'Fortnight for Freedom': One more reason to be an ex-Catholic

I want to thank Archbishop William E. Lori for reminding me once again why I'm an ex-Catholic ("Fight for freedom," June 27). With the so-called "Fortnight for Freedom," the church leadership is deliberately and cynically using a mixture of patriotism and religion in a blatant and manipulative attempt to influence the outcome of the upcoming elections.

I can't seem to recall any recent news about Catholic churches being bombed in the United States or attempts to bar American Catholics from attending mass. I do know that the Catholic Church has been using its "religious freedom" for decades to aid and abet child abusers, to recently attack nuns in the United States who are at the forefront of what used to be one of the church's primary missions to aid and comfort the poor and needy, and that the American church has over the past few decades formed an alliance with some of the most strident and politically active right-wing religious groups in the U.S. Archbishop Lori even received an award in May from a coalition of some of those groups.

I am proud to be an American, and I am a strong supporter of the Bill of Rights. I support freedom of religion, and I support freedom from religion. And, at this moment in time, I am also very proud and happy to be an ex-Catholic.

Oh hear Me, My people. Why do you listen to the hirelings and false teachers and prophets?

What does Kevin have that proves he is NOT also a "hireling, false teacher, false prophet"? What sets him apart from the "Prosperity Gospel" televangelists? What is Kevin's ratio of prophecy to fulfilled prophecy? This WAS one of the main ways the LORD God gave to His people so that they could know who really WAS a prophet of God and who wasn't. So what are Kevin's credentials? Why should anyone believe what he claims Jesus is telling him? Why should what he says Jesus tells him be believed over what the Bible tells us? These are serious questions and ignoring them will only prove you are not paying due diligence to speak the truth.

Also, there is a BIG, HUGE difference between the gift of prophecy for teaching the revealed word of God and someone who claims to be speaking prophecies FROM God directly. All those who legitimately had that gift have their revelations written down for all generation in Holy Scripture. Anyone who claims NEW revelation FROM God is speaking falsely. The canon of Scripture is complete and has been for nearly two thousand years. There is NOTHING new for God to reveal to us that hasn't already been compiled in the Bible. I DO hope you at least are aware of this restriction and are not being tricked by wolves in sheep's clothing.

1. Rev 3:14,

You said:

“Or in keeping with the meaning of “arche” could read …”

But the broader context, which includes John 1:3 among others, does not allow a use of temporal beginning as with a created being, and so one of the other meanings must be chosen, unless you are willing to live with an outright contradiction in Scripture. That is not my view of how a God-breathed document works. God does not contradict himself. Rev 3:14 cannot be properly understood by arbitrarily separating it from the crystal clear meaning of John 1:1-3, to which we now return.

2. John 1:1

You appear to be taking the lack of a definite article as an inference of an indefinite object, yet you offered your own evidence that this is not the case, as your passage at John 4:19 demonstrates, and which is actually part of the point I was making. So I am confused as to why you would raise evidence against your own side. But that of course is up to you.

So now that you have essentially admitted that in Greek a definite article is not necessary to discuss a definite object, but usage is determined by context, you should have no problem seeing why AT Robertson and many others, and an overwhelming majority of translations, both old and new, have chosen the very reasonable rendering, “the Word was God.”

As for doubting whether God could be a member of a class, perhaps you are simply are unfamiliar with the Greek notion of being. In philosophy, we call it ontology, the “words about being.” The Greeks classified absolutely every kind of existing thing, even classes where there could only be one member. It is a mathematical way of thinking, and it runs rampant through the language and thought of ancient Greece.

So yes, God could be and definitely is in a class of beings, of which there is only one, by definition. That’s just how categories work. By leaving out the definite article, but moving theos into the emphatic position, he is precluding any possible misunderstanding of a multiplicity of gods, which would be anathema to his Hebrew mind anyway.

Instead, he uses the emphatic position combined with the lack of a concretizing article to describe an abstraction, a category of being called God, which perfectly describes who Jesus is in his own being. Hence the Nicene talk of substance. Not physical matter as we are used to understanding it, but a unique nature, the highest order of being possible, God.

