Struggling with converting to Catholicism

[tgGodsway]

Saving faith is faith that works.

This is double talk. Was this “saving faith that works” present in Genesis 15 when God completed His work by declaring Abraham JUST? NO… it was years later and after much trial and error did Abraham’s faith show up in his works. We call that sanctification. But the delay between Genesis 15 and Genesis 22 did nothing to change God’s decision to declare him Just, lest salvation include good works and he would have had something to boast about.

Nor was Abraham justified over and over again as some on this site have suggested. If Abraham had died in Genesis 15 and never produced a son, he would have died A JUST MAN, without good works and he would have immediately entered the realities of eternal life that his faith purchased for him. why? because eternal salvation is offered as a free gift and not of works.

 

[Theo2]

Seeker,
Keep seeking! You are searching for the truth which we should all do. I think others have supplied a lot of good information.
Think about why Jesus ascended into heaven. He could have stayed with us. My thought is people were intimidated by Jesus so he left and sent the Holy Spirit to carry on in mysterious ways. Mary being our mother is one of the tools the Holy Spirit uses to bring souls closer to her son.
If you are already close to Jesus and can follow all his teachings that is wonderful. If not, then maybe Mary can help.

 

[guanophore]

This is double talk. Was this “saving faith that works” present in Genesis 15 when God completed His work by declaring Abraham JUST? NO…

I think you are confused, TgG. Abraham indeed had faith that worked. This is why James is clear in using Him as an example of how saving faith is faith that justifies by works.

14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?..21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, 23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2

The only place in scripture where the words “faith alone” appear together is here, where the Apostle states NOT by faith alone.

Saving faith has a certain quality - it is a faith that produces ergos hagios. If it does not have this quality, it is “dead faith” and dead faith does not save. It is not doublespeak, tgG, it is the Apostolic teaching.

lest salvation include good works and he would have had something to boast about.

YOu are talking about apples and turnips here. Good works (ergos hagios) are only produced in us by grace through faith.

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. eph 2

These good works, that God has prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (not "works of the law, with which you seem to have them confused) are produced by grace in us and through us.

A profession of faith that does not demonstrate the good works in which we should walk is not a saving faith.

because eternal salvation is offered as a free gift and not of works.

This is why we baptize infants!

 

[tgGodsway]

I think you are confused, TgG. Abraham indeed had faith that worked. This is why James is clear in using Him as an example of how saving faith is faith that justifies by works.

I did not say that Abraham didn’t have faith that worked. I said that Abraham was justified by faith in Genesis 15, apart from works. His justification wasn’t pending any future good works that may or may not have occurred. He was justified because He believed God in Genesis 15.

What James was talking about was another justification which included works. But James, who agreed with Paul, was not trying to say that this justification by works was before God.

 

[steve-b]

This threat is shameful and embarrassing to any serious student of scripture.

I’ll try and take this in pieces

Any “serious student of scripture” & history, would know that phrase came from scripture and tradition.

Keep reading

tgGodsway:

Instead of putting the emphasis on the word HIS only Church… you should have put it on ONLY church. … because that is what you mean, right?

The Word, gave us His only Church. His Church He built on Peter as the leader and those in complete union with Peter. THAT’S scripture. And THAT’S what makes Our Lord’s Church the pillar and foundation of truth as well.

tgGodsway:

Millions of non-R-Catholic tradition, believers, are also members of HIS ONLY church.

Only those in full communion with Peter and those in complete union with him, are "in" Our Lord’s Church.

You know this already from all the previous posts and links I’ve given you from scripture.

To recap

Romans 16:17-20 , & Galatians 5:19-21 The following Greek word (is the same word in both Rom 16:17 And Gal 5:19…) διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition. the consequences for dividing from the Catholic Church is
“I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” [Gal 5:21]

IOW once someone knows the truth of the Catholic Church, and either divides from her, or won’t return to unity, and remains in division from the Catholic Church, they won’t be saved.

That’s where this phrase “outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation” came from

The HS that inspired Paul, [John 14:25-26] to condemn division. Ultimately that came from Jesus [John 16:12-15] . And since Jesus will judge all souls, Jesus is telling us in advance through the HS, through Paul, how He will judge division from His Church.

