Couple of questions from a non catholic pastor...

[Jack_Bauer]

Here you go… He is Quoted Below

He emailed me today asking me if I would like to meet with him to discuss these things face to face. I think it was because I didn’t got to Bible Study at the Church and instead I was reading This site and my Catholic Study Bible and Catechism ( sort of feeling like the mad scientist with these book all over my bed and my Tablet on this sight LOL) He thinks that maybe some of the Dialogue Via email is getting lost in Translation, which is how I used to describe s comment He sent me…

Please gracefully decline. The fact that your here tells us that you are not prepared to engage in this sort of proselytizing. He’s procelytizing, not being charitable at all. Avoid such people because they’ll shatter your faith if you’re not well grounded. Most Catholics think they know more than they actually do. I can attest to that personally. Now, I could and would challenge any leader of any church if they started drilling me. I’ve learned the hard way.

He mentions “Tradition of Man”. Ask him why Paul tells us to follow the teachings and traditions passed on to us? Ask him why Matthew mentions in chapter 23 the Chair of Moses. Ask him why Jesus tells the Apostles/disciples that whoever sins they forgive are forgiven and whose they retain are retained. Why does Jesus say in John 6 "unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life in you. These are merely a few of the multitude of passages they’ll make up answers to with stuff that makes no sense. Watch them squirm over it and act like they have the answers. It’s a know it all attitude that betrays them. I come from a very large Protestant family with a multitude of elders/bishops, preachers and deacons. I was preparing to become one as well. The Assemblies of God have some similar beliefs that we had in the Church of Christ. However, I could pick them apart blinded with both hands tied behind my back.

You really should avoid this person from now on. They merely mean to cause you to stumble. No sense in even a sincere discussion after this blatant attempt at proselytizing you. It’s wrong and very blindly uncharitable of him to attempt it. Haven you Catholics learned you lesson yet?

Ah, but I just realized that you are not Catholic yet. Now, the same observations are still valid. This is your journey. Notice that a Catholic priest would never proselytize you. That should speak for itself. The journey is a lifetime, not a one time sitting. You have to keep the sum of truth together and I know for a fact that I could disassemble his beliefs that are incorrect without a problem. However, you will find that most of them will never truly open their hearts and minds to the truth because they believe they already possess it. I continually ask the hard questions and have spent many years trying to disprove Catholicism. It can’t be done.

He is getting “Man’s tradition” confused with “Sacred Tradition,” something I did for most of my life until I discovered the truth about it. The canon of scripture would not exist in its present form had the Church not agreed upon it. Words like, Trinity, Hypostatic Union (Jesus is fully God and fully man), purgatory (scripture by the way), etc. were significant in development of doctrine. This process has pretty much been complete, however remains to be seen. Nothing is “made up” as your friend attempts to convince.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Let’s dissect that email…

Although it was a time in history, the Roman influence has been upheld until this day by the Vatican. No inference has been made about an “Iron Fist” rule but where the protest lies is in the interpretation of the Scriptures and exposition thereof.

This is the claim of a “great apostasy” or “Constantinan shift.” He thinks that when Christianity was legalized by Emperor Constantine that the religion became corrupted by concessions made to Roman pagans and that “true” Christianity was not rediscovered until the Reformation in the 1500s. The Communion of Saints is frequently targeted by these people as an alleged corruption. Of course, the Jews had the Communion of Saints long before Christ was even born. Moreover, Paul clearly states:
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
If God had allowed the Church to go into apostasy in the 400s AD, not to be revived until the 1500s, then no one had “knowledge of the truth” for 1,000 years. That is clearly not the will of God, so if God is not able to accomplish everything that He wills, the whole religion would just fall apart. So clearly the notion of an “apostasy” is wrong.

Hence, I offer the argument of the necessity of returning to the original languages of the Scripture (Kione Greek & Hebrew) in order to gain a deeper and accurate knowledge.

If this man is proposing to use the Hebrew Masoretic Text he should understand that it is NOT the original text, was NOT used by the Apostles, and was compiled by the Jews in 700 AD, more than 600 years after they crucified the Messiah and lost their authority over Christians. The Septuagint (the Greek Bible) is the one that Jesus and the Apostles used and it is hundreds of years older than the MT.

