C
CMatt25
Guest
They apparently reconcile it some way. Hopefully someone can explain it if it’s important to you to understand. Peace.
- Status
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
I was one of them once, and I can tell you that there is no way to coherently reconcile it.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Well you said repenting and confessing Christ Lord & Savior are things we do. So perhaps repenting and believing in the Good News of Jesus are things they believe should be done in preparation for Baptism. But alas I’m speculating more than I should.
P
PastorVW
Guest
If by “gone bad” one means that it totally lost the Gospel message, I would say it never did!
Luther experienced his “salvation experience” under the influence of Johann von Staupitz, who remained a Catholic his entire life. John Wesley spoke positively of Catholics.
The fact that, in our view, the Catholic Church drifted into error in some areas of doctrine that does not mean that the Holy Spirit ceased to work in and through it. It does not mean that there are not genuine followers of Jesus Christ to be found at all levels of the church.
Furthermore, how can we Evangelicals say that Catholic Church has “gone bad” when it has moved closer and closer to our position over the past 50 years? Consider the Catholic Church’s work with Billy Graham and the Pope’s very positive remarks concerning salvation by faith.
Was the Catholic Church in need of reform? I say yes. I also agree that there are many significant issues over which we disagree,
But “gone bad”? No way.
Luther experienced his “salvation experience” under the influence of Johann von Staupitz, who remained a Catholic his entire life. John Wesley spoke positively of Catholics.
The fact that, in our view, the Catholic Church drifted into error in some areas of doctrine that does not mean that the Holy Spirit ceased to work in and through it. It does not mean that there are not genuine followers of Jesus Christ to be found at all levels of the church.
Furthermore, how can we Evangelicals say that Catholic Church has “gone bad” when it has moved closer and closer to our position over the past 50 years? Consider the Catholic Church’s work with Billy Graham and the Pope’s very positive remarks concerning salvation by faith.
Was the Catholic Church in need of reform? I say yes. I also agree that there are many significant issues over which we disagree,
But “gone bad”? No way.
1
1voice
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Herder
The word of God is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and would never allow His Church to apostasize. Your tradition is that He is not and did
Originally Posted by Cat Herder
The word of God is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and would never allow His Church to apostasize. Your tradition is that He is not and did
1
1voice
Guest
In the New testament accounts the act of repentance and Baptism were both conscious decisions. I have nothing at all against dedicating a child to Christ through the Christening ceremony … but it is not what the Bible describes as Baptism.
O
onemangang
Guest
When you say we Christians have Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, what do you mean?
Who is Jesus?
Is He God, Man, Half God, Half Man, Fully God, Fully Man, One Nature, Two Natures, was He always God, and always man?
What did and does Jesus Do?
Establish a visible Church, offer up Himself as a Sacrifice, make Himself truly present in Body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist, did He institute sacraments?
How did He atone for our sins? …and the list goes on…etc…
So, do we in fact have the same Jesus?
The problem with the sweeping generalization made by saying “Christians have Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and that is the foundation of Christianity no matter what the external form it takes.”
You end up with relativism. You could have a hindu or any polytheist, say that Jesus is one god among many that they have, instead of God incarnate. By espousing no matter the external form, you can say that Jesus is Lord as a JW or Mormon. If one is to posit that there are fundamental beliefs that must be held to when speaking of Jesus, who determines what that is? Even your statement “We Christians” can be challenged. What is a Christian? How does one become a Christian? And Again WHO IS JESUS CHRIST!
We may have the right to disagree with one another on this forum, but we do not have the right to declare who Jesus is, He has chosen to reveal Himself through the Catholic Church
C
CMatt25
Guest
No I don’t see it at all as relativism. What I see is you end up not with relativism. But instead with what is called faith and Christians united in professing Jesus Christ their Lord and Savior Who sacrificed His life on the Cross He bore for each one of us. Sure you have differences in some of the external details. But that’s because these are matters of faith and belief. Yet if we believe in faith He will come again, He will sort it all out in terms of the ultimate one truth. So that’s not relativism. He will know our understanding and see within our hearts and judge each according to His will. In the meantime we walk by faith not by sight.
