “No one comes to the Father but through Me”, He meant it. Scriptures make it plain that everyone has been given enough light sufficient to guide them if they are hunting for the Lord. To make up a god in their own image is not an option, as is clearly shown in Scripture. Anyone can claim to “love God” but Christ has made it plain in Scripture that if one knows Him, one knows God. Without Him, no one can know, let alone love God. Your argument is with God, not anyone else on this forum. You don’t think it fair that He would condemn people who have never heard. What you are forgetting is that we are all Hell-bound without Christ. There are not multiple doors by which one can enter Heaven. There is only one: Christ.
” No, because Christ raised the bar higher than ever with the Beatitudes. If no one could be saved by keeping the letter of the Law, then certainly no one could ever be saved keeping the INTENT of the Law.
God’s standard is absolute perfection. ONE sin is all that it takes to condemn someone.
Even if someone kept the Law and lived a perfect life except for ONE sin, they would still be condemned.
James 2:8-11 If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors. For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. “
EXCELLENT POST!!!!
“Is it history that you pretend to know?”
I know history, and there’s no pretend about it. The rest of what you posted did not address issues I raised or asked to be addressed so I have no idea what your attempted point is.
Dumbest post of the day.
The broken record would be the guy who gets on a conservative, pro-life political forum to constantly conceal reality and the truth, and try to hide the Catholic vote in elections and politics.
The Catholic racism here is awesome to behold, it must be brutal in the Catholic denomination.
If you despise non-white Catholics so much, perhaps you will not support more immigration.
“”Protestant Bush won the Catholic vote as recent as 2004.”” Whoopee, in his reelection bid he won the Catholic vote as an incumbent, he won 56% of the Hispanic Protestant vote, that year, so even Hispanics Protestants were to the right of the Catholic vote.
The Catholic vote has gone for the republican about 5 times in history.
As a denomination, it’s members are clearly one of the more pro-abortion, liberal ones.
Scriptural. Sorry you have a problem with that, but your attitude pretty much says it all. Your problem is with God on this since you doubt His Word and what He’s said clearly in it.
It may be the "Catholic" interpretation but that doesn't make it true. I think it's great that the Roman Catholic Church still retains some of the primitive doctrines that were held from the start of Christianity. I happen to believe in them because they are Biblical and not because the Catholic Church holds to them. In this particular area, though - if you are correctly stating your church's beliefs, I reject that anyone can possibly be saved today who rejects Jesus Christ as Savior, no matter how "good" they are. "Cooperating" with the grace of God would mean coming to the knowledge of the truth and trusting in Christ and His shed blood to save us. The Catholic Church didn't give anyone the ten commandments much less the last seven so, no, even that is not a connection to it. Do you just ignore the Scriptures that say quite clearly that there is no other name given among men whereby we must be saved? Or, he who believes in him is not condemned but he who believes not is condemned already because he believes not in the name of the only begotten Son of God? I didn't make the rules, God did.
The bible discusses that many righteous Jews, who did not know Christ, achieving salvation.
Those "righteous" Jews were those who believed in the coming Messiah who would take away the sins of the world. Just as we look back to when Christ came to earth, died and rose again to save us, they looked forward to the time when God would do that. It was STILL through faith that they were saved - just as we are today.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Excellent post, boatbums — and cuts to the heart of the matter. In order to believe there are other ways to Heaven one has to cut the heart out of the Gospel and ignore what Christ has said multiple times. There is indeed NO OTHER NAME by which one can be saved. Perilous ground when one begins to ignore Scripture to re-write the Gospel to one’s own preferences. All our good deed are as “filthy rags” as Scripture says. Either we acknowledge that, or we arrogantly believe God is unfair, unjust, and there must be other paths to Him — a doctrine from Hell if ever there were one!
I did not. I relied on what the poster said himself, but hardly surprised he sees it otherwise. Denying Scripture is just that — and that IS the issue.
I don't pray to saints. They pray for us. I know they "made it" because they were either martyred for Christ or verified miracles have occurred through their intercession.
The teachings of Moses is not any different than the teachings of Jesus.
They are less developed. For instance, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus develops the teachings on the Ten Commandments.
The early fathers knew that only through our Lord Jesus was there salvation.
"The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847). Notice that the same Fathers who declare the normative necessity of being Catholic also declare the possibility of salvation for some who are not Catholics. These can be saved by what later came to be known as "baptism of blood" or " baptism of desire" (for more on this subject, see the Fathers Know Best tract, The Necessity of Baptism). The Fathers likewise affirm the possibility of salvation for those who lived before Christ and who were not part of Israel, the Old Testament People of God. However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity...."
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.