Protestants: Could you please do us all a favor??

[PRmerger]

Sit down, relax, and breathe calmly before you read the following:

Are you an english teacher or does it just hurt your brain to much too see misteaks in grammer and spellihg?

Nope, not an English teacher. Just an avid reader. And a graduate of Catholic schooling.

 

[SHW]

I think that the real problem revolving around Galileo (excuse the pun) had nothing to do with astronomy. It had to do with Galileo defining philosophy and theology to the men that were the authority on the matter. The Pope and the Church asserted their authority. It’s no different then Dawkins trying to tell me whether there is a God or not. He’s a biologist, not a theologian. The reverse is true for a Pope claiming to be a scientist.

Good point.

 

[SteveGC]

Indeed. However, I don’t think it’s possible for an atheist to be “saintly” in the way that, say, St. Maximilian Kolbe was saintly. To give up one’s life for another out of pure love of neighbor–only one who has said yes to God will say yes to this type of sacrifice.

Yes, I agree PR.

 

[guanophore]

the real problem revolving around Galileo (excuse the pun) had nothing to do with astronomy. It had to do with Galileo defining philosophy and theology to the men that were the authority on the matter. The Pope and the Church asserted their authority. It’s no different then Dawkins trying to tell me whether there is a God or not. He’s a biologist, not a theologian. The reverse is true for a Pope claiming to be a scientist.

If Galileo had not enjoined the bishops to change the wording of Scripture to conform to his science,then they probably would have gone their separate ways. But, Galileo was adamant that “truth” ought to be so reflected in the Good Book.

 

[SHW]

A life denying religion that scorns everything good about our human nature. When you define things like lust as evil of course you’ll convince everyone that they’re a sinner. Lust is biological, indeed we lust in order to promulgate our species (in a biological sense). Therefore, lust is both natural and necessary. When you tell everyone that greed is evil; of course everyone will be made out to be a sinner. However, greed (inherent in capitalism) is perhaps the single best idea to ever hit this planet (at least since the wheel). When you believe in ancient doctrines formulated by primitive superstitious men of course you’ll wind up with a religion that’s contrary to our nature; rather than rational virtues that use our nature to promote the greater good.

Human nature was sinless before Adam and Eve sinned. They did not know that they were naked until they sinned. There was no lust until they sinned. Lust is not natural nor necessary for the survival of the species. Sins of the flesh followed the eating of the forbidden fruit. Disobedience has consequences. Lust is the willful misuse of a person’s own sexuality. This lust can lead to the misuse of another person’s sexuality. Sex is for marriage only, and lust even in marriage is also a misuse of sexuality. Love is not self-seeking. Love does not seek self-gratification. Lust does.

God gave us the Ten Commandments to help us stay on the right path. If we break them, then we face the consequences of the evil we have done. If everyone kept all of the commandments, we would live in a wonderful world. The Ten Commandments are a gift to us. Not many accept this gift.

Ecclesiasticus 15:16-20
If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. 17 He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. 18 Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him: 19 For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. 20 The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man.

Greed is evil. Greed deprives others of their rightful share of the earth’s resources. You think greed in capitalism is wonderful. Do all atheists share your sense of injustice and promote unfairness for his fellowman through greed?

God created man and all creation “good.” Man chose to corrupt good. This corruption is called evil. When man corrupts his own body with sin, this is his own free will choice to do so.

 

[josie_L]

Earlier you agreed that nobody can of their own will choose to follow God. PRmerger posted several quotes from Trent and Orange that said the same thing.

Yes, we need grace but we also need a free will to respond to that grace. And Irrrestible Grace as I understand it does not allow for choice.

Before God acts on a man’s will that man is incapable of choosing God.

God cannot act on a man’s will otherwise He takes man’s free will away. "In St. Augustine’s On the Spirit and the Letter he writes:

To yield our consent, indeed, to God’s summons, or to withhold it is (as I have said) the function of our own will. And this not only does not invalidate what is said, ‘For what hast thou that thou didst not receive?’ but it really confirms it. For the soul cannot receive and possess these gifts, which are here referred to, except by yielding its consent. And thus whatever it possesses, and whatever it receives, is from God; and yet the act of receiving and having belongs, of course, to the receiver and possessor. [6]"

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=150

“It is God who extends salvation to mankind for no other reason than His goodness and His love for us. He does not seek to save us in response to any act on our part. God alone initiates salvation. Yet, it is false to say that God only extends that unconditional summons to some and denies it to others (2 Pet. 3:9). It is equally false to say that the grace given manipulates the will to respond with a yes or makes it impossible to resist with a no.”

