Catholics are not saved by Works

[guanophore]

I was thinking more along the lines of those who read the same documents you do and come to different conclusions.

Oh. Well, I don’t know of any Catholics who read the documents and come to opposite conclusions. Those that refuse to embrace the Apostolic doctrines you listed are, by and large, ignorant of what the Church teaches, and why. Most of them, when they become educated, will repent, or formally leave, which they have already done in practice.

 

[c659smith]

I have a queston where in the bible(scripture) do the words “faith alone” show up?

 

[mgrfin]

You subscribed to a post attributed to me. I didn’t make it.

 

[VARC]

You subscribed to a post attributed to me. I didn’t make it.

VARC has been attacking me all night, and I have responded b y turning the other cheek.

I think he is angry because Administration closed his thread, and he blames that on me, rather than on where the blame should go, on himself.

He has followed me for hours making one nasty comment after another, I believe in excess of 25 posts. His feelings are really hurt. I feel sorry for him.

I’ll remember him in my prayers.

peace

I’ve seen you sling mud at many different members all day today and all week for that matter. Why don’t you pray for the ability to not insult other people in your posts? You could use that prayer.

 

[mgrfin]

I have a queston where in the bible(scripture) do the words “faith alone” show up?

They show up in one place, and it is not in Romans.

It is in James: 2:24 :“Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

Surprise.

peace

 

[c659smith]

Exactly*** Thanks and God Bless

Nothing more dangerous to a protestant than a bible thumping Catholic

 

[vrlobo88]

works are faith put into practice. what is the value of faith if you do not use it? we are called to care for each other and for this world…God want us to serve Him by serving His people (our fellow man)… memorizing the Bible and attending Church a million times means nothing if we do not live the message of Christ.

faith, hope, love…the greatest of these is love

we are called to love

 

[Pwrlftr]

Oh. Well, **I don’t know of any Catholics who read the documents and come to opposite conclusions. **Those that refuse to embrace the Apostolic doctrines you listed are, by and large, ignorant of what the Church teaches, and why. Most of them, when they become educated, will repent, or formally leave, which they have already done in practice.

I think there is a thread on the forums somewhere that is discussing did Vatican II limit scriptures inerrancy to only those sections that deal with faith and morals. The wording of Dei Verbum is rather ambiguous and is the basis for this apparent limitation on the inspiration of scripture. This of course flies in the face of what has been taught by popes such as Leo XIII and others.

Additionaly we find that your catechism seems to indicate that the old covenant is still valid. Quite a few good catholics disagree over this as well and there is an old thread on this forum discussing this very issue. It seems to me that if your church is teachig the old covenant is still valid this would be a 180 degree turn from what it used to teach.

In fact, how exactly should we understand “tradition” in your church? Some of you here on the forums say that part of the deposit of faith is found in scripture and part in tradition and others say that everything your church teaches can be found in the scriptures. The latter is a much stronger statement than saying that a teaching/dogma can’t contradict scripture.

How do we know which side is correct? Who has the “official” teaching of Rome?

So, when someone finds it surprising that two protestants who attend the same church don’t have exactly the same understanding of a doctrine it shouldn’t be any more surprising than seeing two apparently faithful catholics disagreeing with one another.

 

[guanophore]

I think there is a thread on the forums somewhere that is discussing did Vatican II limit scriptures inerrancy to only those sections that deal with faith and morals. The wording of Dei Verbum is rather ambiguous and is the basis for this apparent limitation on the inspiration of scripture. This of course flies in the face of what has been taught by popes such as Leo XIII and others.

Additionaly we find that your catechism seems to indicate that the old covenant is still valid. Quite a few good catholics disagree over this as well and there is an old thread on this forum discussing this very issue. It seems to me that if your church is teachig the old covenant is still valid this would be a 180 degree turn from what it used to teach.

OIC. I thought you were talking about those moral behaviors you listed. I think most people that reject the moral teaching of the church (divorce, birth control, abortion, homosexuality, etc) have never read the documents. I don’t see how any one could read Theology of the Body, and still not “get it”. That document rearranged my head in ways I did not even know were necessary!

There is a difference between moral teaching and other instruction. I have not been following the thread on the Old Covenant, but I do know that the Church understands God’s revelation better over time.

In fact, how exactly should we understand “tradition” in your church?