3. John 1:3, Again

As for John 1:3, you have not quoted the text accurately, and your error makes all the difference. What Greek manuscript base are you using? Both the Byzantine and the Westscott-Hort agree here. There is no dispute as to the base text, and it is absolutely not what you recite here:

Your inaccurate rendition:

“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.) “and without him not one thing came into being”

The actual text, first in Greek, so you don’t miss anything:

Panta di autou egeneto kai xoris autou egeneto oude ev ho gegonen

Broken down, this is what you have to deal with:

Panta —> All things
di —> by means of
autou —> him
egeneto —> were created
kai —> and
xoris —> without
autou —> him
egeneto —> was created
oude —> not even
ev —> one
ho gegonen —> created thing.

Do you see what you are missing? Not even one *created* thing was created apart from him. Not your oversimplification of “all things,” which you require for your theory of exception to work.

I have to admit, I read these lines of your post several times over trying to understand your logic and how it went wrong. I think I figured it out. As I’ve said, you need to have an implied exception, or you end up with an uncreated Logos, which you apparently do not want.

So the question is how to get there from here, because the words as they are will not support your implied exception. The class of all *created* things, which is what the verse actually describes, if it were allowed to stand, is smaller than the set of all things, and you would lose your implied exception.

Therefore, to make the set so big that an exception would necessarily be implied, the set has to be erroneously expanded to include both created and uncreated things, from which it would then and *only* then be possible to draw your implied exception.

Except the language of the text does not support this “creative” solution. The set of things being discussed is explicitly only all *created* things, not *absolutely* all things, as your rendering has it. John intentionally and explicitly excluded uncreated things, thus firmly denying any possibility of an implied exception for a “created creator.”

This whole misadventure gives me pause. I am curious to know from what text you derived your mangled reading. Again, no Greek manuscript of which I am aware excludes the final “gegonen” which you omitted. Can you explain to me how you managed to omit it?

Because every omission from the word of God is serious. God breathed each and every word for His own purposes. We may struggle with a translation here or there, and He understands our frailties in these matters, better than we do in fact. But He has also provided us with sufficient notice that He will not look kindly on either additions or deletions. Those are His word choices, and those are the words we have to deal with, one way or another.

Peace,

Forgive me everyone, I am sorry if I hurt anyone’s feelings. I love you all.

We shouldn’t disagree, then argue about our differences. Especially if you believe prophecy, Jesus is going to bring us all to one belief soon. A miracle and another amazing, God put us in this time!!

I came across and saved a brief writing by a non-Catholic Christian. I am not sure the year it was written, it’s beautiful.

The Loneliness of the Christian

By: A. W. Tozer

The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an
ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the
fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate
world.

His God-given instincts cry out for companionship with others of his
kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his
absorptions in the love of Christ; and because with his circle of friends
there are few who share his inner experiences, he’s forced to walk alone.

The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused
them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord himself suffered in
the same way.

The man (or woman) who has passed on into the divine Presence in actual
inner experience will not find many who understand him. He finds few
who care to talk about that which is the supreme object of his interest, so
he is often silent and preoccupied in the midst of noisy religious shoptalk.

For this he earns the reputation of being dull and over-serious, so he is
avoided, and the gulf between him and society widens. He searches for the
friends upon whose garments he can detect the smell of myrrh and aloes
and cassia out of the ivory palaces, and finding few or none, he, like the
Mother of God, keeps these things in his heart.

It is this very loneliness that throws him back upon God. His inability to find
human companionship drives him to seek in God what he can find nowhere
else.
—

“You aren’t sincere,...”

The RF is full of very sincere, yet wrong posters of every stripe. It is unfair and unwarranted to call out Markbsnr for cautioning you to more closely and cautiously adhere to Church teachings. Mark is one of the more sincere and knowledgable Catholic posters. You woul do well to listen to him

Taking you at your word that you are indeed Catholic you have a duty to not foster and propagate unsubstantiated private revelation, but rather to take it to your pastor and bishop so that the Church can assess its merits. It alone has been entrusted by Jesus with a teaching authority.

Peace be with you

~ ~ ~

Markbnsr did more than that, he stated Kevin was a false prophet and misinterpreted the Catechism. One can believe or reject approved and yet to be approved Private Revelation. I didn’t care for his “Troll” pic either.

