Continuation with Jeremiah - Discussion not Book

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Thinkingstuff, Nov 16, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is always good to know where people stand. As far as the bolded part I agree entirely. The opposite of James logic also holds true. James said Faith without works are dead. Likewise works conducted without faith are equally dead. Works should be a demonstration of the faith already obtained. Or better yet an out pouring of that faith. But I don't look at them as independent of each other.

    I'm no certain this is correct because in University I came across many serious students of the bible that didn't hold to TULIP. However, there are certain aspects of Tulip that seem appropriate and others that do not. For instance I don't hold to Total Depravity as hyper Calvinist Portrays it. I don't think Calvin actually went as far as some. The Hyper view ignores that we are still made in God's image and by that fact alone there are "carryovers into our nature though corrupted by sin" So, sinful degenerate people can occasionally do things for others and not be self oriented always. This doesn't mean they will be saved but God's image in use still has its effects. Plus this is seen in actuality in real life as you observe people. Some other carryover effects of our creation in God's image: "God size hole" in our hearts, the universal consept of fairness (whether its applied or not), the fact we can love others, etc... Of course each of these aspects suffers a bit of corruption depending on the person but every now and again people do the noble thing rather than always give in to their baser nature.

    The typical Catholic Answer to that is simple if you're Catholic and understand Catholic lingo. Kind of like Born Again Christians have their own lingo that must be defined to the non iniciated. So I'll give the Catholic Answer and explain what it means. The answer is you must be in a state of Sanctifying Grace when all is said and done. Ok what does that mean?
    To explain it I must express the protestant view of Salvation or at least a part of it. Salvation from a protestant perspective is one thing at one point in time. In otherwords a singularity. For the Catholic perspective I will reference John Bunyan's Pilgrims progress.
    Salvation is very much a gate which you enter in and everything after it that journeys towards heaven is a part of that salvation. You enter in at receipt of faith and washed of your sins and you continue in it until the end of your days. So how do you enter into Salvation? What Peter says in Acts 2
    And when all is said in done in your life as you continue in the sanctifying grace given you are assured of the hope and promises of heaven Jesus gave. Thus Sanctifying Grace is
    If however at the end of your life you find yourself in a state which is in rebellion towards God rather than in Sanctifying Grace Then there is only one outcome. And it isn't good.

    Many Questions. The purpose of Mass is to worship God, participate in the divine life, hear the scriptures expounded on and to commune with God and community. The Docrtine of Transubstation can take a long time but I will break it down. First of all in the ancient world the term "Symbol" meant a royal seal that was broken in half would be the symbol of the whole seal. In fact it was a part of that seal. In the modern context it means just a representation but in the ancient world that is not how it was viewed. It represented the whole and was indeed part of it. Next the communion which we take that Jesus established before his death is connected to the Passover meal. Both the Passover meal and the Communion Meal (which Catholics call Eucharist because it also has a connection to the Levitical thanksgiving offering) are covenant meals. Passover renewed the Jew's Covenant with God and our Communion Celebration renews our Covenant with God. Note in the Passover meal the sacrifical lamb was consumed this is a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ who is called the Lamb of God by John the baptist and is referred to in Revelation. Now the bread and the wine are the key elements of this meal as much as the bitter herbs, wine, Matzah, and lamb are the key elements of the Passover meal. These elements when prayed over are no longer considered regular bread and wine but contain the real presence of Jesus christ. However the elements don't loose their physical nature. Ie... a chemical make up of bread and wine stay the same. However, in the ancient Greek term from where we get substantial on a deeper level the substance has changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This does not make a new sacrifice. But like the Passover meal the Jews Celebrate it brings the believers "back in time" so to speak to the one sacrifice of Jesus Christ. That is the short of it. I can explain longer but it is already a long post. However, we can discuss more of it later on.

    I'm not sure what you are asking. I was converted from my sins when I was 15 and came to an understanding of Jesus Christ. previous to this I had no faith of my own. And noteably my family didn't either. Superstition is not the same as faith.

    Not if they don't have faith.

    As long as they find themselves in sanctifying grace. More often they tell them that if they are in Mortal sin (volunatry rebellion against God) they are going to hell.