It is essential, for starters, to distinguish between Traditon wth a capital T, those moral teachings and doctrines that come to us from the Apostles, and tradition with a small t which are practices, customs, and disciplines that change over time, and in various cultures. One if part of the Divine Deposit of Faith, the other is not.

Some of you here on the forums say that part of the deposit of faith is found in scripture and part in tradition and others say that everything your church teaches can be found in the scriptures.

If the second half of this sentence refers to doctrines, then yes, both these things are true. Obviously there are some cultural practices that we do not find in scripture, like posture in the Church, what to do with one’s hands, for example, at certain times during the service.

The latter is a much stronger statement than saying that a teaching/dogma can’t contradict scripture.

Yes I agree. However, it is true that the Doctrines and Dogma cannot contradict the scripture.

How do we know which side is correct? Who has the “official” teaching of Rome?

There are many elements of the faith by which the faithful are not “bound” (freedom to choose what suits). For example, a Latin Catholic may choose to attend a Tridentine Mass, or a Novus Ordo Mass. Both are acceptable.

So, when someone finds it surprising that two protestants who attend the same church don’t have exactly the same understanding of a doctrine it shouldn’t be any more surprising than seeing two apparently faithful catholics disagreeing with one another.

I don’t find it suprising at all. T’he main difference with Catholicism is that orthodoxy is measured against an external standard, the Sacred Teachings, not peoples opinions or interpretations. Many Protestants don’t have such a standard, and everyone interprets scripture however best they can for themselves.

 

[c659smith]

But not knowing Catholic Doctrine is not the fault of the Church but the person trying to disseminate information with out a thorough knowledge of the scripture,tradion, or teachings as all is clear cut and written for all to see.

Some of that comes from ones own faults and not wanting to repent or turn away from sin even though they know what they are doing is wrong so they twist the truth to fit their own pleasures or agenda.

Take the issue of abortion.
The Catholic Church calls this etrinsically evil.

In other words there is none worse and the church teaches to vote for a candidate that is pro-choice is aiding and abetting this individual and is also guilty.
Now a Catholic wanting to vote for such a candidate to political office may want to claim ignorance or at that time say I do not believe in that area of teaching therefore I will not follow it.

Now if Catholics followed what the Church taught then Abortion on Demand could not exist as 35% of the voting public is Roman Catholic.

As for the title ***Catholics are not saved by works ***Catholics believe by Jesus Christ, our faith in him, and doing the works He did and even greater ones. I guess for some Baptists that sounds evil.

I think there is a thread on the forums somewhere that is discussing did Vatican II limit scriptures inerrancy to only those sections that deal with faith and morals. The wording of Dei Verbum is rather ambiguous and is the basis for this apparent limitation on the inspiration of scripture. This of course flies in the face of what has been taught by popes such as Leo XIII and others.

Additionaly we find that your catechism seems to indicate that the old covenant is still valid. Quite a few good catholics disagree over this as well and there is an old thread on this forum discussing this very issue. It seems to me that if your church is teachig the old covenant is still valid this would be a 180 degree turn from what it used to teach.

In fact, how exactly should we understand “tradition” in your church? Some of you here on the forums say that part of the deposit of faith is found in scripture and part in tradition and others say that everything your church teaches can be found in the scriptures. The latter is a much stronger statement than saying that a teaching/dogma can’t contradict scripture.

How do we know which side is correct? Who has the “official” teaching of Rome?

So, when someone finds it surprising that two protestants who attend the same church don’t have exactly the same understanding of a doctrine it shouldn’t be any more surprising than seeing two apparently faithful catholics disagreeing with one another.

 

[Philthy]

How do we know which side is correct? Who has the “official” teaching of Rome?

So, when someone finds it surprising that two protestants who attend the same church don’t have exactly the same understanding of a doctrine it shouldn’t be any more surprising than seeing two apparently faithful catholics disagreeing with one another.