Mark has not written one positive supportive comment to
me. I can only go by what he has written to me and said about me to someone else in the thread. You can argue
“Faith Alone” is a lie for another four hundred years
but if you show Jesus is saying the same to a current
Protestant messenger it might change someone’s mind/heart.

The message was the Truth, from Our Lord to Kevin Barrett.

I disagree, there is nothing wrong with sharing the messages from Heaven. They have not been condemned. Jesus is trying to reach the world by His loving messages. These are serious times.

blessings to you,

Paul use similar language in Col. 1:15-18 calling the Son not God or God the Son but the image of God and the firstborn of creation adding that “all things have been created through (dia) him”.

Yet Paul as well as many other writers in Scripture DID call Jesus God:

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. (Mat. 1:23 cf Isa. 7:14)

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. (II Cor. 4:3,4)

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (II Cor. 4:6)

That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. (I Tim. 6:14-16)

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. (Rom. 8:9)

For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living. (Rom. 14:8-9)

That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. (Rom. 15:16)

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (I Cor. 1:24)

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (II Cor. 5:19)

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high. (Heb. 1:3)

Paul as well as Peter taught through Scripture that there is ONLY one God and that God became a man, was incarnated, in the flesh. They also spoke of and used words that describe the reality of God being manifested to mankind as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that though there were three, they were STILL all one God. Jesus cannot be "a god" or even just "mighty god" and the Father Almighty God because Scripture uses those names for both the Father and the Son:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. (Isa. 9:6)

The mighty God, even the LORD, hath spoken, and called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof. (Psa. 50:1)

Thou shewest lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompensest the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the Great, the Mighty God, the LORD of hosts, is his name, (Jer. 32:18)

I agree with you that the "Trinity" definition makes no sense, it makes no human finite thinking sense, but we don't understand probably a fraction of our physical world, what makes us think we should understand heavenly things? We Trinitarians accept this doctrine by faith just like we do about how the shed blood of Jesus Christ can make propitiation for all our sins and that God gifts to us eternal life in heaven when we DO accept it by faith. There are many things I cannot fully grasp but it doesn't mean it isn't true. I believe that there is a more than ample Biblical foundation for the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't believe the early church just invented it out of whole cloth but both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament in addition to the teachings of the Apostles gave them these truths by which the Christian faith was defined. I hope you have a good day.

“You appear to be taking the lack of a definite article as an inference of an indefinite object, yet you offered your own evidence that this is not the case, as your passage at John 4:19 demonstrates, and which is actually part of the point I was making. So I am confused as to why you would raise evidence against your own side. But that of course is up to you”

John 4:19 has no article in Greek so the translator can supply it in English which is exactly the situation in John 1:3) making “prophet” indefinite.
I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear.

“Your inaccurate rendition:

“All things came into being through him” (the Logos is an agent of creation as all things were through (dia) him.) “and without him not one thing came into being”

The words in ellipses are mine. The quotation is from The New Revised Standard Version that appears in the New Greek-English Interlinear New Testament, published by tthe United Bible Society. (p.s., They are trinitarians)

The NAB John 1:3, reads:

“All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be”.

It, then, is not my “inaccurate rendition” at all.

“This whole misadventure gives me pause. I am curious to know from what text you derived your mangled reading. Again, no Greek manuscript of which I am aware excludes the final “gegonen” which you omitted. Can you explain to me how you managed to omit it?”

I omitted nothing. I quoted a translation by a major Protestant body and now the approved translation for Catholics so if you want to call it a “mangled reading” take it up with their translators.

“But the broader context, which includes John 1:3 among others, does not allow a use of temporal beginning as with a created being, and so one of the other meanings must be chosen, unless you are willing to live with an outright contradiction in Scripture.”

This broader must include the way Paul described Christ, as he did at Col.1. and 1 Cor. 8:6.

If we use the trinitarian definition of God to analyze John 1:1-3 then we end up with defining the Logos as either the Father or as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Part of that broader context was how the term God or god was used in the Scriptures making it wholly correct to call the Logos “a god” since even Moses was called such.

“Broken down, this is what you have to deal with:

Be aware the order of words in the Greek has little to do with the order when translated into English.