As far as sacraments and dogmatically practices, they are far and wide, increasingling influenced by the “Tradition of Men.”

Does this pastor believe in marriage?

Question: What does the Roman Catholic Church interpret as “faith” and “saving faith”? How is one deemed as righteous? Is it imputed by the Roman Catholic Church through baptism?

Already answered.

 

[manualman]

…

In Protestant theology, there is talk of two items that are applicable here: Justification and sanctification. Justification is a legal standing conferred upon the believer at the moment of salvation.

1. We teach the students to remember that justified = just-as-if-I’d never sinned. At the moment of repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, his righteousness is imputed to us. When God looks at us after that he sees the righteousness of Christ, not our righteousness. There is never anything we can do to improve this standing. Christ did it for us.
2. Are we perfect after we are justified? Well, no. We are fallen creatures, after all. From the moment of salvation, the process of sanctification begins. Sanctification is the process of becoming more and more like Christ.
3. At salvation, we are given a new heart. That new heart drives us to become more and more obedient, more and more conformed to the will of the Father guided by the Holy Spirit. We sin and repent, sin and repent, sin and repent. Our justified status never changes, but over time we become more like Christ. …

Thanks for the insight and reminder of the difference in thought. If I may be so bold, I have some observations according to the numbers I added above:

1. Really? So you believe God deludes Himself into believing you are spotless and perfect like Christ from the moment you ‘get saved?’ That’s what it amounts to, doesn’t it? How does an omniscient God hide the truth from Himself???
2. I have no beef with this, but protestants often seem to. What happens if you and I die before we’re done in this process of sanctification? God really looks at you, sees only the righteousness of Christ and says “Well done, my good and faithful servant, enter in…?” But if we’ve already established that we’ve still got a sin problem and God lets us into heaven that way because He can’t see it anymore, aren’t we going to trash the place? Isn’t it likely that God will continue to ask us to CHOOSE Him with our free will and complete our sanctification before we fully enter into heaven? Don’t we have to be “purged” of what remains of our sinful inclinations? Did I just give away where I’m going with this?
3. At baptism, christians receive an infusion of Grace that heals the rift torn when Adam and Eve first sinned. Baptism isn’t a work, much less a ‘work of the law.’ It is a gift of Grace from God (what we call a sacrament). It is only then and because of that Grace that humans can begin to be sanctified as discussed above. And it was through Christ that we can receive this gift of love.

We do think differently. I just wonder how you’ve resolved some of the problems listed above that I see in evangelical thinking. They just don’t seem like they’ve been thought all the way through.

 

[Cat_Herder]

In Protestant theology, there is talk of two items that are applicable here: Justification and sanctification. Justification is a legal standing conferred upon the believer at the moment of salvation. We teach the students to remember that justified = just-as-if-I’d never sinned. At the moment of repenting of our sins and believing in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, his righteousness is imputed to us. When God looks at us after that he sees the righteousness of Christ, not our righteousness. There is never anything we can do to improve this standing. Christ did it for us.

Are we perfect after we are justified? Well, no. We are fallen creatures, after all. From the moment of salvation, the process of sanctification begins. Sanctification is the process of becoming more and more like Christ. At salvation, we are given a new heart. That new heart drives us to become more and more obedient, more and more conformed to the will of the Father guided by the Holy Spirit. We sin and repent, sin and repent, sin and repent. Our justified status never changes, but over time we become more like Christ.

Hold it. That’s not biblical.

[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]

The only “sacrifice for sins” is Calvary. If Calvary is taken away then there can be no salvation. And no, this is not an admonition to the Jews. Look at verse 29. Jews were not sanctified by the Blood.

Not coincidentally, this Scripture sets forth the three conditions of a mortal sin as taught by the Catholic Church: (1) full knowledge, (2) willful intent, and (3) grave matter.