    Thank you for not failing my expectation. :)

    If when you say Faith alone you include that works are the natural and necissary result of Faith I think we can be cool with that Though I would say faith doesn't exist in a vacuum. YOu don't attain it it is by grace and it doesn't end with a heartfelt feeling but with fruit so Faith really is never alone. If however you mean some heart felt belief that doesn't change your life and there is no repentance I cannot agree with you that you don't find yourself in sanctifying grace becoming more Christlike each day I couldnt agree with that. ref. Matthew 24: 36-51 Matthew 25:1-13
     
  2. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    Thinkingstuff your explanations are consistent with what I have gleaned from conversing with other Catholics and from reading the Catholic Catechism.

    That being said, I have problems with harmonizing the Catholic view with the Bible. I especially have a problem with your definition of a "sign" or "seal" above. For example Paul said that circumcision was such a "sign" or "seal" of justification by faith in Romans 4:11

    11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

    However, Paul seems to be arguing the very reverse of your conclusion as to the ancient meaning of a "sign" and "seal." You argue that the "sign" or "seal" is INCLUSIVE but Paul is arguing that it is EXCLUSIVE of Justification by faith.

    For example, he says that a person is justified by faith regardless if they have received circumcision or have not received circumcision - "the father of all them that beleive, though they be NOT CIRCUMCISED" thus excluding circumcision as part of justification by faith.

    Moreover, his argument concerning one who had been circumcised, indeed the very one with which circumcision originated (Abraham) is that he had already been justified by faith BEFORE he was circumcised not that circumcision was inclusive in being justified - "the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:"

    Paul is not merely saying the very opposite of what you are saying but is condemning what you are saying as false. You are saying that things which are a "sign" or "seal" are inclusive of the very thing they signify but Paul is explicitly and clearly denying that very idea by insisting that Abraham already "had" justification without the sign or seal in the case of Abraham and in the case of all gentile believers.

    Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision.

    If you are wrong on this point then the whole soteriological foundation of Rome is wrong.
     
    #2 The Biblicist, Nov 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2011
  3. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, you wrote : "Romans 4:9-11 is the only place where the time of justification is specifically addressed in Romans 4:1-22 ("when" - v.10). In Romans 5:1-2 Paul uses Aorist tense and Perfect tense verbs to demonstrate it is not a continuing action but rather a completed action in the past just as he argues in verse 11 that Abraham already "had" been justified before being circumcision."

    "The New American Bible " says this - Since this liberation will first find completion in the believer's resurrection, salvation is described as "future ' in Rom. 5:10.

    Rom 4:3-4 here Paul is referring to "works" apart from God's grace. We can't expect God to give us 'grace' like someone who asks their boss for pay .wages '. Faith in Jesus must be necessary for our "good works '' in order for it to be considered a " work of grace '' , otherwise , it is a work of obligation.
    Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

    Paul uses the word "alone '' 3 times in Rom.4:12,16,23 but never uses it with the word "faith ' . If Paul wanted to teach "Faith Alone " , seems as he would have said so, don't you think so ?
     
  4. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    Will you agree with me that whenever one must respond to scripture by pitting other scripture against scripture that their understanding of both scriptures are flawed or else God is the author of confusion? If you undertand the scripture you can explain it within its own context. Try to overthrow my contextual exposition if you can. You obviously ignored it, so I guess you had to restort to plan "B" - pit scripture against scripture!

    The term "salvation" involves a great variety of different aspects that are not synonymous with each other in nature or time of occurrence. For example, the salvation of our bodies is yet future when they are glorified. However, gospel conversion is also an aspect of salvation which occurs before glorificaton of the body and thus is distinct from it in the sense they deal with two completely different aspects of our salvation without excluding either from the great unbrella term of "salvaiton."

    Paul is dealing with individual apsects of salvation in a logical order in the book of Romans. First he deals with the problem that demands the need of salvation (Rom. 1:18-3:23) or the sinfulness of man. Then he proceeds to deal with solution or salvation of man from sin beginning with justification by grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 3:24-5:2). Later he deals with the relationship of regeneration with justification by faith (Rom. 6) and the relationship of justification and sanctification with the law of God (Rom. 7) and the relationship of sanctification to the work of the Spirit of God (Rom. 8:1-27) and then with the overall purpose of God (Rom. 8:28-36). All of these things equally fit under the umbrella term of "salvation" but not all are equal with each other in nature or in logical sequence or in time of application.

