C
cheezey
Guest
Wait!!! I gotta naively ask: there is even a possibility that demons believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name?!
- Status
J
joe370
Guest
Yes, I fell pretty confident when I say: those in hell (the devil and cohort) realize that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and know that by believing this, humans on this little planet, still have a shot; after all that is why Jesus died…
C
cheezey
Guest
OH!!! worded that way, understood. I am tired. Sorry!! Gotcha now!!
J
joe370
Guest
I am tired too brother…Have a good night…
C
cheezey
Guest
G
Good_Fella
Guest
Indeed, unless God intervened and preserved Mary free from the stain of original sin, the Incarnation would not have happened. Since God decreed that this should be the course of his plan to save the world, it couldn’t have happened any other way shy of perfection.
Those who believe that God would violate the dignity of a married woman created in his image by coercing her to conceive and bear the Son in the flesh, and thereby dismiss his own precepts, certainly have an impoverished understanding of God. These same Christians refuse to believe that human merit holds any importance in the attainment of salvation. But without faith working through love salvation is instrumentally impossible. Mary was not some ordinary woman who was chosen merely to biologicallly function for God at some point in her normal life. What God was concerned with above all in view of the Incarnation was her faith and charity which invited the Saviour into the world. And this faith and love were key components of the covenental relationship Mary had with God since she was a little girl. I think we can also say conversely that people have an impoverished idea of Mary because they have an impoverished idea of God.
PAX
J
jrtrent
Guest
For clarity, I’ll include what I believe to be the pertinent quote from my earlier post, “The Roman Catholic Church says that the Bible is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Materially sufficient means that everything the Christian needs to believe is found in Scripture. Formally sufficient means that in order to understand the Bible, the Roman Catholic Church has to interpret it.”
And actually, no, I don’t see this as substantially different from what just about every Protestant church believes. In his book Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick critiques the concept of sola scriptura in several ways, but among them is that “Protestants tend to interpret according to traditions, anyway. There is a certain consistency among most Presbyterians, Lutherans, and so on, because they are following their own teachers in the faith.”
I don’t think many Protestants within any particular denomination would agree with that. My experience is that they all believe they are the ones who have it right, who are accurately drawing the doctrines they adhere to from the scriptures. In defending/explaining the idea of sola scriptura, Luther’s words at the Diet of Worms are often quoted, “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.” But I think it is without question that on the many questions that separate Protestants (e.g., did Christ die only for the elect, or for everone; are the sacraments something God is doing to and for us, or are they a statement of what we believe about God; can a person lose his salvation, or is he, once saved, eternally secure), most people hold the positions they do based on the particular tradition they come from, not from just reading the Bible.
I think I’ve reached my current state of eclecticism, or perhaps better stated as confusion and uncertainty, with respect to various doctrinal positions because I’ve never stayed long in any one Protestant tradition. As a child, our family attended a Baptist church, then a Presbyterian church, then a different kind of Baptist church, and then no church. In my later teens I joined the Mormon church, but also helped my grandmother get to her Methodist church (and attended both Methodist and Lutheran colleges), then left the Mormon church due to acceptance of the doctrines of grace and spent a decade at a Reformed Baptist church. Finally unable to cope with the idea that Christ died only for the elect (or, to put it more selfishly, how could I know that Christ died for me), I found a home in an AFLC Lutheran church; when that congregation split due to internal conflict (over property issues), I ended up in a conservative, 1928 BCP Anglican church (though lately, I’ve spent more time driving my dad to his Baptist church).
In all this, I have developed a fondness, admiration, and respect for teachers, past and present, from many different Protestant traditions. When one group says you can baptize infants and another group says you can’t, I know it’s not because one group is stupid or is twisting the scriptures to suit their own ends–both are trying to honor God and follow His Word faithfully in both teaching and practice. With regard to Catholicism, my younger brother ended up joining that church, and I know the time, study, and soul-searching he put into that decision. I didn’t spend time trying to talk him out of it, but started buying his birthday and Christmas presents at the local Catholic bookstore, and picked up several things for me to read as well. The Catholic Church is not for me, but that doesn’t mean I have to equate it with the Whore of Babylon.
I’m afraid I don’t have one for you. As indicated in my ramblings above, and from the quote I gave from the Smith Dictionary in an earlier post, my position is that “we must not expect to see the Church of Christ existing in its perfection on the earth. It is not to be found thus perfect, either in the collected fragments of Christendom or still less in any one of those fragments.” For me, it is enough when a church deals honestly with scripture, and I respect varying interpretations when those are demonstrated to be founded on respect for God’s word and systematic study of the scriptures, which I see in the dogmatics from several different traditions. Not a satisfying answer, but that’s where I’m at right now.
