Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Great Heresies
CERC ^

Posted on 03/21/2010 3:03:29 PM PDT by NYer

From Christianity’s beginnings, the Church has been attacked by those introducing false teachings, or heresies.

The Bible warned us this would happen. Paul told his young protégé, Timothy, "For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths" (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

What Is Heresy?

Heresy is an emotionally loaded term that is often misused. It is not the same thing as incredulity, schism, apostasy, or other sins against faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states, "Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him" (CCC 2089).

To commit heresy, one must refuse to be corrected. A person who is ready to be corrected or who is unaware that what he has been saying is against Church teaching is not a heretic.

A person must be baptized to commit heresy. This means that movements that have split off from or been influenced by Christianity, but that do not practice baptism (or do not practice valid baptism), are not heresies, but separate religions. Examples include Muslims, who do not practice baptism, and Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not practice valid baptism.

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope's infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

It is important to distinguish heresy from schism and apostasy. In schism, one separates from the Catholic Church without repudiating a defined doctrine. An example of a contemporary schism is the Society of St. Pius X—the "Lefebvrists" or followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre—who separated from the Church in the late 1980s, but who have not denied Catholic doctrines. In apostasy, one totally repudiates the Christian faith and no longer even claims to be a Christian.

With this in mind, let's look at some of the major heresies of Church history and when they began.

The Circumcisers (1st Century)

The Circumcision heresy may be summed up in the words of Acts 15:1: "But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, 'Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.'"

Many of the early Christians were Jews, who brought to the Christian faith many of their former practices. They recognized in Jesus the Messiah predicted by the prophets and the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Because circumcision had been required in the Old Testament for membership in God's covenant, many thought it would also be required for membership in the New Covenant that Christ had come to inaugurate. They believed one must be circumcised and keep the Mosaic law to come to Christ. In other words, one had to become a Jew to become a Christian.

But God made it clear to Peter in Acts 10 that Gentiles are acceptable to God and may be baptized and become Christians without circumcision. The same teaching was vigorously defended by Paul in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians—to areas where the Circumcision heresy had spread.

Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)

"Matter is evil!" was the cry of the Gnostics. This idea was borrowed from certain Greek philosophers. It stood against Catholic teaching, not only because it contradicts Genesis 1:31 ("And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good") and other scriptures, but because it denies the Incarnation. If matter is evil, then Jesus Christ could not be true God and true man, for Christ is in no way evil. Thus many Gnostics denied the Incarnation, claiming that Christ only appeared to be a man, but that his humanity was an illusion. Some Gnostics, recognizing that the Old Testament taught that God created matter, claimed that the God of the Jews was an evil deity who was distinct from the New Testament God of Jesus Christ. They also proposed belief in many divine beings, known as "aeons," who mediated between man and the ultimate, unreachable God. The lowest of these aeons, the one who had contact with men, was supposed to be Jesus Christ.

Montanism (Late 2nd Century)

Montanus began his career innocently enough through preaching a return to penance and fervor. His movement also emphasized the continuance of miraculous gifts, such as speaking in tongues and prophecy. However, he also claimed that his teachings were above those of the Church, and soon he began to teach Christ's imminent return in his home town in Phrygia. There were also statements that Montanus himself either was, or at least specially spoke for, the Paraclete that Jesus had promised would come (in reality, the Holy Spirit).

Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)

The Sabellianists taught that Jesus Christ and God the Father were not distinct persons, but two.aspects or offices of one person. According to them, the three persons of the Trinity exist only in God's relation to man, not in objective reality.

Arianism (4th Century)

Arius taught that Christ was a creature made by God. By disguising his heresy using orthodox or near-orthodox terminology, he was able to sow great confusion in the Church. He was able to muster the support of many bishops, while others excommunicated him.

Arianism was solemnly condemned in 325 at the First Council of Nicaea, which defined the divinity of Christ, and in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople, which defined the divinity of the Holy Spirit. These two councils gave us the Nicene creed, which Catholics recite at Mass every Sunday.

Pelagianism (5th Century)

Pelagius denied that we inherit original sin from Adam's sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ's death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God's grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.

Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)

After Augustine refuted the teachings of Pelagius, some tried a modified version of his system. This, too, ended in heresy by claiming that humans can reach out to God under their own power, without God's grace; that once a person has entered a state of grace, one can retain it through one's efforts, without further grace from God; and that natural human effort alone can give one some claim to receiving grace, though not strictly merit it.

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ's human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius's theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

Monophysitism (5th Century)

Monophysitism originated as a reaction to Nestorianism. The Monophysites (led by a man named Eutyches) were horrified by Nestorius's implication that Christ was two people with two different natures (human and divine). They went to the other extreme, claiming that Christ was one person with only one nature (a fusion of human and divine elements). They are thus known as Monophysites because of their claim that Christ had only one nature (Greek: mono = one; physis = nature).

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Monophysitism was as bad as Nestorianism because it denied Christ's full humanity and full divinity. If Christ did not have a fully human nature, then he would not be fully human, and if he did not have a fully divine nature then he was not fully divine.

Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)

This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts (literally, "icon smashers") appeared, who claimed that it was sinful to make pictures and statues of Christ and the saints, despite the fact that in the Bible, God had commanded the making of religious statues (Ex. 25:18–20; 1 Chr. 28:18–19), including symbolic representations of Christ (cf. Num. 21:8–9 with John 3:14).

