Featured A little sampling of church history is in order

That Rome approved and endorsed it as being a viable option should throw the "red flag"

 

Another thing one must consider. At least four thousand years went by prior to Pentecost when the normal child of God did not exercise such gifts. Indeed, only Moses, Elijah and Elisha can be identified as miracle workers from Genesis to Acts 2.

For some reason God decided to bestow sign gifts at this point in history. I think that reason is spelled out in Isaiah 8:16-18.

 

Rome hasn't endorsed Pentacostalism. It doesn't deny there is the Charism of the Holy Spirit. And since Rome has been working on theology for 2,000 years it might help to actually look at their view rather than just making blanket statements with no context.

 

sad that Rome has had this long to work out their theology, but still doesn't get it!

 

Rome actually gets it. You just don't get Rome. You believe whats told to you. All the propoganda developed during the reformation. Ever tried studing things out for yourself? Actually study history, actually read the writings and not just exerpts of the ECF? Actually pick up a Catachism and read it from begining to end not jump around and puting things together piecemeal?

 

Actually, Rome does not get it. They have adopted many pagan beliefs and tried to Christianize them.

Your assertion that we disagree with Rome and your understanding of it because of propaganda is seriously misguided. Many of us, myself included, have done extensive research that includes talking with multiple priests and nuns. I have them in my family and my dad was an altar boy. This research also includes studying many of the statements and documents on the Vatican's own website. My rejection of the teachings of Rome is based on a careful examination of the beliefs through the lens of Scripture.

 

I believe this view is misinformation propegated by people who want to demonize Rome. The Fact is this is no more the case than Christianity was created by followers of Mythras because of the similarities in symbolism and teachings. Take for instance the Harvest Festival. This is an attempt to create what the culture has paganized into a more palitable christian exercise which many Christian churches do. However, when the Catholic Church does something similar the propeganda machine immediately spins it that Catholics are including Paganism. Just untrue.

Clearly you are free to have your opinion. I just disagree with it.

Good. However, saying that to me is like me going to Rick Warren and applying his perspective with the rest of baptist. Many whom disagree with him. There are many Priest and especially nuns who are in error. Many that are not. I just question which group you've sampled.

I was a baptist for many years and I know baptist who are in left feild. Its not really an authoritative stance. I also have heretic Family members that happen to be heretics. I just don't hold them out to be authoritative on anything regarding faith. Just as I have a brother in Law who is a KJO baptist in Georgia that I don't believe represents all baptist. Again though you may love your family and though they may go to mass they may not hold to the teachings of the Church for instance. The majority of Catholic Voters against the teachings of the Catholic Church will vote for Obama despite what the Pope and Bishop in the US have said. Being an Alter boy is a nice thing but not a guarantee of authenticity. Just like a drunk music director may not be a guarantee of authenticity of faith at a baptist church. Not that your family's alter boy is ardently immoral which isn't what I'm suggesting. But not necissarily authoritative for authentic faith. Just like Billy Sunday said "Going to Church no more makes you a Christian than being in a garage makes you a car". So it is with Catholics.

This I would consider authentic. My next question about those statements is whether they were understood properly and in context. But that is acceptable. Note I don't hold exerpts to be of value unless the context within the document is determined

And I accept that you may have come to reject Rome's teachings through what you believe is the lens of scripture (however, I harbor the idea that its actually through the lens of how you understand scripture in the already developed bias context of your already held views rather than an objective look.) and may have very good reasons for doing so. But for half baked comments from someone who hasn't and is relying on what others have said I take objection to. To make a statement that

with regard to pentecostalism or the pentecostal movement is obviously wrong and ill considered. And fails to grasp that Catholics who practice this Charismatic Movement are regarded skeptically and constantly reviewed for evidence of Heresy which some have been declaired. So my point, I believe is a just point to make to Yeshua1. If you however using the text that you've read wish to make a considered comment that isn't half baked nonsense, I'm more likely to consider what you've said and not think of you resembling Jack Chick.

 

I don't care if you like my conclusions that the RCC is nothing but a cult. You are free, of course, to disagree with me. My issue is your assumption that the conclusions came without due scholarship.

I'll bow out of this thread as to no longer derail it.

 

If anything I'm ambivilent to your conclusions. I recognize that you believe you carefully studied the subject matter. However, I find it odd that you don't afford me the same careful examination of the subject matter resulting in a different conclusion. However, having bowed out of the discussion I understand that we have come to an end of the matter.

 

I made no attack on your scholarship. My post was in response to your attack on the scholarship of those who have found great errors in the teachings and practices of Rome. I stated my position clearly and explained how I arrived at that position. If you wish to discuss the controversial issues concerning Rome and the process by which we arrived at our convictions I suggest you start a new thread.


