So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[edkw55]

LOL you’re really splitting hairs now, John. Do you think they got they order wrong? Anyway, seriously, who wrote the table of contents? What I mean is, did they call themselves “Roman Catholic” or “Christians?”

Hi Fathdancer,

As a Protestant just wanted you to know how much I appreciate having another Protestant on this forum who is as articulate as you. I couldn’t put 3 words together in the right order if I had to and it is very frustrating.

God bless you and thanks,

Ed

 

[SoMissCatholic]

Jon, as I’ve posted before, the Protestant churches basically do follow the creeds, except where the word “catholic” has been distorted over the centuries by the Roman Catholic Church to refer only to- the Roman Catholic Church. I hold to the original meaning of the word “catholic,” meaning “universal,” as in “the universal church,” which like it or not is much larger than just the Roman Catholic Church.

I’m curious as to how you propose that the Catholic Church has distorted over the centuries the word “catholic” as used in the creeds. You do realize that when the creeds were formulated there was only one Church, and any group that was not in communion with that Church was not considered Christian (and all such groups of the time are today universally considered to be heretics)? Therefore, “the universal church” was, of necessity, co-terminous with the Catholic Church.

 

[stewstew03]

… I couldn’t put 3 words together in the right order if I had to and it is very frustrating.

…

You could at least try to defend your erroneous assertions. You never even attempted to explain how you formed your misguided opinion on the Catholic doctrine of justification.

 

[edkw55]

Hi Fathdancer,

As a Protestant just wanted you to know how much I appreciate having another Protestant on this forum who is as articulate as you. I couldn’t put 3 words together in the right order if I had to and it is very frustrating.

God bless you and thanks,

Ed

The same applies to you as well benhur. God hasn’t blessed with the gift of apologetics but I thank Him for people like you and Fathdancer.

God bless you and you highly appreciated.

Ed

 

[Faithdancer]

Hi Fathdancer,

As a Protestant just wanted you to know how much I appreciate having another Protestant on this forum who is as articulate as you. I couldn’t put 3 words together in the right order if I had to and it is very frustrating.
@
God bless you and thanks,

Ed

You are too kind Ed, but thank you. Unfortuanately these threads all too often devolve into personal attacks and Protestant bashing. Since I can’t get behind in my classes, and I refuse to respond to the personal stuff anyway, I’ll say adieu for now. God bless you for now. As for everyone else, God bless you too!

 

[Faithdancer]

I’m curious as to how you propose that the Catholic Church has distorted over the centuries the word “catholic” as used in the creeds. You do realize that when the creeds were formulated there was only one Church, and any group that was not in communion with that Church was not considered Christian (and all such groups of the time are today universally considered to be heretics)? Therefore, “the universal church” was, of necessity, co-terminous with the Catholic Church.

Since you’re not attacking my salvation or my education, SoMiss, just thought I’d respond right quick, out of courtesy. don’t have a problem reciting any of the creeds. I always pronounce the word “catholic” with the accent on the second syllable. Not a big deal, but it reminds me of what the word still means. Peace!

 

[Jon_S_1]

Since you’re not attacking my salvation or my education, SoMiss, just thought I’d respond right quick, out of courtesy. don’t have a problem reciting any of the creeds. I always pronounce the word “catholic” with the accent on the second syllable. Not a big deal, but it reminds me of what the word still means. Peace!

What does that word mean?what is it you are professing belief in.

“One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”

Incidentally, do you also confess “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”?

 

[edkw55]

You could at least try to defend your erroneous assertions. You never even attempted to explain how you formed your misguided opinion on the Catholic doctrine of justification.

As for “erroneous assertions”…only your opinion. As to how I formed my opinions on the Catholic doctrine of justification…reading through the CCC a few times, many other books written by Catholics, 6 months of RCIA, etc, etc, etc. Don’t fell the need to explain/ defend my self however. I do appreciate CAF for clearing my head of all the daze and confusion of the last last few years and solidifying my beliefs as a Protestant. Rock solid and Praise God!

Ed

 

[edkw55]

You are too kind Ed, but thank you. Unfortuanately these threads all too often devolve into personal attacks and Protestant bashing. Since I can’t get behind in my classes, and I refuse to respond to the personal stuff anyway, I’ll say adieu for now. God bless you for now. As for everyone else, God bless you too!

Yes, God bless Everyone here.

Ed

 

[ltwin]

Interesting.

Could you answer the question as to where the boundaries lie in your flexible inflexibility? And who gets to decide?