Heaven speaks every day, if you doubt a message, take the good from it. Don’t skip the messages and reject the prophets. A grave message this one and it begins with confess your sins to God for the life of your soul, Catholics seek out a “consecrated son”, go to Confession. I know...

Catholicbinder posts one lady, her Protestant messages, Glynda Lomax. http://www.catholicbinder.com

plus the link to this message.

_ _ _ _ _

Messages to an Anonymous Visionary
By the name of ‘Tenderheart’
www.JabezInAction.blogspot.com/

Note from Web Master: The anonymous visionary that these messages are received by has asked me if I would list her as “Tenderheart”, a name that the Lord has referred to her by throughout her messages. So, for now on in my update menu, her messages will be listed as being from Tenderheart.

July 16th, 2012
It Is Your Duty To Seek Out The Truth

Children of My Divine Heart, I Am. I Am the Alpha and the Omega. I Am the Lord of Hosts. Rejoice for the One True God seeks you out. Open your hearts. Surrender without condition. Surrender completely. Give Me permission to transform you. My Little Ones, you must live each day as your last. Events escalate all over the Earth. Many are being called home, and unfortunately enter into an eternity of torment. Satan’s harvest increases daily. My Children, you must walk in holiness, and remain pure. Seek out My consecrated sons, and remain blameless before Me. DO NOT keep MORTAL sins upon your souls. Do not remain indifferent to sin as you will surely be caught off guard, and reap your just judgement. Listen to the news, My Little Ones. Purification is underway. Judgement comes for many who are unprepared, who have shut Me out, and who have prayed Lucifer. PRAY! Pray WITHOUT ceasing. Many who enter into Hell’s fire complain that they did not know Hell existed. They never sought the Truth. They never believed it to be possible. Satan’s ruses chain many to the tortures of Hell. It is your duty to seek out the Truth. Be vigilant. Protect your soul as much as possible for it is your most prized possession. Satan will find countless ways to deceive you, My Children. Beware. Ponder these words, and make reparation for past transgressions. I love you, My Children, but you must remain obedient, and be a holy people. I leave you My kiss of peace. Shalom

As if that would silence the straw men used by select servants of Rome to “refute” sola fide.

“We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; “ (2 Corinthians 4:13)

What we do is ultimately a manifestation of what we truly believe, as it moves the will to act in correspondence to what we believe.

“Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, “ (Hebrews 11:33)

“Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection: “ (Hebrews 11:35)

One who believes in Allah can be moved to put on the bomb vest to do to kill his enemies. And one who believes in the Lord Jesus will be moved to risk his life to save souls.

If our chief source of security and object of affection is money and material good, so that will be reflected in our life decisions, while if one’s God is the Lord Jesus then such must be considered transitory and expendable because He has faith.

Again, he has made himself unworthy of meaningful exchange, with his willingness to believe,

a straw man of sola fide, which my neglected link and many other post substantiates it is (as if “sola” means that salvific faith can be one that would not effect works, rather moving the will to obey),

as well as to uncritically believe a most dubious assertion as fact,

and that sola fide was a novel doctrine by Luther,

while neglecting to even look at a list of sexually active popes which nukes his attempt to postulate they were likely popes who were not duly elected (and failure to post all the popes he does not think were not duly elected)

as well as his failure to see he was rejected even by some of your own as a manifest Catholic or at least as faithfully representing Catholicism in posting unapproved prophecy,

while thrice hastily supposing another Catholic was an ex-Catholic due to not reading or misunderstanding the original article, or because he differed with his fringe traditionalist stance on Protestants being saved apart from Rome,

while resorting to dismissing reproof by baseless charges of bitterness and pride.

