S
Sig
Guest
Not in the post to which I’m referring, it’s not (post 307).
- Status
S
Sig
Guest
The digression is the Catholics, not mine.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And I would love it if it segued into “Protestants who come to the CAFs and now realize that they submit to both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture.”
S
Sig
Guest
I find the question a bit vague, but the context being salvation, you’re not saved by works.'kay.
So could you answer the question, now that it has been posed?
P
PRmerger
Guest
And how do you understand that in light of James telling you, pointedly, that you are saved by your works, and not by your faith alone?
See, Sig? To follow your paradigm one must ignore a host of other Scriptures.
It’s like the JWs pointing to a verse that says that Jesus was a man, and then saying, “See! The Bible says that Jesus was NOT divine!”. Well, while there is indeed a verse that says that, in order to hold their paradigm they have to ignore all the other verses which declare Jesus to be God.
S
Sig
Guest
I don’t think that’s what James is saying. If he is, he is at odds with Paul who says that one is not saved by works.
Furthermore, you’ve already stated that you’re not saved by your works, right? So I fail to understand the point of your bringing up James.
The type of argument you offer above is often referred to as being “inconsistent.” That’s because I could say the same thing about your paradigm.
To follow your paradigm, one must ignore a host of other Scriptures. See PRmerger?
P
PRmerger
Guest
We are saved by our works. We cannot deny the Scriptures, Sig.
While I have no hope that you will be ready to receive these words, I post them again quite happily for all the lurkers who may not be familiar with the Scriptures.
Again, here’s how Catholics profess 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)
P
PRmerger
Guest
So what do you believe James is saying, when he says we are saved by our works and not by faith alone?
Fair enough. And in your paradigm what is the recourse for 2 individuals who claim that they have read the same Scriptures and come to different doctrines?To follow your paradigm, one must ignore a host of other Scriptures. See PRmerger?
S
Sig
Guest
Well the type of faith to which James is referring is a “said” faith minus works (v2).
James then goes to the visual of showing and seeing faith as a means for him to prove that his faith, and the faith of those examples he cites is real, true faith.
James conclusion contains that visual cue. He is talking about what a faith that saves looks like: it works.
As Luther said, "We are saved by faith alone, but not by faith that is alone.
If James is saying that it is our works that save us, then he and Paul are at odds, and Scripture is contradictory…
I would refer to the same Scriptures you do. The authority of the church, and the gift of the Spirit.
S
Sig
Guest
Explain to me again how you’re not saved by your works, but you are saved by your works?
A
Anthony_V
Guest
If you are not in a state of grace, your works do not merit. When you are in a state of grace, your works do merit. Therefore, your works can both not save you and save you. The works themselves are reliant on our cooperation with the graces that God provides us with.
Also, I believe this link might help:
catholic.com/quickquestions/did-the-catholic-church-come-around-to-the-lutheran-position-on-faith-justification-a
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Sig,
Still playing word games with your responses?
In my opinion Pitcharan hit the nail squarely on the head with your effrort to change the topic. Now, really … I don’t blame you - defending an indefensible topic is rough… dare I say impossible. 
Rather than merely evading the issue, which has become embarrassingly obvious … why not say, “I don’t know” about a particular topic which you apparently lack the knowledge in. It really is possible to look up the informaition you need and then post to that question. Such an approach brings in thoughts like ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ to the reader of your posts. We are not at that point yet.
I am personally beginning to fatigue of your evasions, partial answers or just non-answers. You may start to lose people who are willing to play with you.
Have the decency to quite these one-line quips and just respond to the answers that were given to your question… ah… and in case you are floundering, try the several responses you received on works vs works of the Law. Unless I missed something you actively evading that one.
If you want a criteria on posting etiquette - just look at everyone else’s post… yes, everyone else has responded to you and your questions - and, as far as I can tell, has done an excellent job. Now, look at your own posts and see how this gamesmanship of yours is wearing thin.
Do you think you would be happier on some other site where everyone believes OSAS and those who don’t are simply banned? Imagine, an orbit free of these annoying obstructions - you know… like the valid obvjections you have been evading. Give it a thought.
God bless
Still playing word games with your responses?