The boundaries are gospel. Christ and Christ crucified. I will put up with a lot as long as that is the focus.

It sounds like you wouldn’t countenance a denomination that refers to God as a she.
What about one which has an ordained woman at the pulpit?

I don’t have a problem with that as long as she preaches the gospel.Not everyone feels the same way, and I understand. Of course, I don’t believe that an apostolic priesthood is necessary for the administration of the sacraments, so even if I was opposed to women’s ordination, the consequences of women pastors/elders/teachers would be a lot less dramatic.

It also sounds, if I read between the lines, that you wouldn’t countenance a denomination which denies the inspiration of the Pauline epistles.
What about one which states that Pauline epistles are Antilogoumena and not Homologoumena?

As a Protestant, the Bible is my source of authority for faith and life. It would make it it extremely hard to have a measure of unity with a church that does not share the same Scriptures as I do. If we can’t agree on what books are inspired or not, then as Protestants we can’t even agree on the basics.

You wouldn’t eat grass as a liturgical practice.

Well, because I don’t see any Scriptural basis (neither explicit or implicit) for it. Neither can I see where it serves to re-enforce or illuminate any Scriptural principle, purpose, or agenda. So, I can only imagine that it is at best a harmless (is eating grass physically harmful to humans???) practice that is non-binding on any Christian while at worst something that subtracts from the gospel.

But would you do this?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_5BV_YADVD7o/R6FVLx7eyWI/AAAAAAAABKA/lClouyhm-gs/s400/acolytes.jpg

I’m not exactly sure what that is suppose to be. I’m guessing some kind of liturgical dancing or a skit? I mean that’s pretty harmless in and of itself. The more important thing would be the message they are communicating. I can’t really figure out that just by looking at the picture.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Of course it’s about deciding.

Unless you think it’s ok for this group to profess that the Epistles of St. Paul are not inspired? lasttrumpetministries.org/

Unless you believe that you can worship with this group, which ate grass because they were told by their pastor that this was a Biblical command to bring them closer to God?

http://deadstate.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/ds-pastor-2.jpg

So, yes. You do decide when it’s time to be inflexible.

With all due respect, you can join them and amiably worship together…until you start talking about doctrine.

Then, not so much anymore.

I am guessing the spirit led the pastor to teach that God was sending a dose of humility to the congregation…sad how abusive pastors can be.

Daniel 4

28 All this happened to King Nebuchadnezzar. 29 Twelve months later, as the king was walking on the roof of the royal palace of Babylon, 30 he said, “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?” 31 The words were still on his lips when a voice came from heaven, “This is what is decreed for you, King Nebuchadnezzar: Your royal authority has been taken from you. 32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.” 33 Immediately what had been said about Nebuchadnezzar was fulfilled. He was driven away from people and ate grass like cattle. His body was drenched with the dew of heaven until his hair grew like the feathers of an eagle and his nails like the claws of a bird. 34 At the end of that time, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven, and my sanity was restored. Then I praised the Most High; I honored and glorified him who lives forever. His dominion is an eternal dominion; his kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?” 36 At the same time that my sanity was restored, my honor and splendor were returned to me for the glory of my kingdom. My advisers and nobles sought me out, and I was restored to my throne and became even greater than before. 37 Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and exalt and glorify the King of heaven, because everything he does is right and all his ways are just. And those who walk in pride he is able to humble.

 

[PRmerger]

The boundaries are gospel. Christ and Christ crucified. I will put up with a lot as long as that is the focus.

Fair enough.

I’ll go with that although, of course, the above turns out to mean, “I will put boundaries where I see fit”.

And is your paradigm, “Where the gospel is silent it is permitted”? Or is your paradigm, “Where the gospel is silent it is prohibited”?

So with the examples below–is the eating grass prohibited in your paradigm or permitted, since Scripture is silent about this?

Where does the gospel talk about liturgical dance? How does one know if that’s in the boundary or out of the boundary?

And what does the gospel say about women being ordained?

 

[ltwin]

Fair enough.

I’ll go with that although, of course, the above turns out to mean, “I will put boundaries where I see fit”.

And is your paradigm, “Where the gospel is silent it is permitted”? Or is your paradigm, “Where the gospel is silent it is prohibited”?

I don’t think it can be either one. Somethings the Bible is silent about are beneficial and helpful while others would be inimical to the gospel.

So with the examples below–is the eating grass prohibited in your paradigm or permitted, since Scripture is silent about this?