 

[JRKH]

Here you go… He is Quoted Below

He emailed me today asking me if I would like to meet with him to discuss these things face to face. I think it was because I didn’t got to Bible Study at the Church and instead I was reading This site and my Catholic Study Bible and Catechism ( sort of feeling like the mad scientist with these book all over my bed and my Tablet on this sight LOL) He thinks that maybe some of the Dialogue Via email is getting lost in Translation, which is how I used to describe s comment He sent me…

I agree with Jack about not meeting in person, but not for the same reason.

Discussion via e-mail provides great advantages that can be lost, or compromised “face to face”.

1. With an e-mail the writer cannot be interrupted. The reader must read the entire thought before they are able to respond.
2. With an e-mail one always knows “what was said”. There can be no “I never said that”. Plus, where there is miscommunication, what he calls, “lost in translation” can be carefully clarified in a documented way. Again, no chance for things to get lost between mouth and ear…If you know what I mean.
3. Writing allows for careful reading and re-reading, and also for careful and considered responses - this is especially important during periods of disagreement when emotion can kick in.
4. Personality becomes less important. In a face to face discussion, if one person is more dominating and aggressive (even without knowing it) the other person can feel intimidated.
5. Face to face discussions can put one “on the spot”, so to speak. Some people like to take more time to think through a response, or are just not as quick with a response. This can be aggravated by the dynamics mentioned in number 4.

So - I would suggest that you tell the pastor that, while you are appreciative of his interest, you are more comfortable with e-mails. That you feel the advantages of this method far outweighs any benefits of a face to face. Remind him that you are both seeking the guidance of the Holy Spirit in this matter and that you are confident that God’s Holy Spirit can work through letters as well as through face to face.

As to the matters he raise above the OP question…Jack and Cat have addressed these pretty well.
I think it was wise of you not to bring them into the OP discussion though. Stick with the things that he asks direct questions on. OR - - if he makes a comment, like the one about “Roman influence”…Get him to clarify it in clear statements or questions. These can be more easily addressed.

May God continue to guide you on your journey.

Peace
James

 

[jmoneyideas]

I will say this about the going back and forth emails, It has made me become more aware of the differences between the belief systems between protestants and Catholics. I agree with maybe keeping the Dialogue more email base at the moment. My wife and Kids still go to his Church but I feel I may be taking some time away and keep going to mass and some other Church activities I read about from the Flyer that was handed out. I never prayed the Rosary so might have to download some apps for my android phone to teach me this Prayer I heard so much about. Technology is so cool…Literally there is like 300 catholic apps and many are free, and free is good for me at the moment:thumbsup:

Don’t get me wrong me and my pastor are always going to be great friends the man did lead me to buying and actually reading the Bible for the first time, but I am feeling that I am moving in a different direction so I hope he doesn’t take it personally either. Who know like someone else posted, maybe by us having this dialogue maybe he will look at things different.
**
Also quick question…When ever they felt like doing Communion at the Church , he would always read The last supper from Luke, when I read here Mark and Matthews Gospel and she was like WOW. Is that something that most protestants do, because it says the key word REMEMBRANCE in it? Thanks to all of you for the great comments! **

 

[jmoneyideas]

whoops, from last post I was being asked questions as I posted it so I didn’t completely make sense, Sorry here is what I meant to say…Thanks again

Also quick question…When ever they felt like doing Communion at the Church , he would always read The last supper from Luke, when I read my wife Mark and Matthews Gospel and she was like WOW that does sound way different. Is that something that most protestants do, because it says the key word REMEMBRANCE in it? Which is the argument of it being a more symbolic…I have read all the different post on here about Christ being present in the Eucharist and have read the Scriptures many many times so I still cant wrap my finger on where he gets the Symbolic idea of it only.

 

[Cat_Herder]

whoops, from last post I was being asked questions as I posted it so I didn’t completely make sense, Sorry here is what I meant to say…Thanks again

Also quick question…When ever they felt like doing Communion at the Church , he would always read The last supper from Luke, when I read my wife Mark and Matthews Gospel and she was like WOW that does sound way different. Is that something that most protestants do, because it says the key word REMEMBRANCE in it? Which is the argument of it being a more symbolic…I have read all the different post on here about Christ being present in the Eucharist and have read the Scriptures many many times so I still cant wrap my finger on where he gets the Symbolic idea of it only.