Catharism (11th Century)

Catharism was a complicated mix of non-Christian religions reworked with Christian terminology. The Cathars had many different sects; they had in common a teaching that the world was created by an evil deity (so matter was evil) and we must worship the good deity instead.

The Albigensians formed one of the largest Cathar sects. They taught that the spirit was created by God, and was good, while the body was created by an evil god, and the spirit must be freed from the body. Having children was one of the greatest evils, since it entailed imprisoning another "spirit" in flesh. Logically, marriage was forbidden, though fornication was permitted. Tremendous fasts and severe mortifications of all kinds were practiced, and their leaders went about in voluntary poverty.

Protestantism (16th Century)

Protestant groups display a wide variety of different doctrines. However, virtually all claim to believe in the teachings of sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone"—the idea that we must use only the Bible when forming our theology) and sola fide ("by faith alone"—the idea that we are justified by faith only).

The great diversity of Protestant doctrines stems from the doctrine of private judgment, which denies the infallible authority of the Church and claims that each individual is to interpret Scripture for himself. This idea is rejected in 2 Peter 1:20, where we are told the first rule of Bible interpretation: "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation." A significant feature of this heresy is the attempt to pit the Church "against" the Bible, denying that the magisterium has any infallible authority to teach and interpret Scripture.

The doctrine of private judgment has resulted in an enormous number of different denominations. According to The Christian Sourcebook, there are approximately 20-30,000 denominations, with 270 new ones being formed each year. Virtually all of these are Protestant.


Jansenism (17th Century)

Jansenius, bishop of Ypres, France, initiated this heresy with a paper he wrote on Augustine, which redefined the doctrine of grace. Among other doctrines, his followers denied that Christ died for all men, but claimed that he died only for those who will be finally saved (the elect). This and other Jansenist errors were officially condemned by Pope Innocent X in 1653.

Heresies have been with us from the Church's beginning. They even have been started by Church leaders, who were then corrected by councils and popes. Fortunately, we have Christ's promise that heresies will never prevail against the Church, for he told Peter, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). The Church is truly, in Paul's words, "the pillar and foundation of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15).

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History; Theology
KEYWORDS: catholic; churchhistory; dogma; dogmatics; heresy; theology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 next last

1 posted on 03/21/2010 3:03:29 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...

A Sunday evening ‘refresher’ course ping!


2 posted on 03/21/2010 3:04:12 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Pat knows them all, and he’ll tell you about them with Greek translations. Riveting dinner-table conversation, right up there with Bill’s food-safety lectures.


3 posted on 03/21/2010 3:05:50 PM PDT by Tax-chick (Mother of your new alien overlords. You want to be on my good side.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Good starter list....not sure why Islam is not included on this Roman Catholic list. Most Christians I know consider it a heresy, esp given its origins.


4 posted on 03/21/2010 3:18:12 PM PDT by eleni121 (For Jesus did not give us a timid spirit , but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

What the author refers to as “private judgment” among Protestants is an explicit rejection of the position of the Catholic church. The number of Protestant denominations may be seen by Catholics as a mark of contradiction, but it is our strength. When you remove many of the differences in practice, there is remarkable harmony between Protestant denominations about the role of Scripture, faith, and of Christ.

Protestantism has survived the test of time for good reasons; it too, is based on the Rock, Jesus.


5 posted on 03/21/2010 3:27:19 PM PDT by GAB-1955 (I write books, love my wife, serve my nation, and believe in the Resurrection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

So, call me a heretic. I still believe in the one true God.


6 posted on 03/21/2010 3:29:37 PM PDT by irishtenor (Beer. God's way of making sure the Irish don't take over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Great list. Here are some more:

The Great Heresies

John Calvin’s Worst Heresy: That Christ Suffered in Hell
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Succumbs to Heresy
The Bishop Discovers Heresy?
From Orthodox to Heresy: The Secularizing of Catholic Universities
Progressivism/Liberalism is Heresy [Excellent read & reference]

Is heresy better than schism? [Ecumenical]
Modernism: The Modernist Heresy
THE GREAT HERESIES-THE MODERN PHASE
The Protestant Heresy
The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

Americanism, Then and Now: Our Pet Heresy (encyclical of Pope Leo XIII)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times
The Plain Truth About The Baptist Bride Heresy
Balthasar, Hell, and Heresy: An Exchange (is it compatable with the Catholic faith?)
Heresies then and now: ancient Christian heresies practiced in modern times

Know Your Heresies
The Rev. John Piper: an interesting look at "heresy vs. schism"
Pietism as an Ecclesiological Heresy
Heresy
Arian Heresy Still Tempts, Says Cardinal Bertone (Mentions Pelagianism As Well)

Catholic Discussion] Church group stays faithful (to heresy!)
An overview of modern anti-Trinitarian heresies
Where heresy and dissent abound [Minnesota]
Gnostic Gospels - the heresy entitled "Gnosticism."
Christian mavericks find affirmation in ancient heresies

The So-Called ‘Gospel’ of Judas: Unmasking an Ancient Heresy
Benedict XVI Heresies and Errors
Donatism (Know your heresies)
The Heresy of Mohammed (Chapter 4, The Great Heresies)
Father & Son Catholic Writers Tag-Team Old & New Heresies

7 posted on 03/21/2010 3:47:57 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Since this author is portraying Protestants as heretics & false teachers, I think the advisory board of the group making this portrayal ought to be alerted. Why? Well advisory board members like Michael J. Behe, J. Budziszewski, Dinesh D'Souza, Robert George, James Hitchcock, Peter Kreeft, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Paul Vitz, and Christopher Wolfe all probably have as many if not more Protestant readers than RC ones...

