A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Me too.
Me neither.
- Status
C
Church_Militant
Guest
what you are confused about Stingray is that there are Catholics who cannot EXPLAIN that teaching as well as non-Catholics who spend boatloads of time out preaching and âwitnessingâ to others about what they believe. That may be changing thanks to sites like this and all the great apologetics stuff that is coming out for us.Catholics donât believe works save you either.Just so you will know and yes there are Protestants who believe and preach theat,I know some,it is sad.God Bless
I do know the official teaching of the Catholic Church is that one is saved by grace. It is all of God. Yet, they also teach that works enabled by grace play a role in salvation. Itâs a very nuanced position and it must be studied carefully in order to fully understand what it is they are saying. ** I think there is confusion because of this and that is why there are in fact many Catholics who believe in salvation by works**. As to your comments regarding protestants who believe and preach salvation by works. If by "protestantâ you mean non-Catholic, then I would agree. However, if you are talking about someone who believes in the traditional teachings of the reformation, then I would give a qualified no. While traditional protestant teaching is that we are saved by grace through faith alone, it is possible for anyone regardless of their denomination or background to be deceived into thinking that his or her works somehow contribute to their salvation.
God bless,
Stingray
Unless you have had some Catholics actually tell you that they are going to heaven because they do good works and that will win them entry to heaven then ⌠(send them in here so we can help 'em get that rightâŚ
)To me itâs pretty simple if you read Matthew 25:31-46 and the epistle of St. JamesâŚno one can tell me that doesnât put it all in a clearly NT perspective, and I think it ties in very beautifully with Paulâs 1st letter to the Corinthians when he tells them that he will show them a better wayâŚ
Pax vobiscum,
C
Curious
Guest
Silly person! Donât you know?? The Great Reformer Martin Luther did us all a favor by, under divine guidance, throwing out those nasty olâ books he didnât like. Then suddenly, the divine guidance went away and rested on someone else who convinced him not to continue in his trashing of the bible by throwing out Hebrews James JudeâŚandâŚoh Iâm sure Iâm forgetting some.
See? That was easy.
:whacky:
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Thank you for being frank about your affiliation. I am Catholic.
Quite true about the victory. The suffering of Jesus, however, keeps us in mind of the suffering of humans by virtue of the world and by virtue of sin. It is for us that Jesus suffered, died, and was resurrected. Keeping mindful of the suffering of our fellow humans with whom we share this planet is not only one way we respond to the love of Jesus and his free gift to us but also one way we see the face of Jesus, our Beloved. The Passion belongs to Jesus, but we are called to Compassion. That is our role.
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/hlthwork/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html
I wear the crucifix to remind myself of the whole story of Jesus, not just part of it. I remind myself of my call to Compassion. I remind myself that I belong to Jesus and depend on Him. I remind myself that I belong to a community which Jesus established; the Church. When others see my crucifix, they respond in diverse ways. Without even speaking, I can then witness to Jesus by my life because it is a signal to others that I am Christian. Often by my not speaking, the Holy Spirit can speak more clearly through me.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Further to your question and to some responses concering âempty crossesâ:
For Catholics salvation is personal, not ideological. Christ is a Person not an idea. We are people, not ideas. The Church is a community, not a concept. Who I am as a person (transformed, not just informed) is what salvation is about. Hence many of our crucifixes have a Person on them: that Person is the suffering Christ.
This is not to say in any way shape or form that we do not believe in and cherish the Resurrection. Some of us also wear the Paraklete, not a sign of the Resurrection, per se, but certainly Someone we recognize as being sent after the Resurrection.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oops. Who said that? Even if somebody did say that, itâs not what we believe. So letâs put it to rest. You were doing well Stingray. Is your good faith slipping? I hope something disingenuous does not emerge from suddenly from your hitherto well-mannered posts.
Your statement above is disturbingly inaccurate and unfair.
M
michaelp
Guest
Ani Ibi:
Doh!! She found me!
S
Stingray
Guest
Sola Scriptura does not deny that God works through His church. Once God worked through His people to provide the His word, that word then becomes the sole infallible rule of faith.
God bless,
Stingray
M
michaelp
Guest
Great answer stingray. I find that most Catholics on this forum do not realize this and are therefore spending alot of time and energy battling a straw man understanding of sola Scriptura.Sola Scriptura does not deny that God works through His church. Once God worked through His people to provide the His word, that word then becomes the sole infallible rule of faith.
God bless,
Stingray
It is the difference between sola scripturaâthe belief that the Scripture is the final and only infallible source for theology, and solo Scripturaâthe belief that Scripture is the only source for theology. Most Roman Catholics are attacking solo Scriptura. Admitingly, many uninformed Protestants and fundementalists do unwittingly believe in solo scriptura, but the Evangelical definition is that of the early church and the Reformersâsola Scriptura.