J
jrtrent
Guest
Yes, I made a poor choice of links to support the idea of the sufficiency of scripture. As I mentioned in a post above, I don’t have a comprehensive interpretation of scripture to offer you. I find merit, in terms of scriptural backing, for many different interpretations of scripture, and am loathe to denigrate any of them, even ones with which I might disagree.
It’s poor practice, but I’m going to give a lengthy quote from an article and one that I don’t agree with in many respects (particularly in parts 1 and 3), but that I think offers a good perspective on Protestant thought on scripture, tradition, and differences in interpretation.
R
Radical
Guest
it depends on what is meant by “knowing with certainty” and “prove”…it doesn’t achieve the criminal trial level of proof = beyond a reasonable doubt, but exceeds the civil trial level of proof = balance of probabilities. Our legal systems function utilizing those levels of proof.Radical, regarding the siblings of Jesus, as per the OP: is it safe to say that knowing with certainty, is not possible, when one is limited to using the NT alone as one’s guide i.e. you and I can prove nothing definitively one way or the other? We speculate at best.
R
Radical
Guest
everything we need to know in order to be saved is found in the gospel of John…but not only there
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, then, this may be extrapolated to the Catholic position. Everything we need to know in order to be saved is found in the Scriptures…but not only there.
Hey Joe,Of course. I only meant that the sole source of our salvation comes from the Cross; no cross, no salvation. I get what you are saying, but I doubt that our protestant brothers and sister will…
From that infinite source of information and wisdom, this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Cross
We get it.
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
THE IDENTITY OF JAMES
newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
The name “James” in the New Testament is borne by several:
newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm
The name “James” in the New Testament is borne by several:
*]James, the son of Zebedee – Apostle, brother of John, Apostle; also called “James the Greater”.
*]James, the son of Alpheus, Apostle – Matthew 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13.
*]James, the brother of the Lord – Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; Galatians 1:19. Without a shadow of doubt, he must be identified with the James of Galatians 2:2 and 2:9; Acts 12:17, 15:13 sqq. and 21:18; and I Corinthians 15:7.
*]James, the son of Mary, brother of Joseph (or Joses) – Mark 15:40 (where he is called ò mikros “the little”, not the “less”, as in the D.V., nor the “lesser”); Matthew 27:56. Probably the son of Cleophas or Clopas (John 19:25) where “Maria Cleophæ” is generally translated “Mary the wife of Cleophas”, as married women are commonly distinguished by the addition of their husband’s name.
*]James, the brother of Jude – Jude 1:1. Most Catholic commentators identify Jude with the “Judas Jacobi”, the “brother of James” (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13), called thus because his brother James was better known than himself in the primitive Church.
On the whole, although there is no full evidence for the identity of James (2), the son of Alpheus, and James (3), the brother of the Lord, and James (4), the son of Mary of Clopas, the view that one and the same person is described in the New Testament in these three different ways, is by far the most probable. There is, at any rate, very good ground (Galatians 1:19, 2:9, 2:12) for believing that the Apostle James, the son of Alpheus is the same person as James, the brother of the Lord, the well-known Bishop of Jerusalem of the Acts.As to the nature of the relationship which the name “brother of the Lord” is intended to express, see BRETHREN OF THE LORD.
+++
When Paul refers to James, the Brother of the Lord in Galatians 1:19, he is referring to the man who was the son of Alpheus and not a son of Mary and Joseph.
'Nuff said.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Belief is required. But Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety in order to comprehensively understand the economy of salvation.
This is how Catholics believe that we are saved:
By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)
By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)
By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)
By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)
By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)
By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)
By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)
By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)
By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)
By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)
By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)
By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)
By our words (Matt 12:37)
J
joe370
Guest
I know. :thumbsup:I had mentioned in a prior post that I was remiss in terms of not saying: certain non-catholics…Actually, I thought that I had said that…Hey Joe,
From that infinite source of information and wisdom, this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theology_of_the_Cross
We get it.
Jon
J
joe370
Guest
Which one is it?
None of the following:
J
joe370
Guest
So there is a chance you could be wrong about Mary, in terms of having other children?
J
joe370
Guest
Interesting…
E
empantarhei
Guest
Yes, as previously stated…
P
PRmerger
Guest
And, in that, you were very Catholic!
- Status