“Remembrance,” like “firstborn” is a legal term. It has a specific meaning that means a lot more than just a symbolic reenactment. See this explanation here.

 

[PJM]

what does the Roman CATHOLIC Church interpret as “faith” and “saving faith”? How is one deemed righteous? Is it imputed by the Roman Catholic Church through baptism?

I was presented this question during my conversation with my pastor of a non denominational church who I have been in some deep dialogue with. I have started a new journey on my walk with christ, toward a truth and this truth is bringing me home. I Will say this is a good question though… it goes with the line salvation through Grace alone, that what I got from his email… I feel he is anti sacramental tradition in the path to salvation

**St. Paul defines “faith” in Heb. 11: 1 **“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. And in 2 Cor. 5: 7 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The Catholic Catechism defines it as: 150 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.”

**162 “**Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“Saving Faith” is not a catholic term:

***We Catholics, fully supported by the bible know that “Faith leading to salvation” is a process that cannot be attributed to any one element. Grace is the first step and is a free gift offered by God. Then Faith itself is essential, because there are things that man must accept and obey, but cannot comprehend. The Trinity, the Eucharist, and how sin is really forgiven for example. Baptism [Jn. 3:5] is mandated, Obedience to All of the Commandments and what the CC teaches [Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 19:17], Dying in the state of Grace with no unconfessed, unmerited Mortal sins [1Jn.5: 16-17, Jn.20:19-23], Good works [Charity] as explained in James 2, and Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.” Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”.

There is more, but in never is just belief in God; never just grace, or just faith. These while common in the various communities; are absolutely incomplete and wrong.

I can and am willing to provide biblical evidence of everything stated here

God Bless,
Pat***

 

[Robert_in_SD]

*what does the Roman CATHOLIC Church interpret as “faith” and “saving faith”? How is one deemed righteous? Is it imputed by the Roman Catholic Church through baptism? *

I was presented this question during my conversation with my pastor of a non denominational church who I have been in some deep dialogue with. I have started a new journey on my walk with christ, toward a truth and this truth is bringing me home. I Will say this is a good question though… it goes with the line salvation through Grace alone, that what I got from his email… I feel he is anti sacramental tradition in the path to salvation…

A short answer I like to say is that Catholics believe that it is faith - working in love - that saves. Initially, we can do nothing to merit the grace of salvation that comes to us by Christ alone. But we - as the receiver of that free gift - have an obligation to respond as James epistle describes, faith without works is a dead faith.

Peace,
Robert

 

[jmoneyideas]

A short answer I like to say is that Catholics believe that it is faith - working in love - that saves. Initially, we can do nothing to merit the grace of salvation that comes to us by Christ alone. But we - as the receiver of that free gift - have an obligation to respond as James epistle describes, faith without works is a dead faith.

Peace,
Robert

Wow very eloquently said… Vary true. if you don’t mind I am writing that one down

“Remembrance,” like “firstborn” is a legal term. It has a specific meaning that means a lot more than just a symbolic reenactment. See this explanation here.

I read this and it so so awesome , thanks for showing me the path in Scripture my friend.

**St. Paul defines “faith” in Heb. 11: 1 **“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. And in 2 Cor. 5: 7 “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The Catholic Catechism defines it as: 150 “Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.”

**162 “**Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: “Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith.” To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith; it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.”

“Saving Faith” is not a catholic term:

***We Catholics, fully supported by the bible know that “Faith leading to salvation” is a process that cannot be attributed to any one element. Grace is the first step and is a free gift offered by God. Then Faith itself is essential, because there are things that man must accept and obey, but cannot comprehend. The Trinity, the Eucharist, and how sin is really forgiven for example. Baptism [Jn. 3:5] is mandated, Obedience to All of the Commandments and what the CC teaches [Mt. 16:18-19, Mt. 19:17], Dying in the state of Grace with no unconfessed, unmerited Mortal sins [1Jn.5: 16-17, Jn.20:19-23], Good works [Charity] as explained in James 2, and Heb.6: 10 “For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.” Rev.2: 23 “and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.”.