Thanks for clarifying. I am keeping my eye on you.
Michael
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Oops again. The post to which you were responding was unquestionably civil, in my opinion (I re-read it to make sure) and in no way resembled a personal attack. It was a bit of a shock to me to suddenly happen upon the part about the personal attack. So much of a shock that, now I am wondering if you have an agenda or protocol you are following and didnât notice that the poster to which you were responding didnât match the stereotype.
Oops again. Another poster mentions personal attacks frequently. That poster confuses disagreement with animosity â and I think disingenuously. Sort of makes you think this personal attack business is a âplayâ rather than a âpremise.â
Moreover, when we hear patterns of words repeated, we begin to think maybe people are getting together via private messaging or even on other boards to strategize. Nothing wrong with that as long as the argumentation remains at the level of discussion and does not violate the following board rule:
**Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda. **
Operative concept: single-mindedly
If people are getting together to strategize, it would be much more conducive to discussion to just come out and say so.
If what you are saying is unfounded or unsound, somebody is going to take issue with it. This has nothing at all to do with you as a person and cannot legitimately be construed as a personal attack. It may feel uncomfortable to have your views challenged, but it is not a personal attack.
*]
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Michael,
Where is your historical evidence for the early Churchâs adherence to sola scriptura? You know full well that the âReformersâ invented it.
Peace
S
Stingray
Guest
Genesis315 said:(sorry for jumping the gun, donât for get to critique post 78 too)
Youâre right, his canon does not derive itâs inspriation from the Churchâs ability to recognize it. It would be inspired if no one but the inspired author ever saw it. The crucial fact that we do know that it is inspired is purely a matter of Tradition. Just because it is inspiring doesnât make it inspired. You canât claim sola scriptura unless every rule of faith is in Scripture. One rule of Faith is that the canon we have now is the inspired word of God. You cannot, however, derive the canon we have now from Scripture alone. Do you see my point?
(sorry for posting things twice, people always miss my little posts :crying: )
Thatâs okay. I do see your point, but I think you misunderstand Sola Scriptura. While it does claim the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith, it doesnât deny that God works through His church. Itâs at the point once received that the scriptures become the sole infallible rule of faith. As God reveals to His church what scripture is, His infallible word, that is when that word becomes the rule of faith. Basically, you are asking where was Sola Scriptura before Scriptura, at least with regards to the NT. However, SS does not deny that there was a process whereby God made known to the church the full extent of His word.
God bless,
Stingray
M
michaelp
Guest
Invented the term?? I concede Dennis!
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Still waiting on that historical evidence that the early Church adhered to sola scriptura.
And you know they invented the doctrine.
Peace
L
Lisa4Catholics
Guest
I am shamefully momemtarily hijacking this thread:crying: All Catholics and protestants,non- catholics,shoot!Listen Christians on this thread we must pray for Terri Schiavo her stay has been denied starvation starts at 1:00pm tomorrow!Email Jeb Bush and anybody else that will make waves.We are Christians and need to do something.There is a thread about it in the news.God Bless
M
michaelp
Guest
Here is my standard stock. But this is pretty useles since we have been throught this before.
Irenaeus (ca. 150)
Against Heresies 3.1.1
âWe have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.â
****Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) ****
The Stromata, 7:16 ****
âBut those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves.â
****Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca 395) ****
**âOn the Holy Trinity,â NPNF, p. 327 **
âLet the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.â
****Athanasius (c.296â373) ****
Against the Heathen, 1:3 ****
âThe holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proc****lamation of the truth.â ****
Basil the Great (ca.329â379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16 ****
****âWe are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.â ****
****Ambrose (340â397 AD) ****
On the Duties of the Clergy, 1:23:102****
âFor how can we adopt those things which we do not find in the holy Scriptures?â
St. Augustine (354â430)****
De unitate ecclesiae, 10****
****âNeither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.â ****
Thomas Aquinas (1225â1274)
Summa Theologiae, Question 1, art. 8****
****âFor our faith rests on the revelation made to the Prophets and Apostles who write the canonical books.â ****
I know, I know, I took them out of context, right?
I pray that you are doing VERY well Dennis. Always good to hear from you,
Michael
T
TheGarg
Guest
Who are you to say this? The people who preach these untruths think they are real christian.
Thinking one is Christian doesnât make it so. I am not judging anyone individually as to whether or not they have been saved.Yes you were⌠Iâm judging what it is the Catholic Dude says they are preaching, which by the way I have yet to see any examples of. I donât know of anyone individually or a protestant church as whole that teaches Christians are saved to sit around. Until some evidence is provided to the contrary, I would say that is simply a mischaracterization of protestants.