Because Scripture is silent about it, it cannot be made binding on all Christians. Someone who eats grass cannot tell me I am sinning by not eating grass because there is no Scriptural authority for doing so.

But I want to be clear, whether something is explicitly mentioned in Scripture or not is not the only consideration. It is the FIRST consideration, but it is not the only consideration. If something is not explicitly shown in Scripture, reason/experience and tradition can still utilized to assess its propriety and value for edification.

My questions for someone who eats grass is “why are you eating grass?” Do they think that it saves them? If so, this is false teaching. Do they think that Scripture somehow mandates it? If so, they have been deceived. Is there some prophet somewhere telling them to do this? If so, I would tell them that they need to use more discernment and apply more testing to the so called prophet’s charism. Are they claiming the Holy Spirit is somehow eating grass through them? If so, then I would tell them that nowhere in Scripture does the Holy Spirit influence people to eat grass unless they have sinned and are under judgment (i.e. Nebuchadnezzar) and in that case the person went basically insane.

I would be interested in hearing their reasoning, but whatever their reasons are it is not binding on anyone else nor, I imagine, convincing enough to make me supportive of the practice. Unless the claim is that people are falling under divine judgment like King Nebuchadnezzar, I don’t see any Scriptural warrant for it. If the claim is “divine judgment,” then they still have to explain how institutionalizing that as a practice jives with the rest of Scripture, especially the New Testament. The short answer is that it does not reasonably fit in with the rest of Scripture as a normative practice.

Where does the gospel talk about liturgical dance? How does one know if that’s in the boundary or out of the boundary?

Well, the Old Testament talks about dancing before the Lord in several places. It appears that in Israel it was an acceptable, if not common, way to worship God. At least one Psalm (Psalm 149) makes dancing a command:

2 Let Israel rejoice in their Maker;
let the people of Zion be glad in their King.
3 Let them praise his name with dancing
and make music to him with timbrel and harp.
4 For the Lord takes delight in his people;
he crowns the humble with victory.
5 Let his faithful people rejoice in this honor
and sing for joy on their beds.

Now, that does not necessarily mean that there has to be liturgical dancing. It simply means that, as far as Scripture is concerned, dancing as praise/worship is clearly not repugnant to God and that, in fact, he takes delight when his people rejoice in that way.

And what does the gospel say about women being ordained?

It says a lot, but I imagine we have very different ideas about what it means to be ordained. You probably won’t see the Scriptures that I use as meaning “ordained” in the same way as I do.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

No more or no less fallible than the men who comprise your magisterium, the USCCB, etc.

Except for one rather important distinctive: Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would faithfully guide the Church that He built. The fact is that this ONE Church has historical continuity with the Catholic Church.

I personally think Jesus’ promise is a game-changer.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

This has been my experience as well, ltwin. Unfortunately those who feel compelled to prove that Protestants are “not Christian” or “less Christian” consistently try to use the number of Protestant denominations as some sort of proof positive.

That’s not what we’re saying at all.
What we ARE saying, though, is that these divisions are anti-biblical, and against Christ’s express will.

As I’ve posted elsewhere, that’s a spurious argument, since it is based on an opinion that monolithicity is superior to unity in diversity.

Well, since both Christ and St. Paul said so, and being that Catholics believe scripture (it is, after all, our book), I think it’s a valid statement.

You may “feel” differently; just realize that in so doing you’re disobeying Christ and St. Paul.

John 17:23, John 20:20-23, 1Pe3:8, Col 3:14, Eph 4:4-6, 1Cor1:10,

 

[stewstew03]

As for “erroneous assertions”…only your opinion. As to how I formed my opinions on the Catholic doctrine of justification…reading through the CCC a few times, many other books written by Catholics, 6 months of RCIA, etc, etc, etc. Don’t fell the need to explain/ defend my self however. I do appreciate CAF for clearing my head of all the daze and confusion of the last last few years and solidifying my beliefs as a Protestant. Rock solid and Praise God!

Ed

No, it’s not just my opinion – I showed you what the CCC says about justification, which contradicted your erroneous assertions.

There are some really good Protestant posters here on CAF – they engage in dialogue, they back up their assertions, they (sometimes) change their opinions, and yes sometimes even manage to persuade Catholics. If you want to participate in this forum you’re going to need to learn how to engage in dialogue – you won’t last long otherwise.

Peace.