In my opinion Pitcharan hit the nail squarely on the head with your effrort to change the topic. Now, really … I don’t blame you - defending an indefensible topic is rough… dare I say impossible. Rather than merely evading the issue, which has become embarrassingly obvious … why not say, “I don’t know” about a particular topic which you apparently lack the knowledge in. It really is possible to look up the informaition you need and then post to that question. Such an approach brings in thoughts like ‘honesty’ and ‘integrity’ to the reader of your posts. We are not at that point yet.I am personally beginning to fatigue of your evasions, partial answers or just non-answers. You may start to lose people who are willing to play with you.
Have the decency to quite these one-line quips and just respond to the answers that were given to your question… ah… and in case you are floundering, try the several responses you received on works vs works of the Law. Unless I missed something you actively evading that one.
If you want a criteria on posting etiquette - just look at everyone else’s post… yes, everyone else has responded to you and your questions - and, as far as I can tell, has done an excellent job. Now, look at your own posts and see how this gamesmanship of yours is wearing thin.
Do you think you would be happier on some other site where everyone believes OSAS and those who don’t are simply banned? Imagine, an orbit free of these annoying obstructions - you know… like the valid obvjections you have been evading. Give it a thought.God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, PRmerger,
Great list!
I notice that OSAS did not ‘make the cut’ … could it be that it is not on your list because it is not in Scripture to begin with? Or, maybe it is in the same place as ‘Scripture Alone Saves’?
God bless
Great list!
I notice that OSAS did not ‘make the cut’ … could it be that it is not on your list because it is not in Scripture to begin with? Or, maybe it is in the same place as ‘Scripture Alone Saves’?
God bless
S
Sig
Guest
I have no idea what you’re talking about, Tom.Hi, Sig,
Still playing word games with your responses?
I am personally beginning to fatigue of your evasions, partial answers or just non-answers. You may start to lose people who are willing to play with you.
Have the decency to quite these one-line quips and just respond to the answers that were given to your question… ah… and in case you are floundering, try the several responses you received on works vs works of the Law. Unless I missed something you actively evading that one.
If you want a criteria on posting etiquette - just look at everyone else’s post… yes, everyone else has responded to you and your questions - and, as far as I can tell, has done an excellent job. Now, look at your own posts and see how this gamesmanship of yours is wearing thin.
God bless
Perhaps you should put me ignore.
J
JRRTFAN
Guest
I simply do not underestand why anyone could not understand or adhere to the theory that salvation is about the state of the relationship of the soul to God at the time of death. What is so hard about that?
You will be saved when Our Lord and Savior says to you: Well done my good and faithful servant.
Why anybody would think that somebody who doesn’t want a relationship with God and who has rejected Him through mortal sin would be forced by God into heaven against his will (because he accepted Jesus at a camp meeting 40 years before) is simply beyond my power to understand. (run-on sentence).
You will be saved when Our Lord and Savior says to you: Well done my good and faithful servant.
Why anybody would think that somebody who doesn’t want a relationship with God and who has rejected Him through mortal sin would be forced by God into heaven against his will (because he accepted Jesus at a camp meeting 40 years before) is simply beyond my power to understand. (run-on sentence).
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, JRRTFAN,
You have an excellent point - and, one that has concerned me,too. I think the origin of this issue goes back to those who launched the Protestant Revolt. Simply stated, Luther & Co wanted more control and there were several areas where the Catholic Church was in control and that would have to stop. Remaining faithful to the end seemed to be a big issue and one that OSAS just pitches out the window.
This particular heresy took place early on during the revolt and seems to have it origins with both Luther and Calvin. Each took their own view on this matter. Here are a couple of links:
sullivan-county.com/identity/reformers.htm
christianity.about.com/od/presbyteriandenomination/a/John-Calvin.htm
A careful reading of these links will not make it more theologically understandable - just to put this in a historical context to identify what those in revolt wanted to accomplish in their break from the Church Christ founded on Peter. Calvin had a decidedly depressing view of God - and, in my opinion, became fixated on predestination. While he was not sure about anyone else being in the ‘Elect’ group - he knew he was! and he was rather sure of who was in the ‘Reprobate’ group…
And, of course, let’s not foget Henry VIII who was content to leave almost everything as it was (except marriage laws) as long as he could be his own pope!