(And if they are in agreement about broadbrushing Protestants as "heretics" & "false teachers" -- then may I recommend Protestant reconsider purchasing books authored by the above?)

I think there are some Protestants who indeed have introduced some false teachings. That's not the issue with the way this article is written. The author has lumped all Protestants with all heretical groups.

I think it's time for FREEPERS to e-mail these authors above & let them know either (a) they don't appreciate their association with this group; and/or (b) unless they remove that association, their books will be boycotted.

Robert George & Budziszewski, I'm sure, have been interviewed on plenty of Protestant-based radio programming. Perhaps it's time for that to change!

8 posted on 03/21/2010 3:55:13 PM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The heresies common to virtually all Protestants are the so called sola scriptura and sola fide. The article explains that. There are many other heresies that some Protestant sects hold, and some don’t, not worth discussing here piecemeal.


9 posted on 03/21/2010 4:23:21 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: eleni121

Islam is simply a false religion, like many others. Only a baptized Christian may be a heretic.


10 posted on 03/21/2010 4:25:00 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
not sure why Islam is not included on this Roman Catholic list. Most Christians I know consider it a heresy, esp given its origins.

Excellent point. Indeed Islam is a heresy.

11 posted on 03/21/2010 4:45:37 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GAB-1955
The number of Protestant denominations may be seen by Catholics as a mark of contradiction, but it is our strength.

On the contrary. Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. The word "truth" is used several times in the New Testament. However, the plural version of the word "truth" never appears in Scripture. Therefore, there can only be one Truth. So how can there be over 20,000 non-Catholic Christian denominations all claiming to have the "Truth"?

12 posted on 03/21/2010 4:47:08 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
I think there are some Protestants who indeed have introduced some false teachings. That's not the issue with the way this article is written. The author has lumped all Protestants with all heretical groups.

See my post #12.

13 posted on 03/21/2010 4:48:40 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: NYer
But you left out the greatest heretic of them all...The Catholic church which calls itself the one true church that Jesus founded...

And then this:

Finally, the doubt or denial involved in heresy must concern a matter that has been revealed by God and solemnly defined by the Church (for example, the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrifice of the Mass, the pope's infallibility, or the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary).

You apparently chose to believe that the God of the Bible has revealed some sort of extra Biblical truth to your popes even tho many were drunks, committed fornication, bore kids out of wedlock, were homosexuals and child molesters, passed on the position to family, and even sold the position of the head of the magisterium to others, and killed each other for the title...

And God revealed to these insults to Christianity that theirs was the one, true religion, that they, themselves were infallible and that Mary had an immaculate conception, etc., etc...

The heretics you describe are mild to laughable compared to the heresy of the Catholic religion...

14 posted on 03/21/2010 4:51:07 PM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
How did those Orthodox and Copts get here? How many rites in the Catholic Church? There’s less orthopraxy than you think.
15 posted on 03/21/2010 4:51:09 PM PDT by GAB-1955 (I write books, love my wife, serve my nation, and believe in the Resurrection.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GAB-1955
How many rites in the Catholic Church?

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

16 posted on 03/21/2010 4:59:55 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Interesting about the rites.

Didn't you post a few articles about the absolute need for clerical celibacy a few weeks ago? How many rites beside the Latin right are forbidden to have married priests?

17 posted on 03/21/2010 5:48:30 PM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: redgolum

redgolum:

None are, since all of them are Eastern Sui Juris Catholic Churches and those would fall under the Codes of Canon Law for the Eastern Catholic Church. There may some restrictions on Married Catholic Priests in areas that are overwhelmingly Roman/Latin Rite, but in their own jurisdictions they do have a married clergy.


18 posted on 03/21/2010 7:33:03 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: annalex; NYer
The heresies common to virtually all Protestants are the so called sola scriptura and sola fide.

Let's deal with sola fide -- first -- the Romans & Galatians epistle revelation that defeated the idea that self-justification was justifiable.

Excerpt from http://www.eefweb.org/sermons/topical/The%20Five%20Solas%20of%20the%20Reformation/Part%204%20-%20Sola%20Fide.htm:

The Catholic position in opposition to Luther’s Sola Fide was that the grace of God, by His good pleasure was poured into us. As this pouring or infusing occurred, it made us righteous and thus able to perform good works. Our free will cooperating with the grace then performed the works and together made us fit for salvation. It was taught that only by our will cooperating with grace and producing good works was the sinner able to merit salvation. Therefore, grace was infused and we cooperate with it to produce good works that belong to us. Those good works improve with time until they are such that we have pleased God enough to grant us salvation. Justification to the Catholic mind was then a process, not an event by declaration. Perhaps nowhere can the Roman Church’s rebellion against this doctrine be found any stronger than in the 1563 Council of Trent canons. We have already seen the authority of scripture, the lone Priestly role of Christ as Mediator and Redeemer. We have also seen that the way of salvation exists only because of the inestimable grace of God. Salvation would not exist had God in His mercy not provided a means for atonement and propitiation of His wrath. In evaluating Sola Fide, we shall see that the righteousness that the justified sinner stands in is not the works which by performing he has merited grace. Rather we will see that the only efficacious righteousness that will save us is being clothed with the righteousness of another—the righteousness of Christ imputed to us.

