P
Psalm45_9
Guest
But how do you know this is the word of the Lord? How do you know what is scripture and what is not?
- Status
P
Psalm45_9
Guest
Circular reasoning. The Wisdom of Solomon makes a prediction to the Passion of Christ and is considered part of the Canon by Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but is rejected by the Protestants. Yes the Palestinian Jews rejected this book, but they also reject the New Testament.
P
p90
Guest
Psalm45:9:
~Matt
An interesting contention. Would you mind demonstrating it?
~Matt
J
jmm08
Guest
E.E.N.S.:
E.E.N.S.: Please elaborate. Do you have an example to share regarding other letters of St. Paul?Faith_is_First:
Oh yes there are! For example, in 1Corinthians, Paul says “…in my prior letter to you…” prior to what? I though this was his first letter? And why did Paul on several occassions wish to rather explain things in person (like the Lord’s Supper) as opposed to writing them down?*Sorry to bring this up but earlier in the thread I saw this:
Are there other letters of St. Paul that are in the Canon? For real?
*
P
Philthy
Guest
Socrates4Jesus
"God our Savior … saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy… " (Titus 3:5)
I’m a firm believer that “contradictions” in the Bible are not real but only apparent. However, i don’t know how the last four passages may be interpreted any other way than to mean that the good things we do do not contribute to our receiving eternal life.
Well the first thing you need to do is realize that the quote you provided doesn’t even use the words “eternal salvation” Those words don’t appear until much laterin the verse. Lets look at the entire verse:
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having hope of eternal life." (verses 4-7)
Please notice the end of the verse (bolded) which makes the intent of the author quite clear. Especially look at the words “might” and “hope”. The first logical conclusion is that despite being “justified” there is still something else to do to earn eternal life. If everything is cast in stone by God why is it that we “might” become heirs, and even then have only “hope” of eternal life?When you then take the time to genuinely reflect on the entirety of this verse it is plainly obvious what is meant. God provided a way from hopeless eternal damnation to possible eternal salvation. Is there really any question here? Please allow me to rewrite with some additions:
“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us **from certain eternal damnation due to our fallen nature - **not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us from inescapable damnation due to our sinfulness in His sight through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having **hope **of eternal life if we choose to actually live a life in his grace.”
At this point you might raise an objection to my last addition to the verse and say that I should have written “if we choose to have faith in Jesus Christ” instead. I find this logically unsatisfactory. What’s the choice then? Between believing and not having to do anything more (and gaining eternal salvation) vs. not believing and going to eternal damnation? Would anyone really choose that second option? Of course not! So it makes no sense for that to be the option before us. The real choice is between believing and living that faith through our actions vs not believing and living sinfully uncooperative lives apart from God’s grace.
Im sorry but you cant just butcher that verse entirely and get “salvation by faith alone” out of it. It’s by grace alone, which of course is the Catholic position.
I suppose after reading some of the more recent posts that I can expect not to hear from you on this. I had quite a long list of material to present to you on this topic but in light of those posts I’ve decided not to pursue them all. And anyhow this one clarification should be enough, hopefully, to make you realize that not only don’t we have all the answers, but that Catholic doctrine is solidly intact after 2000 years.
"God our Savior … saved us, not because of the righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy… " (Titus 3:5)
I’m a firm believer that “contradictions” in the Bible are not real but only apparent. However, i don’t know how the last four passages may be interpreted any other way than to mean that the good things we do do not contribute to our receiving eternal life.
Well the first thing you need to do is realize that the quote you provided doesn’t even use the words “eternal salvation” Those words don’t appear until much laterin the verse. Lets look at the entire verse:
"But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having hope of eternal life." (verses 4-7)
Please notice the end of the verse (bolded) which makes the intent of the author quite clear. Especially look at the words “might” and “hope”. The first logical conclusion is that despite being “justified” there is still something else to do to earn eternal life. If everything is cast in stone by God why is it that we “might” become heirs, and even then have only “hope” of eternal life?When you then take the time to genuinely reflect on the entirety of this verse it is plainly obvious what is meant. God provided a way from hopeless eternal damnation to possible eternal salvation. Is there really any question here? Please allow me to rewrite with some additions:
“But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us **from certain eternal damnation due to our fallen nature - **not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us from inescapable damnation due to our sinfulness in His sight through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having **hope **of eternal life if we choose to actually live a life in his grace.”
