"The sufficiency of Grace" a continuation of "The sufficiency of Christ" family debate.

[guanophore]

Sin is sin....

However, all sin is against God, and He determines what is sin against Him. God speaks authoratively through special revelation known by Catholics as Sacred Scripture.

I am glad we are in agreement on this point, however, in that revelation, it is clear there are degrees of sin. That topic, however, is beyond the scope of this thread, don’tyou think?

  Protestants are not bound by tradition or the Magestrium when determining the Christian Faith in life and in doctrine.

I supoose that depends upon your poiint of view. Everyone is subject to the successor of Peter, some are rebellious subjects, and some are cooperative. that is also beyond the scope of this thread.

  The Magestrium and Tradition does not bind the conscience of Protestant Christians.

Some of the wiser ones, it does. some recognize that the duty of the Magesterium is to preserve the teaching of the apostles, and recognize in some cases that this has been done correctly. this is the case with the recent reunion of Anglicans with Rome.

    Some things are crystal clear in Scripture.  We believe life begins at conception.  Actually, I believe life begins before conception... I believe life begins in the mind of God prior to conception.

Although I agree with what you are saying about conception, I don’t think everything IS crystal clear in scripture. However, that is beyond the scope of this thread as well.

 However, the Catholic position on birth control and most other things are not defined within sola scirptura, but rather the Catholic Faith is defined by Scripture and Tradition, meaning the Magestrium binds the Catholic conscience.

I think it would be more appropriate to say that our conscience is properly enlightened and instructed by the Magesterium. It is their duty to guide the flock according to the Teaching of Jesus in the present age. When the NT was written, in vitro fert. did not exist (or computer porn, and a lot of other modern ills). They bring the principles of the Apostolic faith into our day and age.

It’s similar to the prohibition of marriage of your Priests and Nuns…that’s an unbiblical view. We all know that Peter was married.

No, Adam. the Church does not forbid marriage to anyone.

The preference of the Latin Rite to chose from among those called to celibacy for priests is quite well supported by scripture. However, that is also beyond the scope of the thread.

Let’s try to focus. If you did not answer my question about Cornelius, please try to do so, in order that we can move on with the topic. I will try to get caught up on the posts in case you already did, thanks in advance.

 

[2nd_Adam]

In fairness to the Protestants (Mormons also believe in a kind of sola scriptura), can Catholics point to a verse in the Bible that says that scripture is not sufficient to teach us what we need to know about God? And bear in mind that the Jews also had a scripture plus a tradition. Jesus, however, while fully accepting their scripture, did not always accept their tradition. So what makes Catholic tradition any better than the Jewish one?

I have to disagree. Mormonism believes in the same apostolic succession as the Catholic Church. We can call it “prophet succession” if you prefer. Momonism is the farthest things from sola scriptura. We are the most distant from you in regards to source of authority. My, you are the crafty one.

 

[guanophore]

So, if I got a bunch of people together and we all committed adultery on a regular basis would that then not be sin?

There you go again with that unprovable doctrine of sola scriptura. Come on Adam, I will stop pestering you if you can show me where it is taught in the Scriptures.

Please, do all of us a favor, and stop pestering now! Or, if you can’t restrain yourself, please do it on another thread!

There is an implicit understanding on this thread that 2nd is not bound to SS, since he is falling back on the “doctrines of grace” from Calvin.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Everyone is subject to the successor of Peter, some are rebellious subjects, and some are cooperative. that is also beyond the scope of this thread.

Protestants and Orthodox are not subject to apparent successors of Peter. Protestant do not believe that a successor of Peter exist. If we did, then we would be Catholic, However, we believe Christ is our King.

 

[guanophore]

Hey, if you choose to be Catholic, I am glad you are bound by the Magestrium and Tradition over Sacred Scripture alone. I grew up with many Catholic friends, and my dad was raised in a nominal Catholic family… therefore, I am quite familar with the fruits of Tradition over Sacred Scripture alone.