    Romans 3:24-5:2 deals explicitly with justification by faith in Christ as a distinct aspect of salvation in general. It is a completed aspect at the point of faith in Christ and continues as a completed aspect throughout the Christian life. That is the argument presented by Paul and confirmed by the serious logical arguments he presents in Romans 3:24-5:2 as well as to the choice of tenses He uses versus the tenses he does not employ.

    Now, that does not mean justification by faith occurs in a vacuum or in complete separation from other aspects of salvation in general. No, it has its place and logical relationship and time of application in relationship to Salvation as a whole.

    It is the failure of Rome and Roman soteriology to distinguish between things that differ in nature, logical sequence and time of application in their overall view of salvation that I am challenging. However, even Rome distinguishes between regeneration and glorification in regard to the time of application to the person and to its nature and logical relationship does it not?

    That is not true! He is in fact denying works as inclusive of grace and pitting them one against the other in regard to justification before God. In Romans 11:6 he clearly states they are antithetic to each other and cannot include one another.


    Paul's response to the very analogy you use above is found in Romans 4:4. Works are like wages but grace is a gift and we are justified "without works" but not without grace (Rom. 3:24; 4:4-6).



    This is nothing but human rationalization that attempts to repudiate the Word of God on this matter. I gave an exposition of Romans 4:11 in regard to what God's Word understands the relationship of a divine "sign" or "seal" with justification by faith and you don't even attempt to deal with it. Why? If you could you would! Hence, since you cannot your only resort is to human rationalization pitted against God's Word. If that is not so, then deal with the exposition and show by the immediate context why I am wrong instead of jumping out of that context and pitting scripture against scripture.
    Rom.4:3- it was "credited'' to him as righteousness. God records what the person actually accomplished.

    Have you ever heard of the expression "can't see the forrest for the tree in your face"? (no personal offence intended). Paul is explicitly repeating that justification before God is by faith "without works" over and over again. Justification before God is not without grace, without Christ or without Christ's personal works, or without the Holy Spirit or without regeneration but it is "without works" - YOUR works, - it is without your law keeping (Rom. 4:13-15) and it is without your personal input (Rom. 4:16-22).

    Paul's argument is exclusive in Romans 4. Abraham lived before the Mosaic law and therefore his "works" cannot be defined as the works of the Mosaic law (Rom. 4:13-15) so "works" in Romans 4:11 must refer to his own personal efforts to be justified before God rather than some kind of Jewishness under law.
     
    #4 The Biblicist, Nov 16, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2011
  5. Jeremiah2911

    Jeremiah2911
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello ThinkingStuff! I noticed you continued our conversation here and I will do so when I'm able [Church tnite etc....] God bless and look forward to reading your post [and Biblicist too] :)
     
  6. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, You misunderstand what the Catholic Church teaches, and i am not the best student that can explain it. All I know is that which the Bible tells me and that is "salvation',
    is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift. In no way can i accept your Protestant way of acceptance of salvation ,as a " just accept Jesus in your heart' as a one-time cure all for eternal bliss , or "i'm born again ' or" have you accepted Jesus yet" kinda formular. No way is that the way the Bible explains it. Because in this verse of Phil. 2: 12-13 I read where "good works " done in grace , by the gift of God, whose grace works in us.

    Eph. 2;8-9 ' For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing , it is the gift of God... not because of works , lest any man should boast ."

    1st Cor.9 v 27, No, I drive my body and train it, for fear that , after having preached to others , I myself should be disqualified.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    Look at my response to TS concerning the Catholic interpretation of the relationship of a "sign" and "seal" with justification. TS properly presented the Catholic view and the whole soteriology of Roman Catholicism will stand or fall on that very interpretation.

    If a "sign" and "seal" of justification is also inclusive of justification then Rome's soteriology stands. However, if a "sign" and "seal" of justification is not inclusive of Justification then the whole soteriological framework of Rome comes crashing down.

    As I demonstrated the Roman Catholic explanation is completely repudiated by Paul in Romans 4:11.

