Protestanism and Mormonism!!!!!

[estesbob]

Faith alone

See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only

 

[SyCarl]

Sigh-from the same homily:

But since after this grace, whereby we were justified, there is need also of a life suited to it, let us show an earnestness worthy the gift. And show it we shall, if we keep with earnestness charity, the mother of good deeds.

There are contradictions only to those who approach their writings the same as they do Scripture-taking random sentences out of context and making profound statments about what they mean,

I don’t see anything in the second quote which contradicts the first. The first says we are justified by faith only. He then says we should show ourselves worthy of the gift by works. We already have the gift of justification before the works.

You are very quick to say that the quotes are taken out of context. I don’t think that they are. Perhaps you could tell me how I have taken them out of context and what the right context is.

 

[zerinus]

Jake, don’t get me wrong, I agree with you at the level of principle. But the catechism has a lot to say about this. We don’t believe that people in other religions are necessarily condemned. Jesus judges each person individually. The formulaic aspect of what you seem to be saying is more attuned to a fundamentalist mindset than Catholicism. I don’t know what sort of Christianity you’re practicing now…

BTW I’m glad you’re out of Mormonism. IMO you’re on the right road. Keep on going, bro. Soon enough you’ll come to the river Tiber and have a chance to go for a swim… LOL.

Funny. Since I asked him which church he goes to, he has disappeared!

zerinus

 

[SyCarl]

Of course it was unherad of. Generally when Pressed Protestants will provide quotes where the CF talks about the importance of Faith or the Importance of Scripture and claim that means they supporeted sola scriptura and sola fidelis.Of course it one reads ALL the writings of the CFs and examines Church history for the first 1,500 years or so they will see these doctrines never existed until Luther made them up

Yes they do stress the importance of faith to the point that Chrysostom says “faith only” and “faith alone”

They also talk about the importance of scripture to the point that Augustine and Chrysostom both say that everything necessary is plainly set out in them. That is exactly what scripture alone is.

In the early church fathers how often do you see them defending or saying anything without referring to scripture as the proof? Where do you see them quoting something an Apostle said outside of scripture to prove their point?

 

[Jake1975]

Zerinus,

I didn’t disappear, I was participating in a discussion with others on the Apologetics forum discussing the Eucharist. If you are questioning my incentives on this board, I suggest you read the “Eucharist v. Communion” thread. That will reveal my intentions on these forums. I just got bogged down in this one, which was not my original intention. I have realized that I am getting devisive, which is something I do not want to do. I apologize.

I stated that I am Christian because I get tired of labels. Christians are so divided these days. I am Baptist, but don’t consider myself locked into its doctrines alone. Denominationalism was born with the recognition that no one body can contain the entire truth, but together, the truth is represented. We are not to bicker and quarrel over secondary issues, but embrace one another in faith. That is why I chose to claim “christianity” as my faith. Besides, the reputation of Baptists has taken a few hits lately

 

[estesbob]

I **don’t see anything in the second quote which contradicts the first. The first says we are justified by faith only. He then says we should show ourselves worthy of the gift by works. We already have the gift of justification before the works. **

You are very quick to say that the quotes are taken out of context. I don’t think that they are. Perhaps you could tell me how I have taken them out of context and what the right context is.

Per you personal interperation right? Anyone who has read his writings woud know it is utter nonsesne to claim he embraced Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidelis. You sum knoweldge of the man is two lines you took out of ONE Homily he gave

 

[Jake1975]

But the catechism has a lot to say about this. We don’t believe that people in other religions are necessarily condemned. Jesus judges each person individually. The formulaic aspect of what you seem to be saying is more attuned to a fundamentalist mindset than Catholicism.

Allweather,

You make a valid point. Jesus does ultimately decide every individual’s fate. I have no right to play God, but I am very concerned about the slippery slope of “acceptance” of unbiblical belief systems. You understand my baggage.

 

[SyCarl]

Per you personal interperation right? Anyone who has read his writings woud know it is utter nonsesne to claim he embraced Sola Scriptura or Sola Fidelis. You sum knoweldge of the man is two lines you took out of ONE Homily he gave

Now you are presuming to know how much I have read? If you look, I have quoted from his Homilies on Romans, Galatians, 2 Timothy, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and his Tractates on the John in this and various threads. How much have you read, and I don’t mean in a book by another who has pulled out the parts that support Catholocism.?

 

[estesbob]

Now you are presuming to know how much I have read? If you look, I have quoted from his Homilies on Romans, Galatians, 2 Timothy, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, and his Tractates on the John in this and various threads. How much have you read, and I don’t mean in a book by another who has pulled out the parts that support Catholocism.?

How do you interpert this:

" ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).

That was from the Homily on John you say supports the fact he preached Faith alone. It appears to me there is not a ;lot left to say on Goldens mouths view on Sola Fidelis.

