I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

  • Thread starter Thread starter vichlopet
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

To All Posters on this thread.

I think this discussion hinges on definitions. If we can clarify what we mean by justification, grace, original sin I think we would get somewhere.

I have just read this article Justified by His Grace. Someone else posted the link to this site (not sure if it was this thread or another one but am grateful to the poster).

The writer has I think rightly concluded that the issue is not so much about faith vs works but how Catholics and Protestants understand justification.

A very good read, very well researched and thought.

Sandusky, please read when you have the time.
 

To All Posters on this thread.

I think this discussion hinges on definitions. If we can clarify what we mean by justification, grace, original sin I think we would get somewhere.

I have just read this article Justified by His Grace. Someone else posted the link to this site (not sure if it was this thread or another one but am grateful to the poster).

The writer has I think rightly concluded that the issue is not so much about faith vs works but how Catholics and Protestants understand justification.

A very good read, very well researched and thought.

Sandusky, please read when you have the time.
I read it and it is a great read. 👍
 

To All Posters on this thread.

I think this discussion hinges on definitions. If we can clarify what we mean by justification, grace, original sin I think we would get somewhere.

I have just read this article Justified by His Grace. Someone else posted the link to this site (not sure if it was this thread or another one but am grateful to the poster).

The writer has I think rightly concluded that the issue is not so much about faith vs works but how Catholics and Protestants understand justification.

A very good read, very well researched and thought.

Sandusky, please read when you have the time.
Thanks, it’s very good reading:thumbsup:
 
40.png
benedictus2:
There are only two positions here. Either Christ founded a Church or He didn’t. And the Church that Christ founded derived it’s authority from Him (“what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven…”)
Christ is definitely building a church.
40.png
benedictus2:
And if he did build a Church as it is written in the Bible, which Church is it then? There are over 33,000 contenders out there so please tell me which one it is and why.
Those churches who use the scripture as the sole rule of faith.
40.png
benedictus2:
Contraception (which most protestant churches have allowed
Homosexuality: Some Anglicans think the practice is okay.
OK.
40.png
benedictus2:
The sacraments for one.
Being that the Lord instituted two ordinances, and no sacraments, I say you’re wrong on this.
40.png
benedictus2:
That works is needed (Matthew 25) which I mention in my post (post 165) which by the way you still have not replied to.
If you ruminate and meditate on v34, you’ll see that the sheep are not sheep because of the work they did, but for another reason; thus the work the sheep did they did because they’re sheep.
40.png
benedictus2:
From what little I know (and I emphasize little), protestants ever hardly talk about ‘taking up the daily cross’ to follow Christ (this is only what I get from my protestant friends). That is why the
Protestants are doers of the word; at least those I know are.

benedictus2 said:
“Prosperity Gospel” is alive and well in the evangelical circles.

I see, Protestant’s have watered down the CC’s “Prosperity Gospel.”
40.png
benedictus2:
John 16:13
There was no church at the time of that statement.
40.png
benedictus2:
Not at all. All I am asking is if your denomination…
You can call me a Calvinist if you’d like.
40.png
benedictus2:
Mostly the fixation with certain passages from the bible and ignoring the rest (but then again, I am probably not being fair to you as I am not sure which denomination you are and you’re interpretation may again be different from my protestant friends)
Everyone has his favorite passages—even you.
40.png
benedictus2:
Yes I was. I was saying it was not in the Bible which is usually how the protestant’s argue isn’t it?
It’s understood by those who adhere to sola scriptura that not everything Christ said and did is recorded in scripture, as the verse I cited states.
40.png
benedictus2:
I know the passage. But as per above, don’t protestant’s argue, that if it aint in the bible it aint admissible as evidence.
Not at all.
40.png
benedictus2:
And by the way, you still have not answered me whether God would have sent you to hell if you had died prior to your being saved in 1993. If you have answered this, can you direct me to your post.
That question was directed to the one who began the thread; however, my answer to your question is “yes.”
 
The New is the fulfillment of the Old. Let us look at another part of this Psalm:
Not entirely. Christ fulfills the O.T. prophecies concerning Him as the suffering Messiah (Servant) of Yahweh. But the prophecies concerning His return as King of kings and Lord of lords, i.e., all that Gabriel described to Mary regarding the One whom she would conceive (Lk. 1:32-33) has yet to be fulfilled.

The church Christ is presently building upon the foundation of the Apostles is a whole new entity not known or revealed to the O.T. prophets. The church neither fulfills, replaces or replicates Israel. It fulfills none of its covenant or prophetic promises. Much of the O.T. prophecies concerning Israel are yet to be fulfilled, and will not be fulfilled until the second advent of Christ, Israel’s King.
4 Wash me yet more from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
What do we have here? Baptism!
How bout this?
9 Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed: thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow.
Baptism again!!!
3 Have mercy on me, O God, according to thy great mercy. And according to the multitude of thy tender mercies blot out my iniquity.
The sacrament of Reconciliation!!!
The Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) can be found throughout the Psalms and the Old Testament.
Amazing ain’t it?
Amazing how, by your allegorical method of interpretation, the Bible remains a mystery to you. But not at all surprising since you not only replaced Israel with the church, but you, in your theology, replace the Person and work of Christ with your sacramental system.
 
but you, in your theology, replace the Person and work of Christ with your sacramental system.
I’m not going to get into the whole Church/Israel thing right now, but I wanted to comment on this portion of your post. The Sacraments ARE the Person (Eucharist) and work of Christ. It is HE who does the work and makes the Sacraments effectual.
 