Thank you for providing that, and in addition, as the source of this quote apparently was “Luther's Table Talks,” then, as noted by Catholic apologist David Armstrong in a thread on CARM),

“it might be important to note this word of caution by E.G. Schwiebert in his exhaustive biography Luther and His Times:

. . . Copied by twelve table companions over a period of twenty-some years the Table Talks are often unreliable, of uneven quality, and written at varying periods of time. Certainly little, if any, of the material was copied in the Reformer’s presence. Rather, the copyists later recorded in their rooms their recollections of the evening’s conversations. These recordings, purported to be the exact words of Luther, were often invented and embellished, and additional errors crept in later when the table companions began to copy stories from each other. In time it was difficult to know by whom and when the original might have been made. Melanchthon on one occasion warned some of the table companions as to the hazardous nature of such practice, realizing that posterity would read meaning into these conversations that Luther had never intended. Furthermore, where every topic imaginable was discussed and the conversation was spontaneous, it is difficult to distinguish jest from serious statement. It is hardly fair, then, to hold Luther responsible for all that has come to us in the Table Talks. Obviously, a careful checking against evidence from Luther’s own writings and additional sources is absolutely essential. (http://www.lutherquest.org/discus/messages/13/13063.html?1060604822)

To which Armstrong states,

I am in agreement with this, insofar as one certainly cannot deduce Luther's views from the Table-Talk alone (the last sentence in particular is a crucial point).

He also records the comments of a poster Ehamilton, 8/11/03:

It's not as if we don't have an enormous body of evidence to support the orthodoxy of Luther's Christology, and there is good anecdotal data corroborating his absolute hostility toward blasphemy of any sort. It just seems so hard for me to believe that there isn't some deeper logic behind the remark. Granted, Luther being Luther, it may be rather convoluted and idiosyncratic logic. But I don't think anyone with even a modest familiarity with the vast corpus of Luther's work (and that's all I'd claim for myself) would want to dump it in the trash simply on the basis of some random weird quote dredged up from who knows what context. There is no question what Luther's formal opinion of Christ's sinlessness was-- i.e., that Christ was sinless by nature, but "made sin" by imputation-- since his whole theory of the atonement hinged crucially on that point. Quoting here from his Galatians commentary:

Christ is personally innocent. Personally, He did not deserve to be hanged for any crime of His own doing. But because Christ took the place of others who were sinners, He was hanged like any other transgressor. The Law of Moses leaves no loopholes. It says that a transgressor should be hanged. Who are the other sinners? We are. The sentence of death and everlasting damnation had long been pronounced over us. But Christ took all our sins and died for them on the Cross. "He was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." (Isaiah 53:12.)

All the prophets of old said that Christ should be the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, blasphemer that ever was or ever could be on earth. When He took the sins of the whole world upon Himself, Christ was no longer an innocent person. He was a sinner burdened with the sins of a Paul who was a blasphemer; burdened with the sins of a Peter who denied Christ; burdened with the sins of a David who committed adultery and murder, and gave the heathen occasion to laugh at the Lord. In short, Christ was charged with the sins of all men, that He should pay for them with His own blood. The curse struck Him. The Law found Him among sinners. He was not only in the company of sinners. He had gone so far as to invest Himself with the flesh and blood of sinners. So the Law judged and hanged Him for a sinner.

In separating Christ from us sinners and holding Him up as a holy exemplar, errorists rob us of our best comfort. They misrepresent Him as a threatening tyrant who is ready to slaughter us at the slightest provocation.

I am told that it is preposterous and wicked to call the Son of God a cursed sinner. I answer: If you deny that He is a condemned sinner, you are forced to deny that Christ died. It is not less preposterous to say, the Son of God died, than to say, the Son of God was a sinner.

John the Baptist called Him "the lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Being the unspotted Lamb of God, Christ was personally innocent. But because He took the sins of the world His sinlessness was defiled with the sinfulness of the world. Whatever sins I, you, all of us have committed or shall commit, they are Christ's sins as if He had committed them Himself. Our sins have to be Christ's sins or we shall perish forever. (Chapter 3, pp. 106-135 )

Luther loved wild talk and hyperbole. That was just his nature. To some extent it was a symptom of the era in which he lived. To some extent it was a conscious imitation of the Scripture-- Christ telling everyone to "hate his family", or promising to tear down the temple, were most certainly viewed as bizarre behavior by the Jews. Whatever Luther was trying to say, I feel reasonably confident that he did not actually intend to teach that Christ committed adultery.

By the way, I'm not a Lutheran, and I don't feel much need to defend his formal theology, which I reject on several important points. Morever, I think there's plenty of room to criticize him ad hominem for, say, his botched handling of the Peasant's Revolt, or his anti-semitism. I just don't think that a "Luther as blasphemer" angle is likely to impress many Lutheran scholars as a serious-minded critique.