At this point you might raise an objection to my last addition to the verse and say that I should have written “if we choose to have faith in Jesus Christ” instead. I find this logically unsatisfactory. What’s the choice then? Between believing and not having to do anything more (and gaining eternal salvation) vs. not believing and going to eternal damnation? Would anyone really choose that second option? Of course not! So it makes no sense for that to be the option before us. The real choice is between believing and living that faith through our actions vs not believing and living sinfully uncooperative lives apart from God’s grace.
Im sorry but you cant just butcher that verse entirely and get “salvation by faith alone” out of it. It’s by grace alone, which of course is the Catholic position.
I suppose after reading some of the more recent posts that I can expect not to hear from you on this. I had quite a long list of material to present to you on this topic but in light of those posts I’ve decided not to pursue them all. And anyhow this one clarification should be enough, hopefully, to make you realize that not only don’t we have all the answers, but that Catholic doctrine is solidly intact after 2000 years.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Steve M:
I’d have to respectfully disagree when you say, “Faith doesn’t play into the following the Law.” The hypocritical Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in Matthew 23 did have faith, for Jesus rebuked them, saying:
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40)
They had faith that their knowledge of the Old Testament would save them from hell, but Christ knew that faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Since they did not have faith (or trust) in Him to save them from hell, they were still hell-bent. So He warned them:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. … You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23)
Jesus knew that they had faith, but He also knew that they did not have faith in Him. Since faith was only as good as the object in which it is placed, they did not have a snowball’s chance in a fire of being saved from hell without Him.
However, if you mean that Christian faith does not require that a person follow the law to make it to heaven, i agree. Jesus followed the law perfectly without hypocrisy to prove that He was God’s perfect sacrifice; He was, as John the Baptist (not Southern Baptist) said, “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
Steve:
I’d have to respectfully disagree when you say, “Faith doesn’t play into the following the Law.” The hypocritical Pharisees whom Jesus rebuked in Matthew 23 did have faith, for Jesus rebuked them, saying:
“You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.” (John 5:39-40)
They had faith that their knowledge of the Old Testament would save them from hell, but Christ knew that faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Since they did not have faith (or trust) in Him to save them from hell, they were still hell-bent. So He warned them:
“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness. … You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?” (Matthew 23)
Jesus knew that they had faith, but He also knew that they did not have faith in Him. Since faith was only as good as the object in which it is placed, they did not have a snowball’s chance in a fire of being saved from hell without Him.
However, if you mean that Christian faith does not require that a person follow the law to make it to heaven, i agree. Jesus followed the law perfectly without hypocrisy to prove that He was God’s perfect sacrifice; He was, as John the Baptist (not Southern Baptist) said, “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.”
B
buffalo
Guest
Go to biblechristiansociety.com/
There are free audio tapes availbale that address these same issues.
He also addresses it here:
biblechristiansociety.com/booklets/Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone.doc
Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone
Are we saved by Faith Alone? Or, do works play an important role in our salvation? John presents the Protestant arguments, from Scripture, for the doctrine of Sola Fide, and then, using the Bible Alone, proceeds to thoroughly refute these arguments while presenting Scripture passage after Scripture passage that support the Catholic teaching that both faith and works are necessary responses to God’s saving grace.
There are free audio tapes availbale that address these same issues.
He also addresses it here:
biblechristiansociety.com/booklets/Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone.doc
Sola Fide - Salvation by Faith Alone
Are we saved by Faith Alone? Or, do works play an important role in our salvation? John presents the Protestant arguments, from Scripture, for the doctrine of Sola Fide, and then, using the Bible Alone, proceeds to thoroughly refute these arguments while presenting Scripture passage after Scripture passage that support the Catholic teaching that both faith and works are necessary responses to God’s saving grace.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Steve:
I think the difficulty i’m having is that Romans 2:6-8 seems ambiguous to me. The passage which states:
“God 'will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
may either be understood in the way that you explained, or it may be understood as the note on Romans 2:6-7 in the margin of my New International Version of the Bible, which states:
“Paul is not contradicting his continual emphasis in all his writings, including Romans, that a person is saved not by what he does but by faith in what Christ does for him. Rather, he is discussing the principle of judgment according to deeds… If anyone persists in doing good deeds (i.e., lives a perfect life), he will receive eternal life. No one can do this, but if anyone could, God would give him life, since God judges according to what a person does.”
When i look at the next chapter, i see strong evidence to accept the NIV (which is the Protestant) understanding of Romans 2:6-8. For St. Paul wrote:
"…‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’ " (Romans 3:10-12)
The Protestant understanding really seems to follow the text. It makes sense that St. Paul begins by saying that God will judge sins (chapter 1), that anyone who is persistent in doing good deserves eternal life (chapter 2), but no one is persistently good (chapter 3), so faith in God’s grace (but not our good works done in that grace) is what obtains eternal life for us (chapter 4).
Even Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone.”
Do you appreciate the reason why i’m now leaning back toward the Protestant way of seeing the passage?
I think the difficulty i’m having is that Romans 2:6-8 seems ambiguous to me. The passage which states:
“God 'will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”
may either be understood in the way that you explained, or it may be understood as the note on Romans 2:6-7 in the margin of my New International Version of the Bible, which states:
“Paul is not contradicting his continual emphasis in all his writings, including Romans, that a person is saved not by what he does but by faith in what Christ does for him. Rather, he is discussing the principle of judgment according to deeds… If anyone persists in doing good deeds (i.e., lives a perfect life), he will receive eternal life. No one can do this, but if anyone could, God would give him life, since God judges according to what a person does.”
When i look at the next chapter, i see strong evidence to accept the NIV (which is the Protestant) understanding of Romans 2:6-8. For St. Paul wrote:
"…‘There is no one righteous, not even one; there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.’ " (Romans 3:10-12)
The Protestant understanding really seems to follow the text. It makes sense that St. Paul begins by saying that God will judge sins (chapter 1), that anyone who is persistent in doing good deserves eternal life (chapter 2), but no one is persistently good (chapter 3), so faith in God’s grace (but not our good works done in that grace) is what obtains eternal life for us (chapter 4).
Even Jesus said, “No one is good but God alone.”
Do you appreciate the reason why i’m now leaning back toward the Protestant way of seeing the passage?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Great thoughts, Ptero!
Did you ever think that the reason God knows the future is because He is already there? I like C.S. Lewis’ analogy from his Mere Christianity that all of time is like a time line drawn on two pages of an open book. God, being outside the book, sees the beginning, the end & all time in between.
That God predestines (or chooses us) is taught in the Bible; how He predestines may be that He looks down the corridor of time & makes His choice based on who will respond to His love & truth, & who will not. Those whom He knows will respond, He chooses. But those whom He knows will not respond, He rejects. So, it’s not as if He arbitrarily makes the choice for us, rather, He chooses to respect the choices you & i will choose to make.
At least, that’s the way i’ve come to understand predestination & our free will.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
S
Steve_M
Guest
What your doing is the normal protestant response. That is to say that Paul doesn’t really mean what he’s saying, he really means something else. That ignores the fact that the language Paul uses 2:6-8, he uses elsewhere when describing how Christians are supposed to live. The word that is translated persistance is used by Paul in several other passages. I don’t have them in front of me now, but I’ll post them either this evening or tomorrow.
Paul says all have sinned. He doesn’t make any exceptions. That would mean Jesus is a sinner. If you’re trying to take the most extreme reading of every passage, you’re going to get some really odd results. The NIV is going to have to have interpretations that meet the Protestant theological line, other wise their theology falls apart. One of the things that made me really start looking at what I was taught as a Protestant was the fact that for their theology to be correct, about 1/3 of the New Testament has to mean something other than it says, such as James 2:24.
It’s easy for anyone to say they have faith in Christ, but Jesus himself says the everyone that calls him Lord will not have eternal life. He says as you’ve done unto the least of these you’ve done unto me. That’s says you’re supposed to have works.
If you’re still leaning to the Protestant theology, please explain Jesus’ teaching, and James’ writings. What role do you see works playing?
Paul says all have sinned. He doesn’t make any exceptions. That would mean Jesus is a sinner. If you’re trying to take the most extreme reading of every passage, you’re going to get some really odd results. The NIV is going to have to have interpretations that meet the Protestant theological line, other wise their theology falls apart. One of the things that made me really start looking at what I was taught as a Protestant was the fact that for their theology to be correct, about 1/3 of the New Testament has to mean something other than it says, such as James 2:24.
You’re not putting Paul’s writings in the context of the entire New Testament. As I said before, James says clearly that your justified by your works and not by faith alone. You’re saying that you don’t have to have good works. If that’s the case, James and Jesus are both lying. If you approach Paul from the prespective of who he was writing to and why he was writing, then his theology fits in easily with the idea that one must have works. The works are done in faith, hoping that God, who knows our heart, will have mercy on us. Paul is railing against the Jews that thought God owed them salvation because of the law. Paul is saying that God doesn’t owe you anything. If you do your absolute best, you still haven’t achieved enough righteousness to deserve salvation. It’s at that point, that one must understand that they have to depend on the grace of God, and his gift, in order to gain salvation. If you don’t have any works, your faith is dead, James’ words again. Faith alone is not enough. Works alone are not enough. But when works done in faith that God will have mercy on those that do his will, salvation is gained.
It’s easy for anyone to say they have faith in Christ, but Jesus himself says the everyone that calls him Lord will not have eternal life. He says as you’ve done unto the least of these you’ve done unto me. That’s says you’re supposed to have works.
If you’re still leaning to the Protestant theology, please explain Jesus’ teaching, and James’ writings. What role do you see works playing?
S
Steve_M
Guest
Faith doesn’t play into it in the sense of faith that God, through his grace, will grant salvation. The Law is a legal obligation. If it is kept, salvation is owed. The Jews had faith that God owed them salvation if they kept the law. It’s the difference in what the faith is for. You have faith that your boss will pay you your wage for the job you do. That’s the kind of faith the Jews had. That’s what Paul preaches against.
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Greg:
The Protestants i know would protest those who called themselves Protestants & believe that good works are essential to salvation! Anyone who believes this may be confusing correlation with causation, they might say.
That good works follow a life-changing conversion is evident. That the good works are the cause of that conversion is not. The conversion, Protestants believe, is the moment when a person is saved from hell by God’s grace, which they receive through their own repentance & faith.
“Therefore” St. Paul wrote, “if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!” And he went on to say: “All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself through Christ, not counting men’s sins against them…” (2 Corinthians 5:17-19)
To these Protestants, good works are not a cause of salvation but the consequence of it. Good works, they believe, are not the reason one is saved from hell, but only the result of the changed life of a person who has already been saved from hell.
Greg, you may have touched on the important difference in understanding faith here. It seems from what i have read of your posts, & those of others, that Catholics understand faith as a process that occurs over a life time. While Protestants understand faith to be a decision made in a moment of time to trust in the sacrifice of Christ & receive eternal life as a gift.
Once the person has received this gift, he begins the life of submitting more & more to God in his relationship with Christ. The decision, however, is what they believe saves them from hell, not the life of obedience. The life of obedience is the evidence that a person has made that decision & received the Spirit of God to help him live as they desire to live after conversion.
As Our Lord said:
“I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life.” (John 5:24)
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Steve M:
I’m not saying that good works are not required to be a Christian; i’m only suggesting that they are not a cause of salvation.
Please tell me: Do you understand the difference?
Steve:
I’m not saying that good works are not required to be a Christian; i’m only suggesting that they are not a cause of salvation.
Please tell me: Do you understand the difference?
S
Socrates4Jesus
Guest
Steve M:
Yes, i agree.
S
Steve_M
Guest
Not the cause, but a cause. You have faith. You acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God, and he’s the savior of the world. The beginng of salvation. Not the end, but the beginning. Because of that faith, you trust that if you do what he says he will find it in the kindness of his heart to grant you salvation. That’s were the works come in. When you have the works, your faith becomes more than intellectual ascent(sp?). If you say good works are required to be a Christian, then you have to have them. Without them, ones faith is nothing more the intellectual ascent. I understand what your saying, but that totally contradicts what James and Jesus both say. Works alone are not enough, neither is faith alone, but together, you gain salvation. Not because of either alone, but because of each working together. How do you think one gains salvation?
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Hello Socrates,
Socrates4Jesus:
All Protestants know that they cannot expect heaven if they say they have faith and do not live morally and care about their neighbor. This is a just a simple fact that means these works are an essential part of salvation. This is irrespective of causes. Causes do not make this fact false, period.
Greg
This is exactly what I am talking about when I respectfully refer to word games and cause/effects. I wasn’t referring to causes/effects - I was stating a simple fact. You force causes/effects into the conversation when there is no need to. This all part of the game - it goes on ad infinitum.
All Protestants know that they cannot expect heaven if they say they have faith and do not live morally and care about their neighbor. This is a just a simple fact that means these works are an essential part of salvation. This is irrespective of causes. Causes do not make this fact false, period.
Greg
M
Matt16_18
Guest
Soc4u
You believe that conversion is a one time event, and the works of charity are not necessary for salvation:
From your Ticket to Heaven thread:
I believe that the perfection of the believer is a past event (not a present process). From this thread:The Protestants i know would protest those who called themselves Protestants & believe that good works are essential to salvation! That good works follow a life-changing conversion is evident.
How can good works be essential for salvation and not necessary for salvation?
It is obvious that you have been heavily influenced by interpreters of John Calvin’s faulty theology of justification. “Calvinists” say exactly the same things that you are saying. But the Calvinists also typically reject any idea that human beings have free will. For Calvinists, grace is “irresistible”, and because of their faulty understanding of grace and free will, it is “evident” for the Calvinist that good works follow the reception of saving grace.
Calvinist theology forces one to accept that Christians are nothing but holy meat robots without free will, going through life doing good works because they have no choice but to live a life of holiness caused by irresistible grace. It is an insane theology, but people believe it anyway. The desperate clinging to the false idea of irresistible grace is the reason why Calvinists often obstinately refuse to accept that good works could in any way be necessary to keep a person from suffering damnation.
Why would anyone believe such an anti-human theology that asserts that we are noting more than meat robots without free will? Because giving up the false doctrine of irresistible grace strikes fear and terror into the Calvinist, since the Calvinist would then have a crisis of faith and have to confront what they know to be true deep in their hearts. And that is that it is useless to deny that they have free will, and that Christians can not only refuse to do any good works at all, they can freely choose to commit sin, even hideous mortal sins.
Trying to separate obedience from saving faith is like trying to take the wet out of water.
You believe that conversion is a one time event, and the works of charity are not necessary for salvation:
From your Ticket to Heaven thread:
I believe that the perfection of the believer is a past event (not a present process). From this thread:The Protestants i know would protest those who called themselves Protestants & believe that good works are essential to salvation! That good works follow a life-changing conversion is evident.
How can good works be essential for salvation and not necessary for salvation?
It is obvious that you have been heavily influenced by interpreters of John Calvin’s faulty theology of justification. “Calvinists” say exactly the same things that you are saying. But the Calvinists also typically reject any idea that human beings have free will. For Calvinists, grace is “irresistible”, and because of their faulty understanding of grace and free will, it is “evident” for the Calvinist that good works follow the reception of saving grace.
Calvinist theology forces one to accept that Christians are nothing but holy meat robots without free will, going through life doing good works because they have no choice but to live a life of holiness caused by irresistible grace. It is an insane theology, but people believe it anyway. The desperate clinging to the false idea of irresistible grace is the reason why Calvinists often obstinately refuse to accept that good works could in any way be necessary to keep a person from suffering damnation.
Why would anyone believe such an anti-human theology that asserts that we are noting more than meat robots without free will? Because giving up the false doctrine of irresistible grace strikes fear and terror into the Calvinist, since the Calvinist would then have a crisis of faith and have to confront what they know to be true deep in their hearts. And that is that it is useless to deny that they have free will, and that Christians can not only refuse to do any good works at all, they can freely choose to commit sin, even hideous mortal sins.
Trying to separate obedience from saving faith is like trying to take the wet out of water.
G
Greg_McPherran
Guest
Yes, exactly. Well said Matt.
Socrates, because we have have free will we cannot guarantee that we will not later reject Jesus up through the time of our death. So there is no faith that saves you once and for all and then the works just happen. Rather, your free will chooses to continue to live morally and lovingly serve God and your neighbor. These continuing good works of free will are essential to salvation. These works may be motivated by faith, fine, but they are essential. If Protestants don’t believe that, then they’re wrong.
Also, if one is not Catholic then that person has not fully accepted Jesus anyway so their salvation may be even more in doubt.
Greg
D
DJB
Guest
I’m a classic forums lurker. I enjoy reading the threads but rarely feel compelled to comment as there are so many others who speak more forcefully than I. From the begining of this thread I suspected that the stated desire of the instigator, to return to the Church, was a canard.
I do feel as though the question regarding works and faith, is not an overly complex one and the suggestion that a writer as eloquent as Socrates is unable to understand the Catholic teaching strikes me as patently false.
The reason I am so comforrtable with my faith and would encourage you Socrates to sincerely explore the teachings of the Church is that the Church never treats Scripture as a legal document handed down to control men and our organizations. Instead, Scripture is part of the inspired revelation that God so gracefully gave to us and is to be used in context for our desire to get closer to him. The Church that he organized and left for us is the body most able to bring you into communion with him. I urge you to stop splitting scriptural hairs and seek the answer in your heart. God is there and he won’t mis-lead you.
I do feel as though the question regarding works and faith, is not an overly complex one and the suggestion that a writer as eloquent as Socrates is unable to understand the Catholic teaching strikes me as patently false.
The reason I am so comforrtable with my faith and would encourage you Socrates to sincerely explore the teachings of the Church is that the Church never treats Scripture as a legal document handed down to control men and our organizations. Instead, Scripture is part of the inspired revelation that God so gracefully gave to us and is to be used in context for our desire to get closer to him. The Church that he organized and left for us is the body most able to bring you into communion with him. I urge you to stop splitting scriptural hairs and seek the answer in your heart. God is there and he won’t mis-lead you.
- Status