Sola Fides

[Ignatius]

Sooner4Christ:

If I as a Catholic am accussed of wanting to live the gospels through faith and good works! . . .It is mentioned everywhere in the bible that you cannot seperate the two. I don’t know if you recall C.S. Lewis or
not but he was asked a question if works or faith is more necessary. He replied with this answer, “that is like asking, which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.”

Excellent quote, I love it.

 

[michaelgazin]

(from post #57)

michaelgazin:

As C.S. Lewis said, focusing on faith or works to the exclusion of the other, is like thinking one blade of a scissors is more necessary than the other.

I love the quote also

Here is the Pastor’s reply however:
Pastor Robert:

As for the CS Lewis quote, I’ll stick with the word of God.

 

[Philthy]

Pastor Robert:

Again it staggers me how blind you seem to be regarding the true nature of saving faith and its fruit. You can quote long chapters of scripture but you do not understand them.

This is the surest sign of argumentative desperation - aka - mudslinging. I have read all the posts. Your positions are weak despite your claims to contrary. Of course they are easy to sell amongst the ignorant, but that is not your audience here. Your observation that the above individual can quote Scripture yet “not understand” sinks the sola scriptura ship your entire theology floats on.
Pastor Robert:

True saving faith produces a life of obedience in a sinner.

Of course this is Catholic theology - only the OSAS crowd would claim otherwise. The error of your position is that although you claim to recognize the above assertion, you fail recognize that your knowledge is limited by time and that the knowledge of the assurance of your own faith comes by observing yourself to see if you are living a life of obedience. You may know you are in a state of Grace, but you still need to complete your life of obedience to “win the race”. That is the knowledge you lack - that of the future and your own sinfulness. And contrary to your claims this in no way cheapens God’s Grace.
Pastor Robert:

Historical Reformed theology has always taught this but alas you do not seem to either realize this or understand it.

You mean historical reformed theology has taught this ever since it got started, which wasn’t very long ago.
Pastor Robert:

Grace brings a person who was dead in sin to life, it does not then depart in the future and leave them to eternal death. Ephesians 2 is clear on this.

More weak garbage. You are now flailing and failing to pull together all of the information presented to you. You have ignored all the specific verses folks have presented to you and instead chose to hang your hat on “ephesians 2”. I repeat, weak flailing.
Pastor Robert:

I am glad that the glorious grace of God is all powerful and does complete what it begins, not against a person’s will nor apart from it but by renewing it.

Whatever. you seem awfully stingy on biblical support all of sudden.
Pastor Robert:

I would a terrible thing to think that I’m saved today but might be lost tomorrow.

That’s because you overestimate yourself. Its called pride. Fear can be a blessing or a curse - it depends what you do with it.
“Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” Proverbs 1:7. If you don’t like it go tell God - as for me, fear of God’s wrath is a blessing.
Pastor Robert:
The bible is clear - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday today and forever. The book of Hebrews is written to warn professing Christians not to turn back from the way that leads to heaven.

Opinion only. You pulled the term “professing Christians” out of your “arse” as they say. It isn’t mentioned in the Hebrews at all.
Pastor Robert:

It does emphasise perseverance but that does not contradict the security of a believer in Christ nor imply you can be saved and lost.

And there you go switching words and creating a straw man. Did any Catholic ever express disagreement with the concept of “security of a believer”? No, they did not. The term we have a problem with is “assurance” (of salvation). I trust you know the difference and why a Catholic has no problem with “security”.
Pastor Robert:

All who are truly saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone will persevere in faith unto the end and enter glory.

No duh. This is Catholic theology as well. The question, which you apparently do not appreciate, is NOT, “Will one who is truly saved by grace through faith persevere in faith unto the end and enter glory?” The question is whether they know this IN ADVANCE of actually persevering in faith.
Pastor Robert:

Oh that the Lord would open your eyes to see it…

Now this I agree with, because you are doing a poor job of it!

No response required

Philthy

 

[Subrosa]

From what I can see, this thread is pretty much closed due to the fact that Pastor Robert has now been suspended twice. He was the one we were addressing, after all. He may not return.

Y’know, I half expected for him to began evangelizing, which he did. Too bad some found it objectionable.

Did it actually break any forum rules?

Subrosa

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Subrosa:

From what I can see, this thread is pretty much closed due to the fact that Pastor Robert has now been suspended twice. He was the one we were addressing, after all. He may not return.