 

[SyCarl]

How do you interpert this:

" ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).

I interpret it as what it says. He is talking about a living faith. It appears to support faith and works inthe same way that James 2 does and the same explanations apply. But even then have I ever said that the church fathers were consistent in their statements? No, I have said that they are inconsistent. But that doesn’t change the fact that they said things like faith alone or scripture alone. I do not use them as authorities to prove these doctrines. They merely show that the Reformation was not the first time they came up.

 

[SyCarl]

How do you interpert this:

" ‘He that believes in the Son has everlasting life.’ ‘Is it enough, then, to believe in the Son,’ someone will say, ‘in order to have everlasting life?’ By no means! Listen to Christ declare this himself when he says, ‘Not everyone who says to me, “Lord! Lord!” shall enter into the kingdom of heaven’; and the blasphemy against the Spirit is alone sufficient to cast him into hell. But why should I speak of a part of our teaching? For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation" (Homilies on the Gospel of John 31:1 [circa A.D. 391]).

That was from the Homily on John you say supports the fact he preached Faith alone. It appears to me there is not a ;lot left to say on Goldens mouths view on Sola Fidelis.

Now you are putting words in my mouth. I said I had read from his tractates on John, not that that writing supported faith alone. But I have seen his statements when Paul is taking about being saved through faith in Romans, Galatians and Ephesians.

 

[estesbob]

I interpret it as what it says. He is talking about a living faith. It appears to support faith and works inthe same way that James 2 does and the same explanations apply. But even then have I ever said that the church fathers were consistent in their statements? No, I have said that they are inconsistent. But that doesn’t change the fact that they said things like faith alone or scripture alone. I do not use them as authorities to prove these doctrines. They merely show that the Reformation was not the first time they came up.

Just what is it about "For if a man believe rightly in the Father and in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, but does not live rightly, his faith will avail him nothing toward salvation" that is not clear to you?

The only people who see contradictions in the wrtings of the CF are those who are claiming they said things they didnt

 

[zerinus]

Good morning, Z.

First, in that short paragraph, I was stating an opinion, not making an argument.

You were reasoning out a theological position. That is another name for making an argument.

Second, I was confining my opinion to two religions, Mormonism and Protestantism, both of which live within the larger context of Christianity. I wasn’t comparing either to any other world religion.

All I can say is that you must have a very illogical mind (or are being deliberately deceitful). You were positing the statement that Mormonism and Protestantism are “reading from the same sheet,” because both of them have “rejected the authority of the Catholic Church”. I was pointing out to you that that is a simple logical deduction that is at best incongruous, of not altogether fallacious. By the same token, you can argue that all religions (or, if you just want to confine it to Christianity, then all Christian religions) are “reading from the same sheet,” because all of them have “rejected the authority of the Catholic Church”. Well, there is a simple answer to that one. The answer is that all Christian churches (including the Catholic Church), are “reading from the same sheet,” because all of them have rejected the divine authority of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ, which resides in the LDS Church alone and nowhere else.

The argument can be made, of course, even though I wasn’t making it in such a short space.

See above.

zerinus

 

[Jake1975]

The answer is that all Christian churches (including the Catholic Church), are “reading from the same sheet,” because all of them have rejected the divine authority of the Restored gospel of Jesus Christ, which resides in the LDS Church alone and nowhere else./

COLOR]

Zerinus,

I was just curious about your motivation for being on a Catholic forum? You seem to be holding very firm to the position of the LDS Church. I just hope that you are willing to consider carefully what you are reading about Protestants and Catholics and see between the lines of the discussions to the commonality of our beliefs.

I am here because I want to thoroughly investigate doctrinal differences that do not impact salvation. Time here on Earth is too short to waste, and I want to make sure I worship in a way the good Lord intended. I am at a cross-roads. I hope you are able to set your background aside as well, to thoroughly investigate the truths that encompass both the Catholic and Reformed forms of Christianity.

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I was just curious about your motivation for being on a Catholic forum?

My motivation is, firstly, that I enjoy discussing religion with people of other faiths, including Catholics; and secondly, to defend/inform others of my faith.

You seem to be holding very firm to the position of the LDS Church.

I sure do!

I just hope that you are willing to consider carefully what you are reading about Protestants and Catholics and see between the lines of the discussions to the commonality of our beliefs.

I wasn’t quite sure what you mean by that—but for your information, I am an old hand at debating religion with Protestants and Catholics alike, and have become adept at “reading between the lines” and discovering the hidden “nuances” of things. I have been here since last September; but haven’t been posting during the past two or three months. I have just returned after a brief hiatus, and don’t intend to hang around for too long this time round either.

I am here because I want to thoroughly investigate doctrinal differences that do not impact salvation. Time here on Earth is too short to waste, and I want to make sure I worship in a way the good Lord intended. I am at a cross-roads.