There is more, but in never is just belief in God; never just grace, or just faith. These while common in the various communities; are absolutely incomplete and wrong.

I can and am willing to provide biblical evidence of everything stated here

God Bless,
Pat***

I see the difference of Catholics is this. Your Faith is a Journey and isn’t to be taken lightly.There is a path that is somewhat similar to kids going to School you don’t just go from PreK to College and then the real world. I feel that many Christians in the Protestant faith end up coming to Christ (a good thing) and get baptized and are somewhat led to be told ok your a Christian so Go be a Christian and Good luck. My 11 year old is in Catechism Classes thanks to his Grand ma and my wife who although is really involved in our little non denom church still wants him to partake in the Catechism like she did growing up, she is a somewhat strayed away catholic, anyways atleast his is receiving some great fundamentals and I feel he is better equipped to handle questions and doubts far better than I at his age. Sorry if I am rambling.

Oh check out my Blog its pretty Transparent, I don’t sugar coat anything about my struggles in life and my newly found walk with the lord. http://www.coming2christ.blogspot.com

 

[JRKH]

whoops, from last post I was being asked questions as I posted it so I didn’t completely make sense, Sorry here is what I meant to say…Thanks again

Also quick question…When ever they felt like doing Communion at the Church , he would always read The last supper from Luke, when I read my wife Mark and Matthews Gospel and she was like WOW that does sound way different. Is that something that most protestants do, because it says the key word REMEMBRANCE in it? Which is the argument of it being a more symbolic…I have read all the different post on here about Christ being present in the Eucharist and have read the Scriptures many many times so I still cant wrap my finger on where he gets the Symbolic idea of it only.

I can’t speak for all of the protestants since there are at least two (Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopal) who believe in the real presence and have services very much the same as the Catholic mass.
BUT -
It has been my experience that among the protestants who don’t accept the real presence, they do indeed point to this “remembrance” as their proof text. I have even pointed out to them what you noted from the other Gospels. But they cling to this even though Luke was probably not present and as far as we know Luke was associated most closely with Paul…Who also was not present at the Last Supper. On the other hand Mark is associated with Peter himself, and Matthew - well he was there in person. Nothing against Luke…But Mark and Matthew have greater “provenance” if you will.

I do not know how the various aspects of the protestant movement came to deny the real presence, but it certainly was not a belief of the early Church, east or west, nor did Luther deny the real presence, nor did the protestants of the Church of England…I don’t know about Calvin…

I agree with you, looking at Scripture I don’t see how one can come away with the idea of the Eucharist being symbolic. Jesus is pretty clear in John 6. He is quite clear at the last supper, Paul spoke strongly about receiving unworthily…Then you add in the ECF’s, the didache etc. and I just don’t know how they can believe that Christ is not present…

That said, in fact we agree with your pastor friend that Christ is NOT physically present in the “Lords Supper” of his church. He may read the words, but he has not the faculties of valid ordination in order to institute the sacrament. So what is passed around is indeed just bread and wine (or grape juice).

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I will say this about the going back and forth emails, It has made me become more aware of the differences between the belief systems between protestants and Catholics. I agree with maybe keeping the Dialogue more email base at the moment.

I think this is wise for the time being…Nothing against your friend or you, but I feel it offers a better and more structured and clear way to communicate.

My wife and Kids still go to his Church but I feel I may be taking some time away and keep going to mass and some other Church activities I read about from the Flyer that was handed out. I never prayed the Rosary so might have to download some apps for my android phone to teach me this Prayer I heard so much about. Technology is so cool…Literally there is like 300 catholic apps and many are free, and free is good for me at the moment:thumbsup:

The wonderful world of Apps…Personally I have enough trouble just dealing with computers… mostly I’m scared to even try to upgrade programs…
The rosary is a wonderful prayer and meditation on the events of the Gospels. It might take a little time to get into the rhythm but it is a good prayer. Another that might be of interest is the divine mercy chaplet.

Don’t get me wrong me and my pastor are always going to be great friends the man did lead me to buying and actually reading the Bible for the first time, but I am feeling that I am moving in a different direction so I hope he doesn’t take it personally either. Who know like someone else posted, maybe by us having this dialogue maybe he will look at things different.