The Law against murder has not been revoked by the New Covenant. The Law that Paul writes about in Romans is the ritual law: that whole epistle is about Circumcision. The “law written on our hearts” is embedded in Creation and is irrevocable. One must carefully distinguish kinds of law and kinds of grace or else you find yourself inevitably pulled into antinomianism.
The only Law against murder is in the Decalogue and that’s a part of the Mosaic Covenant which ended with the sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 10:4). Believer’s are “not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

And “NO,” before you go there, this doesn’t mean God now accepts murder. Such replies only demonstrate that a person has no idea what divine grace means.
 
40.png
Contarini:
This is not a convincing view. If God forgave David, which is an act of grace, then clearly David was under grace. Paul makes clear in Romans 4 that the only way anyone has ever been saved is by grace through faith.
David was NEVER “under grace” God acted graciously toward him, but David was a Jew, born under the Law. I don’t think you know what “under grace” means.

David was truly a man of faith in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and therefore his sins “lawless deeds” were forgiven in view of the future, substitutionary, expiatory, propitiatory, once for all, sacrifice of God’s Sin Bearer, Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:29; Rom. 3:25). But David, born under the Law, was never “under grace” as the believer now is, and in which he “now stands” (Rom. 5:1-2), being in the resurrected Christ.

David would not understand Paul’s N.C. words: Eph. 2:8-9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”“For by grace (unmerited, unrecompensed, undeserved, divine favor) you have been saved…” is a uniquely N.T. concept. A truth understood and a reality appropriated only AFTER the sacrificial death, burial and bodily resurrection of God’s unblemished Lamb. A truth based on the N.T. fact that, what was laid on the Substitute (all our sins; once for all) can not be laid back on the sinner.

Nathan, a prophet, a spokesman for God, personally told David that God had taken his sin away. But that one incident is hardly the same as the Apostolic gospel message to both Jews and Gentiles today, this side of the cross, and during this dispensation of GRACE:Acts 10:43 “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”

Acts 13:38 “Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you,”

Col 1:14 "…in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."It’s recorded in Genesis fifteen that the Lord reckoned Abraham’s faith in Him to him as righteousness, but it is not recorded that Abraham ever knew this. But during this dispensation the Apostolic teaching to the church Christ is now building, based on His substitutionary sacrifice is:Rom 3:21-24 "But now apart from the Law {the} righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all sinned and (continually) fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;"Neither in Abraham’s nor David’s day did such teachings, based on grace alone, exist
Your dispensationalism is a modern heresy that hacks Scripture to pieces under the pretense of “rightly dividing” it.
Your allegorical method of interpretation, which confounds law and grace, is a very old error and prevents you from understanding N.T. truths and the power of God’s grace, through the cross of Christ, to everyone who believes.

BTW, what exactly is “heretical” about Dispensationalism? Or is this just an opinion of yours based not on fact but personal prejudice.
You will not be able to assume it here. Most of the folks you are talking to do not believe in it. So unless you can convince us to accept the dispensationalist framework in very short order, you will have to make arguments that do not assume that framework.
Should I make my arguments reflect law simply because you, ultimately, reject God’s sovereign grace toward all who believe through the Person and historic, sacrificial work of Jesus Christ?
 
I’m not going to get into the whole Church/Israel thing right now, but I wanted to comment on this portion of your post. The Sacraments ARE the Person (Eucharist) and work of Christ. It is HE who does the work and makes the Sacraments effectual.
I rest my case. :rolleyes:
 
The great darkness came when y’all started interpreting things hunderds of different ways.

Sacred Tradition allows us to see clearly the teachings of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Or ONLY the interpretations of certain men in whom you put your faith. Those who dictate to you what “tradition” is.
 
Or ONLY the interpretations of certain men in whom you put your faith. Those who dictate to you what “tradition” is.
The only man who put us in our faith is Jesus Christ. All other denominations are man-made. It is you who are putting your interpretations into your man-made religions.
 
reen12, i get it. You converted to Judaism. But what’s the point of coming into a Catholic forum or a thread just to nag at us?

Why aren’t you at a Jewish forum? Wouldn’t you feel much happier and “at home” there? Please don’t think of my remark as trying to drive you out. You’re more than welcome to stay, but i truly do not see the point of your nags. Help me understand you better, please. No insinuations please. Just your direct thought.
It’s not a question of where I would be ‘comfortable.’