    Second, you do not understand my view of salvation at all or you would not explain it the way you have. However, I can understand why you explain it that way because there are many who present it just in that manner, so I don't blame you.

    For starters, I do not believe there is such a thing as a man who is justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone without works who is not also regenerated and producing the manifest fruits of regeneration which are "good works." Although, I don't confuse these two different aspects of salvation, I don't deny one exists without the other. That means I do not accept the profession of faith as genuine where there are no "good works" being manifested in that life.

    However, those works are "fruits" or manifest evidence of regeneration making regeneration the cause not the effect of good works (Eph. 2:10 "created....UNTO good works").

    Bottom line, those truly justified by faith are regenerated people who manifest "good works" or else there is no basis to recognize them as either justified or regenerated.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >"salvation', is a gift of God and it depends on how we accept and use that free gift.

    Humans seem to have a problem handling gifts. When a gift is given, title passes and the giver has no legal or financial interest in the property. A parent gives a toy to a child and becomes angry when the child trashes it. It is not the parent's business to become angry. If the parent doesn't trust the child then maybe the toy should be loaned. Try it this Christmas and report your results.

    A person I knew was 2 months behind in his electric bill went to the utility office to beg for mercy - new baby and winter weather. He was told his bill was paid up. The company could not tell him how or why. He suspected it was a typo and someone got cheated. Of someone he knew could have paid his bill. My point - if so, it was a done deal. The title to the money had transferred to my friend's account. He could not give it back if we wanted to.

    So if God "Gives" us a "Gift" of eternal life it is a done deal. We can ignore it but there is no mechanism in place for returning it.
     
  9. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Biblicist, i am doing more harm in trying to defend the Catholic Church, i am just a neophyte and will let other more Biblical educated Catholics set you straight on this and other critical issues on salvation, etc. . I am not qualified to repeat any teaching, as i was taught by more qualified Catholics , believe me i would still be a Baptist Fundamantalists if it wasn't for the vast knowledge of the Catholic theologians and Catholic apologists, many who came from Protestant clergy/ theologians. It is very obvious that all teaching knowledge and authority was given only to the Catholic/Apostolic Church. It alone contains the "fullness of the Christian faith". Luke 10: 16. Not "one" verse can you find that supports any Protestant church ,while on the other hand i can point out many verses that support a "one" apostolic teaching universal Church. Many, many passages support the Apostolic Teaching Church that Jesus founded with the intention of that Church being One and Universal/ Catholic . I hope that one of the more qualified [ albeit greatly outnumbered by you Protestants ] Catholics on this forum come back and explain your misunderstanding of not only the Catholic Church but your dependence on a man-made concept called 'sola Scriptura'.
     
  10. Jeremiah2911

    Jeremiah2911
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    I must say from the outset that I appreciate getting to read your posts. As I stated in an earlier post, I have 9 families in my Church that came out of the Catholic Church [no recruiting either:)] and I have family that are in the Catholic Church and I always like to learn the hows and whys of people's theology--I can tell you that 100% of the people in my Church were in the RCC all their lives and they have, at best, very minimal knowledge of the Bible or any Bible doctrine--they will tell you that Bible study is not encouraged, and history would bear this out--not to get into a different discussion, but don't you think it seems odd the RCC Church persecuted Bible translators?

    What you said here would be basic Arminian theory--I will say that works would constitute an evidence of faith, not a requirement--when you add any act of man as a requirement of salvation, it is tainted. This is certainly a point of contention even within Baptist ranks but it is Biblical:

    Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

    I was raised in a Church that doesn't believe in eternal security, and if you believe man has anything to do with his/her salvation, then that would be the logical conclusion. However, Scripture teaches salvation by grace through faith--a gift from God--no works involved.

    I'm going to have to stop here for the evening.....will get back to the rest! God bless
     
  11. Jeremiah2911

    Jeremiah2911
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Messages:
    125
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is certainly my own personal experience--the more I study Scripture/history, the more Calvinistic I have become....
    Not sure we have the same understanding of Total Depravity--I copied and pasted this from a reformed website:

    Now whether we want to believe all that are not, the Scriptures are certainly clear--the definition of mans Total depravity is to teach us we can't save ourselves


    Again this teaching [sanctifying grace as you call it] would be considered works salvation--TS you are either saved or you aren't--yes Scripture teaches he that endures to the end will be saved--all this means is there are no such things as "apostates" --someone who was TRULY born again and then forever turn away from the faith--I put people like that into the parable of the sower--weren't really saved and when the newness wore off, they were gone.