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=150

Well, total depravity simply says that original sin affects our whole being in it’s totality; physical, mental, moral, etc. It does not say that we are as bad as we could be or that a man before conversion is unable to exhibit what we might consider to be virtuous behaviour such as an atheist working at a soup kitchen.

No, it states we can do no good because our nature has been totally effected by original sin, but to say this would suggest that what God created is no longer good. And we know although effected by the fall we are created in his image (therefore still capable of good).

As for there being good in us, again your church has the following to say at the 2nd Council of Orange:
…man does no good except that which God brings about" (canon 20).

Yes, all good comes from God because we are created in his image and have free will (a grace of God).

The good which we do have has God as it’s author, not ourselves.

Yes, because all good comes from God who is all good.

When you say there is still good in a fallen man, how would you define that good? Is the good supernaturally pleasing to God?

These are loaded questions. But anyways, I say that man was not deprived of all good even after the fall because of his free will (although he is inclined to sin this is quite different from the sin-enslaved mentality/will professed by total depravity).

BTW, I have enjoyed our conversation.

Ditto.

 

[SHW]

I see. Sorry, I did not read some of your other posts. I thought you advocated a more Calvinistic theology. I do agree with the omnivore analogy, insofar as there is no such thing as someone who can only choose meat. But I don’t agree that there are some who can only choose hay until the grace of faith enters. I think the good deeds of those ignorant of Christ can be pleasing to God, insofar as those actions reveal a cooperation with the inherent goodness of a person infused into him/her at the moment of their creation (for He did create us in His image). Even the atheist who rejects Christ may be capable of pleasing God in this way, unless the good he is doing is accompanied by a conscious effort to reject God.

Scripture helps to show us your idea more clearly:

Romans 2:14-16
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[josie_L]

Scripture helps to show us your idea more clearly:

Romans 2:14-16
for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

 

[SHW]

Nope, not an English teacher. Just an avid reader. And a graduate of Catholic schooling.

You just had to correct english to English. You could not help it, I know.

Just when I think that I am a bit superior to someone else in grammar or word usage or spelling, I notice a big glaring mistake of my own. Luckily, no one can see my red face at that moment. Like using circumcism for circumcision. I have made that error.

 

[PRmerger]

You just had to correct english to English. You could not help it, I know.

Just when I think that I am a bit superior to someone else in grammar or word usage or spelling, I notice a big glaring mistake of my own. Luckily, no one can see my red face at that moment. Like using circumcism for circumcision. I have made that error.

:sad_yes:

Here’s another one: using “martial” instead of “marital”. Now that’s a Freudian slip if there ever was one!

 

[SHW]

Hi Everyone!

This thread is way over the limit of 1000 posts and can/will be shut down soon so I started a new thread so we can continue our lively discussion. You can find it at:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5403843#post5403843

It’s called Protestants: This 'n That.

Hope to see all of you there.

 

[moondweller]

humble_in_doubt:

…yeah but this argument depends on the level of merit you ascribe to Christian tradition. Baptists and other similar groups built a denomination over their disagreements regarding a single ritual in the Christian religion, baptism.

There’s a variety of theories out there … including the idea that baptism was meant to replace circumcision as a seal of covenant membership. In the same way circumcision couldn’t save anyone, baptism also cannot save anyone (at least according to my reading of the bible), without accompanying faith. It seems to me under this dichotomy the mode of baptism is probably pretty insignificant (indeed on this issue I think Baptists and other similar groups are the ones who have become overly legalistic, since you ascribe so much importance to the physical method and ritualistic integrity of baptism).

I’m not a Baptist, however, those Baptists churches I’ve visited don’t believe ritual water baptism saves anyone; they believed God Himself saves “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ alone. Unlike Catholics and Lutherans they don’t believe in the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. But they do, however, believe that when the ritual is administered it’s to be done by immersion, which is a secondary issue.

You’re right, the idea that baptism replaced circumcision certainly is not Biblical. None of the N.T. writers teach such a notion, for the simple and obvious reason that circumcision never saved anyone, so why then would baptism?

The N.T. is replete with the gospel message and Apostolic doctrine of salvation “by grace through faith” in Jesus Christ alone (yet Catholicism continues to stumble over it). And even in the O.T. it was revealed that God Himself justified men through faith completely apart from works (Gen. 15:6; cf. Rom. 4:5-6).