Of course, the Catholic position is the Scripturally off-base posture of synergism.

My Q to you: If you can't even confess "Jesus is Lord" in a culture of persecution, minus the Holy Spirit's power, how can you take credit for any other good work He does in and through you? (And why would you want to even try -- given the Scriptural reality that we're to glorify God in ALL that we do?)

19 posted on 03/21/2010 7:34:44 PM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Robert George & Budziszewski, I'm sure, have been interviewed on plenty of Protestant-based radio programming. Perhaps it's time for that to change!

I don't really understand the point of your objection.

Obviously the Catholic Church thinks Protestants are in an objective state of heresy (although the term "heretic" is usually reserved for a Catholic who departs from the faith to found a new sect), and Protestants* think Catholics are in an objective state of heresy.

*(Most, all, some: you pick)

That's not picking a fight or being nasty; it's just being clear and concise about doctrinal points.

Obviously -- to pick one example -- the Blessed Virgin Mary cannot both be immaculately conceived and not immaculately conceived at the same time, so somebody is a "false teacher" on that particular subject. And the list of such subjects is unfortunately a rather long one.

Most of those men you mention are Catholic (although I'm not entirely clear why Rabbi Daniel Lapin made your list). If Protestants want to listen to them, they are free to do so; if they don't, they're free not to. Presumably they listen to them because they have something to say (and a skillful way of saying it) with which those Protestants agree or from which they learn.

20 posted on 03/21/2010 7:36:35 PM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Why do you go to a Protestant web site for a description of Catholic soteriology, and then dismiss it entirely with a one-sentence throwaway:

Of course, the Catholic position is the Scripturally off-base posture of synergism.

Do you think we have nothing to say on our own behalf or in our own defense? Have you read anything written by a Catholic on the topic?

21 posted on 03/21/2010 7:38:59 PM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: NYer; Salvation; annalex
In light of what we are all going through with the crisis in American government this very night, can you all not refrain from more religious one-up-manship for ONE day???

I can not care less what the Roman Catholic Church thinks about other true, Biblical Christian doctrine. Call me a heretic because I left the ROMAN Catholic Church - the Lord God Almighty sees my heart and recognizes true faith. I do not need nor want your Imprimatur. I know what I believe and why!

No wonder you disparage sola scriptura and sola fide, your religion has rejected what scripture teaches about salvation by grace through faith and substituted man's works and merits in place of the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord. It is truly sad that you cannot see that ALLreligion enslaves mankind by putting the responsibility on him to earn salvation rather than God reaching down to us and binding us back to him through unmerited, unearned, undeserved GRACE. You further enslave by claiming your religion alone is the source of grace when it has not the faintest idea anymore of what that word even means.

I've had enough LIES for one day - thank you!

22 posted on 03/21/2010 9:02:41 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GAB-1955
The 20 to 30K denominations statement is pure hogwash and they know it yet still slop it out. I agree with you that Christianity does not need labels. The true rock of our salvation is the Lord Jesus Christ and it was never meant to be a mere man. Scripture - illuminated by the Holy Spirit of God in each true believers' heart - is the source of truth. Manmade traditions that clearly contradict God's word are obviously NOT from God. God's word is clear on all major doctrines and he does not need human beings to reveal his truth to us - that is the job of the Holy Spirit, pure and simple.

Minor issues, not precisely spelled out in Scripture, allows liberty in beliefs and practice. But no doctrine or practice should ever be contrary to scripture - that is why God preserved it for us all as our sole authority.

23 posted on 03/21/2010 9:14:52 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Well said.


24 posted on 03/21/2010 10:30:30 PM PDT by irishtenor (Beer. God's way of making sure the Irish don't take over the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“In light of what we are all going through with the crisis in American government this very night, can you all not refrain from more religious one-up-manship for ONE day???”

Right, and to top it off, Drudge ran a lead about a certain devout Roman Catholic who prayed to her idol, “Saint Francis,” to defeat her “enemies” before this vote. Enemies like we FReepers.

Of course, we have had countless RCC apologists here on FR assure us that Roman Catholics really do now pray to idols. Now where do you suppose Pelosi got such a notion of praying to “Saint Francis” from anyway? Protestants?

And they are going to lecture Protestants about heresy! Give me a break.

Disclaimer: Maybe it wasn’t Saint Francis she prayed to, I might not have the right “Saint,” maybe it was Saint Bartholomew, or ... Whatever, its still idolatry.


25 posted on 03/21/2010 11:03:41 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Vatican II should be on that list.


26 posted on 03/22/2010 1:02:58 AM PDT by Rich Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; sasportas; annalex; Salvation; GAB-1955
I left the ROMAN Catholic Church - No wonder you disparage sola scriptura and sola fide, your religion has rejected what scripture teaches about salvation by grace through faith and substituted man's works and merits in place of the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord.