Splintering in the ranks of those in revolt also had an early start - and today we have 40,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming their own doctrine - and OSAS ranks high.
Hope this helps.
God bless
You have an excellent point - and, one that has concerned me,too. I think the origin of this issue goes back to those who launched the Protestant Revolt. Simply stated, Luther & Co wanted more control and there were several areas where the Catholic Church was in control and that would have to stop. Remaining faithful to the end seemed to be a big issue and one that OSAS just pitches out the window.
This particular heresy took place early on during the revolt and seems to have it origins with both Luther and Calvin. Each took their own view on this matter. Here are a couple of links:
sullivan-county.com/identity/reformers.htm
christianity.about.com/od/presbyteriandenomination/a/John-Calvin.htm
A careful reading of these links will not make it more theologically understandable - just to put this in a historical context to identify what those in revolt wanted to accomplish in their break from the Church Christ founded on Peter. Calvin had a decidedly depressing view of God - and, in my opinion, became fixated on predestination. While he was not sure about anyone else being in the ‘Elect’ group - he knew he was! and he was rather sure of who was in the ‘Reprobate’ group…
And, of course, let’s not foget Henry VIII who was content to leave almost everything as it was (except marriage laws) as long as he could be his own pope!Splintering in the ranks of those in revolt also had an early start - and today we have 40,000+ Protestant denominations all claiming their own doctrine - and OSAS ranks high.
Hope this helps.
God bless
P
paul_c
Guest
A reminder of why we are here.
Catholics, no one needs to answer OUR questions - we are here to answer THEIR questions. If they want to answer, so be it, but lets not put our guests on the spot…
Sig,
we are here to answer your questions about Catholicism. So, put them to us and we’ll do our best to explain what the church teaches. If you are not interested in this, then our work is done.
And let’s try to stay on topic: Once Saved, always saved.
We’ve explained that Catholics DO believe that you enter into the state of Grace without the benefit of works, solely by your desire to be born again through baptism.
And we’ve also explained that to STAY in the state of Grace, you must now do the works to which you have been called, loving God and Neighbor and avoiding mortal sin.
PRMerger gave you a list of all the things we are called to do, once we enter into the state of grace, complete with supporting scripture passages only a few posts ago.
As you can see, this dovetails very nicely with ephesians 2: 8-10:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
10For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
So, as I see it, you have three paths from here.
Catholics, no one needs to answer OUR questions - we are here to answer THEIR questions. If they want to answer, so be it, but lets not put our guests on the spot…
Sig,
we are here to answer your questions about Catholicism. So, put them to us and we’ll do our best to explain what the church teaches. If you are not interested in this, then our work is done.
And let’s try to stay on topic: Once Saved, always saved.
We’ve explained that Catholics DO believe that you enter into the state of Grace without the benefit of works, solely by your desire to be born again through baptism.
And we’ve also explained that to STAY in the state of Grace, you must now do the works to which you have been called, loving God and Neighbor and avoiding mortal sin.
PRMerger gave you a list of all the things we are called to do, once we enter into the state of grace, complete with supporting scripture passages only a few posts ago.
As you can see, this dovetails very nicely with ephesians 2: 8-10:
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God;
9 it is not from works, so no one may boast.
10For we are his handiwork, created in Christ Jesus for the good works that God has prepared in advance, that we should live in them.
So, as I see it, you have three paths from here.
*] If you are unclear about the Catholic teaching, explain what is unclear and we will work to clarify
*] If you think that this view contradicts scripture, highlight your issue and we’ll work to help you understand why the Catholic teaching is indeed consistent with scripture.
*] If you have no further questions for us, you can disengage…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Paul, I am going to have to disagree with you here (but not by much!
)I see where you’re coming from, but the CAFs are a* forum*, not a bulletin board.
IOW: there’s dialogue, which involves questioning–both parties. We are certainly free to pose questions to non-Catholics, and hope for reasoned responses, esp. when they hold what appears to us to be untenable positions.
- Status