So long as the two of you respect each others as Christians, I can’t see this as being anything but a wonderful learning experience for you both.
I can’t remember his name but a few years ago there was a protestant pastor who began a journey to discover the early church and shared this journey with his parishioners. As he discovered how the early church worshiped, he began introducing more liturgical services, and eventually was convinced that the Catholic Church was right. He came into the Church and about half of his congregation came with him…
So who knows - this could be the start of something big…

Anyway - sorry for the ramble…

Peace
James

 

[Miriam1947]

Wow very eloquently said… Vary true. if you don’t mind I am writing that one down

I read this and it so so awesome , thanks for showing me the path in Scripture my friend.

I see the difference of Catholics is this. Your Faith is a Journey and isn’t to be taken lightly.There is a path that is somewhat similar to kids going to School you don’t just go from PreK to College and then the real world. I feel that many Christians in the Protestant faith end up coming to Christ (a good thing) and get baptized and are somewhat led to be told ok your a Christian so Go be a Christian and Good luck. My 11 year old is in Catechism Classes thanks to his Grand ma and my wife who although is really involved in our little non denom church still wants him to partake in the Catechism like she did growing up, she is a somewhat strayed away catholic, anyways atleast his is receiving some great fundamentals and I feel he is better equipped to handle questions and doubts far better than I at his age. Sorry if I am rambling.

Oh check out my Blog its pretty Transparent, I don’t sugar coat anything about my struggles in life and my newly found walk with the lord. http://www.coming2christ.blogspot.com

Great blog, love that youtube video. Here is one you may like as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=0TEL_7TS5FE

The Magnificat from Luke.

And another one.

youtube.com/watch?v=kUdYeYy3NQA

Mary in Scripture.

 

[thomasf]

I think this is wise for the time being…Nothing against your friend or you, but I feel it offers a better and more structured and clear way to communicate.

The wonderful world of Apps…Personally I have enough trouble just dealing with computers… mostly I’m scared to even try to upgrade programs…
The rosary is a wonderful prayer and meditation on the events of the Gospels. It might take a little time to get into the rhythm but it is a good prayer. Another that might be of interest is the divine mercy chaplet.

So long as the two of you respect each others as Christians, I can’t see this as being anything but a wonderful learning experience for you both.
I can’t remember his name but a few years ago there was a protestant pastor who began a journey to discover the early church and shared this journey with his parishioners. As he discovered how the early church worshiped, he began introducing more liturgical services, and eventually was convinced that the Catholic Church was right. He came into the Church and about half of his congregation came with him…
So who knows - this could be the start of something big…

Anyway - sorry for the ramble…

Peace
James

Deacon Alex Jones

 

[pablope]

I think this is wise for the time being…Nothing against your friend or you, but I feel it offers a better and more structured and clear way to communicate.

I can’t remember his name but a few years ago there was a protestant pastor who began a journey to discover the early church and shared this journey with his parishioners. As he discovered how the early church worshiped, he began introducing more liturgical services, and eventually was convinced that the Catholic Church was right. He came into the Church and about half of his congregation came with him…
So who knows - this could be the start of something big…

Anyway - sorry for the ramble…

Peace
James

Deacon Alex Jones…his story is on youtube…youtube.com/watch?v=JmXzbl6Smr0

 

[BrianGular]

Thanks for the insight and reminder of the difference in thought. If I may be so bold, I have some observations according to the numbers I added above:

1. Really? So you believe God deludes Himself into believing you are spotless and perfect like Christ from the moment you ‘get saved?’ That’s what it amounts to, doesn’t it? How does an omniscient God hide the truth from Himself???
2. I have no beef with this, but protestants often seem to. What happens if you and I die before we’re done in this process of sanctification? God really looks at you, sees only the righteousness of Christ and says “Well done, my good and faithful servant, enter in…?” But if we’ve already established that we’ve still got a sin problem and God lets us into heaven that way because He can’t see it anymore, aren’t we going to trash the place? Isn’t it likely that God will continue to ask us to CHOOSE Him with our free will and complete our sanctification before we fully enter into heaven? Don’t we have to be “purged” of what remains of our sinful inclinations? Did I just give away where I’m going with this?
3. At baptism, christians receive an infusion of Grace that heals the rift torn when Adam and Eve first sinned. Baptism isn’t a work, much less a ‘work of the law.’ It is a gift of Grace from God (what we call a sacrament). It is only then and because of that Grace that humans can begin to be sanctified as discussed above. And it was through Christ that we can receive this gift of love.

