P
paul_c
Guest
This is a foolish and american-centric point of view.
- Status
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
I think we’re dealing with perceptions here, and that is important, to understand what one another’s perceptions are. Of course I disagree with the perception that the RCC counts good works as points; I have never thought of it that way.
As far as good works coming naturally without effort without it feeling like effort–that can apply equally to a Catholic as well as a Protestant. A Catholic can make that assertion just as easily.
As far as the perception that Protestants frantically work hard to prove to themselves (and to others) that they have true, saving, faith (as opposed to temporary faith)–I still have that perception. I still perceive it as a retroactive causation!
J
John_Martin
Guest
As a Catholic, my attention to doing good works is not about getting points to heaven, but it is about realizing that as a Son of my Father I cannot let this particular activity (this particular call to do a specific good work) go undone. And as far as avoiding sinful works it is not about trying to keep myself going to heaven, but it is about realizing that as a son of my Father and a brother of my Lord that I cannot practice this particular activity (this particular call to turn away from my Jesus).
We all know this, that those who face away from Christ in order to practice what is not his will have no inheritance in his Kingdom, but those who face him hear his voice and do deeds that are in the light.
A Catholic life of faith is a life of ever newly facing Jesus, confessing when they have looked away, receiving absolution, and then practicing what they hear Jesus calling them by his Spirit to do as his brothers and fellow heirs. It is a life of ever being nourished at his banquet where he feeds them with his body and blood, for he is the Lamb that was slain, and he is the High Priest who distributes the offering to those who share the eucharistic meal.
T
twb1621
Guest
Hi Ben, I ask you re-read what I wrote you so you understand my point. Your adoption of any external writing should be based on scripture, not placed ahead of it when there are signs of conflict which I have presented you. My point is to find out with an open mind why there is conflict with what you have adopted and what is manifestly attested to in scripture. I can’t do more than offer you these things to consider. Turning to other authors opinions is fine when you can determine how accurate or valid they may be, but not when it conflicts with scripture my brother.
Do you see what I mean here?
B
Bengoshi
Guest
The reason they do not know is because they don’t take the time to find out. That’s why Scripture says to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”. It simply means that we figure it out. That instead of being indifferent to our salvation, we should think about it so that we could really know if we are saved or not. Once a person realizes that he needs Christ to be saved, then he most probably will accept Christ as Lord and Savior. Of course, tghere are those whose hearts are hardened and will continue to reject Jesus no matter what.
As to your second question, I guess there’s no difference. That’s why they should find out.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
I couldn’t paste the referred portion here 'coz the space is insufficient.
Yeah, right!
Of course I believe everything the apostle Paul wrote in his epistles.We do practice Communion/The Lord’s Supper. It’s just that Jesus told his disciples to do it “in memory of him”.
The passage you referred to doesn’t say what you said. It just says that “the gates of Hades shall not overcome it.” I already explained this in a previous post.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
I’m sorry if you find it so difficult to understand what I’m saying…
So enlighten me on the Catholic postion regarding th relationship of faith and works.Oh sure, the Catechism is replete with the notion of working for “points” to “earn” our salvation…
You are not doing the Reformed position any favors.
Blessings!
B
Bengoshi
Guest
LOL!
P
Philthy
Guest
Yes, that is precisely what he was saying.
It isnt an alternative plan. They are one and the same plan. Obeying the commandments - which are clarified as loving God and neighbor - is an act of faith by grace, the very faith and grace spoken of in Eph 2:8-9 and most especially in v 10. They are part of the “good works” that Bengoshi claims all Christians will “naturally” do.
People with an agenda will cram anything and everything into it to avoid what is actually said. He teaches about salvation and about money.
This is correct!
This is correct!
This is irrelevant speculation!
Not quite. Keeping the law (loving God and neighbor) is the path to Heaven - but we cant do it! If we could love God with all our heart soul mind and strength and love our neighbor as our self we would have eternal life (cf Luke 10:25-50), but we can’t. Christ came to atone for our failings, to teach us the path to follow, and sent His Spirit to empower us to do the things we would be unable to do of ourselves.