Hi Pwrlftr -

You bring up a valid point - the possibility for confusion exists wiithin Catholicism on some teaching - and therefore is it really any better than the Protestant system of sola scriptura? The reality, however, is that in a situation where a living body (Magisterium) exists to interact with the faithful then the clarifications needed in situations of ambiguity or confusion can be addressed over time. And it can be done in their language and cultural context. There is, on the contrary, no such comparable method within ecclesial communities that recognize no ultimate authority apart from Scripture. Those disputes will never be reconciled.
Within the Church (as Catholics view it) those ambiguities can be expressed in affirmative terms (yes or no) by an interactive authority when Scripture leaves us guessing with descriptive terms (“born of water”, “I am the bread of life” et al). For example, the question of whether water baptism is valid on an infant, or even necessary at all is an issue that has not resolved within the Sola Scriptura communities. The Magisterium has no problem, however, answering the question in simple and clear terms. Should I have my child baptized? The clear answer unambiguously articulated through the Church is, “Yes”, and there is no more room for confusion. Such a scenario simply cannot - and has not - occured within the sola scriptura communities because Scripture is sometimes unclear, does not interpret itself, and those ecclesial traditions do not recognize an authorative interpreter nor one with the power to “bind”.
So, while your original point is valid, the reality is that within the Catholic Church there is a means - supported by Scripture and history - of correcting error over time whereas in other communities there is no such means. Logic and experience have both shown this to be the case.

 

[Ignatius]

Catholics dont teach salvation of works.

But how do I explain this in a beginer apologetic way.

You just did. Those who make these slanderous claim against the Church are simply wrong, Period!

 

[mgrfin]

I think there is a thread on the forums somewhere that is discussing did Vatican II limit scriptures inerrancy to only those sections that deal with faith and morals. The wording of Dei Verbum is rather ambiguous and is the basis for this apparent limitation on the inspiration of scripture. This of course flies in the face of what has been taught by popes such as Leo XIII and others.

Additionaly we find that your catechism seems to indicate that the old covenant is still valid. Quite a few good catholics disagree over this as well and there is an old thread on this forum discussing this very issue. It seems to me that if your church is teachig the old covenant is still valid this would be a 180 degree turn from what it used to teach.

In fact, how exactly should we understand “tradition” in your church? Some of you here on the forums say that part of the deposit of faith is found in scripture and part in tradition and others say that everything your church teaches can be found in the scriptures. The latter is a much stronger statement than saying that a teaching/dogma can’t contradict scripture.

How do we know which side is correct? Who has the “official” teaching of Rome?

So, when someone finds it surprising that two protestants who attend the same church don’t have exactly the same understanding of a doctrine it shouldn’t be any more surprising than seeing two apparently faithful catholics disagreeing with one another.

I think you enjoy trying to mix people up. There is no problem, and it is easily resolved.

There is no Old Covenant. That has been abrogated by the New Covenant (New Testament).

On the issue of ‘works’ we have the Gospels and Epistles to fill our understanding. We use the Councils of the Church to teach us to further understand.

On the issue of works, the Council of Trent put Luther to bed. Catholics may not know all 33 Canons of Trent on Justification, but they are there to read and to understand, and they are quite clear.

I will be happy to explain them to you if you don’t see.

Protestants don’t have any teaching authority. They use Scriptures, but it is clear they don’t read them properly. They use our Apostles Creed and Nicene Creeds for understanding. And, I am sure they refer to our teaching Magisterium.

Finally, they have to go back to Luther to find out what their religion is all about, and then get bogged down.

peace

 

[Shiann]

I asked:

It is apparent that you worship a god who only offers the POSSIBILITY of salvation. How is this belief any different than giving all the credit for salvation to the goodness of those who, by their own “full acceptance and cooperation” are saved?

Because without God and His offer of salvation, their ‘goodness’ is immaterial.

And please note I said nothing of a person’s goodness, but their willful cooperation with God… in other words their OBEDIENCE.

 

[mikeledes]

**If such was condemned by the Council of Trent, then the council went against scripture.

Read it again: WE ARE SAVED BY GRACE ALONE

BUT

WE ARE JUSTIFIED BY OUR WORKS.**

Are you now questioning the decrees of the Council of Trent? Your use of words not only contradict the Council of Trent, it contradicts Scripture as well.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I did a little research and it seems that Nick’s view of regeneration is the one held by several prominent Calvinist theologians and apologists, including R.C. Sproul, James White, and Wayne Grudem. Though it seems that there is a dispute among Calvinists when this regeneration occurs:

calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/05/southern-seminary-welcomed-wayne.html

The following link is Wayne Grudem’s explanation of regeneration:

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/regeneration_grudem.html

Grudem makes reference to Cornelius, and cites Acts 10:44 as the moment Cornelius is regenerated:

**Effective calling is thus God the Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive. These two things must have happened simultaneously as Peter was preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius, for while he was still preaching "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word’ (Acts 10:44). **