S
stewstew03
Guest
There are Muslims, Jews, and Hindus who object to abortion as well - is it your view that they should also be allowed to receive Holy Communion?
You take an interesting position 1voice: On the one hand you acknowledge the openness of the Church in allowing Pelosi to receive Communion, but on the other hand you criticize the Church for not being open enough.
You probably won’t find anyone on here defending Ms. Pelosi, and many priests and canon lawyers have advocated that she be denied communion. Ultimately, it’s on Ms. Pelosi’s conscience. There are plenty of Catholics, I’m sure, who present themselves for Communion on a regular basis in an unworthy manner. Communion is not for those that have lived a perfect life. However, it is for those who have confessed their sins and desire to be in full communion with the Catholic Church. If this is what you desire, 1voice, then by all means join RCIA, which is open to everyone.
S
stewstew03
Guest
If you say, “well, it doesn’t matter, Jesus will sort it all out” - it seems to me that you are conceding that we cannot know the truth, and therefore there is no Universal Truth.
Lack of Universal Truth = Relativism.
C
CMatt25
Guest
Reread my post. I did not say “well it doesn’t matter”. I said God knows each of our hearts and why we understand His will as we do, and He would ultimately be the judge of our fates. I also most definitely did not say there was a lack of truth. Indeed I made it a point to refer to ultimate truth.
What I merely stated and conceded is simply the reality of the situation. Certainly of course we can in faith come to believe and think we “know”. Faithful Catholics for example believe they know and think they are right on everything they teach. And that’s fine. That’s the Catholic belief or faith. But that’s not the same as truly knowing otherwise it wouldn’t be called faith. Having faith and belief that we know and truly knowing with 100% absolute certainty are 2 entirely different things. And if everything was as clear as Catholics believe it is, there would not be multiple faiths and there would be even greater numbers of faithful Catholics than there are. There would be fewer atheists, fewer agnostics, fewer of the Jewish faith, of the Islam faith. Fewer non Catholic Christians and so on. But that’s simply not the reality of faith. God bless you along your faith journey and peace.
C
CMatt25
Guest
1Voice, obviously some of us may or may not agree. But thank you for coherently explaining this view and understanding. God bless and peace in your walk with the Lord.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Please back this up with Scripture; book, chapter, and verse please. I am eagerly waiting for your response.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Grace is God’s life in us. Without it we cannot enter heaven - that much is true. But those who do not know of Jesus still have God’s life in them and Jesus died for everyone. There is more than one kind of baptism. There is Baptism of Desire. Please read the following (if you wish):
And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
And these shall go into everlasting punishment: but the just, into life everlasting.
[Matthew 25:31-46, Douay-Rheims]
The people represented by the sheep and the goats did not recognize Jesus. Their actions, their *works *are what determined whether they would be allowed into heaven. It is true that we cannot enter heaven without God’s grace but that grace is not limited to a certain group of people. In this parable Jesus is speaking of *works *and how important *works *are to us who wish to be with God in heaven for eternity. This is one of the problems with sola fide - it does not recognize the importance of works. And another problem is the concept of baptism. I do not know what you believe and/or what those of your group believe. I don’t understand why you use the word “Catholic” to denote your religious affiliation unless you are using it as the way some evangelical Protestants do (and to be honest I don’t understand it then, either). The LCMS is not part of the Catholic Church; it never has been. It broke away and Luther added a word to the bible - “alone.” We are not saved through faith alone - that is a Protestant teaching and is not biblical, or at least it wasn’t before Luther decided it was appropriate to add that word.
