Christians Evangelizing Catholics

They are BOTH right by the authority of the written Word of God, which says that God's Word is true because He cannot lie! If one is evangelical, that is the only possible position on authority. Can any man or men be the arbiters between God and His Word?

 

All arguments are circular in that respect. BUt you have to enter the circle somwhere. With Scripture, we enter the circle with the presupposition that the God who cannot lie inspired the Scriptures, thereby making them inerrant. To use hte analogy of Scripture isn't circular. It is to acknowledge the truth of revelation.

Remember what I actually said though. The clarity of Scripture varies. All Scripture is not equally clear. That is why there are divisions between believers. However, some doctrines of Scripture are explicit and on those, there is no difference between believers. The difference on those doctrines is between believers and unbelievers. Such is the case with soteriology. Scripture makes it explicit. Believers do not differ on that.

Because mine is drawn from Scripture itself, not from a system of theology. The pope's explanation depends on his own authority, which Scripture never gives him and which is completely unbiblical. Scripture is the authority. 1 PEter 3:21 is a difficult passage, but does not need to be interpreted in a way that contradicts what is clear. It should not be.

You misread the passage. You are right about what both Paul and James say. But you have jumped a huge chasm to say they contradict. They are answering different questions. Paul is answering the question, "How does one get saved?" He says "by faith alone." James is answering the questions, "What kind of faith saves?" He is actually building on what Paul has already taught. He says "Faith that shows itself in obedience is saving faith." He does not say that "faith plus works saves." He says "faith that saves obeys."

Paul said salvation is by faith alone, not by works. James says that the faith taht saves is not alone. For James, salvation is prior to, and indepedent of works. Works merely demonstrate the reality of faith. James says that faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not saving faith. Saving faith demonstrates itself by obedience, which is the same thing that Paul says in many places.

Here is an article that will help your understanding: http://dbts.edu/dbts/journals/1997/jas2.pdf

 

But in what you post you are equally constructing a system of theology; indeed, so am I. We all do it. What you seem to be doing is interpreting one Scripture eg: James 2 in the light of another eg: Rom 5 that better fits in with you systematic evangelical theology, particularly soteriology. As a further example, you seem to be saying "I Peter 3:21 says, on the face of it, that Baptism saves. Now, that can't possibly true since it doesn't fit with my evangelical soteriology of sola fides. Therefore, I need to find a sola fides Scripture eg: Rom 5 and say that I Peter 3:21 must be interpreted in the light of Rom 5." Now, forgive me if you're not doing this and that is an unjust comment; but if it is accurate, permit me to make an alternative suggestion: that we let Scripture speak for itself and allow our theology to be shaped by it, rather than force Scripture to be shaped by our theology.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

They are BOTH right by the authority of the written Word of God, which says that God's Word is true because He cannot lie! If one is evangelical, that is the only possible position on authority. Can any man or men be the arbiters between God and His Word? </font>[/QUOTE]Then if a Catholic says that salvation must be by faith accompanied by works, then they are being thoroughgoingly evangelical in their approach to Scripture...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The key to the trilema?

Jude 3,"...The Faith once delivered to the Saints", still exists. The Faith has been faithfully guarded by New Testament Churches ever since the first one was gathered on the shores of Galilee by the Lord Jesus Christ.

The Faith has no earthly Pope, Archbishop or Vicar. All of the believers are priests.

The Faith is still out there--preserved by God--through the fires and floods of hell.

Praise God for His Faithfulness--even though we are not.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Matt,

The analogy of Scripture is that Scripture interprets itself. You interpret the harder in light of the easier, the obscure in light of the clear. The point is that we cannot claim a contradiction the truth of God. There is none. But James 2 and Paul do not even come close to contradicting. That claim reveals that the point of hte passage has been completely missed. James is answering an entirely different question.

As for Catholics saying that salvation is by faith accompanied by works, they are incorrect. Salvation is by faith; saving faith will result in works of obedience. They are singing from a different hymnal. It is statements like that have confused people. The RCC has become a master of nuance in modern times for the simple reason that the Scripture is so clear and readily available. They have not changed what they believe; they have simply worded it differently in order to blur the differences. As C4K puts it, they use the same words but a different dictionary.

 

But what is 'harder' and 'easier', 'obscure' and 'clear'; to some people, a verse's meaning will be abundantly clear, to others not, to still others the meaning will be abundantly clear but entirely different to that arrived at by the first group. Who determines what is 'clear' (and that their 'clear' understanding is 'correct') and by what right?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Here's what I wrote on another thread: "With apologies for derailing this thread still further (although with all the insults flying around in the 'love of Christ' it already resembles something of a train wreck), to those who say the Catholic Church is apostate/ the synagogue of Satan/ Osama bin Laden/ the Church of Darth Vader etc, at what point between the Day of Pentecost and today and as a result of which event did it shift from being the Bride of Christ to the above?"

Any takers?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

The organization known as the RCC is not the Bride of Christ. Neither is the organization known as the SBC. Or any other organization contrived by human beings. The Bride of Christ is all who have been born again as Jesus told Nicodemus.

 

Amen to that!

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

I agree Debby,

What a church (whatever church you believe is right) is supposed to be is the Body of Christ with Christ as the head, or the Church of Christ with Christ as the cornerstone. I believe it is the Catholic church, but any church where the spirit of Christ is moving and where he rests in the hearts of the believers is ok by me.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Any church will do--

Is not consistent with Vatican II.

RCC is still keeper of the keys--also the holy wafer--so they have said.

