What is it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PJM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
cont…
8. Many who believe in “Faith Alone” minimize the Law (commandments). Matthew 12:50: “For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” The only way that we can ever prove that we love God on this earth is to obey him. Follow His old testament commandments and His New Testament commandment to love (Works).
Matthew 5 17-20: “I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Heaven and earth has not yet passed away. * Jesus: Unless we obey God’s commandments we cannot enter the kingdom of God. In Matthew 16:24: "If you want to become my disciple you must pick up your cross and follow me" (Every day according to Luke). To deny yourself is something you do, not just something you believe. How many times do we hear pastors on TV talking about how if we send them money we will receive all these blessings. Jesus tells us plainly: “You cannot come after me unless you take up your cross!” He doesn’t say “if you simply believe in me”.
Matthew 16: 24-27: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done*”. Each person is going to be rewarded for what? For what they did!
Another parallel story: If someone said that in order to survive we must have oxygen. Would the Protestant then believe that all we need is oxygen to survive and ignore food, water, clothing, shelter etc? We cannot pluck bible verses that tell us all we need is faith to get to heaven any more than we can take bible verses that say all we need to do is love one another, or keep the commandments, OR to perform good works.
Matthew 19: 16-17: Jesus is asked again what “I must do to enter eternal life”. What does he say? Faith alone? Let’s take a look: “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.” Is there a religious group out there who could pick out this verse and say that’s all we need for salvation?
And now for the summation of everything we believe. Jesus clearly tells us everything we need to do to enter the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 25: 31 and following:
“31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
*46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
*[What does he separate the two groups by? Faith alone? *He separates by who did the most for the least of his peoples… Jesus says when it comes to the end we will be judged by Faith in him and then love for one another. **Faith? Absolutely. Faith alone? Absolutely not… *But Faith that expresses it’s life in works by the Grace of God: That is the teaching of the church and has been for 2000 years. If anybody changes that teaching, the burden of proof is on them. And NO ONE has convinced the church yet that it’s faith alone. Many people believe that but it never was the teaching of the apostles, never was the teaching for one thousand five hundred years. Martin Luther was the first to question it and to change it. He went from faith and works to faith alone. We believe today what we believe 2,000 years ago, nothing has changed….
Cont…
 
Cont…

PS, regarding Saint Dismas a.k.a “The Good Thief”. The story can be found in Luke 23: 39-43. In reading the story it’s plain to see that it wasn’t the human heart that united Dismas’ cross to that of Christ but the gift of God’s Grace. Filled with this grace, as well as a new faith in God, he was awakened; this all led the Good Thief, Dismas, to put his new found faith into action and into works.

This is an excellent example of the much larger Catholic teaching on Justification which essentially states that God freely gives you Grace, which in turn leads you to have faith and, after you have faith in the one and only God, it is up to you to put that faith into action (works).

Let’s examine what the good thief did:
  1. Defended Jesus and rebuked a sinner (works)
  2. The good thief gave a confession.
  3. The good thief acknowledged Christ as the Messiah (Faith).
As for the Good Thief not being baptized, CCC# 1259-1260 state explicitly the Catholic belief in a Baptism by Desire, therefore, had the Good Thief had the opportunity to have been baptized, it is almost certain that he would have.
Personally I believe that the story of the good thief tells us that it’s never too late to come back to God and his mercy shows no bounds. Unlike the good thief however, we already know who Jesus is and what he did and to not take that gift of knowledge and put it to use in our own lives is truly wasteful and insulting to God.
Sorry for the long read by I’m trying to be very thorough:)
God bless, PT
 
PJM said:
My dear brothers and sisters in Christ,

It seems perfectly logical that you found this Catholic Answers site or were led to it by the Holy Spirit.

Because there is but One True God; what is it friend that is holding you back from becoming a Catholic?

God Bless you,
Patrick
Click to expand...
I’ve stumbled onto some sites about Greco-Roman mythology. That doesn’t mean that Zeus led me there.
 
But, on the point of this thread, there are many reasons why I am not a Catholic. Most of them have to deal with Mary, the Pope, and Scripture.
 
gachristian said:
PJM;12767901:
Thank you for the reply. There is a lot and I cannot read it all on the computer in one sitting. I can print it out and read elsewhere. However, what I read VERY
Click to expand...
briefly (and I mean briefly), I** do not see Spiritually that Jesus said the only way to God is through the Catholic Church.** I do see that the way is through Jesus. However, I will look and study what you have sent. ( 2 Tim 2:15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God as a workman who does not need to be ashamed, accurately handling the word of truth.)

I have stated in past posts why I got on this forum. Not going to repeat myself. 🙂

What TXGodfollower has stated are also concerns along with the doctrine of purgatory.

Blessings

Show me where Catholics (namely the Catechism) suggest the only way to God is the Catholic Church rather than Jesus please. I’d be very interested in this. Thanks, PT
Click to expand...
 
ptisme said:
OK, Let’s take Mary for example. What is it about the Catholic church’s view of her that scares you?
Click to expand...
“Scares” would be a misnomer; more of disagreement. But, because you asked, here’s a short list:

  1. *]Basis and Reason for Immaculate Conception
    *]Praying to Mary
    *]Mary having other children
    *]Emphasis placed on Mary
 
TxGodfollower said:
“Scares” would be a misnomer; more of disagreement. But, because you asked, here’s a short list:

  1. *]Basis and Reason for Immaculate Conception
    *]Praying to Mary
    *]Mary having other children
    *]Emphasis placed on Mary
Click to expand...

