Problem understanding "faith alone"

[wisdomseeker]

But you just said another KEY word. My Church or my Church’s history. Peter can be tied to my Church. It is indeed history. Now how can you deny my Church’s History but then turn around and accept the words of St Peter who even to this day is buried in My Church.:yup:

Like he said, the CC is the one that compiled the Bible. Yet, he says that it does not belong to her. It is like saying to the owner of a building, yeah, you built it but you have no claiming of ownership. it is for everybody to make use of it.

 

[rinnie]

Peter can certainly be “tied” to those first faith communities…but Peter “falls off the map” after Acts…he is mentioned by Paul…and the two letters subscribed to him were not written by Peter.

That your faith community embraces the legends and “tradition” concerning Peter doesn’t sway me…Peter didn’t write anything in the NT…neither did John, Luke, Matthew, Nathaniel or any of the original twelve. Paul is the only “apostle” we have a reasonable certainty of authorship…and not all the epistles claiming Paul as author are authentic.

Peter can certainly be tied to the Catholic church through it’s traditions.

Now you said Peter can certainly be tied to those faiths communities. Good. You are being honest. And yes you are also correct not only in the bible but also in Tradition.

Now with that alone that we agree on, how then can you say the CC that is indeed tied to St Peter is not the correct Church?

 

[Publisher]

Now you said Peter can certainly be tied to those faiths communities. Good. You are being honest. And yes you are also correct not only in the bible but also in Tradition.

Now with that alone that we agree on, how then can you say the CC that is indeed tied to St Peter is not the correct Church?

Yes…but you and I disagree that those first “faith communites” were “Catholic”…the CC is tied to Peter through your church’s “tradition”…your church’s ‘faith story’ doesn’t “prove” your claim. There were Gnostic sects that also claimed “apostolic” ties…those historians I have mentioned above give a much more detailed account…which I find more plausible than the “sanitized sacred story” provided by the “proto-catholic/orthodox” groups.

 

[fred_conty]

Peter can certainly be “tied” to those first faith communities…but Peter “falls off the map” after Acts…he is mentioned by Paul…and the two letters subscribed to him were not written by Peter.

That your faith community embraces the legends and “tradition” concerning Peter doesn’t sway me…Peter didn’t write anything in the NT…neither did John, Luke, Matthew, Nathaniel or any of the original twelve. Paul is the only “apostle” we have a reasonable certainty of authorship…and not all the epistles claiming Paul as author are authentic.

Peter can certainly be tied to the Catholic church through it’s traditions.

Hi,
May I suggest that RICA would be of interest to you in you search for truth. It is free, and
you may find many ideas you’ve been looking at explained for you. From what you’ve said in this thread, I know it would be enjoyable for you.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Yes…but you and I disagree that those first “faith communites” were “Catholic”…the CC is tied to Peter through your church’s “tradition”…your church’s ‘faith story’ doesn’t “prove” your claim. There were Gnostic sects that also claimed “apostolic” ties…those historians I have mentioned above give a much more detailed account…which I find more plausible than the “sanitized sacred story” provided by the “proto-catholic/orthodox” groups.

I am still waiting for the answer. where do you get the O Tradition from?

 

[rinnie]

Yes…but you and I disagree that those first “faith communites” were “Catholic”…the CC is tied to Peter through your church’s “tradition”…your church’s ‘faith story’ doesn’t “prove” your claim. There were Gnostic sects that also claimed “apostolic” ties.

Ah, but can they show proof? Now you are telling me you actually truly believe and accept that the CC is tied to Peter but the communites were not Catholic Come on now Publisher does that even make sense to you? Think about what you are saying here.

Now how can you accept my Church’s written teaching but then turn around and reject the Oral teaching. It you can’t accept one why the other then? If they would lie about one would they not lie about another then?

 

[Publisher]

Ah, but can they show proof? Now you are telling me you actually truly believe and accept that the CC is tied to Peter but the communites were not Catholic Come on now Publisher does that even make sense to you? Think about what you are saying here.

Now how can you reject my Church’s written teaching but then turn around and reject the Oral teaching. It you can’t accept one why the other then? If they would lie about one would they not lie about another then?