The stark black and white scenario created by this view of regeneration conflicts with the account the Bible presents of Cornelius. If man prior to regeneration cannot seek God, please Him, and submit to His law, and regeneration is the equivalent of drawing (a view upheld by Grudem), then how is it that Cornelius feared God, continuosly sought Him through prayer, and God was pleased with his prayers and almsgiving? By identifying divine activity within man prior to faith and repentance with regeneration, Calvinists are now faced with the possibility that Cornelius was able to seek God by his own natural powers, which contradicts Calvinism’s total depravity and also contradicts Catholic theology. But if the only divine action that can cause a man to even seek God is regeneration - since regeneration and drawing mean the same thing - then Cornelius’s case demonstrates that Calvinists are incorrect. Either they admit that Cornelius sought God under divine influence but without being regenerated, which would contradict the drawing = regeneration argument, or that Cornelius was able to do it on his own, which would contradict total depravity.

Moreover, if God is able to cause man to seek Him without necessarily regenerating him, then this also raises another question: how is man willing to seek God without the radical change that occurs in Calvinist regeneration. How is man able to seek God without having a “new heart and new spirit,” without being “made alive” in regeneration?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Odell]

I did a little research and it seems that Nick’s view of regeneration is the one held by several prominent Calvinist theologians and apologists, including R.C. Sproul, James White, and Wayne Grudem. Though it seems that there is a dispute among Calvinists when this regenearion occurs:

calvinistflyswatter.blogspot.com/2006/05/southern-seminary-welcomed-wayne.html

The following link is Wayne Grudem’s explanation of regeneration:

monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/regeneration_grudem.html

Grudem makes reference to Cornelius, and cites Acts 10:44 as the moment Cornelius is regenerated:

**Effective calling is thus God the Father speaking powerfully to us, and regeneration is God the Father and God the Holy Spirit working powerfully in us, to make us alive. These two things must have happened simultaneously as Peter was preaching the gospel to the household of Cornelius, for while he was still preaching "the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word’ (Acts 10:44). **

The stark black and white scenario created by this view of regeneration conflicts with the account the Bible presents of Cornelius. If man prior to regeneration cannot seek God, please Him, and submit to His law, and regeneration is the equivalent of drawing (a view upheld by Grudem), then how is it that Cornelius feared God, continuosly sought Him through prayer, and God was pleased with his prayers and almsgiving? By identifying divine activity within man prior to faith and repentance with regeneration, Calvinists are now faced with the possibility that Cornelius was able to seek God by his own natural powers, which contradicts Calvinism’s total depravity and also contradicts Catholic theology. But if the only divine action that can cause a man to even seek God is regeneration - since regeneration and drawing mean the same thing - then Cornelius’s case demonstrates that Calvinists are incorrect. Either they admit that Cornelius sought God under divine influence but without being regenerated, which would contradict the drawing = regeneration argument, or that Cornelius was able to do it on his own, which would contradict total depravity.

Moreover, if God is able to cause man to seek Him without necessarily regenerating him, then this also raises another question: how is man willing to seek God without the radical change that occurs in Calvinist regeneration. How is man able to seek God without having a “new heart and new spirit,” without being “made alive” in regeneration?

God Bless,
Michael

This whole regeneration thing is confusing to me. what are the big differences in catholic and protestant theology. I dont even understand Nicks point and ours in response to his any way to make this short and simple to someone like me

would this be good for me to start another thred on?

 

[mikeledes]

This whole regeneration thing is confusing to me. what are the big differences in catholic and protestant theology. I dont even understand Nicks point and ours in response to his any way to make this short and simple to someone like me

would this be good for me to start another thred on?

Many Calvinists argue that being “born again” occurs prior to faith, repentance. Thus, it does not occur in baptism or after making a confession of faith, which is the belief of many evangelicals or “born again” Christians. Maybe you should read the Grudem link I provided so that you can understand the Calvinist view better. I know it can be pretty confusing. :whacky:

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Odell]

Many Calvinists argue that being “born again” occurs prior to faith, repentance. Thus, it does not occur in baptism or after making a confession of faith, which is the belief of many evangelicals or “born again” Christians. Maybe you should read the Grudem link I provided so that you can understand the Calvinist view better. I know it can be pretty confusing. :whacky:

God Bless,
Michael

so born again and regeneration is the same thing?

therefore Catholics believe we are regenerated at baptism is this correct?

 

[mikeledes]

so born again and regeneration is the same thing?

therefore Catholics believe we are regenerated at baptism is this correct?

Yes.

God Bless,
Michael