If it is uncomfortable, reading my views on a given topic,
one may add me to an ‘ignore’ list.

[The topic, at one point, turned to that of forgiveness,
and the varied Christian views on same.]
Hence, my earlier posts.

That’s the nice thing - about the ‘ignore’ list.
One need not encounter my views.

No, I have not converted to Judaism.
A Gentile does not have to convert.

I simply note various Christian teachings, and critique same.

Since I ‘did’ Catholic apologetics for decades, I’m familiar
with doctrines, and the various bases for same.

reen12
 
More to the point, however: Where is an informed reply - regarding the fact
that God saves, in the OT?
Does this not make literal ‘non-sense’ of the Christian position, in re: mode of forgiveness?

My question had been:

quote: reen12
…how is one to read the following, in light of Christian doctrine?

Come now, let us set things right, says the Lord: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow…Is.1:18

What* is* this? “Conditional” forgiveness…until centuries later,
and the coming of Jesus?
Noting the problem of Moses and Abraham - being
kept from the beatific vision, because they, too,
‘inherited’ the sin of Adam - indicates a substantial problem,
in terms of given Christian theologies.

Noting this -may be of interest to someone who is following
the exchanges, in this thread.

reen12
 
It just occured to me that I have never regreted my conversion. When I was saved, no one told me that I have to leave the Catholic religion, I simply believed that Jesus Christ paid for my sins with his blood and I called upon him to save me: just like the Philipian jailer in Acts 16:31. He asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” He did, and he was. To the saved believer, the thought of someone trying to administer God’s grace through some ritual is the highest form of idolatry there is. Jesus said, “it is finished”, not ‘it’s begun’.

I just hope that people will see that God’s grace is through faith in Christ and not in some man made rituals. May the Lord truly bless every one who is seeking to know him in truth.
I think that is wonderful to come to Jesus Christ. Before you start to kick at the body of Jesus Christ like Saul of Tarsus did, maybe you should learn more about Jesus in his Catholic church he founded. “it is finished” is only the beginning of your salvation. Learn more about Why Jesus is standing in heaven before the Throne of God as “a lamb as though slain”, before you think it is all over for you.

Tell me, I asked this in another thread. It is great that you posses all your faculties and are able to believe your saved. How do infants, the mentally ill, and deaf and mute souls get saved?
 
More to the point, however: Where is an informed reply - regarding the fact
that God saves, in the OT?
Does this not make literal ‘non-sense’ of the Christian position, in re: mode of forgiveness?

My question had been:

quote: reen12

Noting the problem of Moses and Abraham - being
kept from the beatific vision, because they, too,
‘inherited’ the sin of Adam - indicates a substantial problem,
in terms of given Christian theologies.
This ‘non-sense’ [does not make sense] may be of interest to someone who is following the exchanges in this thread.

reen12
Salvation is the running theme of the Old Testament – usually meaning salvatiion from Egyptians, Assyrians or Babylonians.

The prophets are forever telling Israel that her troubles are the result of her sin: idolatry being top on the list.

With the exile(s), and the development of Pharisaic Judaism, the focus on the divine promise to “give you hearts of flesh” (Ezekiel), the idea of salvation is broadened. It becomes more personal. Without this form of devotion that held the Covenant people together despite the destruction of the temple – the central feature of their worship – Judaism could not have developed in a way that set the stage for a Savior that was NOT a military leader.

Pharisees get bad press in the NT but if you read between the lines and see them in the context of Jewish survival in exile, of the constant prophetic reference to the sins of the people as the cause of their troubles, and their belief in the bodily resurrection of the dead, you can begin to limn the picture of a world being made ready for a savior that saves not from “trouble” but from the cause of the trouble. At the root, Pharisaic Judaism, which was often expressed in rigidity over detailed prescriptions, attempted to direct every detail of one’s life towards love of God and neighbor.

The Resurrection gave people a much broader definition of ‘salvation’ – one that was consistent with the truest roots of the Jewish heart. All the “best” early Christians were Pharisees: Lazarus and the Bethany sisters, Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathea, Saul . . . Saull’s conversion was not so much away from his Pharisaic roots as a conversion to his Pharisaic roots – that saw love of God and neighbor as the essence of Jewish faith and life. “Salvation” was “to” this new life every bit as much as it was “away” from sin.
 
The statement I made was that no evil, wickedness and sin were in the world until Adam fell.
This means that he was in the state of grace (a right relationship with God).
Does that really, even remotely, sound to you as though I’m saying ”Adam was created in the state of sin?” :hmmm:
It was very confusing, because you also said that he was not in the state of grace. The opposite of grace is sin. 🤷
 
This means that he was in the state of grace (a right relationship with God).
No. It means he was created in a state of innocence. Prior to the fall he wasn’t in need of grace.

He was in a “right relationship with God” because he had not yet sinned. God created him without sin, hence, in a “right relationship” to Himself. He could create him no other way.

Grace” and “salvation” are post-fall concepts. They go together: “For by GRACE you have been SAVED…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top