STEP 3: Accuse the Catholic church of denying salvation by grace.

How I led Catholics Out of the Church


27 posted on 03/22/2010 4:10:28 AM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; NYer

THe original point that sola fide is not the Catohlic teaching therefore it is heresy. You now attempt to justify it by a generic reference to Romans and Galatians. But even if you succeed, all you will succeed in doing is to show that your interpretation of Romans and Galatians is heretical.

Now, it is still an interesting question: Does the Scripture teach Sola Fide? The answer is, of course not. It does teach that works of the Jewish law are not salvific(Romans and Galatians teach that). It also teaches that we are justified by worksL (Romans 2:6-10), Matthew 25:31-46). It of couse also teaches that faith is necessary for salvation in many places. So the Scripture teaches the Catholic position, that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone (James 2:17-26).

These are works God does through me indeed. So your question is answered: My credit is in response of my free will to the Divine Grace.


28 posted on 03/22/2010 5:20:05 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
your religion has rejected what scripture teaches about salvation by grace through faith and substituted man's works and merits in place of the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ our savior and Lord

Spread less lies about what the Catholic Church teaches and you will be better humored by Catholics.

The only way to unity is through Catholicism.

29 posted on 03/22/2010 5:22:25 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Obviously the Catholic Church thinks Protestants are in an objective state of heresy (although the term "heretic" is usually reserved for a Catholic who departs from the faith to found a new sect), and Protestants* think Catholics are in an objective state of heresy.

No, not necessarily. The statements from the Pope (for example, before he became Pope) focused on what he deemed as lack of authority of the Protestant churches (for example, lack of authority to administer the sacraments). That's a different focus than calling Protestants "heretics."

30 posted on 03/22/2010 8:25:24 AM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: annalex; NYer; Campion
THe original point that sola fide is not the Catohlic teaching therefore it is heresy. You now attempt to justify it by a generic reference to Romans and Galatians. But even if you succeed, all you will succeed in doing is to show that your interpretation of Romans and Galatians is heretical. Does the Scripture teach Sola Fide? The answer is, of course not. It does teach that works of the Jewish law are not salvific(Romans and Galatians teach that). It also teaches that we are justified by worksL (Romans 2:6-10), Matthew 25:31-46). It of couse also teaches that faith is necessary for salvation in many places. So the Scripture teaches the Catholic position, that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone (James 2:17-26).

It's sad that your position has more in common with Mormons than the Bible. In fact, I've found two previous posts I did in conversing with Mormons that are applicable. Here's the first -- one I posted a year ago last week...[why is it that as Easter approaches, this seems to be more of a key Q?]:

March 14, 2009: I need to ask you: What is the basis of whether or how God will forgive your personal sins?

I think you "miss the boat" in misunderstanding two dimensions of judgment: One dimension is our sin nature, our individual acts of sin--including our sins of omission. The other dimension is our works.

You can't exchange the two. For our sin, Heavenly Father fully judged Jesus on the cross. When Jesus said "It is finished" on the cross, He used a phrase that in His day was a financial phrase meaning, "paid in full." Our debt -- our sin -- was paid in full. If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).

But you are correct when you're talking about God judging the stewardship of our works. Note this passage:

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's WORK. If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; HE HIMSELF WILL BE SAVED, but only as one escaping through the flames. (1 Cor. 3:10-15)

Do you see that last sentence? Even if our work is burned up, we can "suffer loss" in heaven -- yet, Paul assures us that "he himself WILL BE saved." (Paul goes on to describe that like somebody pulled out of a burning building at the last second...by Jesus Christ the Deliverer and Rescuer).

So, you're right in at least our works will get quite a "grilling" of judgment from God. But Paul makes it clear in this passage that even when our measured works burn up as nothing -- as God's fiery judgment takes a match to them like fuel, we ourselves "will still be saved." (1 Cor. 3:15)

So the righteousness of Jesus is our free pass into heaven. (1 Cor. 1:30). Entrust your life to Him (that is more than just mouthing a few words). But simultaneously, be prepared that once you get there based solely upon your faith in Christ, that He will take a fine-toothcomb to our works -- and judge them. And that it's possible to still become saved -- and still "suffer loss." (None of us should want to suffer such loss in heaven -- whatever that turns out to be)

****

Now, to wrap up my comments above, Annalex, and apply them to what you said: Romans 2:6-10 & Matthew 25 indeed fit the above judgment of our works. But it's a distinct judgment our God will make of us.

What tends to happen, I believe, is that some Catholics & many Mormons think we Evangelicals are downplaying works. The answer is "no, we are not." God will hold us accountable for them -- or for their lack.

We recognize that "faith works." A true faith works; it's not an empty enterprise. What we do stress is that no amount of our works can counterbalance our sin.

So I need to ask you: Have you discarded the Protestant position on works because you think we leave it out? [When in fact, we've only recognized it -- per 1 Cor. 3:15 and Isaiah 64:6 ("all our righteous acts are like filthy rags" -- "rags" being the term for used menstrual cloths) and many other passages -- as coming under a separate judgment of God???]