  1. So could you tell me how it is at all possible to think about Mary without thinking about Christ? The emphasis is on Christ, sorry, but you’re wrong.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
So could you tell me how it is at all possible to think about Mary without thinking about Christ? The emphasis is on Christ, sorry, but you’re wrong.
Click to expand...
Why the need to think about Mary? Why add a middleman (middlewoman?)?

I have heard this argument before. But, when I look at things like the Hail Mary, I see Mary mentioned twice, Christ only once. It makes sense that the more important person would be mentioned more.
 
TxGodfollower said:
“Scares” would be a misnomer; more of disagreement. But, because you asked, here’s a short list:

  1. *]Basis and Reason for Immaculate Conception
    *]Praying to Mary
    *]Mary having other children
    *]Emphasis placed on Mary
Click to expand...

  1. If I may, #3 is not just a Catholic position, but a historical one.

    Like you, I am a Protestant, and so find Catholic dogma unpersuasive. However, on a purely historical basis, there are some interesting points to consider:
    1. Scripture is thoroughly obscure on this matter (the same word used for Jesus’ “brothers” is very broad in Greek, and is used for Joseph’s half-brothers in Acts 7:13 and for all of Paul’s fellow Jews in Romans 9:3);
    2. our nearest historical source on this issue, something called The Protoevangelium of James, says that Joseph had children from a previous relationship (which suitably explains the ‘brethren’) and that Mary was so much younger than him as to appear to be a child (which suitably explains why they would not have subsequent children);
    3. none of our subsequent Early Church historians lists any descendants of Mary, which is rather odd, considering the celebrity status which they should have had.
    Historically-speaking, I have to say that there is more reason there to believe that she didn’t have other children than there is reason to believe that she did (but I still disagree with the idea of making that belief dogma).
 
TxGodfollower said:
Why the need to think about Mary? Why add a middleman (middlewoman?)?

I have heard this argument before. But, when I look at things like the Hail Mary, I see Mary mentioned twice, Christ only once. It makes sense that the more important person would be mentioned more.
Click to expand...
OK, Couple things.
  1. Mary (or praying to any saint) isn’t any more of a “middleman” than you praying for the health and well being of a relative or friend. It’s healthy.
  2. The Hail Mary is taken right out of the book of Luke and is a prayer for intercession of Mary, not a prayer worshipping Mary…
Mary is someone we all can look up to as having said “yes” to God. However she is a human and is not “worshiped”.
 
adamhovey1988 said:
So could you tell me how it is at all possible to think about Mary without thinking about Christ? The emphasis is on Christ, sorry, but you’re wrong.
Click to expand...
“With regard to the saints, dulia includes veneration and invocation; the former being the honour paid directly to them” (emphasis added)
 
ptisme said:
Mary is someone we all can look up to as having said “yes” to God. However she is a human and is not “worshiped”.
Click to expand...
The last point is generally the hardest one for Protestants, since the (general) absence of the veneration of saints means that there are not the distinct levels of veneration, super-veneration (of Mary), and worship (of God): it all looks very much the same. I do understand the theology behind it, but, before I spent time researching it, I had the same impression and the same objection as TxGodfollower.
 
Mystophilus said:
If I may, #3 is not just a Catholic position, but a historical one.

Like you, I am a Protestant, and so find Catholic dogma unpersuasive. However, on a purely historical basis, there are some interesting points to consider:
  1. Scripture is thoroughly obscure on this matter (the same word used for Jesus’ “brothers” is very broad in Greek, and is used for Joseph’s half-brothers in Acts 7:13 and for all of Paul’s fellow Jews in Romans 9:3);
  2. our nearest historical source on this issue, something called The Protoevangelium of James, says that Joseph had children from a previous relationship (which suitably explains the ‘brethren’) and that Mary was so much younger than him as to appear to be a child (which suitably explains why they would not have subsequent children);
  3. none of our subsequent Early Church historians lists any descendants of Mary, which is rather odd, considering the celebrity status which they should have had.
Historically-speaking, I have to say that there is more reason there to believe that she didn’t have other children than there is reason to believe that she did (but I still disagree with the idea of making that belief dogma).
Click to expand...
I think the easiest way to answer this would be this: When Jesus was about to die, his last act was to put his mother in the care of his beloved disciple John. We know for a fact John the disciple was not Jesus’ sibling. For Jesus to put him in John’s care IF Jesus had other siblings would have gone against Jewish law. Jesus simply would not have done this… But I’m not sure why this would be a “stumbling point” for protestants. It’s not something that gets discussed at Catholic dinner tables every night…
 
ptisme said:
I think the easiest way to answer this would be this: When Jesus was about to die, his last act was to put his mother in the care of his beloved disciple John. We know for a fact John the disciple was not Jesus’ sibling. For Jesus to put him in John’s care IF Jesus had other siblings would have gone against Jewish law. Jesus simply would not have done this…
Click to expand...
The act of placing Mary in John’s care still does not work culturally when Joseph had other living children, because they ought to have been given that role ahead of John.
But I’m not sure why this would be a “stumbling point” for protestants. It’s not something that gets discussed at Catholic dinner tables every night…
Click to expand...
For a native speaker of English, reading those passages about Jesus’ “brothers” immediately suggests that Mary had other children, and so Catholicism seems to be ignoring the natural sense of Scripture and choosing a “tradition of men” in its place. Reading it in Greek gives a thoroughly different picture, but modern schools waste their time on frivolous subjects like mathematics, physics, and modern languages instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top