Sacred Oral and Written Tradition

[RobHom]

So, was Pope Leo X the angel of light from Satan or was Martin Luther the angel of light from Satan? We shall know them by their fruits according to Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?

Frankly, from a certain standpoint…neither. My view of things in this world and its history are not jaundiced, as are the thoughts of others. Are you one of jaundiced mind? Asking the question you did seems to be a bit of an indicator.

Might I suggest that you not use wikipedia as a source. Its known for being horribly unreliable, and this has been proven in the past.

With regards to Leo X, you might want to read a history of the man that is somewhat unbiased: newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm What you will find is that he was a monk who was extremely well educated and was made a Cardinal. Was he evil? No.

Was Luther evil? No. I think he had a valid complaint or two. Those complaints were addressed by the Church. I think Luther actually may have had good intentions, but on one level…things got out of hand and took control of him, instead of him controlling the issues.

For you to try to compare two people like that in the manner you have…is like walking on oil slippery glass with flip-flops while carrying a bucket of sulfuric acid over your head.

 

[RobHom]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

Pssst… I’ll give you a little hint on how to get an answer…you start answering questions put to you, and maybe others will return the same courtesy. Barring that, there is little reason to bother.

 

[RobHom]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

After I get an answer to my questions…especially this one:

so before I answer it, YOU are required to answer a question for me:
Now, since “modern man” up until recently, and I do mean recently…as in just within the past few years, there have been tribes of people discovered living in remote areas where no-one has ever had contact with them, other than themselves. Do YOU believe they are condemned because they have not heard the Word of God? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

Well, what are you waiting for? Its a simple question that only requires a “yes or no” answer. Nothing difficult about that now is there?

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

John 3 - 11 Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.

12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?

13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.

14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up:

15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Those who are condemned are those who do not believe the Gospel when/if they do hear it. This passage makes no mention of those who, through no fault of their own, have never heard the Gospel message in the first place, in order to believe it or reject it. The Catechism does not teach that these souls who are ignorant of Christ most definitely will be saved, but that they may be saved, as God has mercy on whom He wills, and pardons whom He wills. It is God who will judge, let’s let Him do that.

If you want to understand Sacred Tradition, get a copy of The Catholic Way: Faith for Living Today. Check your local public library.

 

[po18guy]

12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. - the Holy Bible

So, was Pope Leo X the angel of light from Satan or was Martin Luther the angel of light from Satan? We shall know them by their fruits according to Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/includes/imagemanager/images/blog/may/wolf_sheeps_clothing.jpg

Martin Luther or Pope Leo X?

Easy. Only one hated the Jews. Only one wrote that they should be killed. And who in Luther’s native Germany used that to horrible effect 400 years later?

Just read Luther’s writing on the Jews. Just read it.

 

[po18guy]

Okay, when is someone condemned, before or after they hear the gospel?

Man cannot condemn. You know Who does that. To reject the Gospel is to be held accountable, as you are for each and every thing you do. Condemnation or salvation is God’s work.

 

[tdgesq]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

One can be condemned before hearing the gospel, and one can be condemned after hearing the gospel. If you think John 3 says anything differently, then let’s see it. If you believe the Catholic Church teaches anything other than that, then you didn’t keep your copy of the catechism long enough:

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

Ignorance of the Gospel alone does not give a person a pass. God has been revealing himself since the beginning of humanity. A person can condemn himself by failing to follow what has been revealed, whether before or after he has heard the Gospel.

 

[po18guy]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

No one on earth can answer this! It is God in Christ’s job to judge. But scripture and tradition give us some hints: Do you accept the Gospel and repent, or do you reject it? Do you produce good fruits or not? Have you done good works? Still, it appears that one condemns themselves by their acceptance or rejection of the Gospel. Nevertheless, condemnation remains the Lord’s job.

Tell us what your church teaches.

 

[RobHom]

If you believe the Catholic Church teaches anything other than that, then you didn’t keep your copy of the catechism long enough:

At the risk of being seen as “uncharitable”, I feel duty bound to inform you that Reformed does not know what the Catholic Church teaches, nor does Reformed have a “Catechism”. (How do I know?)

 

[M0nkey]

Are you trying to answer the question about being condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

Since you asked I’ll answer.

Neither. All men are condemned because all men have sinned against the Lord. Hence, the *need *for divine mercy and divine justice. Of course, only God knows who gets saved or not albeit he wills all men to be saved. But one thing is certain, there is no salvation outside of the cross of Jesus Christ and of His Church.

 

[sambos671]

Since you asked I’ll answer.

Neither. All men are condemned because all men have sinned against the Lord. Hence, the *need *for divine mercy and divine justice. Of course, only God knows who gets saved or not albeit he wills all men to be saved. But one thing is certain, there is no salvation outside of the cross of Jesus Christ and of His Church.