That does not mean we are saved by the Commandments but it does not mean we can simply ignore them without jeopardizing our inheritance in the Kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9, Gal 5:5, Eph 5:19-20)
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Okay. Noted.
G
guanophore
Guest
Can you show me where you found this?
Can you reconcile this positon with the Declaration on Justification?
I thought you said I could earn points! I WANT MY POINTS!!! :crying:
Maybe you can help me understand this verse:
Col 1:24
24 I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and do fill up the things lacking of the tribulations of the Christ in my flesh for his body, which is the assembly,
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you,… The apostle, as soon as he had made mention of his being a minister of the Gospel, thinks and speaks of his “sufferings”; for those are what always more or less attend persons in such an office; they are appointed to them by God; Christ has foretold them of them; they are necessary for them; they must expect them, and patiently endure them: the apostle was under them now at this present time, for he wrote this epistle in his bonds when a prisoner at Rome, not for any immorality, any crime he had committed, but for Christ’s sake, for his Gospel’s sake, for the sake of the churches of Christ to whom he preached, for the confirmation of them, and so of these Colossians; and therefore he says, “for you”; and which he mentions to animate them to abide by the Gospel, for which he was suffering, that it might continue with them and others: nor was he distressed and discouraged at his afflictions, he “rejoiced” in them, because he had the presence of God in them, the Spirit of God and of glory rested on him, and God was glorified by them; he esteemed it an honour done him that grace was given, and he counted worthy to suffer for the sake of Christ; and as well knowing that he should live and reign with him, since he suffered with him and for him: and what greatly caused and increased his joy was what follows, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh; by which are meant not the afflictions or sufferings of Christ in his own person; for these were all over, he was now entered into his glory, was exalted at the Father’s right hand, and was crowned with glory and honour: there was nothing left behind of his sufferings, to be undergone by any of his people; he had drank of the cup and all the dregs of it; he had sustained the whole of his Father’s wrath, and all the curses of the law, being abated nothing, but was made perfect through sufferings; having perfectly suffered all, he suffered once and once for all, he will suffer no more; nor is there any need of his suffering more or again, for he has finished sin, wrought righteousness, made peace, and obtained eternal redemption; nor had he any partner in his sufferings, nor did he need any, or left any part of his sufferings to be filled up by others; for he endured all and the whole, which the law and justice of God could require in his own body, in the body of his flesh through death; of these sufferings the apostle does not speak, but of such which he filled up in “his” own “flesh”; and design the afflictions of Christ in his members, which are called “his”, because of that near union there is between Christ and them; so that what befalls them may be predicated of him; when anyone of them suffers, he suffers with him, as the sufferings of a part of the body are ascribed to the whole person; and because of that sympathy there is between them, he has a fellow feeling with his people in all their infirmities; in all their afflictions he is afflicted: if Saul persecutes his saints, he persecutes him; whatever injury is done to them, he takes it as done to himself, who are to him as the apple of his eye. Moreover, hereby they are conformed unto him, and made like him; as he was, so are they in this world; there is a good deal of likeness between the afflictions of Christ and his people, though in some things there is a great disparity; add to this, that the afflictions of the saints are endured for Christ’s sake, for the sake of his Gospel, and the profession of his name, and therefore called his, and the more cheerfully bore by them: now of these there were some remains to be filled up by the apostle; not that all the afflictions of the whole body of Christ were to be, or have been filled up by him; there was a great deal left behind by him to be filled up by others, and which has been filling up ever since, and still is, and yet all is not fulfilled to this day, nor will be till the end of time; but he speaks only of that part and measure of them, which was to be tilled up in his flesh; he had his measure of afflictions allotted to him, great part of which he had endured already, but some remained, the measure was not yet full, though pretty near being completed, which gave him pleasure; it was just filling up, and the time of his departure was at hand, when there would be no more sorrow; for it was only while he was in the flesh he was filling up this measure, and would be quickly up; and what added to his joy was, that as these were the afflictions of Christ, and the measure of them was appointed by his heavenly Father, to be filled up by him in this mortal state, so they were for his body’s sake, which is the church; not in the room and stead of the church, and people of Christ, as were the sufferings of Christ personal; or to exempt them from sufferings who all have their share in this life; nor for their sins to make reconciliation for them, and procure the remission of them; nor to redeem them, or obtain salvation for them, all which is completed by Christ; but for their good and profit, that the Gospel might continue and be blessed to the conversion of many, for the increase of the church and additions to it, and for the furtherance of the Gospel, and that such who professed it might be established and confirmed in it, by the sufferings of the apostle for it: and such good effects did follow upon his sufferings and afflictions; they were for the consolation of many souls, the strengthening of weak believers, and causing even preachers of the Gospel to wax more confident, and more boldly preach the Gospel without fear of man.