    I asked the question because I was told the RCC's position is that ones' salvation depends upon partaking of the mass--which is how you are in "sanctifying grace" as you told me its called--again, this is a definition of works salvation which is not Biblical [Ephesians 2:8-9] --I read HA Ironsides Book on Revelation and he mentions the Catholic Service as being a mixture of Judaism, Heathenism and Christianity and your explanation seems to agree....the most important part of the OT Passover was the sign of salvation to come--the elements involved were just connected with obedience.....In the NT the key element is obedience period--we do this, as oft as we would, in remembrance of what Christ did for us at Calvary.


    Well I asked this question and I'll ask it a different way--where were you converted and how? Maybe this will shed a little light for me to understand where you are today...

    Ok I'll agree with you here except I'll say, they won't go to Heaven if they don't have Christ.....Now my question--you said "more often they tell them...." Who does that? I knew a young man who went to Catholic School for 13 yrs, went to mass every Sat night [so he could party and sleep in Sunday btw :)] and I asked him a simple question, cause with his education he should know--I asked, if you died tonight, would you go to Heaven?--His first response was--well, which level? :smilewinkgrin: I told him I was kind of new at this so start me off at level 1.....well he hem hawed around about 10 seconds and then said, well if I live a good life, when I die everything will be ok.......Now I thought to myself, if he REALLY believed that, he should be scared to death! He was living like a HEATHEN!! But the lack of any ability to explain his spiritual condition was amazing considering his "education".....this is why I would find it hard to believe the RCC would tell anyone of their members they were going to hell as long as they were taking mass and giving, etc.....
     
  12. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh I'm glad to hear it. Hopefully, I can clear up some things others I'm content to agree to disagree on but at least you'll know where the Catholic Church actually stands on certain topics.

    As for the ex-catholic family members in your church I must say that is a common problem. It was for me and so it is for very many. Many blame Vatican II for this issue because it allowed for many modernist views to enter. Though personally I think Vatican II may have had something to do with it but I put the blame on a culture that was tollerated but not very Catholic acting. As far as bible study being discouraged, this isn't really true. The actuall answer was that it wasn't being encouraged. As you may or may not know the entire text (for the most part) of the entire bible is read at mass over a 3 year cycle with the Gospels given priority. However, there was a culture that separated the religious and the majority of the Laity. The Catholic clergy did their thing and the layity did their thing and the two don't really mix and there wasn't a lot of proper Catachesis going on. But neither were people told not to study scripture just with a warning that often a misunderstanding of scripture leads to heresy and its important to understand it from how scriptures have been traditionally understood. So when I was young. I went to mass with my family heard the same responses but allowed my mind to wander and I could opperate on remote control until communion because it was near the end of service. Then I woke up to enjoy the rest of my Sunday. I'm not the only Catholic to experience that or protestant either. However, its not useful for communicating the faith. Your observation about your church families not knowing scriptures reminds me of an event just before I converted. My father was an diplomat serving in Africa. The only christian american school that he could get me into not to far away from his assignment was a large Christian Missionary School in Kenya called Rift Valley Academy. It is run by the African Inland Mission non denominational group. They provide primarily for missionary kids. However, by the grace of God I was fortunate to have one of the kids not come and a slot was open for us. It didn't hurt that we paid more either but its understandable. Well my first day there I was unpacking in my dorm room with three other kids. One of them named Kevin asked me if I were a christian. I said yes. He asked me what denomination as RVA represents a lot of denominations. I said Catholic. And changed a lot of things. He immediately said that I was not a Christian, that the Pope was the anti-Christ, and further more I didn't know the bible. Well, in my mind I heard the bible every mass so yeah I know about the bible...well that it existed and even knew some of the words in there. So I said so. And he said well quote for me John 3:16. I couldn't. I realized then that there was some deficit to my christian education. Unfortunately, it affirmed to him all of his beliefs about the Catholic Church but more so I knew I needed to get a handle on scriptures. I spent the rest of my life from that point studying scriptures. Now as I've returned to the Catholic faith. I have been encouraged to teach the bible to other parishoners and there are many Catholic Bible resources out there right now and Catholics are encouraged to read the bible. In the Catachism it says
    Pretty strong language for not studying scriptures don't you think? So your families and my family and myself at that age were wrong that the Catholic Discouraged reading scripture. That wasn't the case. Your families, my family and myself never felt the need to study scripture and liberal clergy members didn't disuade us from this practice of ignoring scripture. Even historically you are mistaken. William Tyndale is often purported to be the first to translate the bible into english and supposedly he was killed for it. Actually in History long before William Tyndale set pen to paper; St. Bede began the first translation of scripture into early english text. However, this is often ignored by Protestants. Tyndale was actually perscuted not for translating the scriptures into english but that he didn't get it approved and mass distributed anyway. As far as Bede history says
    He never finished his work but he certainly was attempting to make it understandable to the populace of the English Isle. So the actual reason for Tyndale's demise is
    Catholics have their own theologians as well and I would say its closer to a Molinist theory rather than Aquinas. But I get your drift. You are both a little right and wrong. Faith is always expressed in one form or another. If Faith is not expressing itself then you must question that faith. For instance the theif on the cross. Now he did no works however faith was expressed by his words and life is assured to him. However, Had the theif not died that day we would assume the natural outpouring of his faith would have revealed itself in his sanctification of his life. Which is really what catholics are speaking about when it comes to works.