-----continued in next post-----
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
-----continuation of last post-----
The Scripture I posted shows that achieving salvation through works is not unbiblical. It has already been posted that faith without works is dead. So what good is faith on its own? What good does it do me to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected for me if I do not complete works which glorify God? Jesus’ death and resurrection is not enough to gain my entrance into heaven. I must complete good works to show that my faith is a living faith and that I understand that every single human being is one of God’s precious lambs - even the least of those lambs is still precious and still loved by God and that whatever I do to one of these lambs I do to Jesus and whatever I fail to do for one of these lambs I fail to do for Jesus.
Pax vobiscum!
The Scripture I posted shows that achieving salvation through works is not unbiblical. It has already been posted that faith without works is dead. So what good is faith on its own? What good does it do me to believe that Jesus died and was resurrected for me if I do not complete works which glorify God? Jesus’ death and resurrection is not enough to gain my entrance into heaven. I must complete good works to show that my faith is a living faith and that I understand that every single human being is one of God’s precious lambs - even the least of those lambs is still precious and still loved by God and that whatever I do to one of these lambs I do to Jesus and whatever I fail to do for one of these lambs I fail to do for Jesus.
Thanks for re-posting it. I don’t think I understand what Luther is trying to say but it appears to me that he is saying that works are necessary. If that is true why did he add the word “alone” to the bible? What did it accomplish?
I don’t know what you mean by setbacks. The gates of hell have never made a dent against the gates of God’s Church. Are we talking past each other here?
I responded to this above. I’m confused by your stated religious affiliation; why you refer to Church Catholic and evangelical catholic. I’ve googled it and understand it a little but I think that as I am a beginner in terms of Protestantism it would probably be best to let this go for now. I know you aren’t saying you are a Catholic (a Catholic in the Catholic Church, Latin Rite or any other Catholic rite). I have a lot to learn about a lot of things. I even bought a copy of *Protestantism for Dummies *to help me out but I haven’t started reading it yet.
don’t worry about it. You are doing fine.
Thanks. I am trying. I appreciate your help and your charity. I hope it’s OK to post that Luther added the word “alone” to the bible. I felt very uncomfortable when I posted that. I mean no offense and I don’t know the history of this incident very well. I am like in Apologetics Kindergarten. Please have patience with me.
Pax vobiscum!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Herder
The word of God is that Jesus Christ is truly present in the Eucharist and would never allow His Church to apostasize. Your tradition is that He is not and did
Cat Herder;9061879:
I think much of what has been posted above (and attributed to Cat Herder) was actually posted by 1voice.I wasnt trying to be coy. I was pointing to your assumption that I do not believe that Christ is present in the act of receiving Communion and that the true church apostasized (is that a word?). … Both assumptions are incorrect.
That is not accurate either. But I have found it to be a common, knee jerk response, when I talk with Catholics on this forum. This part of the forum is specifically established as a platform where differing ideas can be openly discussed. I have a point of view based on my experience born out of my personal relationship with God through his son Jesus. Your Catholicism has nothing to do with what I said. I would have the same thing to say to a Mormon … or a Muslim … I firmly believe what I say. It has nothing to do with your religion. I disagree with Baptists and Methodists on some points as well. Has nothing to do with the fact that they belong to that particular religion.
The bottom line for me is that we Christians have Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior and that is the foundation of Christianity no matter what the external form it takes.
I realize that Catholics disagree with that … that is your right as it is my right to present my position on this forum … But I mean no ill toward you or anyone that is Catholic.
With all respect, would you please use the QUOTE function properly? Some of your posts are difficult to read and I’m finding it hard to figure out which poster is responsible for the comments quoted. Thanks.
What he is saying, what Lutherans say, is not that works are not necessary, they are. But justification is accessed by faith alone. This is what Paul repeatedly tells us. we are justified by faith and not by works. We are justified by grace alone through faith alone. We cannot merit justification by our works.=LittleSoldier;9064788 Thanks for re-posting it. I don’t think I understand what Luther is trying to say but it appears to me that he is saying that works are necessary. If that is true why did he add the word “alone” to the bible? What did it accomplish?