To the OP, I apologize for my part in the thread derailment.

 

I don't think that is quite right. I attacked specifically the statement made by Yeshua1 which was obviously not a product of any scholarship and made a general statement of making statements without proper scholarship of Yeshua1. Or people who do similarily to what he did.

I never denied that you did. Again if you follow the thread I'm a bit more specific to Yeshua1 than you seem to think.

Understandable.

 

Just answer this question truthfully!

Does the Roman Church teach and hold to saved by Grace alone/faith alone?

And that as by Jesus and the Apostles, especially Paul?

 

First of all. You just accused me of not answering truthfully. Can you show me where I didn't answer truthfully?

To answer your specific question

My answer is has to be yes and no. Catholics believe we are saved by Grace alone? Yes.

Do Catholics believe in Faith Alone? No. And Since no where in scriptures can you find Justification is in Faith Alone and in fact the only place you find the two words together "Faith Alone" is in James which says

I think it is consistently scriptural not to believe in Faith alone. Faith in primacy? Yes. Faith Alone? No.

However, note that your line of questioning isn't directly related to your statement that the Catholic Church accepts Pentecostalism. Its does reflect another beef you have with Rome. The stategy you supply is throw as much dung at something in the hope something sticks. Remember we didn't start this discusion with me insulting baptist but with you making a false allegation about Rome.

 

>I think it is consistently scriptural not to believe in Faith alone. Faith in primacy? Yes. Faith Alone? No.

Agree! "Faith" has become so general a word that it is meaningless because it means most anything.

 

rome denies the Apostolic truth of the Gospel being faith alone/Grace alone!

How is that a false statement, as you agree that Rome does not teach that!

And back to the OP...

Rome views the modern Charasmatic movement as being from God, correct?

 

Well, IF the sin of Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is still a possibility, than?

 

You have demonstrated two things 1) you don't comprehend what you read. 2) You freely make comments on things you don't know anything about.

Under the first point 1) you did not answer my question. 2) Catholics do believe salvation by Grace alone.

Next The Apostolic truth is not the Gospel of Grace/Faith alone as you don't see anywhere in the bible that it is by faith alone. In fact the apostles James directly says it is not by faith alone. So your statment is false. Repeating what you have said is not sufficient argument. Especially since I answered you clearly and quoted from the primier catholic document with regard to what it believes with regard to Grace alone.

Obviously, your comprhension is lacking. You asked me to answer truthfully what the catholic church teaches. I answered truthfully what the catholic church teaches. So I in fact did not make a false statement about what the Catholic Church teaches. And once again have shown your error.

Not necissarily which was my originial point. Rome in fact hasn't made a difinitive comment about the charasmatic movement except to say that it is catious about it.

But there is no dogmatic acceptance of the movement. The Catholic Church doesn't prohibit Charismatic Practices as long as its is outside of Mass or the liturgy. But it only does so cautiously as long as it is in accordance with the magisterium. It doesn't necissarily support the movement.

 

Catholic USE THE WORDS "salvation by grace alone" but do not believe in salvation by grace alone as defined by scriptural context.

In scripture, grace denies any meritorious basis and always in contrast to works (Rom. 11:6). However, justification by faith is "by grace" (Rom. 4:16) and thus too in contrast to "works" (Rom. 4:3-6). In addition, justification by faith has reference to the substitutionary works and Person of Jesus Christ as its object (Rom. 3:24-26) which is also placed in contrast to our works.

Hence, the Biblical idea is that "justification is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone" in contrast to works.

What Rome does is separate and isolate grace from faith and faith from the works and Person of Christ in order to INCLUDE our works rather than to contrast it to works.

No, your understanding of James is false and you have jerked it out of context in order to pit it against the truth. In context James is directing it toward baptized believing church members by profession (James 2:1-9)whereas Paul is speaking about the justification of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).


Again, Paul is dealing with justification by faith as a theological issue separate from regeneration whereas James is dealing with justification by faith in a professed regenerated person as a pragmatic issue. The distinction is clear if one has eyes to see. However, Paul agrees with James that a justified person is also a regenerate person and the fruit of regeneration is good works (Rom. 6-8; Eph. 2:10). Hence, pragmatically there is no such thing as an unregenerated justified person without good works.

However, the theological distinction set forth by Paul is that good works are the fruits of regeneration not justification as justification rests soley upon the good works of Jesus Christ, whereas the good works of regeneration are the manifest fruits of the indwelling Spirit of God.

You can deny this until your blue in the face but the contextual distinguishing factors between Romans 3-4 and James 2 will stand up against any rational line of attack you choose to take.