Y’know, I half expected for him to began evangelizing, which he did. Too bad some found it objectionable.

Did it actually break any forum rules?

Subrosa

Debating is fine but trying to convert and the hateful remarks is a line that is not to be crossed.And then he could have gone through normal channels to get back on but didn’t.He can talk to the mods and get back on,he just has to follow the rules.

 

[Magicsilence]

i vote sticky this thread, its got tons of brilliant responses to protestants that we can use.

Am i alone in this train of thought?

 

[st_felicity]

Magicsilence:

i vote sticky this thread, its got tons of brilliant responses to protestants that we can use.

Am i alone in this train of thought?

Oooooo…I don’t know…LOTS of great responses here, but to some extent, I think it might come off to some non-Catholics who read it as a bunch of hyena’s attacking the poor wounded baby waterbuffalo …not pretty…but maybe necessary… I don’t know…

 

[Subrosa]

st_felicity:

Oooooo…I don’t know…LOTS of great responses here, but to some extent, I think it might come off to some non-Catholics who read it as a bunch of hyena’s attacking the poor wounded baby waterbuffalo …not pretty…but maybe necessary… I don’t know…

Not pretty, yes, but on the other hand, there is no reason one cannot edit out what they don’t like. Still lotsa good stuff here.

 

[Church_Militant]

Subrosa:

From what I can see, this thread is pretty much closed due to the fact that Pastor Robert has now been suspended twice. He was the one we were addressing, after all. He may not return.

Y’know, I half expected for him to began evangelizing, which he did. Too bad some found it objectionable.

Did it actually break any forum rules?

Subrosa

CONDUCT RULES

1. Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language, rude comments and innuendo.
2. Do not use abbreviated terms such as “Prots” or “radtrad” etc. that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best.
3. Do not use character substitutions in proper names, such as “Amerikkkans” or “Demonrats” or “Repubicans” etc.
4. Inappropriate or offensive graphics, links, or profile entries are not permitted.
5. Messages should be short. Do not post lengthy replies (especially replies that consist largely of quotes from an earlier message).
6. Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[Philthy]

My evil twin (Philthy ) who posted that last venemous post from my computer says he won’t miss the good Pastor. I will miss him - there was plenty left to discuss. We are both confident,however, that he heard all God wanted him to hear during his brief tenure here and that it’s up to him to use the info he received wisely. I do agree with the above poster that much good information was presented from the Catholics to refute some of his theological positions. How it was presented is debateable. Philthy wants me to pass along that he was upset that Pastor Robert never bothered to address the fact that
sola fide is an oxymoron (despite it being brought to his attention) and that that is why he reacted so harshly in the last post. I (Phil) will try to keep a tighter leash on Philthy - he has a bit of a temper. It always rears its head on this forum…

Phil

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I thought my posts to this thread were even-tempered, but I have been known to lose my cool from time to time. If anyone thinks I was out of line with any posts to this thread, I would really appreciate feedback and I promise I will take it charitably. You can post here, or send me a personal message.

Thanks -

 

[Sooner4Christ]

Here is the Pastor’s reply however:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pastor Robert
As for the CS Lewis quote, I’ll stick with the word of God.

---

Word of God is a Catholic Book that he is trying to interpret. I have no problem with him sticking to the Word of God,if he understands what it teaches. If I remember correctly isn’t C.S. Lewis a protestant himself who has distinguished the Catholic belief in salvation correctly? It’s a symantics issue that people sadly enough on both sides often confuse, more so from protestant backgrounds, because of what Pastor Jones or whoever the pastor is stated.

However, like many protestants he refuses to understand what we believe, meanwhile trying to tell us what we believe. All this so people will believe in his authoratitive doctrine according to Robert.

 

[st_felicity]

Just so no one thinks I meant that there was unwaranted (what I like to call) “assertiveness”–I just think he was pitifully outnumbered and there were SO MANY points to make…

 

[savone]

I, personally, am rather sad and disheartened that a thread, which seemed to start off with such promise, ended the way it has. Maybe, it points to one of the difficulties of attempting in-depth discussion thru online forums.

For example, earlier in the tread, a total of 61 posts had been made. Of these, Pastor Robert made 8 and the rest ( 53) were made by others. That’s a 6.63 to 1 ratio. At 146 posts, the total is 125 to 21, a 6 to 1 ratio. What do I make of this?