Rinnie,

We are “talking past” one another…I do not believe that the first century fledgling Christian faith was part of a monolithic single organization…by the 2nd century, those communities which eventually came to organize under what became known as “Catholic” or “Orthodox” were one or two groups among many that claimed to be in direct succession of the teaching of Jesus…that is the “faith story” portion of your church that I disagree with…the history I find more plausible is outlined through those authors I referred to you above…

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

We are “talking past” one another…I do not believe that the first century fledgling Christian faith was part of a monolithic single organization…by the 2nd century, those communities which eventually came to organize under what became known as “Catholic” or “Orthodox” were one or two groups among many that claimed to be in direct succession of the teaching of Jesus…that is the “faith story” portion of your church that I disagree with…the history I find more plausible is outlined through those authors I referred to you above…

Okay lets do this another way. Do you or do you not accept the bible scripture to be the written word of God?

 

[djeter]

Long before all the mixup on faith and good works, St. Thomas Aquinas held forth on the topic here. If everyone had understood what the good doctor had written, we could have saved ourselves a lot of trouble. I still think it is the best statement on Catholic doctrine concerning the matter.

For Thomas, human beings are not justified by their acts if justification’ means what it sometimes means for Luther, i.e., the forgiveness of sins. This first step and sine qua non presupposition for progress towards one’s final end, the initium fidei, is from God moving inwardly through grace’. On the other hand, if `justification’ refers to the entire process by which one reaches the final goal, then human actions are of course part of the process. As Thomas puts it in his commentary on Romans, justification is sola gratia sine operibus precedentibus, but not sola gratia sine operibus subsequentibus. Or, as he says in the Summa Theologiae,** the grace of God does not presuppose goodness in human beings but creates it**. In view of all this, it is a misunderstanding or at least an oversimplification to say as Luther does that for Thomas, one is justified through one’s good acts.
Denis R. Janz, Luther on Thomas Aquinas (Stuttgart, 1989), 57.

dj

 

[Publisher]

Okay lets do this another way. Do you or do you not accept the bible scripture to be the written word of God?

I believe the sacred writings we call “The Bible” is a record of what people of faith came to believe about God…it certainly “contains” the Word…but in and of itself it is not the Word of God…God’s Word can certainly speak through scripture.

 

[rinnie]

I believe the sacred writings we call “The Bible” is a record of what people of faith came to believe about God…it certainly “contains” the Word…but in and of itself it is not the Word of God…God’s Word can certainly speak through scripture.

But that is not what I asked you, I asked you if YOU accept scriture as the word of God. Simple yes or no would be the answer

 

[William_Pitts]

This is from the Catholic Doctrinal Concordance:

Faith-Alone-(Sola Fide)
Martin Luther promoted the idea of faith alone as a means of salvation. The Church has always taught that faith, hope, and love (charity) are required for salvation. The only time the expression “faith alone” is mentioned in the bible is in Jam_2:24, where the author says Abraham was NOT saved by faith alone.

What good is faith without works? Jam_2:14-26

Must avoid sin Heb_10:26

“Earning” forgiveness Jam_5:20

Must do will of God Luk_6:46; Mat_7:21; Mat_19:16-21; 1Ti_5:8

Paul disciplines himself to avoid losing salvation 1Co_9:27

Works have merit Phi_2:12; 2Co_5:10; Rom_2:6; Mat_25:32-46; Gal_6:6-10

Keep commandments 1Jo_2:3-4; 1Jo_3:24; 1Jo_5:3

saved by hope.Rom_8:25

Love greatest of all theological virtues faith Hope and Love1Co_13:13

baptism doth also now save us1Pe_3:21

 

[Publisher]

But that is not what I asked you, I asked you if YOU accept scriture as the word of God. Simple yes or no would be the answer

It is not a “simple” yes or no…as far as I’m concerned…either answer is “lacking” in my estimation Rinne.

 

[rinnie]

It is not a “simple” yes or no…as far as I’m concerned…either answer is “lacking” in my estimation Rinne.

How is that? You either believe it or you don"t Pub, its pretty simple to answer. Just spit it out Pub. I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say. But its your call. You explain it to me.

 

[Publisher]

How is that? You either believe it or you don"t Pub, its pretty simple to answer. Just spit it out Pub. I am pretty sure I know what you are going to say. But its your call. You explain it to me.

No Rinnie…it’s not and easy answer for me…I do not believe everything in the Bible is “God’s infallible word”…I believe it contains God’s word…but the “book” is just that…a book…God’s Word is found in Christ.

The prophets wrote that a time would come when the “word of God would be written in men’s hearts”…we can listen to the word of God spoken inwardly.

Example…I do not believe Jeptha’s sacrifice of his daughter is “God’s word”…nor the injunction of “God” to the Israelites to “kill every man, woman and child…”

The Bible is a record of man’s search for God…God’s word is not something I necessarily can quote “chapter and verse”…the word of God is contained within it’s pages…but it’s pages are not God’s word.