    Any act that man does to merit salvation apart from acting in faith I would agree. However, sanctification is an important part of our faith.

    Salvation is a gift of God bestowed on us by faith. You can't earn it. There is no contention here with the Catholic faith about this. However, does this mean we live in continual rebelion? No. Our faith affects our sanctification and our lives are submitted in obedience.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    So you make no distinction between "faith" that may be placed in someone or something and "faithfulness" which is descriptive of your own person?

    Does Ephesians 2:8 say "by grace are ye saved BY FAITHFULNESS that bestows salvation upon us as a gift"? Or does it say "by grace are ye saved THROUGH FAITH and that not of yourselves, it is a gift of God"????

    Faith that justifies is faith "in" the faithfulness of Christ rather than "by" your own faithfulness "to" Christ.

    The often but inaccurate accusation that this teaches a person can live in sin and yet be saved is a failure to distinguish between things that differ and things that "accompany salvation." There is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man and our "good works" stem from regeneration in us on earth not justification before God by Christ's works in heaven.
     
  14. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    Full Question
    Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach the doctrine of "works righteousness," that through good works one can earn salvation?
    Answer
    The Catholic Church has never taught such a doctrine and, in fact, has constantly condemned the notion that men can earn or merit salvation. Catholic soteriology (salvation theology) is rooted in apostolic Tradition and Scripture and says that it is only by God's grace--completely unmerited by works--that one is saved.

    The Church teaches that it's God's grace from beginning to end which justifies, sanctifies, and saves us. As Paul explains in Philippians 2:13, "God is the one, who, for his good purpose, works in you both to desire and to work."

    Notice that Paul's words presuppose that the faithful Christian is not just desiring to be righteous, but is actively working toward it. This is the second half of the justification equation, and Protestants either miss or ignore it.

    James 2:17 reminds us that "faith of itself, if it does not have work, is dead." In verse 24 James says, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." And later: "For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead" (2:26).

    The Council of Trent harmonizes the necessity of grace and works: "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or by the teaching of the Law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema" (Session 6; can. 1).

    The Council fathers continued by saying, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Session 6: can. 9).

    By the way, "let him be anathema" means "let him be excommunicated," not "let him be cursed to hell." The phrase was used in conciliar documents in a technical, theological sense, not in the same sense as the word "anathema" is found in Scripture. Don't let "Bible Christians" throw you for a loop on this one.

    So, far from teaching a doctrine of "works righteousness" (that would be Pelagianism, which was condemned at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418), the Catholic Church teaches the true, biblical doctrine of justification.

    answered by Staff of Catholic Answers
     
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    In the above paragraph Rome makes the transition from grace to works by merging regenerative works into the doctrine of justification by faith "without works." As a result they merely perform mental gynastics and in fact are teaching salvation by works not by the Biblical meaning of grace but have made works inclusive of grace.