I would have difficulty sustaining any discussion, similar to this one, with 2 to 3 persons, let alone 6. It seems a considerable amount of cross-discussion takes places resulting in 1) questions unanswered, 2) dialoque that’s not exactly clear what question the poster is responding to, and 3) an overload of information. Perhaps, some new format is needed for discussions like these.

I note that Church Militant posted what I understand as CAF rules. In particular, I call attention to rule #7: “Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.” When I originally saw this, I read into this that “respect” was to be in both directions. I have tried to honor this. There any number of CAF members, who are Catholic Christians, that convey respect in discussions. However, in my comparatively short time “here,” I seen and “heard” too much for me to become engaged in dialoques that seem promising, yet take certain “turns,” and end with, at least in my mind, “what did this accomplish?”

This is why a lot of my posts have to do with the fun, even silly, threads. God’s been giving me a “working over” all my life. I certainly don’t need to come to CAF for more. My prayers are that some more efffective ways can be found to facilitate honest, sincere discussion of issues, topics and faith that persons learn, grow, and mature as disciples of Jesus Christ. Bless you.

I’m going to have some quiet time now.

 

[pangit]

hi, im new, simple catholic, just share my ideas

Baptism is not Just only Church ordinance but Jesus himself Commanded it, Mat 28:19 he said “…Make DICIPLES to all nation BAPTIZED them in the name of The Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and TEACHING them to observe the the things I Have Commanded you.”

here it is very clear that to be a DISCIPLE ( children of God) the qualification for Jesus are:
1.) FIRST BE BAPTIZED in the name of the Father, Son, Holy
Spirit. ( if the name is in the name of Holy Spirit only, it is
invalid, Name of Jesus only is invalid etc…

2.), second TEACHING THEM…
do they follow this command of Jesus baptized first then teach?

It is neccesary for Salvation as what Jesus clearly said Jn 3:5,22 " Unless a MAN be Born Again of WATER AND THE SPIRIT he cannot Enter Heaven, 22 Jesus … remain with them and Baptized."

MAN — refers to all person ( infants, teen agers, old, very old)
( * it is invalid if they baptized only the old* )

BORN AGAIN ( Children of God ) — must be OF WATER AND
THE SPIRIT.
( it is invalid if they become born again NOT of Water
and the Holy Spirit)

WATER AND THE SPIRIT— refers to BAPTISM Jn3:22
WATER— refer to Life- people die without water, in baptism it
refers to DIVINE LIFE coz of the SANCTIFYING
GRACE recieve.
HOLY SPIRIT-- Behind Water there’s God Himself who is
Sanctifying and uniting to the person to make
his soul filled with that Grace and seal to be
Son Of God, New Person ( Born Again).
John 3:22 " Jesus… remain and BAPTIZED… this is the continuation.
That’s why his disciples preached thesame 1 Peter 3:21 then Peter stood filled with Holy Spirit saying “Baptism now SAVES You…”

in short Jesus said if a person is not baptized he cannot enter heaven.JN 3:5

To Accept Christ is to Accept the WHOLE CHRIST not ONLY PART of him, so to Accept Christ is to Accept HIS CHURCH because it is HIS BODY, Col 1:18, 1 Tim 3:16, baptism ( meaning and practise) is commanded by Jesus and entrusted to his Body the Church.

Jesus said Jesus said Mat 7:21 " Not everyone who says to me , Lord, Lord will enter heaven, but the one who Does the will of my father.

 

[Sooner4Christ]

Does anybody really practice Faith Alone, or is this really a semantics issue that protestants and catholics are arguing about.

Think about this… a person who truly embraces Faith Alone is literally saying that Faith is all it takes and we don’t need to do good acts (ie be Christ like).

Now people who embrace this “Faith Alone” doctrine often state that a “TRUE” faith in Jesus Christ leads to good works (ie be Christ like).

Now using logic and common sense, I honestly believe they believe the 2nd “Faith Alone” which is a Catholic Doctrine.

Now Faith Alone almost always leads to OSAS, yet I have meet some people that embrace the 2nd “Faith Alone” doctrine that don’t believe in OSAS and actually refute it.

The Catholic stance the way I understand it leads to the 2nd one but the words “AND FAITH” are attached to the end of it, and that we are to endure to the end to obtain salvation.

Would anybody agree with this?

Sooner4Christ:

Fatih Alone is a person who throws away half the gospel and practices Antinomianism. By definition antinomianism is one who holds, that under the gospel dispensation of grace, the moral law, is of no use or obligation because faith alone is necessary to salvation.