Under the Mosaic Covenant of Law it was those born under that Law (Jews) that were to be, subsequently, circumcised. Similarly, under the N.C. it’s those who are first “born again” through faith in Christ alone that are to be, subsequently, baptized. Both circumcision and baptism are secondary responses - neither save anyone.

The N.T. doctrine on salvation is quite clear indeed, and the simplicity of it is what men continue to stumble over:Eph 2:8 "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast."HID, I can see you thoroughly enjoy the intellectual study of theology but reject the divine notion of salvation. You know, it’s not all that dissimilar to those who seek baptism but have rejected the divine notion of salvation “by grace through faith” in Christ alone. Both are an exercise of futility.

 

[SteveGC]

You’re right, the idea that baptism replaced circumcision certainly is not Biblical. None of the N.T. writers teach such a notion, for the simple and obvious reason that circumcision never saved anyone, so why then would baptism?

Nor was circumcision, in and of itself, supposed to save anyone. It was the way in which God’s people were brought into His covenant…a covenant, without which, none would be saved.

So it is with baptism. It doesn’t do the saving…it is the method by which all are brought into the new covenant, made possible by Christ’s atonement…a covenant without which, none of us would be saved. Faith is a fundamental necessity of this covenant, as it was in the old covenant…yet still there was circumcision to identify (through obedience to God’s instruction to circumcise) those of God.

Baptism is the new circumcision. It is an act of obedience from the command of God to identify His adoptive children. Faith is still necessary, but it is not the sole necessity.

 

[SHW]

Nor was circumcision, in and of itself, supposed to save anyone. It was the way in which God’s people were brought into His covenant…a covenant, without which, none would be saved.

So it is with baptism. It doesn’t do the saving…it is the method by which all are brought into the new covenant, made possible by Christ’s atonement…a covenant without which, none of us would be saved. Faith is a fundamental necessity of this covenant, as it was in the old covenant…yet still there was circumcision to identify (through obedience to God’s instruction to circumcise) those of God.

Baptism is the new circumcision. It is an act of obedience from the command of God to identify His adoptive children. Faith is still necessary, but it is not the sole necessity.

That is one of the reasons for this Scripture:

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

He who does not believe also does not get baptized and so he is condemned!

 

[moondweller]

Nor was circumcision, in and of itself, supposed to save anyone. It was the way in which God’s people were brought into His covenant…a covenant, without which, none would be saved.

So it is with baptism. It doesn’t do the saving…it is the method by which all are brought into the new covenant, made possible by Christ’s atonement…a covenant without which, none of us would be saved. Faith is a fundamental necessity of this covenant, as it was in the old covenant…yet still there was circumcision to identify (through obedience to God’s instruction to circumcise) those of God.

Baptism is the new circumcision. It is an act of obedience from the command of God to identify His adoptive children. Faith is still necessary, but it is not the sole necessity.

That’s true according to the teachings that come out of Rome, but not those teachings which come out of the Scriptures:Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith."Read the above passage very carefully, Steve. FAITH, not circumcision or baptism, is the way mankind accesses salvation/justification according to the grace (not graces) of God. Read a little further down in the chapter. Paul seals it:Rom 4:22 - 5:2 "Therefore IT (faith, not circumcision) was credited to him (Abraham) as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written that it (righteousness) was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it (righteousness) will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, {He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our (believers) justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.The Apostle can’t make it any clearer than that, Steve. The only thing that prohibits you from understanding it is unbelief (1 Cor. 2:14).

Adam fell in disobedience, taking his whole race with him, because he did not believe God’s Word. Access back to God for Adam’s race is “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

Long before any teachings came out of the church at Rome, there were theopneustos (God-breathed) teachings that were addressed TO the church at Rome. These are the teachings that must be given heed and believed.

 

[moondweller]

That is one of the reasons for this Scripture:

Mark 16:16
He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.

He who does not believe also does not get baptized and so he is condemned!

No. It’s because only those who have believed were to be baptized. If baptism was truly essential then the latter part of the sentence would have included baptism. It does not. The essential is “He who believes…he who does not believe” This doctrine of belief is clearly stated and taught throughout the N.T. Epistles. Jesus Himself distinctly states it in Jn. 3:14-18 and 5:24.

 

[PRmerger]

Adam fell in disobedience, taking his whole race with him, because he did not believe God’s Word.

Moon, it seems you’re getting closer and closer to becoming Catholic. Here you agree that God’s Word is both oral* and *written–for surely Adam did not have the Sacred Scriptures to read when “he did not believe God’s Word.”