What about the churches which predate Rome and were never a part of the marriage of church and state which Constantine the Great performed? They are still in the world.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Matt, you are making this way harder than it actually is. Anyone can read it and see for themselves. One of hte beauties of Scripture is its simplicity. The vast majority of it is so easy to understand. To question what is "clear" and "who gets to decide" is way past the point. All one needs to do is read it to see how clear it is. Even Peter said that Paul wrote some difficult things, and we all agree with that. But the message of Scripture that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone is so abundantly clear that it cannot be missed by any honest reader of Scripture who has not been influenced by other things. When we say that trees are made of wood, we don't have great conventions and debates about whether or not that is so. It is plainly explicit for all to see. The same is true with these doctrines we are discussing. There is no reason to debate. There is nothign to debate about.

As for the shift in the RCC, it took place over time as they began to depart from the truth delivered by Christ and the apostles. We cannot place a single date on it.

 

RCC departing from the truth---

Some would say Rome never had the truth to begin with--certainly not anything they got in Mt. 16. from the Apostle Peter.

RCC cannot be traced past the 4th cent outside the Vatican Library. The Bride of Christ can be traced to the Shores of Galilee--during the personal ministry of The Lord: Jesus Christ. He said He would never leave Her nor forsake Her. She is still in the world--never Vaticanized or reformed. Jesus has preserved Her.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

James,

Of course I believe the RCC is the Body of Christ (from which all Protestant denominations flow), but I used more PC saavy wording in that the Bible is clear on what a church, regardless of what type, should consider itself...the body of Christ.

As for your quote,

"RCC cannot be traced past the 4th cent outside the Vatican Library. The Bride of Christ can be traced to the Shores of Galilee--during the personal ministry of The Lord: Jesus Christ. He said He would never leave Her nor forsake Her. She is still in the world--never Vaticanized or reformed. Jesus has preserved Her."

We believe one thing concerning history, you believe another. We will not agree on this point, but look into the other posts, to simply say "this is so," is ridiculous. Furthermore, I am now conversing with pastor Larry concerning the changing nature of the RCC from then to now, so maybe you should read up on that conversation.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

Larry wrote,

And again,

James 2:24. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Rom. 3:28. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Larry’s dismissal of the apparent contradiction on the basis that Paul and James are answering two different questions deserving two different answers betrays his lack of understanding of even basic soteriology. There is NOT, of course, a contradiction here, but Larry has made it expressly clear that he does not understand either of these two passages that form two of the cornerstones of New Testament soteriology, and yet he writes that New Testament soteriology is “so abundantly clear that it cannot be missed by any honest reader of Scripture who has not been influenced by other things.” Apparently Larry has been influenced by MANY of those “other things,” and has gotten himself into swirling sea of confusion and contradictions.

And apparently Larry would have us to believe that a tree is simply made up of wood, just as New Testament soteriology can be summed up in one sentence, “salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.”

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

The bark, of course, is the phloem. And of course there is also the pith, not to mention the epidermis, the cortex, the collenchyma, and the parenchyma. And here is a question for you, “How does water get up to the top of a redwood tree through 240 feet of wood against the force of gravity?”

James writes that faith alone is not, and cannot be, saving faith. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates the teaching of James very clearly throughout the eleventh chapter. “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain. . . . By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household. . . . By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed. . . . By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise. . . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. . . .By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . .” And lest he be misunderstood, James writes,

James 2:26. For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Those who suppose that any of this conflicts with anything that Paul wrote has not carefully read Paul,

Rom. 3:28. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Neither James nor the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is saying anything at all about works of the Law (which cannot save us). Both of them write of the same thing, the works that are inseparable from faith.

And in this thread we find a third kind of “works,” works that are not works at all, but sacraments!

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

I am not a sacramentalist myself, but Lutherans certainly are, as are many other Christians besides Roman Catholics. Would you dare to accuse Lutherans of teaching salvation by works as you do the Roman Catholics?

Larry has very well illustrated how a Baptist pastor can think that he understands the Biblical doctrine of salvation and yet not understand even the basics of it. Should those Baptists who do not understand Baptist doctrine condemn the doctrines of other denominations?

(All scriptures, NASB, 1995)

 

Christians who are not Catholic nor Protestant--

Still exist--they are referenced in Jude 3. Their history is found under the heading "heretics".

They have been bitterly persecuted by Rome and her daughters--those who tried to "reform" Rome.

Nihil ex nihil fit.

Selah,

Bro. James

p.s. Not all heretics are in this Jude 3 group.

 

Jude 3. Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints. (NASB, 1995)

 

James,

As heretics should have been bitterly hunted down. The church in her infant stages was fragile, and while she had the promise that the gates of Hell would not overcome her, she still have to work for her survival. With all of the early heresies, and with the fact that times were far more different then than now, those heretics were dealt with in the means by which the custom of the day validated it. Furthermore, I hesitate to even call heretics Christian. It is their heresy that keeps them from the church, and if you are not partaking from the body of Christ, then how can you really be a Christian?

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

James, I just saw the problem you had with my first quote...

I said,
. "I believe it is the Catholic church, but any church where the spirit of Christ is moving and where he rests in the hearts of the believers is ok by me."

You know of what you remind me? It seems like you WANT us to disagree. You WANT me to say that all Protestants are going to Hell, and when I refuse to say that, because my church refuses to say it, you come up with something about how I am being inconsistant. Perhaps you should revisit the readings or your studies? I am really quite confused right now. Why fan the flames here? Do you like dissention?

Pax Christi,

Stephen