These people openly admit that they take only half of the gospel and throw away the other half by simply saying faith alone will obtain salvation. WHen you read the gospels fully, faith Alone is nowhere in the Bible. This is a doctrine of Martin Luther not of Jesus Christ.

If I as a Catholic am accussed of wanting to live the gospels through faith and good works! Then I am guilty of this accusation! I believe Christians must maintain the biblical balance between the two. It is mentioned everywhere in the bible that you cannot seperate the two. I don’t know if you recall C.S. Lewis or
not but he was asked a question if works or faith is more necessary. He replied with this answer, “that is like asking, which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary.”

 

[Sooner4Christ]

PANGIT! Great post, I would like to add to your post.

Protestants also throw this one out there and say that Catholics are wrong when they suggest one would be damned if they aren’t baptized… T

he will quote Cannon Law (ie Can. 5. If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for
salvation, let him be anathema.

Take into consideration this is** if** one is fully aware of the biblical awareness of the neccisity of baptism and considers it optional.

From Catholic.Com
Christians from the beggining of time to Martin Luther have always interpreted the Bible literally when it declares, “Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21; cf. Acts 2:38, 22:16, Rom. 6:3–4, Col. 2:11–12).
Let see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on this issue:

And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]” (CCC 1257).

If you are aware of what the gospels say on this issue, wouldn’t you want to get baptized. It is an awesome gift that the Lord has given us.

I mean the Protestant Martin Luther affirmed the necessity of baptism. He wrote: “Baptism is no human plaything but is instituted by God himself. Moreover, it is solemnly and strictly commanded that we must be baptized or we shall not be saved. We are not to regard it as an indifferent matter, then, like putting on a new red coat. It is of the greatest importance that we regard baptism as excellent, glorious, and exalted” (Large Catechism 4:6).

The Counsel of Trent states, “If any one says 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.” Council of Trent, Decree on Justification, Chapter 8, January 13, 1547

Good works play a role in the Christian life only after a person is justified. As the Bible says, “We are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do” (Eph. 2:10).

As the Bible says, “Without faith, it is impossible to please God” (Heb. 11:6). That’s why many protestants are understandably scandalized if you read or hear someone say that Catholics believe good works are necessary for salvation.

So yes, there is a fine line. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "Those who die for the faith, those who are catechumens, and all those who, without knowing of the Church but acting under the inspiration of grace, seek God sincerely and strive to fulfill his will, are saved even if they have not been baptized"

 

[Sherlock]

Sooner4Christ,

You asked, “Does anybody really practice Faith Alone, or is this really a semantics issue that protestants and catholics are arguing about?”

A friend of mine is an Evangelical. She doesn’t attend services; works like a dog on Sundays; seldom reads Scripture or any other theological material; doesn’t give much to charity. However, she is certain she will go to heaven because she believes in Christ and is a nice person (and she certainly is very nice). I would say that that is “Faith Alone” in practice as well as in theory.

 

[Sooner4Christ]

Sherlock:

Sooner4Christ,

You asked, “Does anybody really practice Faith Alone, or is this really a semantics issue that protestants and catholics are arguing about?”

A friend of mine is an Evangelical. She doesn’t attend services; works like a dog on Sundays; seldom reads Scripture or any other theological material; doesn’t give much to charity. However, she is certain she will go to heaven because she believes in Christ and is a nice person (and she certainly is very nice). I would say that that is “Faith Alone” in practice as well as in theory.

I have an Evangelical friend as well, who goes to Church and practices his faith as an Evangelical. He is obviously the opposite, and he would suggest that she isn’t truly saved, because that is not “TRUE” faith.

Is it me or is “FAITH ALONE” in the first sense that I mentioned, which seems like your friend suggests, a doctrine of the devil.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sherlock:

Sooner4Christ,

You asked, “Does anybody really practice Faith Alone, or is this really a semantics issue that protestants and catholics are arguing about?”

A friend of mine is an Evangelical. She doesn’t attend services; works like a dog on Sundays; seldom reads Scripture or any other theological material; doesn’t give much to charity. However, she is certain she will go to heaven because she believes in Christ and is a nice person (and she certainly is very nice). I would say that that is “Faith Alone” in practice as well as in theory.

This is an excellent example of the dangers that arise from believing in the doctrines of OSAS and Sola Fide. I am sure your friend is very nice, but is she on a path that will sustain her in grace?