2nd, I beg you to stop slandering our faith. The Catholic Church does not set scripture over against Sacred Tradition. We consider them equal strands of Apostolic Teaching and authority. When you set up falsehoods like this using the words “over” and “over against” you are creating a strawman, and insulting our faith. I accept that you don’t agree with this view, but at least do us the courtesy of not misrepresnting what we do beleive. These falsehoods are not facilitative of productive discussion. If you cannot restrain your hostility toward our faith, perhaps we need to take a break, and try to have this discussion when you are able to be more charitable.?

 

[2nd_Adam]

Originally Posted by izoid - Catholic
So, if I got a bunch of people together and we all committed adultery on a regular basis would that then not be sin?

There you go again with that unprovable doctrine of sola scriptura. Come on Adam, I will stop pestering you if you can show me where it is taught in the Scriptures.

Please, do all of us a favor, and stop pestering now! Or, if you can’t restrain yourself, please do it on another thread!

There is an implicit understanding on this thread that 2nd is not bound to SS, since he is falling back on the “doctrines of grace” from Calvin.

LOL… internal fighting from within Catholics on Catholic Answers. I told you the Catholic Church has the same disunity found in all churches. Our visible churches are a mix of the remnant and the goats, causing great friction. In addition, the remnant chosen by grace all know in part, and are great sinners in process too.

 

[ryanoneil]

There is another shared sola of grace alone! Even if we agree of grace alone, we need to discuss the sufficiency of grace too.

I suspect we have two different definition of sufficient grace.

God’s grace is entirely sufficient. He wills everyone to be saved and gives all persons sufficient grace to be saved. If a person is predestined to heaven the God also gives them efficacious grace (final perseverence). In either case, the person is free to accept or reject the grace. But in the case of the elect, God wills that person to infallibly accept the efficacious grace, without taking away his freewill.

How do you understand it?

 

[guanophore]

Until you are able to reconcile the Bible verses on my signature with Catholic Theology, issues like birth control and sola scriptura are pretty much non-issues in our discussion. The gospel of God’s grace and the sufficiency of Christ and the sufficiency of grace are much more essential issues, don’t you agree?

I seem to remember reading this post on another thread. You may not realize this, but when you change your signature, it changes on all your posts, including those in the past. the signature to which you are referring here is no longer visible to anyone.

I think the other issues that have been brought up here are very important, but I agree, they are off topic in this thread.

 

[guanophore]

According to the scriptures, there is no difference between being in the image of God and the image of Adam. If Adam is made in the image of God, then being in the image of Adam is the same as being in the image of God.

Adam, I think I can stipulate that when Adam procreated, the effects of his “fallen” state became part of his procreation.

Are you able to stipulate that, when Adam reproduced, the result still contained the image and likeness of God? If we can each do this, I think we can move on.

Cornelius?

 

[2nd_Adam]

I suspect we have two different definition of sufficient grace.

God’s grace is entirely sufficient. He wills everyone to be saved and gives all persons sufficient grace to be saved. If a person is predestined to heaven the God also gives them efficacious grace (final perseverence). In either case, the person is free to accept or reject the grace. But in the case of the elect, God wills that person to infallibly accept the efficacious grace, without taking away his freewill.

How do you understand it?

That sounds pretty good to me! I told everyone that being a Catholic Calvinist, or a Calvinist catholic (me) is a good place to be. I’m not sure if the word "wills everyone to be saved is the best translation. I believe the world "wills should be subsituted as “desires”.

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2 for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3 This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man [1] Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7 For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. - Paul

 

[izoid]

There is no challenge because it’s about what is actually written. We are discussing the actual contents of Scripture which many Catholics are not very knowledgable about. That’s a fact that Catholics have verified themselves. Do you remember the thread of “Catholics need to read their Bibles” based on a Catholic article posted on Catholic Answers?

It is a challenge and you cannot support your view. You refuse to acknowledge Catholic teaching because you claim sola scriptura. In fact, you have made sola scriptura the basis of any discussion with you. You need to prove that sola scriptura is a Biblical doctrine. If you can’t, it is invalid and not worth discussing. You can not hold Catholics to a standard that you can’t defend.

