Searching for a Church

[BohemianBrother]

I don’t think so. Matthew 25: 31-46.

Please elaborate.

I presume you think Pelagianism is a heresy, so you don’t say that man can earn salvation by good works and acts of charity, without grace and faith.

Both kinds of people in the passage have a sort of “faith”. One side has an active, God given, divine faith - an active, transformative faith (the faith which informs charity, hope, etc. in the Epistle to Romans and Ephesians way), while the other has faith in the way of an inactive “belief”.

In that sense (as in James), Sola Fide would be false - one cannot be an evil person and be justified before God only on the account of of a mere, inactive, intellectual assent - God’s Grace clearly equips us not only for believing in him, but also to trust and follow him - to reject one part is to reject the whole gift of Grace.

While Protestant Sola Fide is more concerned with what is the instrument by which we “hold on to” justification - we are all justified by grace, through faith. That means the “playing field” is the same level for all believers - we cannot boast that we gained forgiveness for sin by our charity or by our many good works, because that is not true. I’d say that faith is instrumental in “holding on to” justifying Grace, but good works are included the gift of Grace - both the ability (since only by Grace is man able to do genuinely good works), and the obligation. So by rejecting good works prepared for them, one would also reject Grace and also the God given faith that gives them the will and strenght to do works and informs their charity, and all that remains is a human belief (on the same level as the “faith of demons”.)

I hope I clarified my position well. If there is any more nonsense or inaccuracy, please correct me!

 

[TheLittleLady]

Have you ever visited a museum, a gallery, a historic site where there are statues?

What about going to your grandmother’s house where there are photos or portraits of your ancestors?

The commandment does not forbid making statues or photos or paintings, it forbids worship of man made objects.

My husband died last year. I keep his photo on my desk at work and beside my bed. Often, I talk to the photos, I will hold them in my hands, I will give them a kiss.

If you came by and saw me doing such, would you call me an idolater? What if I had a sculptor fashion a statue of my husband and his beloved dog?

I’m guessing that you are a compassionate person who would simply say “she loves him and misses him”. Same for grandma’s house with all of those mementos.

The statues and the paintings and icons and stained glass, these are all mementos, reminding us of our ancestors, of those we love in the Christian family who have gone before.

Remember, God commanded the making of graven images, the serpent statue that was held up for healing people, the figures of angels in the Temple, God would not command people to make and use graven images for their spiritual benefit if they were somehow evil.

 

[AlNg]

Please elaborate.

Just read Matthew 25: 31-46 and see what it says. Let us go with the words of the Son of God.

 

[lanman87]

Why do you believe Sola Fide and Sola Gratia? What about James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?

The simple answer is the word justified, both in English and in Greek, has dual meanings, depending on the context.

When Paul in Romans, Ephesians and Galatians uses the word “Justified” the context is that of “declaring one Just”. It is like a judge rendering a not-guilty verdict. Paul uses legal language to say we are justified (declared just) by faith (believe and trusting in Christ) apart from the law (our own efforts to be sinless by keeping the Mosaic/Natural law).

When James uses the word “justified” he is using in the context of evidence. As in one “justified by their actions”. Our actions are evidence of our faith. The key to this understanding is earlier when James says “I’ll show you my faith by my works”. Saying we have “faith alone” doesn’t justify (give evidence) that our faith is a genuine living faith. Our works justify (give evidence) that our faith is real, is living. Our works “show our faith” which a claim of “I have faith” cannot do.

Why do you reject the “Holy Tradition” of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?

We don’t reject all tradition. We reject those traditions that that we believe were added to the original “rule of faith” that was taught by the Apostles and Elders of the 1st Century Church and that go against the teachings and principles recorded in Scripture.

For example, We don’t reject Christmas, even though it is a tradition of the church, because it doesn’t go against the teachings and principles found in Scripture.

For example, We do reject Purgatory, because we believe it goes against the principle in Scripture that Christ sacrifice is sufficient to cleanse us from all our sins and that when we die, we are with Christ. We believe that being “in Christ” purges our sin in an ongoing basis and that when we sin Christ is sitting at the right hand of the Father being our advocate and ongoing atoning sacrifice.

continued—>

 

[lanman87]

—Continuation

Why do you reject the Deuterocanonical books and regard them as Apocrypha? How do you know what is the canon of Scripture?