Jesus wants and describes perfect unity that He wants [John 17:20-23]. Nothing else but that unity will do. Otherwise He wouldn’t have given such a terrible consequence to a soul if they divide from His Church in this life and die in that state of separation

tgGodsway:

The “consequences” for one knowing the Catholic Church was created by Jesus AND WON’T BE IN HIS CHURCH OR REMAIN IN IT, is a sinful threat un-substantiated by the teachings of Christ and His Church. It is comments like this that make people leave the CC in the first place.

Now you know differently, and where it came from…From scripture

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Word, gave us His only Church. His Church He built on Peter as the leader and those in complete union with Peter. THAT’S scripture. And THAT’S what makes Our Lord’s Church the pillar and foundation of truth as well.

Well that is surely your interpretation of Mt. 16.

that’s been the understanding and tradition for His Church for 2000 years. It’s easy to go back in history to get that information. Not only THAT,

Re: The passages from Romans I quoted. You DO know don’t you, who the book of Romans is written to? Yep the Church of Rome, the same Church the 266th successors to St Peter, Pope Francis, is there at the helm. The Church you left.

tgGodsway:

This interpretation however, has no other biblical witnesses to support it, or cooperation by any other Apostles on record with sacred scripture. No apostle or gospel writer recognized or embraced what the RCC interpreted in Mt. 16. It is truly the Catholic Churches interpretation alone.

John Henry Newman, while still a Protestant, and well read theologian, had his own moment of questioning. And in his search and research, made the following quote famous. "To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant"

That phrase is a barn burner for all the human inventions that popped up over time that CAN’T claim apostolic origin.

In scripture, schism. sedition, division, dissension, splitting off into sects, etc
is ALL condemned as are those who do it and don’t return

Go back in history. Back to the first century. The name “Catholic Church” is used, AND used in writing, properly referenced.

Ignatius of Antioch, bishop and saint, was ordained ~69 a.d. He knew the apostles and was a direct disciple of St John the apostle. While the writings of Ignatius came as a result of his arrest and his death sentence to be thrown to the lions in the Coliseum in 107 a.d., he gives us the understanding of his day from the time he has been bishop so all of it can be passed on in the written tradition… Which means this understanding has been in place from the apostles.

I’ve already shown you all of this.

 

[Theo2]

Study, but in the end faith is required.

 

[tgGodsway]

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

Nothing said here refutes what I said. Apparently, John Henry didn’t go all the way back to the founding fathers. His exploration was too shallow. If he would have gone all the way back, he would have discovered the inner circle of believers, the eye-witnesses to Christ and His resurrection. He would have found out that there was no pope Peter, no divine-Mary, no priesthood. it would be that simple.

 

[tgGodsway]

so all of it can be passed on in the written tradition… Which means this understanding has been in place from the apostles.

I am okay with that as long as whatever tradition Ignatius is responsible for, is in sink with holy scripture, the divine record.

 

[deMontfort]

I am okay with that as long as whatever tradition Ignatius is responsible for, is in sink with holy scripture, the divine record.

Actually you need a dictionary or you need to get your spell check in sync

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

“To be deep in history is to cease being a Protestant”

Nothing said here refutes what I said. Apparently, John Henry didn’t go all the way back to the founding fathers

Sure he did. He only had to go back a few years in history to see that Everything changed with Henry VIII. And technically the rest of the changes came with Hanks brother who followed Hank as king. So Newman was gone after that discovery. He entered the Catholic Church.

You left the Catholic Church and became a Calvinist. We know who Calvin was. He left the Catholic Church and became a heretic just like Luther… and all who followed THEM into the heresy of Protestantism

tgGodsway:

. His exploration was too shallow. If he would have gone all the way back, he would have discovered the inner circle of believers, the eye-witnesses to Christ and His resurrection. He would have found out that there was no pope Peter, no divine-Mary, no priesthood. it would be that simple.

You really don’t know Newman. Nor have you read his works or you wouldn’t have said that.