 

[SteveGC]

That’s true according to the teachings that come out of Rome, but not those teachings which come out of the Scriptures:Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” How then was it credited? While he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while circumcised, but while uncircumcised; and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith."Read the above passage very carefully, Steve. FAITH, not circumcision or baptism, is the way mankind accesses salvation/justification according to the grace (not graces) of God. Read a little further down in the chapter. Paul seals it:Rom 4:22 - 5:2 "Therefore IT (faith, not circumcision) was credited to him (Abraham) as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written that it (righteousness) was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it (righteousness) will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, {He} who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our (believers) justification. Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our access by faith into this grace in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.The Apostle can’t make it any clearer than that, Steve. The only thing that prohibits you from understanding it is unbelief (1 Cor. 2:14).

Adam fell in disobedience, taking his whole race with him, because he did not believe God’s Word. Access back to God for Adam’s race is “obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5; 16:26).

Long before any teachings came out of the church at Rome, there were theopneustos (God-breathed) teachings that were addressed TO the church at Rome. These are the teachings that must be given heed and believed.

Of course faith, not circumcision, was credited to Abraham as righteousness. There WAS NO circumcision for Abraham himself, but for his descendants. Abraham’s faith is what ushered in the covenant with Israel, and part of that covenant was circumcision…this is why it says in Romans 4:

and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without [himself - Abraham] being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, and the father of circumcision to those who NOT ONLY are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.

Those of the old covenant had to have faith…but they also had to be circumcised. Abraham himself didn’t need circumcision.

And Jesus Himself didn’t need baptism, yet His baptism sealed the Spirit into the water, so that those of us who NOT ONLY are of baptism, but who also follow in the steps of faith (as Christ did), may have the Spirit sealed within us. Just like the descendants of Abraham, we who come into this world after Christ’s incarnation require the sign of God’s covenant, as well as faith.

You’re the only one with an either/or theology, md. Don’t act like we are. We hold faith in the highest regard, yet you think we only believe that water poured on us is important. It’s BOTH/AND. Faith…AND the sign of the new covenant (baptism).

 

[SHW]

No. It’s because only those who have believed were to be baptized. If baptism was truly essential then the latter part of the sentence would have included baptism. It does not. The essential is “He who believes…he who does not believe” This doctrine of belief is clearly stated and taught throughout the N.T. Epistles. Jesus Himself distinctly states it in Jn. 3:14-18 and 5:24.

This is your opinion only and it is an erroneous opinion. The epistles were constantly warning and exhorting the faithful to remain faithful. The epistles were written to Church members only as supplements to oral teaching. These epistles were not written to pagans or unbelievers or non-Christian Jews. They were written to baptized Christians only/members of the Church.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

In order to become/be made a disciple of Christ we are commanded to be baptized. (Matthew 28:19) In order to be a witness for Christ, we are commanded to be baptized just as Paul was commanded to be baptized in Acts 22.

Acts 22:12
“Then a certain Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good testimony with all the Jews who dwelt there, 13 came to me; and he stood and said to me, ‘Brother Saul, receive your sight.’ And at that same hour I looked up at him. 14 Then he said, ‘The God of our fathers has chosen you that you should know His will, and see the Just One, and hear the voice of His mouth. 15 For you will be His witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16 And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’

Baptism removes original sin and all personal sins from our souls. Baptism washes away our sins and it sanctifies us and justifies us.

1 Corinthians 6:11
And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.

To continue in belief, a person must obey God’s commands until death.

What are the commands of the Lord?

1 Corinthians 14:37
If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

What are some examples of these commandments of the Lord which must be obeyed if a person desires to inherit eternal life?

Romans 13:9
9 For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

Matthew 19:17
So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. **But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.” **

18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’

Who does Christ save? He saves only those who obey Him.

Hebrews 5:9
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him,

Who receives the wrath of God? Those persons who do not know Him and also those persons who do not obey Him receive the wrath of God.

2 Thessalonians 1:7-9
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power

How does Jesus say He judges all of us?

John 5:28-29
Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice 29 and come forth—those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

There is no such thing as OSAS. You preach a gospel which is not in Scripture.

 

[SHW]

Moon, it seems you’re getting closer and closer to becoming Catholic. Here you agree that God’s Word is both oral* and *written–for surely Adam did not have the Sacred Scriptures to read when “he did not believe God’s Word.”

Good one!