C
- Status
G
guanophore
Guest
All valid Bishops today are successors of the Apostles (not necessarily of Peter) but there is a line of Bishops emanating from Antioch that is older than the line of Peter in Rome.
Why are you not in unity with those Successors of the Apostle?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Not him, us. We made it impossible due to our sinful nature. Christ commands us to be perfect as our Heavenly Father is perfect. An impossible task. That’s why we need the gospel.
Every spiritual blessing is the Cross. We can live blameless because God has declared us blameless by Christ’s Cross. Not any of our works, but Christ’s work.
Fine.
Sin doesn’t have any power over us, the power of sin is death. Death has been conquered. But we still have our sinful human nature. And that nature causes us to be unable to please God with our works or our goodness.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Thanks. But I have already read most of the CA tracts.
G
guanophore
Guest
So you don’t really believe what Scripture says, that we are no longer enslaved to sin…you believe the power of sin was really not broken at the cross…that “us” (our sinful human nature") is really stronger than the Holy Spirit, so that God is not really able to make us stand. He cannot fulfill His commandment in us because He did not really defeat sin?
You won’t get an argument about me on that point, just that for Catholics, that Gospel means that He defeated sin.
Col 2:13-15
13 And when you were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive together with him, when he forgave us all our trespasses, 14 erasing the record that stood against us with its legal demands. He set this aside, nailing it to the cross. 15** He disarmed the rulers and authorities and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in it. **
For Catholics, works of the flesh are unregenerate “dead works” that have been triumphed over through the cross.
Heb 6:1-2
Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God,
Every spiritual blessing is the Cross. We can live blameless because God has declared us blameless by Christ’s Cross. Not any of our works, but Christ’s work.
This is an important difference, then, between Catholic believe and yours. We believe that the Holy Spirit is more powerful than fallen human nature, and that our fallen nature cannot “cause” us to be unable to please God unless we allow it to do so, since we are no longer slaves to sin.
P
Peter_J
Guest
I’ll await Lutheran replies to this, but even I think it a bit anachronistic.
G
guanophore
Guest
One has to wonder how you came by so much hostility toward Catholicism.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Because they rejected our confession in 1575.
Why aren’t you in union with those successors of the apostles?
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Disagreement is not hostility.
Where have I said anything hostile to Catholicism or any Catholic?
G
guanophore
Guest
Can you provide me with a link or a source so I can learn more about this?
Originally because of misunderstandings largely cultural and linquistic (although politics and economics did play a part) then more recently, for a lot of the same reasons you are, which is why I was wondering. The development of doctrine, councils in which they did not participate, and the Infallible proclamations ex cathedra.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
No the power of sin was death. That power was broken on the Cross. The cross is the only thing that can free us from that power was well by grace through faith. We still sin, because of our sinful nature. But God has declared he will not hold our sin against us by virtue of the Cross.
Yes I vehemently disagree with Catholic teaching surrounding how we are made righteous before God. We cannot become pleasing to God because we choose to be.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Sure.
Here is a good one from an EO source:
web.archive.org/web/20130128052302/http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/sixteenthcentury.htm
S
spina1953
Guest
HI Chemo 23: I would like to add something to your #121 that I think might help explain why Luther did not understand what both Paul and James were saying. I seems to me that one needs to understand the history of the times and the events that were taking place which caused each to write concerning faith, works and justification. Much of Pauls’ wrings concern the relationship between faith, works and justification were written to Gentile Christians in response who were under a significant amount of Jewish influence, many by their own Jewish heritage and others by the Jewish Christian influences within the Church.
Luther claimed that James epistle was made of straw, but that is because Luther really did not understand what each, that is Paul and James were saying and intending by what they wrote. Luther was so consumed by tormented thoughts that no matter what he did he would not be saved. The poor man had to come up with something that would bring some peace and some assurance that he was saved. But because of this faith alone so many that came afterwards over the centuries have misunderstood what James and Paul’s were saying and meaning.
Code:
Paul and James were addressing different audiences in different situations about different problems. In Paul's case in order to combat convert Pharisees who were teaching converted Gentile Christians that to be saved they had to be circumcised and observe ritual requirements and follow the law of Moses, to which Paul was refuting.
On the other hand James was combatting the teachings of converted Pharisees who were saying that professing faith in God alone was enough for one's salvation. In refuting this false teaching, James stresses that Christians must put their faith into concrete action since not to do so is faith that is dead.
G
guanophore
Guest
Why do you disagree with what is in the Joint Declaration?
Perhaps I am wrong to interpret your perfunctory tone and rejection of efforts toward unity by the CC to be coming from hostility??
Your identification of yourself as an “ex Catholic” and your apparent misunderstanding of Catholic thought perhaps led me to a wrong conclusion.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Because it sells both of our denominations short. Even many Catholics I have spoken to reject the declaration.
Totally wrong.
Indeed. Also where have I misunderstood any Catholic teaching?
G
guanophore
Guest
That is one of those perfunctory replies I was noting.
You didn’t answer the question. Do you accept that Jesus’ changed the name of Simon to Peter? Do you agree that whenever God changed the name of someone it had massive import to their identity and mission?
It would not be appropriate for us to diverge into the death penalty here, and to whether or not there is a difference between that and "murder’. I am mindful of Paul’s statement:
1 Cor 5:4-5
When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
For the purpose of this thread, and since the Pope has not called for a death penalty for several centuries, do you think you could consider not holding this against the current pope?
I don’t know how much attention you have given to Pope Frances, but I don’t think you need to be concerned that he would support such an outcome.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
That is one of those perfunctory replies I was noting.
You didn’t answer the question. Do you accept that Jesus’ changed the name of Simon to Peter? Do you agree that whenever God changed the name of someone it had massive import to their identity and mission?
It would not be appropriate for us to diverge into the death penalty here, and to whether or not there is a difference between that and "murder’. I am mindful of Paul’s statement:
1 Cor 5:4-5
When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
For the purpose of this thread, and since the Pope has not called for a death penalty for several centuries, do you think you could consider not holding this against the current pope?
I don’t know how much attention you have given to Pope Frances, but I don’t think you need to be concerned that he would support such an outcome.
Sorry, by “fine” I mean yes I accept both of those statements.
Indeed. In fact most modern popes and most Catholics I know are opposed to the death penalty, at least used in the current sense. I was commenting on past papal error.
G
guanophore
Guest
Because it sells both of our denominations short. Even many Catholics I have spoken to reject the declaration.
Certainly it is incomplete (it is only a start) but what about it sells your denomination short? Do you not adhere to the Lutheran definition of faith as a faith that works?
It is clear that you hold your faith very “dear”, so the idea that you should reliquish any part of it is at the least unsettling, and perhaps intolerable.
Certainly it is incomplete (it is only a start) but what about it sells your denomination short? Do you not adhere to the Lutheran definition of faith as a faith that works?
Only time will tell, I guess.
It is clear that you hold your faith very “dear”, so the idea that you should reliquish any part of it is at the least unsettling, and perhaps intolerable.
The perception that an office (of a Bishop) can “over reach” demonstrates a lack of understanding of the office of an Apostle, or Bishop.
G
guanophore
Guest
Oh! Thanks for clarifying. Helps prevent erroneous assumptions on my part.
Any chance you could forgive them?
P
Patavium
Guest
Luther’s extreme points and the reaction of others to these points are uncomfortable truths, especially the work of Fr. Theobald Beer with regards to Luther and his gnostic beliefs.
I recommend reading the interview with Fr. Theobald Beer on the topic of Luther, and also the interview of now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI of Luther and unity of the churches.
- Status