 

[izoid]

The us is the Apostles… I have no troubles with apostolic teaching as recorded. Are you saying the Catholic Church has addiitonal teachings of the Apostles that Protestants do not have?

Yes, it is the apostles and the apostle Paul told Timothy to train men who could teach these things to others. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Obviously, the things that the apostles taught were passed on verbally, from one generation to the next.

 

[2nd_Adam]

It is a challenge and you cannot support your view. You refuse to acknowledge Catholic teaching because you claim sola scriptura. In fact, you have made sola scriptura the basis of any discussion with you. You need to prove that sola scriptura is a Biblical doctrine. If you can’t, it is invalid and not worth discussing. You can not hold Catholics to a standard that you can’t defend.

LOL… you have been rebuked by your Catholic sibling Guan twice for pestering me. Listen to him, because he has been a Catholic much longer than you have. I have no idea if you are done with RCIA yet? Are you really Catholic, or are you a wanna be Catholic?

 

[izoid]

I don’t even attend a Calvinist church whatever you mean by a Calvinist church. Calvinism is not the gospel.

OK, a Reformed church based on Calvinism. Another dishonest responce from you Adam.

 

[guanophore]

Until you are able to reconcile the Bible verses on my signature with Catholic Theology, …

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, …having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. -Sacred Scripture

I went back and looked over this post, and I am lost. Perhaps you can help me understand where you see the discrepancy?

This passage was written by Catholic, for Catholics, and is included in the Catholic book (the Bible). It is there BECAUSE it represents Catholic theology.

I don’t see what there is to “reconcile”.

 

[2nd_Adam]

Yes, it is the apostles and the apostle Paul told Timothy to train men who could teach these things to others. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Obviously, the things that the apostles taught were passed on verbally, from one generation to the next.

We have bishops, elders and overseers too. My claim to succession is much older than yours in the church of the remnant chosen by grace.

 

[2nd_Adam]

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, …having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. -Sacred Scripture

I went back and looked over this post, and I am lost. Perhaps you can help me understand where you see the discrepancy?

This passage was written by Catholic, for Catholics, and is included in the Catholic book (the Bible). It is there BECAUSE it represents Catholic theology.

I don’t see what there is to “reconcile”.

This passage was written by Chrisitans, for Christians, and is included in the Christian book (the Bible). It is there BECAUSE it represents Christian theology.

…and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians.

The Holy Bible

 

[2nd_Adam]

OK, a Reformed church based on Calvinism. Another dishonest responce from you Adam.

So, with that definition, I guess you never attended a Calvinist church, correct?

 

[izoid]

I am not making slanderous remarks. You are reading beyond my intent. Protestants consider Sacred Scripture as being the final source of authority, and Catholics do not. Do you disagree with my understanding? My position is the historic divide of the cause of the Protestant Reformation. I agree that Apostolic teaching is authorative when we define apostolic teaching within the teachings of the Apostles. Now, if you have additional writings of the Apostles, please let me know.

But what do you do with Timothy? When Paul told Timothy to train Godly men that were able to teach others?

 

[zerinus]

I have to disagree. Mormonism believes in the same apostolic succession as the Catholic Church. We can call it “prophet succession” if you prefer. Momonism is the farthest things from sola scriptura. We are the most distant from you in regards to source of authority. My, you are the crafty one.

LOL! Don’t get me wrong. I was not trying to compare or equate Mormonism with Protestantism. Heaven forbid! That would be the ultimate insult to Mormonism. So allow me to explain what I meant by that. First of all, by “scripture” I meant the standard works of the Church, which includes the Book of Mormon and other Mormons scriptures. Secondly, in Mormonism doctrine is derived primarily from the standard works (meaning the canonized scriptures) of the Church. That is the primary source of Church doctrine. This is followed by the teachings and writings of the past and present leaders of the Church. That is roughly the Mormon equivalent of the Catholic Tradition—although we don’t call it by that name. So although Mormons have something roughly equivalent to what Catholics call “Sacred Tradition,” to us it is not a primary source of Church doctrine. The primary source is the canonized scriptures of the church. This is unlike Catholicism, in which scripture and tradition have equal place in determining Catholic doctrine.