Amen.

I still don’t understand what reformed meant that John 3 and Romans 10 have anything to do with salvation apart from Christ. There is no other way whether you’re a Catholic or Protestant.

Why was there a discussion of Holloween or Samhein that Reformed was trying to make. I got confused.

Also if the person is truly reformed then shouldn’t they be closer in Calvinistic beliefs? I don’t believe Calvin taught salvation apart from Christ either.

 

[mercygate]

Perhaps according to “your” opinion.

You do NOT understand the Catholic position on this, and it would seem that you understand virtually nothing about Catholicism, period.

If one has the Word revealed to them, and they are brought to knowledge, and they reject that Word and the knowledge, then yes…they have condemned themselves.

Surely you aren’t foolish enough to believe that you can have knowledge of Christ, and reject Him…and yet receive salvation?

That is an absurd notion!

Wrong. Embracing sola scriptura, a man-made theology, and one that tries to hobble God and corral Him into your notion of what you think He should be…is wrong.

I believe you missed the entire point of those Chapters. GO back and read them again without your “preconceived notions” of what you “think” they say.

You needn’t bother. Your “personal interpretations” are neither desired nor requested. I’m quite sure we can figure it out for ourselves without your misguided “help”…

My, my…how arrogantly gracious of you…

I was listening to J. Vernon McGee this a.m. in the car on the way to work. He’s an Evangelical preacher who died in 1988. I would say he’s a 3-point Calvinist (T.U.P).

He gave a compelling plea for rejecting the idea that the Good News is about comfort and assurance (he believes in eternal security) and notes that the Good News is not that men will be saved without cooperation but that salvation is even POSSIBLE at all.

Then he delivered a strong admonition that the idea that Christian faith can stand on its own without the fruitful works it produces is absolutely dead wrong: a Christian who does not work demonstrates that he is not saved.

He constantly returns to the theme that the Christian life is one of struggle. “Faith working in love.” Interesting, for a Calvinist.

 

[cfrancis]

I can’t get an answer to the simple question of are we condemned before or after hearing the gospel?

Perhaps you should look in the mirror:
Post #78

If a sinner hears the Gospel and rejects it, what do you believe happens to that sinner?

Post #91

Reformed, still no answer to the question:
According to your interpretation of Scripture, what happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

Post #96

Shall I direct you to the post where I stated I’ve read John 3 many times?
Really, it should be an easy question to answer, as you are your authority for your interpretation of Scripture:

What happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

Post #114

For the third time, I have read it! I am asking for your interpretation, as you are the only authority for your interpretation.
You need to start answering for yourself.

What happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

Any chance you can answer a simple question?

 

[cfrancis]

What happens to a sinner when that sinner hears the gospel and rejects it?

Still no answer to a simple question?

 

[JRKH]

Still no answer to a simple question?

It appears that Reform has abandoned this thread and started another on this It is HERE

Peace
James

 

[Tomster]

It appears that Reform has abandoned this thread and started another on this It is HERE

Peace
James

I, for one, would still like to hear from Reformed about his thoughts and beliefs regarding the mutations within the Protestant world regarding Protestant oral tradition and a lack of authority within Protestantism to solve their conflicting beliefs.

 

[Tomster]

I, for one, would still like to hear from Reformed about his thoughts and beliefs regarding the mutations within the Protestant world regarding Protestant oral tradition and a lack of authority within Protestantism to solve their conflicting beliefs.

Still waiting!

 

[mercygate]

I, for one, would still like to hear from Reformed about his thoughts and beliefs regarding the mutations within the Protestant world regarding Protestant oral tradition and a lack of authority within Protestantism to solve their conflicting beliefs.

But that is not the topic of this thread. The difference between Catholic & Orthodox Tradition and Protestant tradition is that we KNOW we have it; we have our paper trail; and we believe it is just as important as Scripture, which we also understand to be part of Tradition.

Since Protestants accept ONLY the written word (and not all of it at that), they MUST reject the authority of any tradition – to the point of denying that their own tradition plays any role in their thinking at all.

 

[Tomster]

Perhaps Reformed can begin with the Reformation idea of Sola Fidei/Sola Gratia. Historically we know that the architects of the Reformation, Luther and Calvin, believed that a person’s choices, whether good or bad, made no difference to his salvation or damnation: their salvation and damnation are decided and determined entirely by God.

 

[Tomster]

But that is not the topic of this thread. The difference between Catholic & Orthodox Tradition and Protestant tradition is that we KNOW we have it; we have our paper trail; and we believe it is just as important as Scripture, which we also understand to be part of Tradition.

Since Protestants accept ONLY the written word (and not all of it at that), they MUST reject the authority of any tradition – to the point of denying that their own tradition plays any role in their thinking at all.

Thanks mercygate. You nailed it!