B
Bengoshi
Guest
Okay. Let me read it first.
T
twb1621
Guest
My brother, this is exactly what you want to be cautious of when you refer to someone’s opinion without the necessary familiarity of Scripture. In this post you say “the author based his conclusions on Scripture”, but that does not mean it does not conflict in his interpretation or understanding. I am sure he bases his opinions on scripture to some degree but the fact it conflicts with other verses shows his misinterpretation or failure to take all scripture into account in the formation of his conclusions. Since the birth of Protestantism, every single protestant faith bases their opinions to some degree on Scripture. None of them base their conclusions on ALL of Scripture, which is why there are so many opinions and so many verses in Scripture that are left ignored.
It should not be “good enough” to anyone for him or herself to adopt a faith that promotes itself on only part of Scripture while disregarding or ignoring the remainder because it conflicts with interpretation or because verses can not be understood due to the misinterpretation of other passages. This is the common practice of protestant born faiths and a direct sign of misinterpretation. Most scholarly non-Catholic converts to Catholicism return home to the Catholic Faith after entering into greater depths of their education, most often after becoming familiar with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The number of preachers, bishops, ministers, pastors, reverends, and so on that are converting to Catholicism is ever growing because many of them are realizing through their advanced educations there are questions and changes in doctrines and flexibility in interpretations in their own faiths that should never exist. They seek answers, finding them most frequently in the writings of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and the commonality of the writings of the Fathers make it evident that the Catholic Church has consistently proclaimed the Full teachings of Christ since the beginning and throughout history. They sought for answers were most commonly they had little to no real knowledge in their educations. But the fact is, years of advanced education is not necessary to find answers to the question of validity in a particular faith, most non-scholarly Christians need only read scripture and begin reading the writings of the ECFs to find the true Church of Christ with the fullness and entirety of His Teachings, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, is Christ, and His Church is the Catholic Church.
T
twb1621
Guest
My brother, this is exactly what you want to be cautious of when you refer to someone’s opinion without the necessary familiarity of Scripture. In this post you say “the author based his conclusions on Scripture”, but that does not mean it does not conflict in his interpretation or understanding. I am sure he bases his opinions on scripture to some degree but the fact it conflicts with other verses shows his misinterpretation or failure to take all scripture into account in the formation of his conclusions. Since the birth of Protestantism, every single protestant faith bases their opinions to some degree on Scripture. None of them base their conclusions on ALL of Scripture, which is why there are so many opinions and so many verses in Scripture that are left ignored.
It should not be “good enough” to anyone for him or herself to adopt a faith that promotes itself on only part of Scripture while disregarding or ignoring the remainder because it conflicts with interpretation or because verses can not be understood due to the misinterpretation of other passages. This is the common practice of protestant born faiths and a direct sign of misinterpretation. Most scholarly non-Catholic converts to Catholicism return home to the Catholic Faith after entering into greater depths of their education, most often after becoming familiar with the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. The number of preachers, bishops, ministers, pastors, reverends, and so on that are converting to Catholicism is ever growing because many of them are realizing through their advanced educations there are questions and changes in doctrines and flexibility in interpretations in their own faiths that should never exist. They seek answers, finding them most frequently in the writings of the Apostolic and Early Church Fathers and the commonality of the writings of the Fathers make it evident that the Catholic Church has consistently proclaimed the Full teachings of Christ since the beginning and throughout history. They sought for answers were most commonly they had little to no real knowledge in their educations. But the fact is, years of advanced education is not necessary to find answers to the question of validity in a particular faith, most non-scholarly Christians need only read scripture and begin reading the writings of the ECFs to find the true Church of Christ with the fullness and entirety of His Teachings, “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”, is Christ, and His Church is the Catholic Church.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Again, thanks for the answers.
Now, in regards to thinking about it so we can really know if we are saved or not, there are probably those who would rather not know. I mean, if you can find out if you are saved or not, and you find out you are not saved, that is a terrible knowledge to have. To know, absolutely know, that you are not simply going out of existence when you die, but, on the contrary, suffer in fire eternally. That is a heavy mind trip, and to these people, God is not a good God, but a bad God, a fiend.
In respect to the idea of limited atonement, if it is true, then Christ did not die for everybody. And if you are not among those He died for, then whether you accept Him as Lord and Savior or not, makes no difference, because He is not your savior anyway.
G
guanophore
Guest
Indeed He did. He called it “anamnesis”, and it’s context is the Passover, which is itself anamnesis, during which a ritual is enacted, and the Lamb is actually eaten.
G
guanophore
Guest
I find it interesting that I asked you to help me understand this passage, and instead of giving me your thoughts, you have forwarded those of another bible student. What makes Gill’s ideas more authoritative than the ones we received from the Apostles?
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
“animate them to abide”? How does Paul suffering “animate” the Colosians to abide by the Gospel. Cant he “animate” them in a manner other than his suffering?
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
I think that most of this is consistent with scripture, except that being distressed and discouraged at times does not mean one fails to rejoice. When one reads the letter to the Philippians it is clear that Paul is lonely, abandoned, and going through a great deal of emotional suffering. He even seems to e looking forward to death, as deliverance.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
If they are “all over”, then how can joining our sufferings with His be accomplished in the present?
And also, how is it that there is anything “lacking” in the sufferings of Christ?
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
Gill certainly seems to go to great lengths to find some way to avoid the plain text of the passage, does He not?
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
Basically he is twisting the language of the passage, so that the Apostle is NOT making up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ, but that he is making up what is lacking in his “own flesh”? One has to really spin to avoid the plain meaning this way.
“Sympathy”? “fellow feeling”? I mean, really. These concepts are not in the text, directly with this language, or even implied.
On the contrary, the Apostles is clear that His sufferings make up what is lacking in those of Christ.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
Yes, and it is upon this basis that the concepts of indulgences and the treasury of merit are predicated. We are members one of another, and our sufferings and rejoicings affect one another as members of the One Body.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
After all that spinning and avoiding, now he admits the plain meaning of the text?
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible:
It is very Catholic in this section. I hope you will meditate on this, as it will help you understand better why Catholics don’t separate Eph. 2:10 from verses 8 and 9.
I notice you skipped over the evidence I asked for from Catholic sources by which you could support the perverted ideas you have forwarded of what Catholics believe. This does not surprise me, since I know that they do not exist. I pray you will give careful attention to this as well, so that you might be inclined to refrain from misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
M
mackbrislawn
Guest
Again, thanks for the reply.
Now, it’s possible that some people don’t want to know if they are saved or not. Supporse they find out that they are among the reprobate and not the elect? That they discover they won’t simply go into non-existence when they die, but will roast in fire eternally? That is a heavy mind trip to have.
Also, if the doctrine of limited atonement is true, that means that Jesus did not die for everybody, so if someone is among the reprobate, calling upon Christ as Lord and Savior won’t matter for him.
P
Philthy
Guest
I don’t find it difficult to understand, I find what you are saying to be self-contradictory, inconsistent with actual experience and, as a result, largely meaningless.I’m sorry if you find it so difficult to understand what I’m saying…
Certainly, after you admit that you posited a position that you didnt actually get from a Catholic source. Guanophore asked you for the same thing here:
We’re still waiting…but neither of us is holding our breath…I notice you skipped over the evidence I asked for from Catholic sources by which you could support the perverted ideas you have forwarded of what Catholics believe. This does not surprise me, since I know that they do not exist. I pray you will give careful attention to this as well, so that you might be inclined to refrain from misrepresenting the Catholic faith.
Blessings!
- Status