    In particular, they have taken the work of the indwelling Holy Spriit IN and THROUGH us (Philip. 2:13) and made "faithfulness" equal to "faith" making OUR regenerative works (Eph. 2:10) inclusive with Christ's own works in the doctrine of Justification by faith.

    Thus, they confuse what Christ did in His own body with what Christ does through our own body. They confuse "faith in" what Christ did for us in His own body with "faithfulness" or what we do in our own body for Christ.

    They confuse regeneration and its fruits in OUR OWN PERSON and ON EARTH with justification and its fruits in CHRIST'S OWN PERSON and IN HEAVEN in our POSITION before God.


    As I previously explain in some detail, James is simply denying there is such a thing as a man justified by faith that is without the fruits of regeneration or works. "Dead" versus life has to do with regeneration and works are the manifest fruits of life. James is looking at justification in its inseparable relationship with regeneration as Paul did in Romans 6. He is not looking at Justification as a separate and complete aspect of salvation as Paul did in Romans 3:24-5:2


    One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

    Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation.

    They simply have no clue to the Biblical doctrines of justification or regeneration.
     
  16. lakeside

    lakeside
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2011
    Messages:
    826
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope you don't think that i fall for your twisted man-made interpretation of Scripture, because I don't, There is only "One" interpretation of Scripture and that is the "One ' Interpretation by Christ's Catholic Church , it has always maintained the same Interpretation from the 1st century. Your interpretation isn't any different from the other 30,000 different conflicting interpretations held by you Protestants. All claim that their interpretation is the correct one, not one of your Protestant interpretations is the correct one. Why is it you and others of your Protestant ilk can't show me one verse where Jesus gave your founder the authority to form his or her church? Same goes for the way you interpret the Holy Bible, give me a verse that tells us that your interpretation comes from the Authority of Jesus as He infused His Authority into Apostolic Authority, just one little verse please ??? And, please, no tap dancing around the question as you always do, just a verse please ?
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    Your response is typical of all who simply are unable to provide a Biblical response to prove their opponents are wrong. I will be glad to provide and defend the interpretation of scriptures that fully support my position.
     
  18. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    First it is clear that you haven't percieved what it is you have read. 2nd of all you play dangerously close to falling into the trap that Deitrich Bonhoffer first identified as "Cheap Grace".
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    14,126
    Likes Received:
    207
    I read it carefully and I have read the Catholic Catechism on this subject. I know what you believe and how you rationalize it. You confuse justification with regeneration and confuse faith with faithfulness and ultimately it is a confusion between grace and works as you come up with a definition of grace that is inclusive of works.

    Again, either you did not understand what I said or you didn't read it carefully and just overlooked what I said. Here is what I said:

    One is justified by faith alone but not by faith which is alone as there are other things that "accompany salvation" by faith.

    Justification by faith alone without works is in conjunction with the new birth which has predisposed his will to repent and beleive in the gospel as the sole hope of salvation
    .


    So your following commentary is a mischaractization of my position. Grace is not cheap as it cost God His only Son but salvation is "freely" mine by grace.
     
    #19 The Biblicist, Nov 18, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 18, 2011
  20. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,169
    Likes Received:
    0
    If then you hold to these positions you stated then there is no argument as we are saying the same thing. And as far as regeneration. We are regenerated we are being regenerated and upon reciept of our glorified bodies, we are entirely regenerated. But don't be decieved believing something intellectually and having a strong feeling about it does nothing for you unless your life is changed by it. Jesus calls us to be followers not couch potatos that get choked up every time our favorite passages are read.
    So if you believe as you say
    . I have no argument. However, as I may have mischaracterized your view you certainly micharacterized the Catholic view. You miss understand that works from a catholic perspective are sanctification which is a part of salvation. Works are not the cerimonial rites and the legal wrangleings that jews got caught up in to which Jesus and Paul spoke against. Sanctification is the characteristic of a person moved by the spirit to grow in a faith they already have received. If you had read my response to Jeremiah you would see I have said that a person to do all the things (rites) the church requires but has no faith is no more saved than a man who was never in the church. And as you said faith is not alone nor can it be viewed in a vacuum.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...