What authority are you to say they are not real christians. Not much by your own bliefs, right?
In context we were discussing teachings. I was not attempting to judge who is and is not saved Once again, Yes you were passing judgment, but simply saying real Christianity doesnât teach one is saved to sit around. If you find someone who claims to be a Christian teaching that, wouldnât you be concerned that they are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Christ told us to beware of false teachers. Donât you agree that we should?
For all your fancy little âtricksâ you think you know, which I hope one day you can allow yourself to see the Truth.
I donât enjoy being personally attacked (your fancy little tricks, you think you know) do you?I donât mind, and anything other than the truth is a trick Letâs make a deal. I will stick to evaluating your arguments rather than your person. Will you agree to do the same?
Protestants are Christians. Itâs that simple. Do you disagree?
- You canât expain the first 1500 years of Chistianity, where there were no Potestants.
well you answered that questionâŚthis is about the time a prots eyes glaze overâŚ
2. You canât explain away the fact the the Catholic Church organized and produced the Bible, like mentioned previously around 390A.D.
Iâm fairly sure we have different understandings concerning how we arrived at a knowledge of the canon of scripture, but I have no problem acknowledging that the church used by God played a role in it.
Not just the âchurchââŚThe Catholic ChurchâŚ
3. You canât explain away the fact that your beliefs are based on âdocumentsâ[sola scriptura, sola fida], not any form of scripture,
Actually, that is incorrect. Both beliefs are derived from scripture. If you doubt, letâs discuss. Where do you want to start? Actully my statement is correctâŚsince nowhere in scripture did Christ say âŚâhereâs a book, figure it out for yourselfâ. That is why Christ started his Catholic[universal] Church, in which He then gave it Authority over the âkeys to the kingdomn of heavenâ.
written by Martin Luther, who was not inspired by the Holy Spirit,
might add, since Lutherâs documents were meant to take away the authority given to Christâs Church, by Christ Himself I might addâŚ
WellâŚTo my knowledge no one has ever said Martin Lutherâs works are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Then why do you follow his teaching instead of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church? Actually, Luther wanted to reform the church, but thatâs another subject. Yeah, and homosexuals want to reform the Church tooâŚdoesnât mean their gonna do âŚânot even the gates of Hell will prevail against it!â
Those who are saved are the body of Christ, the church. It is not their denominational affiliation that places them in Christ. So the Church that Christ Found is not important eh?..well without it, you wouldnât have the bible to base your church onâŚhmmmm
- Your church, or âorganizationâ, was not started by Christ.
God bless,
God bless you tooâŚ
Stingray
D
dennisknapp
Guest
No, not out of context, just not the full picture.
Peace
D
dennisknapp
Guest
Cont.
Basil the Great (ca.329â379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16 ****
****âWe are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.â ****
Basil the Great (ca.329â379)
âOf the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere termâ (*The Holy Spirit *27:66 [A.D. 375]).
St. Augustine (354â430)****
De unitate ecclesiae, 10****
****âNeither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.â ****
St. Augustine (354â430)
âBut in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Churchâ (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).
Peace
Basil the Great (ca.329â379)
On the Holy Spirit, 7.16 ****
****âWe are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.â ****
Basil the Great (ca.329â379)
âOf the dogmas and messages preserved in the Church, some we possess from written teaching and others we receive from the tradition of the apostles, handed on to us in mystery. In respect to piety, both are of the same force. No one will contradict any of these, no one, at any rate, who is even moderately versed in matters ecclesiastical. Indeed, were we to try to reject unwritten customs as having no great authority, we would unwittingly injure the gospel in its vitals; or rather, we would reduce [Christian] message to a mere termâ (*The Holy Spirit *27:66 [A.D. 375]).
St. Augustine (354â430)****
De unitate ecclesiae, 10****
****âNeither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God.â ****
St. Augustine (354â430)
âBut in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Churchâ (*Letter to Januarius *[A.D. 400]).
Peace
P
pnewton
Guest
The quick response would be âyesâ, if that was all you said and depending on the context the question was asked. A more detailed explaination is in order and for all we know Paul gave a more detailed information. Obviously the Bible authors were not court reporters writing detailed transcripts. To prove this let me offer a little experiment.
Eat lunch. Read the sermon on the mount from Matthew. Are you starving, yet? No, of course not. What took you minutes to read covered hours.
This is the basic problem with looking at one verse. Just for grins, before I became Catholic, I read the book of Romans at one sitting. Paul doesnât even address Gentiles until the 11th or 12th chapter. So the âRoman Roadâ must be viewed from the standpoint of what Paul is saying to his Jewish brethren. The phrase, âworks of the lawâ had a specific meaning and has nothing to do with the works of charity that Catholics emphasize or the works of charity Jesus said were how the He knows His own.
- Status