So the Scripture teaches the Catholic position, that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone (James 2:17-26). [Annalex]

The problem for too many James 2 citers is that they skip over v. 10 (you, Annalex, cited vv. 17-26): For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (James 2:10)

You see, God's standard is perfection for somebody to be able to come into His holy Presence. You could keep every part of the law, minus one, and still per James 2:10 be guilty of breaking all of it.

And if you think works is somehow going to offset or counterbalance sin, the answer to that is "nope." It won't. That's why we needed a perfect Substitute.

We cannot get around (nor should we try) Romans 5:19: For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

Jesus Christ Himself is our holiness and our righteousness: It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. (1 Cor. 1:30)

Come out of the false works; receive Him who IS your righteousness; your holiness!

31 posted on 03/22/2010 10:10:44 AM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: annalex; NYer; Campion
You now attempt to justify it by a generic reference to Romans and Galatians. But even if you succeed, all you will succeed in doing is to show that your interpretation of Romans and Galatians is heretical. Now, it is still an interesting question: Does the Scripture teach Sola Fide? The answer is, of course not. It does teach that works of the Jewish law are not salvific(Romans and Galatians teach that). It also teaches that we are justified by worksL (Romans 2:6-10), Matthew 25:31-46). It of couse also teaches that faith is necessary for salvation in many places. So the Scripture teaches the Catholic position, that we are justified by faith and works and not by faith alone (James 2:17-26).

Well, here was the other 2009 post I found that's relevant. Even though I'm leaving it mostly as I posted it, and written to Mormons, I guess it's a pretty sad commentary when it also applies to Catholics like yourself:

From the [Lds] article [I was responding to at the time]: Bair said the New Testament uses the word "saved" 40 times. Six of those times it talks about it as being "by faith." Thirty-four of those times it is in the context of works.

Wow. I dare a Mormon to show this posting to Bair himself. In the KJV, which the LDS used, the New Testament uses the word "saved" 59 times (not 40). But since about 20 of those have to do with either a non-spiritual meaning (like being saved on a stressed ship in Acts 27) or is simply raising the issue of who will be saved -- not addressing the "how" -- let's go with the "40" figure for now.

Bair implies here that the NT "saved" scorecard he's kept is 34-6 in favor of doing works vs. receiving it through faith alone. How utterly distorted! I ran through those 40 passages. Here's the breakdown, Mr. Bair and Mr. De Groote:
* Four attribute it to God's grace, which by definition is a gift you don't earn, merit or work for (Acts 15:11; Eph. 2:5; Eph. 2:8; 2 Tim. 1:9)
* One roots being saved in God's mercy (Titus 3:5)
* Three root it in faith (Luke 7:50; 18:42) as Eph. 2 in context also mentions faith
* One ties it to confessing in Jesus (Rom. 10:9) -- hardly a "work" on our part
* Two tie it to believing in Jesus (Acts 16:31; Luke 8:12)
* One links it to receiving & believing in Jesus (Acts 11:14, 17)
* One ties it to approaching Jesus for life (John 5:34, 39-40) -- again, hardly a "work" on our part
* A number of passages link it to how we are passively saved -- such as how His Name saves (Acts 4:12) & calling on His Name to save us (Acts 2:21; Rom. 10:13); other "passive" recipient roles we have in being saved include verses on how it's the Lord who does the saving (Acts 2:47; 2 Tim. 1:9; John 3:16-17); the cross saves us (1 Cor. 1:18); and passive verses of being saved such as Rom. 8:24; 1 Cor. 15:1-2; Rom. 5:9; and Rom. 5:10 (his life saves) -- saved also used in John 10:9 -- and context here is He gave his life for us to be saved (John 10:9-11)
* Another dozen or so others simply talks about being "saved" in more general terms -- minus stress on men's works

Whereas Bair's implied "scorecard" is 34-6 in favor of "works," I see the count as 25-3 in favor of faith, belief, grace, mercy, the cross, and the Lord Himself.
On top of that, "salvation" is mentioned 43 times in the NT -- and we find in these references that:
Salvation is His (Rev. 7:10; 19:1)
It comes thru faith (1 Pet 1:5)
It comes thru grace (Titus 2:11)
It's a relational trust tie (Eph. 1:12-13) -- not a religious do-gooder "grade"
Salvation is by believing & confessing in Christ (Rom. 10:10)
Christ is the Obtainer of salvation (1 Th. 5:9) thru the Spirit's sanctification (2 Th. 2:13) and thru His own longsuffering ("the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation") -- 2 Pet. 3:15 ...
Christ Himself is our salvation (Heb. 9:28; Lk 2:30; John 4:22) & its author (Heb. 5:9) & captain (Heb. 2:10)

So in over 80 NT passages dealing with "saved" and "salvation," that leaves us with these verses about enduring to the end to be saved -- Mt. 10:22; 24:13; Mk 13:13 -- of which hangs...[most of] the..."salvation-by-works" doctrine of the Mormon church!

[Note: Certainly the apostle Paul also elsewhere stressed perseverence and endurance, and Jesus did in Revelation to the churches about being an "overcomer"...a key point in these verses, however, is that they are given to people already in a born-from-above relationship with Him -- not as a "to do list" for unbelievers as to how to accomplish salvation...note the rarity of how often these concepts are mentioned directly linked to a verse discussing being "saved" or "salvation."]