 

[SoMissCatholic]

SoMissCatholic;12091997:

I’m curious as to how you propose that the Catholic Church has distorted over the centuries the word “catholic” as used in the creeds. You do realize that when the creeds were formulated there was only one Church, and any group that was not in communion with that Church was not considered Christian (and all such groups of the time are today universally considered to be heretics)? Therefore, “the universal church” was, of necessity, co-terminous with the Catholic Church.

Since you’re not attacking my salvation or my education, SoMiss, just thought I’d respond right quick, out of courtesy. don’t have a problem reciting any of the creeds. I always pronounce the word “catholic” with the accent on the second syllable. Not a big deal, but it reminds me of what the word still means. Peace!

I appreciate your response; however, you didn’t really address my question. You claimed that the Catholic Church has distorted the meaning of the word “catholic” over the centuries to refer only to the Catholic Church. I am asking how this is possible in view of the fact that when the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed were developed there was only one Church, and therefore, the “universal church” and the Catholic Church were necessarily one and the same thing (i.e. co-terminous). Consequently, ISTM that if the charge of distorting the meaning of the term “catholic” as used in the the creeds is to be levied against anyone, it should be against those churches and ecclessial communities that broke away from that Church and “distorted” the meaning of “catholic” by broadening it beyond the bounds of its original usage to include their various communions.

P.S. - I don’t attack or question your or anyone else’s salvation, as that is a decision that is made well above my pay grade.

 

[Porknpie]

I would suggest that you spend time studying the entire first 8 chapters of Romans to put this verse in context. Cherry picking verses out of context can be very convincing but at the same time misleading. If after doing this you choose to believe what you believe I totally respect this.

Ed

Ed,

Interesting is the Book of Romans. Here’s a video describing the conversion of a Reformed Church of America Pastor. He states that a significant reason for his conversion to Rome was Romans. His conversion story was highlighted on EWTN’s Journey Home episode on June 9th. A pastor for some forty years, it’s hard to argue that he was cherry picking verses out of context. Rather, he understood Roman’s in the Catholic light.

He also rejoices now in receiving Christ’s body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist. He relates that his wife is frequently in tears at Mass realizing the gift the Lord has given us. Freely given us as a means to give us grace for our salvation.

PnP

 

[edkw55]

No, it’s not just my opinion – I showed you what the CCC says about justification, which contradicted your erroneous assertions.

There are some really good Protestant posters here on CAF – they engage in dialogue, they back up their assertions, they (sometimes) change their opinions, and yes sometimes even manage to persuade Catholics. If you want to participate in this forum you’re going to need to learn how to engage in dialogue – you won’t last long otherwise.

Peace.

As for discussing the CC doctrine of justification the below from Trent would be a good place to start:

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but what to avoid and shun:

Canon I: If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.

Canon III: If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspirtaion of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.

Canon VII. If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more greviously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon IX. If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just: let him be anathema.

Canon XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.

Canon XXVI. If anyone saith that the just ought not for the good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and keeping the commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Canon XXIX. If any one saith, that he who has fallen after baptism is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church—instructed by Christ and his Apostles—has hitherto professed, observed, and taught: let him be anathema.

Canon XXX. If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance into the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him): let him be anathema

Canon XXXI. If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, let him be anathema.

Canon XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life— if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema.

 

[Jon_S_1]

As for discussing the CC doctrine of justification the below from Trent would be a good place to start:

After this Catholic doctrine on justification, which whosoever does not faithfully and firmly accept cannot be justified, it seemed good to the holy council to add these canons, that all may know not only what they must hold and follow, but what to avoid and shun:

Canon I: If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ: let him be anathema.

Canon III: If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspirtaion of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him: let him be anathema.

Canon VII. If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more greviously he sins, let him be anathema.

Canon IX. If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified, in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will, let him be anathema.

Canon X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just: let him be anathema.

Canon XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.

Canon XXIV. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof: let him be anathema.

Canon XXVI. If anyone saith that the just ought not for the good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal reward from God through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if by doing well and keeping the commandments they persevere to the end, let him be anathema.

Canon XXIX. If any one saith, that he who has fallen after baptism is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church—instructed by Christ and his Apostles—has hitherto professed, observed, and taught: let him be anathema.

Canon XXX. If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance into the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him): let him be anathema

Canon XXXI. If anyone says that the one justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal reward, let him be anathema.

Canon XXXII. If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life— if so be, however, that he depart in grace,—and also an increase of glory: let him be anathema.

So you have a problem with the Church saying people are saved by having a true living faith in Christ??