To whom Armstrong concludes,

This is not a cut-and-dried case. That makes for good discussion, because one must get the gears in their head going round, to figure out wonderfully-intellectually-stimulating things like plausibility structures...(http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/05/did-martin-luther-believe-that-jesus.html)

Neither was Rome completely unified in its soteriology before Trent, and between extremes “were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition."

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear.

"Substantiation for this understanding of the gospel came principally from the Scriptures, but whenever they could, the reformers also quoted the fathers of the catholic church. There was more to quote than their Roman opponents found comfortable"

“In the end, the Council of Trent ended up (in true Roman fashion) condemning the true heritage, and canonizing its own path. In its decrees, Trent "selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification [found] in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone -- a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers-- Rome reacted by canonizing one trend [the wrong one] in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted (justification by faith and works), now became required. What had been previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned [the better part of] its own catholic tradition" (Pelikan 46-49, 51-52).

— Jaroslav Pelikan (Lutheran, scholar of Christianity history, theology and medieval intellectual history, later Orthodox convert), The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, More: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/trajectory-of-church-history.html

The Roman Catholic reaction to Luther and to sola fide in higher levels today can seem overall quite moderate, and often nuanced in allowing justification by faith, but not by a faith apart from works.

The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification states in part,

31.We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.

37.We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html

On 29 October (2008), two days before Reformation Day, Benedict spoke on the "theology of the cross" in his General Audience address, and states,

And to the Christians of Rome he reasserts that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rm 3: 23-24). And he adds "we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law" (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: "justified by faith alone"...

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14)." (Pope Benedict XVI,11/19/08 General Audience; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html)

Benedict is still teaching works justify as one unit with faith, but the fact is that “faith alone” is not opposed to faith in charity, in love, but the sola refers to faith being what actually appropriates justification, but not a type of faith that will not effect confession of the Lord Jesus in word in deed, baptism normally being the first outward formal expression of that, and which confession "justifies" that the person has saving faith. For as faith is known by its fruits, so man is judged by His words and works, manifesting whether he had true faith — though some are saved with works failing the test — (1Cor. 3:15) and is “worthy” of rewards given in grace, (Mt. 25:33-40; Heb. 10:35; Rv. 3:4) — though what all truly deserve is damnation — (Rm. 6:23) or was a false believer, professing by not possessing true faith.

Thus Paul can say that "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," (Romans 4:5) as well as (regarding judgment) "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. " (Romans 2:13)

You want us to point out lies to you? OK. Here you go. This one for a start; the same one Satan tempted Eve with; " You shall be as gods....."

I love you, My dear children, and it is My desire that each of you share My throne with Me.

Right from the pit. God shares His glory with no other.

It is a lie that righteousness isn't imputed by faith. It most certainly is.

Romans 4:1-25

4 What then shall we say was gained by[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in[b] him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.

11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. 15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.

16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.

18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.” 19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead ( since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness[c] of Sarah's womb. 20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, 21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.

22 That is why his faith was “counted to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words “it was counted to him” were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

So here we have a choice. To either believe that Paul is lying. Or that your so-called "prophet" is lying.

And remind us again..... Why is he to be considered a prophet? On whose say so? His?!?!?!?!

FOTFLOL!!!!

Really metmom....coming from a fallen away Catholic. It’s so true, fallen-away Catholics are bitter about their choice.

I'm not *fallen away*. I walked away.

And ex-Catholics are not bitter about their choice. It wasn't forced on them. It's not an irrevocable choice so there's no reason to be bitter over it. If someone regretted it, they could simply go back. But then Catholics wouldn't have anything to feel smug about concerning ex-Catholics and nothing to try to discredit them with.

Causing more difficulties, trying to pit Catholic against Catholic?

Nope. Can't when there's only one Catholic involved.

Believe.... It’s true, come Home, Our Lord wants everyone to believe the same.

This is the only way that everybody needs to believe the same.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me.

It doesn't mean that all people have to become Roman Catholic. Or Baptist. Or Lutheran. Or whatever other man made religion you choose. Salvation is through faith in CHRIST, not faith in faith or a religion.

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.