Beyond that, who will we give more credit & glory to for enduring -- us or the Holy Ghost living in us? Does not 2 Th. 2:13 say that our salvation is thru the Spirit's sanctification?
Ultimately, whose "longsuffering" is especially relevant in salvation? Ours or our Lord's? Does not 2 Pet 3:15 say, "the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation"?

So in light of all of the above, Mormons are going to appear before the Christ who died for them and...
...will they continue to either ignore or play down...
...His blood,
...His cross,
...His grace,
...His mercy,
...the gift of faith,
...the gift of the Holy Ghost,
...the conviction of the Holy Ghost leading to repentance (John 16:8),
...Jesus being our faith's obtainer, author and captain,
...and instead substitute all of the above by saying to Jesus, "See my paltry obedience, good works, & temple works. Aren't they grand? Good enough to land me here, right?"

And it wouldn't surprise me to hear Jesus saying:
"Did you not read the apostle Paul, who told you in Romans 3 that all of you fell short of my glory?"
"Did you not read the apostle Paul, who told you in Romans 6 that if you were trying to work your way here, your 'wages' would be 'death?'"
"Did you not read the apostle Isaiah, who compared men's deeds to filthy menstrual rags?"
"Did you not read the apostle Paul in Ephesians 2, who said if you could claim 'works' as the route here, that would be a boastable resume'?"
"Did you not read my comment in the Sermon on the Mount that unless your righteousness exceeded that of the Pharisees, who were indeed outwardly righteous, 'ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven?'"
"Did you not read the apostle Paul discussing God's power in 2 Tim. 1:9? 'Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began'"
"Did you not know what 'not' or 'grace' or 'given' meant?
"Did you not read Luke in Acts 16:30-31? 'what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house?'"

"Could I have spoken more plainly when I was asked, 'What shall WE do, that WE might work the works of God? than to point to the "work of God" and not your own works when I replied, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent?'" (John 6:28-29)

****

Annalex, we do agree on one key point that you said -- These are works God does through me. -- which I believe is what Jesus is emphasizing in John 6:28-29. So that's the thing though...if we don't do those works, we take the blame @ judgment; if and when we do those works, God the Holy Spirit gets the credit & glory.

32 posted on 03/22/2010 10:25:48 AM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; annalex; Campion
If we try to pay for our sin/atonement, Heavenly Father rejects it as being laced with unrighteousness (Is. 64:6).

Isaiah 64:4-6 pertains to a particular historical situation, not to a general condition. The passage appeals to a time when Israelites once had a right relationship with God, when God helped them against their enemies because they waited on him, gladly did right, and remembered his ways.

When they sinned against him and did not repent and return to their former state, he abandoned them to the will of their enemies, so that even Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed. (Isaiah speaks of this prophetically, before it happened.)

It was during that period of continued sin, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C., that they had "become like one who is unclean"--they hadn't always been like that.

Catholics do not perform good works in order to enter a state of justification. The Council of Trent stated that "nothing which precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification" (Decree on Justification 8).

In fact, it is impossible for an unjustified person to do supernaturally good works, since these are based on the virtue of charity (supernatural love), which an unjustified person does not have. Good works therefore flow from our reception of justification; they do not cause us to enter a state of justification. Good works increase the righteousness we are given at justification and please God, who promises to give us supernatural rewards on the last day, including the gift of eternal life (Rom 2:6-7, Gal 6:6-10).

33 posted on 03/22/2010 10:41:28 AM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Well, here's a question for you:

If a man believes in Jesus Christ as savior, but does no "good works", would he still be justified?

34 posted on 03/22/2010 3:40:33 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Thank you. Amen!


35 posted on 03/22/2010 3:51:41 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
If a man believes in Jesus Christ as savior, but does no "good works", would he still be justified?

You do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified.

My question to you. What do you do with ... See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24.

36 posted on 03/22/2010 4:22:32 PM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; NYer; Campion
I am not here to discuss the false religion of Mormonism. If you have anything to say on the subject you yourself raised, just say it.

What we do stress is that no amount of our works can counterbalance our sin.

Well, if that were the totality of Prtoestant teaching on faith and works, that wouldl have been unobjectionable. Generally, any time you wish to embrace the Catholic position you are welcome to do so. So far, however, the counterscriptural idea that we are saved by faith alone is taught by Protestant pastors. That is the heresy in question.

God's standard is perfection for somebody to be able to come into His holy Presence. You could keep every part of the law, minus one, and still per James 2:10 be guilty of breaking all of it.

Very true. What does it have to do with the counterscriptural heresy of faith alone?

37 posted on 03/22/2010 6:02:17 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: NYer; annalex; Colofornian; irishtenor
You do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified.
My question to you. What do you do with ... See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:24.

I see that this is really a game of semantics then, too. When I hear someone say "you do not have to do good works to come to God and be justified." I think I hear that you believe a person is then not justified by works. What I know you mean is that we are justified by grace but are "sanctified" by our works. You see two distinct points, is this correct?

If you truly believed, as Scripture clearly says, that we are sanctified (made holy) and justified, wholly by grace through faith - apart from our works, before God - then you would have no problem whatsoever with the concept of faith alone.