We do think differently. I just wonder how you’ve resolved some of the problems listed above that I see in evangelical thinking. They just don’t seem like they’ve been thought all the way through.

There really is a large gulf of difference in thinking. My brief time participating in this forum has certainly underscored that for me in very practical ways.

There are many Bible passages that support my points. To avoid a post as long as my arm, I’d like to focus in on Romans chapters 4 and 5. Here we find Paul describing the actions of a loving God, not deluding himself, but, instead, choosing to have Christ’s sacrifice cover our sins. The English translation uses words like “reconciled,” “counted to him as righteousness,” and “being at peace with God” based on faith, not actions, not sacraments. (Ephesians 2:8-9 comes to mind in support of this…) It’s God’s love, not his delusion, that is in play. (Roman’s 5:8) Later in Romans, Paul offers perhaps the simplest description of salvation in 10:9–

that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.

These and other verses make it pretty clear that God doesn’t expect us to be perfect before we enter heaven. He didn’t wait for us to achieve some level of internal sanctification before Christ’s death. He didn’t say, “Okay. now they are good enough for me to die for them.” If we must be perfect based on our own righteousness as defined by acts, rites, and sacraments, there is no hope for any of us.

 

[BrianGular]

Hold it. That’s not biblical.

Hebrews 10:26-29

The only “sacrifice for sins” is Calvary. If Calvary is taken away then there can be no salvation. And no, this is not an admonition to the Jews. Look at verse 29. Jews were not sanctified by the Blood.

Not coincidentally, this Scripture sets forth the three conditions of a mortal sin as taught by the Catholic Church: (1) full knowledge, (2) willful intent, and (3) grave matter.

My statement is consistent with scripture. The passage you site, however, is not without controversy. There is considerable debate over the exact meaning of verse 26’s use of deliberately or willfully keeping on sinning. One interpretation says that the author is writing about someone engaged in a consistent pattern of sin that does not show evidence of justification or sanctification. Another interpretation, considering the larger context of Hebrews warning against a return to Judaism and the law, says that this passage is specific to warning believers not to abandon their new faith in favor of legalism, “willfully sinning” by rejecting Christ.

 

[JRKH]

Deacon Alex Jones

Deacon Alex Jones…his story is on youtube…youtube.com/watch?v=JmXzbl6Smr0

Thank you both for the info and for the link.

After I got off here and crawled in bed, I thought of his name - Jones… (gee tough name to remember eh?..) but hadn’t come up with Alex…

Thanks again.

Peace
James

 

[Cat_Herder]

My statement is consistent with scripture.

Really?

[BIBLEDRB]Mt 24:13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 11:22[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 9:27[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 10:11-12[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Gal 5:4[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]2 Timothy 2:11-13[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 6:4-6[/BIBLEDRB]

There is considerable debate over the exact meaning of verse 26’s use of deliberately or willfully keeping on sinning. One interpretation says that the author is writing about someone engaged in a consistent pattern of sin that does not show evidence of justification or sanctification.

That you can reject outright because verse 29 states that the persons being addressed were once sanctified in the Blood of Christ.

Another interpretation, considering the larger context of Hebrews warning against a return to Judaism and the law, says that this passage is specific to warning believers not to abandon their new faith in favor of legalism, “willfully sinning” by rejecting Christ.

That cannot be squared with Paul’s other warnings in books other than Hebrews as set forth above.

But here is a larger question: Why would the Holy Spirit cause so many “interpretations” of this passage if it is something so vital to understanding how one receives the Good News? Isn’t it ironic that these people go around promising “assurance of salvation” when they themselves are completely unsure of what this Scripture actually means?