I have no problem being at odds with Catholic belief…I and I alone must answer for my beliefs before God on That Day…but I am confident in Him…not in myself…to “keep what I have commited to him against that day.”

 

[Denise1957]

I like what Ronald Knox had to say about the need to use our intellect when it comes to believing what the Church teaches. Here are a few quotes from his book, “The belief of Catholics.”:

Chap lll, page 31;

"…Yet the average Protestant persists in believing that the attitude of the Church towards the human intellect is adequately summed up in the phrase, “Open your mouth and shut your eyes.” It is supposed that anyone who is brought up as a Catholic retains, without any further questioning or instruction on the point, the pious credulity with which he accepted all that his mother told him, all that the priest told him, when he was too young to think for himself. Any dawning doubts as to the sufficency of the motive for the belief are crushed, we suppose, with threats of hell and excommunication. This would be extraordinary enough, considering the number of Catholics there are in the world and ample opportunities for being infected, in a world like ours, with the germs of unbelief. But, still more extraordinary, this church, which has no proof of anything she says beyond her own bare assertion, is making converts, in an enlightened country like ours, at the rate of some twelve thousand in the year. How does she manage (one wonders) to play off her confidence trick with such repeated success?

This is, indeed, a phenomenon at which non-Catholics profess the utmost astonishment. But it is a kind of astonishment which has grown blunted by usage; they have come to regard it as part of the order of things that their neighbors should become the victims, now and again, of this extraordinary tour de force. If they were compelled to picture to themselves the process of conversion, they would, I suppose, conceive it something after this fashion–that the mind of the enquirer is hypnotised into acquiescence by the crafty blandishments of a designing priest; not by his arguments, for he has none, he only goes on shouting “Become a Catholic, or you will go to hell!”; not by his arguments, but by some fatal quality of fascination, which we breed, no doubt, in the seminaries…"

to be continued…

 

[rinnie]

No Rinnie…it’s not and easy answer for me…I do not believe everything in the Bible is “God’s infallible word”…I believe it contains God’s word…but the “book” is just that…a book…God’s Word is found in Christ.

The prophets wrote that a time would come when the “word of God would be written in men’s hearts”…we can listen to the word of God spoken inwardly.

Example…I do not believe Jeptha’s sacrifice of his daughter is “God’s word”…nor the injunction of “God” to the Israelites to “kill every man, woman and child…”

The Bible is a record of man’s search for God…God’s word is not something I necessarily can quote “chapter and verse”…the word of God is contained within it’s pages…but it’s pages are not God’s word.

I have no problem being at odds with Catholic belief…I and I alone must answer for my beliefs before God on That Day…but I am confident in Him…not in myself…to “keep what I have commited to him against that day.”

Sorry Pub I am quite confused by this response. How the word of God can be contained in its pages but are not the word of God. Unless of course we are speaking of Sola S. here which is a completely different thing.

But anyway I am going to be gone for the next week and don’t know if I will have time to access a computer. So will have to get back to you later. I am sure this will probally be closed when I get back. If not we can continue.

If not my love and prayers to you and yours Pub. You know I love you even though we are on opposite sides alot. I still have alot of respect for you. And like to believe we are a family on what we do believe together which is our Love for God.

For now my friend gotta pack and get ready to head for Florida and get some sand in my shoes. Boy do we NEED IT. We have had a total of 4 days this YEAR so far w/o rain. Looking so forward to relaxing and the sun. Take care Pub.

 

[Denise1957]

Continued from pg. 33-33 of “The belief of Catholics,” by Ronald knox:

"In a dazed condition, like that of the bird under the snakes eye, he assents to every formula presented to him, binds himself by every oath that is proposed to him, in one open-mouthed act of surrender. After that, of course, pride forbids him to admit, so long as life lasts, that the choice so made was a mistaken one; besides, one knows the power these priests have. Yes, it is very curious, the power attributed to these priests. when you have had the privilege of assisting at their education for seven years, you fell that “curious” is too weak a word for it.

This is, presumably, what Protestants have in mind when they represent submission to the Church as a form of “intellectual suicide.” They mean that the act of faith which a man makes in joining the Church is an act of the will (or, more properly speaking, the emotions) in which the intellect plays no part. It is an entertaining fact, familiar to all who are acquainted with the history of Protestantism, that one of the earliest and one of the fiercest controversies between the Reformation and the Old Relgion was concerned precisely with this point. It was, of course, the Protestants who maintained the view that faith was an act of the will (or, more properly speaking, the emotions), with frequesnt allusion to the misunderstood text: “With the heart, man believeth unto salvation”; whereas their Catholic opponents earned bitter hatred by insisting that the act of faith, however much directed by the will, had its seat in the intellect. historically, Protestantism is committed to the notion that the act of faith is a mere surrender of a personality to a Personality, without parley, without deliberation, without logical motive. The true representative of Protestantism in the modern world is the Salvationist who stand up at a street corner and cries out “I am saved.” It is Catholicism which insists, ideally at least, it is the intellect which must be satisfied first, the heart afterwards."

 

[Publisher]

Sorry Pub I am quite confused by this response. How the word of God can be contained in its pages but are not the word of God. Unless of course we are speaking of Sola S. here which is a completely different thing.

But anyway I am going to be gone for the next week and don’t know if I will have time to access a computer. So will have to get back to you later. I am sure this will probally be closed when I get back. If not we can continue.

If not my love and prayers to you and yours Pub. You know I love you even though we are on opposite sides alot. I still have alot of respect for you. And like to believe we are a family on what we do believe together which is our Love for God.

For now my friend gotta pack and get ready to head for Florida and get some sand in my shoes. Boy do we NEED IT. We have had a total of 4 days this YEAR so far w/o rain. Looking so forward to relaxing and the sun. Take care Pub.

God’s Word is inward…“carved upon fleshy tablets”…God is found when the heart grows still before Him…and Listens…sometimes the “word of the Lord” will come to me as I’m reading scripture…an insight…an “opening” to something I had not considered before…or sometimes as reproof when I’ve dealt harshly with someone…

one Yearly Meeting said it like…

“Nevertheless, because the scriptures are only a declaration of the source, and not the source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit or, as the scriptures themselves say, the Spirit is the guide by which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith.”

Peace to you and yours friend Rinnie,

 

[rinnie]

God’s Word is inward…“carved upon fleshy tablets”…God is found when the heart grows still before Him…and Listens…sometimes the “word of the Lord” will come to me as I’m reading scripture…an insight…an “opening” to something I had not considered before…or sometimes as reproof when I’ve dealt harshly with someone…

one Yearly Meeting said it like…

“Nevertheless, because the scriptures are only a declaration of the source, and not the source itself, they are not to be considered the principal foundation of all truth and knowledge. They are not even to be considered as the adequate primary rule of all faith and practice. Yet, because they give a true and faithful testimony of the source itself, they are and may be regarded as a secondary rule that is subordinate to the Spirit, from which they obtain all their excellence and certainty. We truly know them only by the inward testimony of the Spirit or, as the scriptures themselves say, the Spirit is the guide by which the faithful are led into all Truth (John 16:13). Therefore, according to the scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader (Rom 8:14). Because we are receptive to the scriptures, as the product of the Spirit, it is for that very reason that the Spirit is the primary and principal rule of faith.”

Peace to you and yours friend Rinnie,

That is beautiful pub it truly is. And I agree with alot of what you are saying and that is also the teaching of our faith actually. When we hear the word of God we can see where it relates to just us and we can figure out how God is using that particular scripture to talk just to us.

Kind of off the subject but when I was young really young there was this song that was called the seasons of the sun. It was about a man who was going to die and he knew it.

Now I am talking making tents as a kid, playing house etc, that young. Anyway my brother and I were really close. 2 years apart in age and did everything together. From every Christmas getting up together to actually having 2 kids a piece 2 months apart and didn’t even try.

Anyway I have not heard that song for like over 20 years. One morning I woke up and it was playing. The next minute the phone rang and said he had a brain tumor. Well for the next year and a half I swear they played that song at least once a week on the radio. No matter what station. I was like I hate this song quit playing it. Everytime I heard it, it made me sick. It was like telling me he was going to die.

Well I was sure he was going to make it. Well he died. The song I have not heard since

I am sure I will someday, but strange isn’t it how it played so much being so old, and then nothing.

My sister and I were going somewhere and it came on, and she said that darn song they keep playing, we haven’t heard it since we were kids. I wish they would quit playing it
She felt it also.

Sometimes God prepares us even when we don’t want to hear it. I know we are on opposite sides of the fence. But not when it counts. We can our disagree on our faith or our different ways of getting to God. But like that song, he has different ways to get our attention. But we still have much more in common then not.

God Bless you my friend.