If you re-read the entire book of James, you will understand that God is not contradicting himself - you miss the context by taking a verse out and letting it alone explain such an important doctrine as salvation by grace through faith.

Here's my point, if you believe you are saved by faith plus something else you do - regardless of what that something else is - then you are NOT placing your trust in Jesus Christ as your savior. You are, in truth, relying on your own merit to earn you eternal life. Until you can discern that distinction, you will never understand what grace truly is. And without that understanding, you will never have the assurance of your salvation that our Heavenly Father desire for us in the here and now. I pray you do.

38 posted on 03/22/2010 7:32:54 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

he is exxpressing an opinion....you’re way too thin skinned.....you are wrong, but thin skinned about it!!


39 posted on 03/22/2010 8:00:39 PM PDT by terycarl (4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

How do you reconcile your view with free will?


40 posted on 03/22/2010 8:03:13 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
How do you reconcile your view with free will?

Sorry, I see nothing irreconcilable about what the Bible says regarding mankind's God-given freedom to accept or reject the gift of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ.

I am neither a Calvinist nor Armianist. That's not what this thread is about anyway.

41 posted on 03/22/2010 8:29:16 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NYer
STEP 3: Accuse the Catholic church of denying salvation by grace.

Just playing with the words again. Oh, that you really did teach and believe that to its fullest! How sad that the church in Rome, founded by Paul the Apostle, could veer so far away from what he stressed more than any of the other writers of scripture. God entrusted him with so much revelation about the gift of eternal life based not on man's works but purely by God's grace through faith.

That the church in Rome today not only denies this eternal truth, but condemns as heretical anyone who does not agree with them, must make him quite sad. I am grieved as well.

42 posted on 03/22/2010 8:54:07 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
mankind's God-given freedom to accept or reject the gift of eternal life

Is this acceptance or rejection something you do?

if you believe you are saved by faith plus something else you do - regardless of what that something else is - then you are NOT placing your trust in Jesus Christ as your savior

43 posted on 03/22/2010 9:04:24 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr
Is this acceptance or rejection something you do?

When someone who loves you gives you a gift, you can accept the gift or turn it down, either way "a gift" by virtue of the word implied is not something earned, not something for which you "do" anything. If you receive it, it is yours, if you reject it, you do not have it. I don't know any way to explain it in simpler terms.

44 posted on 03/22/2010 9:10:48 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

If I have free will, I can choose to accept a gift or turn it down.

A choice is an act of free will.

Would you agree?


45 posted on 03/22/2010 9:13:37 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

We already had a BIG long thread on this subject. Ain’t in the mood to discuss the whole free will/predestination, faith is/is not a gift subject, if you don’t mind.


46 posted on 03/22/2010 9:28:38 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

Certainly.


47 posted on 03/22/2010 9:31:51 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; boatbums
he is exxpressing an opinion....you’re way too thin skinned.....you are wrong, but thin skinned about it!!

You cannot separate the expression ("the opinion") from the labels ("heretics" & "false teachers").

It's like when the Dixie Checks played a concert overseas (I believe it was 2003) & took the opportunity to criticize our President on foreign soil. They, too, were simply "expressing an opinion"...and many conservatives elected, in response, to do one or more of the following...
...not purchase future Dixie Chicks' CDs
...not attend their concerts
...while some even dumped what they already owned produced by them...

Now I suppose you could have come along, wagged your finger @ that those folks who responded in that way, claiming, "you're way too thin skinned." But the reality is that words & actions can have economic consequences. And if consumers don't want their $ going to the Dixie Chicks, that was their economic free will & discretion, right?

Likewise, the author of this article should bear some consequences for dissing all Protestants as "heretics" & "false teachers." If this man's "advisory board" wants to stand by him, fine, that's their "free expression." But "free expression" is not a one-way street.

For years I've been wanting to buy another specific J. Budziszewski book. He's a great author. I have three Peter Kreeft books. A fine author. I will no longer recommend either; and will never cite them. Why? Because they have shown poor discernment. They want to peddle their books & products to us Protestant readers -- all the while their friends & formal associates attack us as "heretics" & "false teachers." I'm sorry, but there's a bit of a "disconnect" there.

I call upon all Protestant FReepers reading this thread to do the same. For all I know, some of the "advisory board" may also provide $ funding to the CERC Web site. If CERC has declared all Protestants as their enemies, we don't need to be funding those who posturing themselves this way, or those who are "advising" them to do this.

48 posted on 03/22/2010 11:09:17 PM PDT by Colofornian (If you're not going to drink the coffee, at least wake up and smell it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; annalex; Colofornian; irishtenor
I see that this is really a game of semantics then, too.

On the contrary. The expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible-in James 2:24-where it is rejected. James views intellectual assent as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (vv. 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).

49 posted on 03/23/2010 3:51:28 AM PDT by NYer ("Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose of Milan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: boatbums; NYer; Colofornian; irishtenor
if you believe you are saved by faith plus something else you do - regardless of what that something else is - then you are NOT placing your trust in Jesus Christ as your savior.

Note that you no longer are reading any scripture. You are not because the scripture does not support this false dichotomy. You are instead following a teaching of men -- a logic that is appealing to you, but not the message communicated in the Gospel, which never separates works from faith:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2)

50 posted on 03/23/2010 5:16:42 AM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 451-452 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson