J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
it is not a trick, the Bible teaches in Christ alone we find salvation, that He is the only way while the catholic church teaches otherwise.
- Status
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
I said changing the subject is a trick. You just did it again.
The Catholic Church teaches salvation is from Christ alone. Prove the Church teaches otherwise or please retract your statement.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
Received at baptism; may be lost by mortal sin; regained by penance. Those who have never heard of Christ may be saved. (Catech 847)
works.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
works.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
C
centurion210
Guest
Jerry,
First of all, what is Paul trying to tell the Galatians? Wasn’t he trying to tell them that “Works of the Law” as the Jews had followed for centuries would no longer be required for salvation. They were of no use. Faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. No one disputes that. Good works performed in Christ as the result of grace are not the same as “Works of the Law”. In most of the verses used by Protestants for the faith “alone” argument, it is “works of law” that are being rejected…
How would you interpret the parable of the rich man who goes on a journey but before he does, gives money to each of his servants to watch over? While he is gone, two have invested the money and made it grow. A third servant, afraid to risk his masters money, merely preserves it. When the master returned he rewarded the servants who expanded his wealth and punished the one who merely “accepts” the money. How would you interpret that scenario?
First of all, what is Paul trying to tell the Galatians? Wasn’t he trying to tell them that “Works of the Law” as the Jews had followed for centuries would no longer be required for salvation. They were of no use. Faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. No one disputes that. Good works performed in Christ as the result of grace are not the same as “Works of the Law”. In most of the verses used by Protestants for the faith “alone” argument, it is “works of law” that are being rejected…
How would you interpret the parable of the rich man who goes on a journey but before he does, gives money to each of his servants to watch over? While he is gone, two have invested the money and made it grow. A third servant, afraid to risk his masters money, merely preserves it. When the master returned he rewarded the servants who expanded his wealth and punished the one who merely “accepts” the money. How would you interpret that scenario?
C
Cachonga
Guest
Just a quick note - whether Peter was in Rome or not is irrelevant to my relationship with God. It is a tradition, but not a dogma (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this). Since it is not a dogma, it is not (and I don’t think it has ever been claimed) to be a belief necessary for salvation (or, at least, a right-standing within the Catholic Church). Personally, I believe Peter was taken to Rome and executed. I don’t believe he was ever the Bishop of Rome (though, as an apostle, he most certainly would have had considerable influence within the church there). To say Babylon was a code word for Rome is only partly true. The old city of Babylon was still in existence (along with a Jewish population), so it is possible that Peter was, literally, in Babylon when he wrote his epistles. Either way, it does not affect my relationship with God. If this is being brought up to question the legitimacy of the papacy, I suggest moving it to a new thread. If it’s being brought up because it’s not clear in scripture, I would suggest there are other points better suited for the Sola Scriptura discussion (i.e. - actual dogmas not supported by scripture, rather than a long standing tradition).
D
Doolin
Guest
It is interesting how these threads go. On the one hand we are discussing the lack of scriptural support for Sola Scriptura, then we have moved to the lack of scriptural support for specific traditions, although the obvious issue is how we interpret scripture as support for the supposed Catholic traditions. It is so apparent that Sola Scriptura is not in scripture.
I see no Protestant band wagon saying with conviction, and essentially facing the implications of that issue. Yet when it comes to some Catholic tradition, they seem to be all over it with critical analysis.
This is very sad. So polarized. Don’t mind me but this does make me very sad that discussion really are just about winning an argument.
Many Blessings,
Doolin
I see no Protestant band wagon saying with conviction, and essentially facing the implications of that issue. Yet when it comes to some Catholic tradition, they seem to be all over it with critical analysis.
This is very sad. So polarized. Don’t mind me but this does make me very sad that discussion really are just about winning an argument.
Many Blessings,
Doolin
S
SHW
Guest
Hello,
I don’t think that it was the Apostle Peter who was rebuked by Paul at Antioch. If you look at the Greek translation, two names are used, Peter for the Apostle and Cephas for the disciple. Many scholars now believe that it was not the Apostle Peter who was rebuked. The KJV does not translate these names correctly from the Greek, KJV uses one name for both men instead of two names.
members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf
Archaeological digs in the 20th century have unearthed Peter’s tomb.
http://www.miraclerosarymission.org/stpetertour.html
Pax,
SHW
C
Cachonga
Guest
SHW - are you suggesting that Cephas and Peter are 2 different people? If this Cephas is not Peter, could you please document exactly who this Cephas is? I can look at John 1:42 and see that Peter means Cephas (Jesus said, “thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.”), which would imply that both names can be used of the same person (much like Israel and Jacob can be used of the same Patriarch). (BTW - my source is the Douay Rheims version.)
P
Pirtek
Guest
Seems to me that there is way too much discussion on this thread. The bottom line should be , SOLA SCRIPTURA (THE TEACHING) MUST BE IN SCRIPTURE FOR IT TO BE TRUE. SINCE IT IS NOT THERE , IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA. TO BELEIVE IN SOLA SCRIPTURA ,IS TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING THAT IS NOT IN SCRIPTURE.
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
I agree with you Peter and Cephas are the same person, but your questioning whether Peter spent any or much time in Rome is a good example why Sacred Tradition is so important to accurate Church history, proper exegesis of Scripture and a clear understanding of the truth of the Christian faith. Until fairly recently there has never been any question whatever of Peter’s time in Rome, his martyrdom there and his burial on the site of St. Peter’s basilica.
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
yeah so why try earn your salvation
T
Trilor
Guest
Because we don’t. Do not put words into other people’s mouths. It’s disrespectful and stupid.
S
SHW
Guest
I agree that Cephas and Peter are the same name and that they both can be used to mean Peter the Apostle. However, that does not mean that every time these two names are used that they mean only Peter the Apostle.
In Galatians, Paul uses Peter the Apostle to mean Peter and Cephas to mean the disciple.
Galatians 2:8 “(For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, wrought in me also among the Gentiles.) 9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision: 10 Only that we should be mindful of the poor: which same thing also I was careful to do.”
Check out my paper in which I document the findings of scholars on this subject.
members.cox.net/studyhisword/PeterVindicated.pdf
Cephas and James and John are of the 72 disciples which Jesus chose. Paul states that they seemed to be pillars. The Apostles Peter, James, and John are pillars! Paul would never disparage fellow apostles in this manner.(Luke 10:1)
Pax,
SHW
J
Jerry_Marino
Guest
talk of disrespectful
i have nothing say but that you may find the peace of God, i forgive you.
God bless
R
ralphy
Guest
Why my friend would you stand on tradition after your statement,“However, the traditional practises of the church can change from to time ,as my complete catechism reference indicated”. The word of God never changes. Traditional and the Bible in equal regard? I don’t think so. Ralph
I
inkaneer
Guest
This is grossly untrue. First of all nothing happened at Nicea untill the papal legates arrived. Only then was the Council opened. Secondly, Constantine paid for and provided for the council. But he asked Pope Sylvester to call the council which Sylvester did.
As far as any bishop having predominance we only have to look to the Church at Corinth in 80 AD. There was a problem in Corinth that could not be resolved locally. So the church peteitioned Pope clement in Rome to intecede. This Clement did. The church in Corinth did what had been done in Antioch about 30 years before and recorded in the Book of Acts. They too had a problem and appealed to the Apostles assembled in Jerusalem. Acts records that there was much debate until Peter stood up and addressed the assembly. After that there was no more debate. The Pope had spoken. At Corinth in 80 AD they went to Clement third successor of Peter in Rome. Yet John the Apostle was still living and was in fact closer to them than Rome. So why did they go to Rome? Because they knew who the successor to Peter was and they respected his authority over that of an apostle. Approximately 90 years later anotherproblem will arise in Corinth and again they will go to Rome for guidance. Bishop Dionysius of Corinth
would write to Pope Soter:
“For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying” (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).
“Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement” (ibid., 4:23:11).
As for the point about Canon 6 of Nicea that has been addressed by another poster.
R
ralphy
Guest
Absolutely not. He said “I am the truth,the life and the way, no one comes to the father but by Me” Ralph
S
SHW
Guest
Hi Ralphy,
I think you do not understand that the Church speaks for Jesus. The Church is “living” and she is not contained in a Book. The Bible is a tool of the Church and the Church has Jesus’ authority to interpret its Scriptures. The Church is organized into a hierarchy which Jesus set up Himself.
Matthew 16:18-19 "And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
Jesus selects Peter for the top leadership position of His Church.
Matthew 28:19-20 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.”
Jesus commissions the Apostles and commands them to go out and baptize persons so that they can be His disciples and He tells them to teach them all that they need to know in order to inherit eternal life. He did not tell them to go out and write a book. Jesus promises them that He will be with them in His Church until He returns.
Luke 10:16 “He who hears you hears Me, he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.”
Jesus tells His Church’s leaders that if people do not listen to them and if they do not do what the Church leaders say they should do, then they are rejecting Him and His Father.
Hebrews 13:17 “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for** they watch out for your souls**, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”
Jesus gives His authority to the Apostles. This authority is passed down until He returns again. They rule over us spiritually. This is the way it is whether we like it or not.
John 14:26 “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”
He sent the Holy Spirit to guide the Church and because the Holy Spirit is Truth, the Church cannot teach error regarding faith and morals.
So, who are you obeying? I obey the Church because Jesus said that if I do not listen to her and obey her, then I am rejecting Him and His Father. The Church is the bride of Christ and He is with her and will be with her until He returns at His Second Coming. This is His promise. So, if you are not part of her, then you are not really obeying the gospel of Jesus.
2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 “when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction”
Pax,
SHW
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Because ‘traditional practices’ can include such things as the words of the liturgy, which is not doctrine or dogma, not eating meat on Friday, which is not doctrine or dogma, a celibate priesthood, which has not changed, but could if the Church wanted to change it and which is not doctrine or dogma. None of those things are ‘the word of God.’ They are traditional practices of the Church which the Church is free to change if the need arises. Sacred Tradition is another matter and you fail to make the distinction.
I do think so. In fact, I’m certain of it. Yes, the word of God never changes. Your mistake is in thinking all tradition is defined dogma. It’s not. The Church is emphatic in what she declares definitively, either from the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra) or by the Magesterium, the bishops in council or, as is usual, both. The doctrines and dogmas of the Church have been part of the deposit of faith from the beginning. However, they are never declared dogmatically until they were challenged. Two examples are the Canon of Scripture, which was set by the Church in the 4th Century, but not declared dogma until the Council of Trent in the 16th Century after Luther threw out seven books of the OT; and the infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, which was similarly believed but not defined until the authority of the pope was challenged centuries later.
R
ralphy
Guest
Read 2 Tim 3:16-17 and you will see about scripture, (not tradition,which is the teaching of man).I follow the Bible because of John 12:44-50. My judgement will come from the written word of God,not by tradition. Ralph
- Status