There are many threads about this but the short answer is that the Deuterocanonical books were disputed or at least held as not on the same level as the other books, even within the Catholic church, up until the Council of Trent. We simply agree with those in the middle ages who disputed or didn’t believe those books to be “God Breathed”.

Why should I leave Catholicism? What is unbiblical about it?

I don’t know that you should leave Catholicism. Are you being equipped to follow Jesus, is your faith in Christ growing and getting stronger, are you given opportunities to show your faith by helping those in need and serving in the church, does your church community walk with you and support you in times of need???

Why do you think that prayer to saints is wrong?

While most protestants believe that in some since those in heaven can see and hear what is going on here on earth, the fact that they can hear prayers of thousands of people at once is pure speculation. Those in heaven aren’t omniscient or omnipresent. Those are attributes of God, not of created beings. Even if those created beings are in a glorified state that are not omniscient or omnipresent.

Is also has to do with a different understanding of what prayer actually is doing. In the Protestant mindset prayer is not merely “talking” or “asking” it is a form of worship. The reason being is that when we pray to God we are acknowledging that He is our “Strong Tower”, our “Ever present help in time of need”, and we are “Boldly coming before the throne of Grace”. In a spiritual sense, we see prayer (talking to a spiritual being) as form of submission to authority. That is authority we shouldn’t give to anyone or anything else other than the Godhead.

Those are the cliff notes versions of the answers from someone taught an American Evangelical position. Catholics strongly disagree with me, or else they wouldn’t be Catholic.

 

[adamhovey1988]

I realize that not all Catholics are unknowledgeable about their faith, but most seem to be

So, you’ve asked well over a billion people about this?

I was baptized as a Catholic and attend a Roman Catholic parish

Because you’re Catholic.

I am not biased towards any denomination and am willing to discuss all of them.

But you ARE biased against the members of the Church of your baptism

I began reading more of the Bible and became a believer. I stayed Catholic even though I had/have very protestant ideas.

That will be an issue. Heads up though, you can love The Bible, and still be a Catholic, I am, and I do.

I am now searching for the true authentic Christianity, considering Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism.

It’s either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, I am not trying to be rude to Protestants, but, Protestantism is ahistorical.

I have a few questions for everyone. Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox.

That’s fair.

 

[stpurl]

Wait. A lot of your information appears very contradictory to me. Can you explain?

You say you’re 15 and from a Catholic family (baptized, but not apparently confirmed or you’d mention that). And you ‘attend a Roman Catholic parish. Which means you what, receive the Eucharist on Sundays? And obviously received instruction? Yet you only mention a “Yahweh God” and His Son, no mention of the Holy Spirit? And that you were a convert to the Christian faith two years ago, making you 13. What do you mean by ‘convert”? If you’re a baptized Catholic, you’d be approaching the age for your confirmation and your classes should be covering a lot if not all the material you’re asking about.

Why aren’t you asking your priest or your religious education director these questions?

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

I didn’t ask for catholic com I know that website, I’ve read their articles. The purpose of this thread is that I hope to talk to people about these questions.

As somebody who has only recently become a Christian myself, I am in something of a similar position. I am trying to get my head around all of the denominations of Christianity and the differences in what they believe. However, in your original posts, you raise about 20-30 questions, each of which could fill an entire thread, especially as you are seeking Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views. You are covering some pretty big questions, covering revelation, authority, salvation, prayer, etc.

It’s either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, I am not trying to be rude to Protestants, but, Protestantism is ahistorical.

Obviously a Protestant would disagree with you completely. As far as I understand it, Protestantism generally holds that it is the most historical form of Christianity, as Protestants have consciously sought to return to a form of Christianity based on the Bible and the model of the early Church. A Protestant would no doubt argue that the Reformation was about stripping away 1,000-1,500 years of the evolution of Christianity and getting back to its most authentic version. Of course, as a Catholic, you would presumably argue the exact opposite.

 

[ReaderT]

There are many threads about this but the short answer is that the Deuterocanonical books were disputed or at least held as not on the same level as the other books, even within the Catholic church, up until the Council of Trent. We simply agree with those in the middle ages who disputed or didn’t believe those books to be “God Breathed”.

Huh, that’s the first time I’ve heard that argument - the Council which canonized the books simply lists them among everything else:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Protestantism generally holds that it is the most historical form of Christianity, as Protestants have consciously sought to return to a form of Christianity based on the Bible and the model of the early Church.

Funny how they think that’s the most historical and early form of Christianity, when the Early Church didn’t have a Bible for ~350 years. But that’s a conversation for another thread.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Funny how they think that’s the most historical and early form of Christianity, as the Early Church didn’t have a Bible for 350 years. But that’s a conversation for another thread.

I didn’t say that this was irrefutably true! The whole question of how the canon of Scripture was defined, and how early Christian doctrine was based on the Bible, is an interesting one. However, I just thought that as the OP was asking for Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant views, I would just offer the fact that Protestants would obviously not agree that they follow an ahistorical and inauthentic form of Christianity.

 

[lanman87]

Huh, that’s the first time I’ve heard that argument - the Council which canonized the books simply lists them among everything else:

This is from a post from several months ago that I made

Jerome writing a preface to the Vulgate that says “This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a “helmeted” introduction to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that what is not found in our list must be placed among the apocryphal writings. Wisdom, therefore, which generally bears the name of Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit, and the Shepherd are not in the canon”

We see the Glossa Ordinaria, the running Bible commentary in the Middle Ages and used as in middle ages for training Theologians as separating the Canonical books and the Apocrypha books in the same way Jerome did.

We see Gregory the Great state that 1 Macabees is not canonical in his commentary on Job. Which according to Jurgens, he wrote while he was the Bishop of Rome. William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume III page 313
“With reference to which particular we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edification of the Church, we bring forward testimony. Thus Eleazar in the battle smote and brought down an elephant, but fell under the very beast that he killed (1 Macc. 6.46).” (Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Gregory the Great, Morals on the Book of Job, Volume II, Parts III and IV, Book XIX.34, p.424.)

There are a huge number of middle age Theologians who site the number of Old Testament Books as the Hebrew Canon , which indicates the Hebrew Bible without the Deuterocanoical books. Those include the Venerable Bede, Agobard of Lyons, Haymo of Halberstadt, andAmbrose of Autpert

We see Hugh of St. Victor write “There are also in the Old Testament certain other books which are indeed read [in the church] but are not inscribed in the body of the text or in the canon of authority: such are the books of Tobit, Judith and the Maccabees, the so-called Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.”(Hugh of St. Victor, De sacramentis. Prologue, Cap. VII. PL 176:185D-186D. Translation by Catherine Kavanaugh, University of Notre Dame).

 

[lanman87]

So while there were some local councils that listed the books in question, there was a fairly large part of the church that still held Jerome’s position, some even arguing the Jerome position at the Council of Trent. It would be wrong to say the matter was settled before Trent.

The New Advent Website gives us some of what I’m talking about

In the Latin Church, all through the Middle Ages we find evidence of hesitation about the character of the deuterocanonicals. There is a current friendly to them, another one distinctly unfavourable to their authority and sacredness, while wavering between the two are a number of writers whose veneration for these books is tempered by some perplexity as to their exact standing, and among those we note St. Thomas Aquinas. Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity. The prevailing attitude of Western medieval authors is substantially that of the Greek Fathers. The chief cause of this phenomenon in the West is to be sought in the influence, direct and indirect, of St. Jerome’s depreciating Prologus. The compilatory “Glossa Ordinaria” was widely read and highly esteemed as a treasury of sacred learning during the Middle Ages; it embodied the prefaces in which the Doctor of Bethlehem had written in terms derogatory to the deuteros, and thus perpetuated and diffused his unfriendly opinion. And yet these doubts must be regarded as more or less academic.

 

[ReaderT]

Before I turn Ianman’s thread into a debate about the Canon, I will refrain. However I would note that Jerome was born in 342 and lived most of his life before the Bible’s canonization. He had his opinion (as did a few who even questioned Hebrews), but in the end the Church doesn’t go with one man’s sole opinion but with the consensus of the whole Church. A few individual saints can be wrong on an individual matter here and there.

 

[lanman87]

A few individual saints can be wrong on an individual matter here and there.

And we thing that those few (well more than a few) individual saints were correct. Hence my original reply. I was just showing that what I said isn’t without merit and hesitation of many highly regarded Theologians didn’t end, even after local councils listed the books.

 

[po18guy]

1. Best not to judge a faith by the worst of its practitioners - but by the greatest of them.
2. All uniquely Protestant beliefs are man-made since 1500s Europe. Their names are well known. Did Christ mention anything about Europe?
3. Trace Christianity from Christ forward.
4. Consider reading a Catholic catechism, as it represents the sum of Christian belief and lists the sources.
5. Listen to conversion stories on the Coming Home Network.

 

[BohemianBrother]

Just read Matthew 25: 31-46 and see what it says. Let us go with the words of the Son of God.

Maybe I am blind, but I don’t see the conflict.

Or do you think Paul preached a Gospel different from Jesus when he talked about the primacy of grace?

 

[ReaderT]

And we thing that those few (well more than a few) individual saints were correct.

That doesn’t seem to be a productive strategy: you go with a few saints here, I go with a few saints there, other ECF’s question Hebrews and want it thrown out - how do we determine who’s right? We have to have a Church with the power to decide (i.e. canonize). Otherwise it all breaks into factions.

“The house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

 

[JonNC]

Questions for Protestants >

1. Why do you believe Sola Fide and Sola Gratia? What about James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone?
2. Why do you reject the “Holy Tradition” of the Catholic or Orthodox churches?
3. Why do you reject the Deuterocanonical books and regard them as Apocrypha? How do you know what is the canon of Scripture?
4. Why should I leave Catholicism? What is unbiblical about it?
5. Why do you think that prayer to saints is wrong?

First, I speak as a Lutheran. Use of the term Protestant, when discussing practice and doctrine, is folly.

1. I see no contradiction between James and Paul, who never speaks of justification by works. James is speaking to a different audience than Paul, but that aside, one can see the relationship by looking at Ephesians 2

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

And Galatians 5:6

6For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.

This is further demonstrated in the Athanasian Creed.

2). I don’t. The Tradition of the early Church and the Church Fathers play a critical role in my understanding of the faith. What Lutherans do not do is hold Tradition as an equal norm to Holy Scripture.

1. Again, we don’t. In fact the Lutheran view of the canon of scripture is strongly influenced by the views of the early Church Fathers and others. The Lutheran confessions set no enumerated canon, but actually refers, at least once, to the DC books as scripture. What we do is look at how the books were perceived-universally affirmed, disputed and rejected. We use the universally affirmed books as the basis of doctrine. Lutherans historically have used the DC books in our lectionary and hymnody. There is no rejection, but a determination on how they are used based on Church history and the Fathers.
2. that is a question you must answer. At the very basic level, you receive both word and sacrament - the means of grace - in the Catholic Church. I am not Catholic because I find no justification in scripture or the early Church for universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome.
   Your mileage may vary.

Why do you think that prayer to saints is wrong?

Nothing, other than the fact there is no promise, command or example in scripture (other than the dream in 2 Macc). If you have confidence in it, do it.

 

[Deuteronomy3239]

Because I was baptized a Catholic as a baby doesn’t mean I was a Catholic. I was an atheist.

 

[stpurl]

You are 15 years old. Exactly how long were you an ‘atheist”? Just how much did you know about Catholicism—or indeed, any kind of belief system —if you, as your post states, became a ‘convert to Christianity at age 13? Since you stated you are 15 now, and converted ‘2 years ago’ that means you claim to have been an atheist at 13. However, since you attend a Catholic parish that would indicate you received First Communion at age 7. Were you an atheist at 7?

No, your remarks don’t make sense.