But that’s tgYOURWAY

 

[KnowledgeSeeker]

Apparently, John Henry didn’t go all the way back to the founding fathers. His exploration was too shallow. If he would have gone all the way back, he would have discovered the inner circle of believers, the eye-witnesses to Christ and His resurrection.

Is there a specific book or something other than the Bible that you are referencing when you say that he apparently didn’t go back to the founding fathers? Is there a book that holds a collection of their writings other than what is in the Bible that you are reading and getting this information from? If so I would be interested to read this. Although I do believe everything written in the Bible is true, I also believe that there may be things about the faith and structure of the Church that aren’t written there. The reason for this is because Jesus followers and the earliest Christians were still able to spread the Gospel without having what we know as the Bible today for between 200 to 300 years. I also have to consider that there were writings that weren’t included into the first Bibles that were constructed. There are books missing from the Protestant Bibles we currently have today that can be found in a Catholic Bible and there are books that didn’t make the cut into the Catholic Bible nor the Protestant Bible.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

so all of it can be passed on in the written tradition… Which means this understanding has been in place from the apostles.

I am okay with that as long as whatever tradition Ignatius is responsible for, is in sink with holy scripture, the divine record.

Technically, Ignatius was bishop before the NT was written. When Ignatius died, in ~107, there was no NT canon. The canon, of (27 books of the NT) hadn’t been canonized yet. That final canon came in 381, at the council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.

There goes the sola scriptura argument down the drain.

Here’s a bit of interesting history for you.

There was an early canon called the Muratorian canon thought to be written ~170 a.d. Guess who it depended on for validation and approval? Yep The Catholic Church Muratorian canon But it wasn’t the finalized version. It was a work in progress.

P.S.
I forgot. You don’t open links. So I’ll give you a snip from that link

“There are also in circulation one to the Laodiceans, and another to the Alexandrians, forged under the name of Paul, and addressed against the heresy of Marcion; and there are also several others which cannot be received into the Catholic Church, for it is not suitable for gall to be mingled with honey.”

The world wouldn’t have the NT if it wasn’t for the Catholic Church

 

[hope]

no divine-Mary,

You know better than this anti-catholic slur. You can edit and you had better. It is against forum rules shame on you for printing such a lie.

no priesthood.

Oh my goodness how sadly ignorant. God established the priesthood through Aaron and his decedents. Remember that Jesus came to fulfill that is exactly what He did when He established the priesthood with the Apostles. Jesus is the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

 

[hope]

There are books missing from the Protestant Bibles we currently have today that can be found in a Catholic Bible and there are books that didn’t make the cut into the Catholic Bible nor the Protestant Bible.

A good point.@ tgGodsway states that the early Christians passed around the New Testament books so they had scripture but he doesn’t explain how the early Christians knew what was and wasn’t scripture.

 

[tgGodsway]

Technically, Ignatius was bishop before the NT was written. When Ignatius died, in ~107, there was no NT canon. The canon, of (27 books of the NT) hadn’t been canonized yet. That final canon came in 381, at the council of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.

There goes the sola scriptura argument down the drain.

I’m sorry but there was a N.T. word from God. It may not have been collected into one volume and sanctioned by pope Damasus at Rome, but all of the gospels and epistles were divinely circulated during this time and was the word of God before the ink dried on the parchment.

The sola scriptura argument is not only valid but exciting to defend in light of those who want to squelch it’s significance.

 

[guanophore]

I did not say that Abraham didn’t have faith that worked.

well good. I am glad we are on the same page about this. It is a quality of faith that is a saving faith. This is one “work” that we are called by Jesus to do. It is done inwardly, as Abraham did, without any outward demonstration needed.

28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” John 6.

Abraham did this “work”. He chose to place his faith in God.

By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

His justification wasn’t pending any future good works that may or may not have occurred. He was justified because He believed God in Genesis 15.

Yes, and Catholics do not believe we are justified by any “pending works” either. We believe we are justified in baptism, and that doing the works that God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them, maintains that justification in our souls. Our salvation is not based on works, even “good works” but neither is it separated from it. The grace that saves us by faith is the same grace that is at work in us to will and to do.

What James was talking about was another justification which included works.

Well, we read it differently, but that has to do with how Catholics perceive a state of grace.

But James, who agreed with Paul, was not trying to say that this justification by works was before God.

No, and Catholics do not believe this either. Equally, we do not believe he did this to show “before men” that he was justified before God. That is what we would consider an addition to Scripture. It is an eisegesis, performed to avoid the Catholic conception of justification.

Well that is surely your interpretation of Mt. 16. This interpretation however, has no other biblical witnesses to support it, or cooperation by any other Apostles on record with sacred scripture.

I am continually amazed at how much Scripture must be avoided in order to support a Reformed viewpoint.

. No apostle or gospel writer recognized or embraced what the RCC interpreted in Mt. 16. It is truly the Catholic Churches interpretation alone.

It is almost as if you were reading through blinders, or something.

 

[tgGodsway]

hey I appreciate that deMontfort. thank you. I’ll leave it uncorrected so that others can see my willingness to not cover up my mistakes, even grammatical ones.

Thanks,

 

[guanophore]

He would have found out that there was no pope Peter, no divine-Mary, no priesthood. it would be that simple.

I think you are right. Peter was not called “pope” in those days. He was often called “chief”, and “prince of the Apsotles”, but primary, the rock (Cephas) upon which Jesus built His One Church.

Mary was never considered divine, so this part is true.

The NT priesthood was never a heirus priesthood, so this is another straw man. You are right, a lot of simple strawmen.

I am okay with that as long as whatever tradition Ignatius is responsible for, is in sink with holy scripture, the divine record.

Nor could it be otherwise. The Sacred Tradition is the Teaching of the Apostles infallibly preserved by the Holy Spirit in the Church. For that reason (that it comes from the same Source) it cannot contradict the written record (Scripture). It is, itself, part of the divine record.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

This commandment did not “expire” at some point, as the Reformers seemed to think.

Actually you need a dictionary or you need to get your spell check in sync

Don’t be too hard on @tgGodsway. He does pretty well with a limited education and vocabulary.

You know better than this anti-catholic slur. You can edit and you had better. It is against forum rules shame on you for printing such a lie.

Is it really? We lost so many forum rules, I thought the new rules permitted such insults and calumny against the Catholic faith? In the olden days, there was an expectation that members would not post detraction and lies about Catholicism, but nowadays it seems common. @tgGodsway has significant hostility against the Catholic faith and his Reformed insults often leak out through the posts!

Oh my goodness how sadly ignorant. God established the priesthood through Aaron and his decedents. Remember that Jesus came to fulfill that is exactly what He did when He established the priesthood with the Apostles. Jesus is the high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

I think this is his point. The OT priesthood is not carried into the New, as Jesus established a new priestly order. I don’t think he recognizes that presbyters/elders are the priests of the NT, and certainly not that they are a ministerial priesthood. Luther jettisoned the sacrifice of the Mass, and the rest of the Reformers followed suit. No sacrifice, no need for a ministerial priest. And eventually, no altar! The altars have been replaced by the pulpit.

 

[guanophore]

It may not have been collected into one volume and sanctioned by pope Damasus at Rome, but all of the gospels and epistles were divinely circulated during this time and was the word of God before the ink dried on the parchment.

During what time was that? Of course we will agree that Scripture was divinely inspired immediately, but collecting, preserving, and promulgating it was another matter. there were a number of writings claiming to be inspired that did not make the NT. Why not? They were also passed around and read.

I have studied the doctrine of Sola Scriptura also, tgG. I was clearly taught that “it assumes a canon”. that is because no one who espouses it wants to credit the CC with discerning it! If God was able to guide the CC rightly in this, then what else might they have right?

No, instead, it is considered a “fallible collection of infallible books”. What a logical absurdity!

The sola scriptura argument is not only valid but exciting to defend in light of those who want to squelch it’s significance.

I think we can see the significance clearly. It has created divisions in Christendom that were unprecedented. Each person interprets according to their experience and education (or lack of it) and we end up with as many ecclesial communities as there are belly buttons.