That is a noble cause; but I fear you may have come to the wrong place to find what you seek.

I hope you are able to set your background aside as well, to thoroughly investigate the truths that encompass both the Catholic and Reformed forms of Christianity.

My background is firmly entrenched in the revealed truths of the Bible and the Latter-day Restoration. I am sure that there are also some good things that I can learn from the Protestant/Catholic divide, which are incidental to the above-mentioned fundamentals.

Good to have you around.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

I didn’t disappear, I was participating in a discussion with others on the Apologetics forum discussing the Eucharist. If you are questioning my incentives on this board, I suggest you read the “Eucharist v. Communion” thread. That will reveal my intentions on these forums. I just got bogged down in this one, which was not my original intention. I have realized that I am getting devisive, which is something I do not want to do. I apologize.

I stated that I am Christian because I get tired of labels. Christians are so divided these days. I am Baptist, but don’t consider myself locked into its doctrines alone. Denominationalism was born with the recognition that no one body can contain the entire truth, but together, the truth is represented. We are not to bicker and quarrel over secondary issues, but embrace one another in faith. That is why I chose to claim “christianity” as my faith. Besides, the reputation of Baptists has taken a few hits lately

Thank you for your response. So I take it that as a true and faithful Baptist, you believe that Catholics are not Christians—or are you altogether out of tune with your true-blue Baptist credentials?

zerinus

 

[Jake1975]

Thank you for your response. So I take it that as a true and faithful Baptist, you believe that Catholics are not Christians—or are you altogether out of tune with your true-blue Baptist credentials?

Thanks for your honest response. Everyone has an agenda, it just helps discussions when they are known- I guess the same reason why you wanted to know what I meant by saying I am “Christian.”

I guess I am out of tune with my true-blue Baptist credentials. Funny that I am in leadership and haven’t been chased out of town. A large percentage of my family are Catholic and so I understand the Catechism better than most Baptists. What some interpret as idolatry, etc., I understand for what it was intended to be. Some of it can be a slippery slope, however, as we see in Latin America.

So, here we are in the stereotypical round robin between Baptists, LDS, and Catholics. Baptist attacks LDS as LDS criticizes Catholicism. Good to know we’re so original, isn’t it?!

I am researching the church in the first couple centuries and what the Ante-Nicene fathers believed and taught. I am seeing how far the two sides can be reconciled and where the evidence most strongly points to, especially pertaining to the Eucharist.

 

[zerinus]

Thanks for your honest response. Everyone has an agenda, it just helps discussions when they are known- I guess the same reason why you wanted to know what I meant by saying I am “Christian.”

Actually, I had already figured what your background was likely to be, judging by your venomous, hateful, vicious, and utterly false and malicious characterization of Mormonism. I just didn’t want it to be kept a secret to the rest of the posters on this board. Like I just told you, I have become a dab-hand at “reading between the lines,” and “discovering the hidden nuances of things”. Don’t you think I am clever!

I guess I am out of tune with my true-blue Baptist credentials. Funny that I am in leadership and haven’t been chased out of town. A large percentage of my family are Catholic and so I understand the Catechism better than most Baptists. What some interpret as idolatry, etc., I understand for what it was intended to be. Some of it can be a slippery slope, however, as we see in Latin America.

So, here we are in the stereotypical round robin between Baptists, LDS, and Catholics. Baptist attacks LDS as LDS criticizes Catholicism. Good to know we’re so original, isn’t it?!

I am researching the church in the first couple centuries and what the Ante-Nicene fathers believed and taught. I am seeing how far the two sides can be reconciled and where the evidence most strongly points to, especially pertaining to the Eucharist.

Good, I am glad you are researching out things, and looking for answers. I just hope that you have come to the right place to look for the right things. Needless to say, I have my doubts about that.

zerinus

 

[Jake1975]

Actually, I had already figured what your background was likely to be, judging by your venomous, hateful, vicious, and utterly false and malicious characterization of Mormonism. I just didn’t want it to be kept a secret to the rest of the posters on this board.

Oh, O.K. You’ll have to let me know which part of LDS Doctrine I uttered falsely in my characterization of Mormonism. Perhaps I was taught wrong all those years. Let me know and I’ll see if Bruce McKonkie, the teachings of the Presidents, and speeches and teachings from past General Conferences may have led the masses astray.

 

[zerinus]

Oh, O.K. You’ll have to let me know which part of LDS Doctrine I uttered falsely in my characterization of Mormonism. Perhaps I was taught wrong all those years. Let me know and I’ll see if Bruce McKonkie, the teachings of the Presidents, and speeches and teachings from past General Conferences may have led the masses astray.

You are too far out my friend. That is not worth wasting my time on.

zerinus