We can and must, however, be obedient to His commands. In terms of works, His commands that we care for the least of His children, that we love our neighbor as ourselves. The Lutheran confessions say this:
On the one hand, *“We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God…” *
But on the other,
*“Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.” *
Failure to do good works is sin. Intentional perseverence in sin is evidence of a dead faith, and not a living, saving faith. Our works do not save us, but we are bound (meaning not merely certain, but required) to do them, out of joyful obedience to our Lord and Savior, and true love toward our fellow man.
Perhaps. when I say setbacks, I mean that we His children sin. When it comes to the Church Militant, that sin has been shown in our divisions and schism, as brothers and sisters in Christ.
But we have Christ crucified, and the means of grace. We also have the power of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be overcome.
Church Catholic is a term used in the Lutheran confessions, and evangelical catholic is often used by Lutherans such as myself, often considered “high church”. For me, it symbolizes what I believe is the catholicity of confessional Lutheranism, and the necessity to continue to dialogue for reconciliation.
So, I consider myself Catholic and evangelical, not currently in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
And I yours.
And also with you,
Jon
PS I have not read Protestantism for Dummies and so cannot make a comment. For more understanding of Lutheranism, I suggest our confessions, The Book of Concord
bookofconcord.org/
C
Contarini
Guest
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
The “Christening ceremony” is nowhere in the Bible just like the “age of reason” that you make the children wait for before they can be baptized.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
If you are saying “out of luck” because the Church does not know what happens to the unborn or unbaptised infants who die you are correct - in a way. I admit I do not understand baptism and its importance or why a non-Catholic Triune baptism is a valid sacrament. But please understand that I was also referring to people who have the capability to perform good works. They can feed the hungry, give water to the thirsty, clothe the naked, visit those in prison, and these are things that an unborn and/or unbaptised child cannot do (or even a baptised child). There is a difference. A Baptism of Desire (as far as I know) is not possible for an unborn or infant child. But it is very possible for an adult (and may be possible for a child who has reached the age of reason; I don’t know if this is true but I will try to find out). At this point I have not been told that the Lutheran Church understands and teaches of a Baptism of Desire.
According to what I understand about Catholic teaching, those who live lives filled with good works can go to heaven - even if they have not ever been baptised or have heard of Jesus. We are all given God’s grace; not just the baptised. And every person who has the capability of performing good works can go to heaven because of performing those good works (that is why I posted the parable of the sheep and the goats). One does not have to recognize Jesus in order to tend to Him. We tend to Him every time we tend to another human being and we are cruel to Him whenever we are cruel to another human being. The people in that parable (both the sheep and the goats) are amazed to find out that they have been interacting with Jesus all the times they performed an action that involved another person.
To me, an adult who had lived a life filled with good works and was turned away from heaven because he had never heard of Jesus and had not been baptised would definitely be “out of luck.” Not only that, IMO it does not speak well of a omnibenevolent God who knows that some of the people He creates will never make it to heaven even though they may lead lives absolutely jam-packed with good works and who love their neighbor. Like the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church teaches that those who die before birth and infants who are not baptised do see the Light of God in some form. They may go to heaven but the Church does not know this and so does not teach that they definitely do (it is my hope that they do).
I’m not ready to respond to this. Today I began reading about faith on a good Catholic website. It is very complicated and it is going to take some time for me to understand. I apologize; I am new at Apologetics. All I can offer is the best I can do.
Thank you. It’s going to be difficult for me to learn all this. There is quite a lot to learn.
Thank you for your responses; I appreciate your help and am trying very hard to learn. But please don’t imply that I’ve introduced a straw man; a straw man is a logical fallacy which involves misrepresenting the opponent’s position and then attacking it. What I did was introduce something that showed my confusion (and I stated that I hoped I was not going off-topic). I have no intention of misrepresenting anyone’s position; I’m trying to find out what those positions are! I promise you I will never resort to playing games. I don’t know enough about this to even know how to play games!
- Status