So...the next time someone on the RF makes the claim that Catholics are not Christians based on behavior they find disagreeable are you willing to correct them publicly and inform them that is simply their opinion and is not a matter of established fact?
What it seems that Catholics fail to realize is the distinction between claiming to be born again and living in unrepentant sin, having evidenced NO change in their lives that indicates a new birth despite having claimed to make a decision for Christ, and struggling with sin in their lives, which we all do.
As evidenced according to the third party observer. It's funny. When I tell people at the office I'm Catholic I inevitably hear, "I didn't know that. You don't seem like a spiritual person." That's the response I get from protestants and atheists alike. So I'm forced to respond, "That's because I'm a religious person, not a spiritual person." That phrasing used in the context of the common parlance of general everyday discussion lest some protestant feel compelled to jump all over that statement. People seem to have this notion of Christians as portrayed by Ned Flanders of The Simpsons. But I digress.
So where was I? Oh yes, works. Am I to understand that the protestant position is to examine externals for evidence of being born again and thereby negating the sola fide position? And so because I exhibited no external sign at the office that I am a Christian I am therefore not a Christian? After all aren't good works supposed to be a natural outflow of being born again and failing to exhibit such works constitutes the status of an indvidual's place within the Body of Christ and their salvation?
We all struggle with sin, that's true. But A Christian is still a Christian regardless if they are unrepentant in their sin. It just makes them a bad Christian. Unfortunately, with much of protestantism based on personal interpretation and opinion, the ability to follow scripture and rebuke our fellow man only goes so far defined by the "as evidenced" standard. And so, the Christian in a position to help their fellow man fails to act charitably because they have been biased by their ability to see the "as evidenced" evidence and their own personal opinion on when a Christian is no longer a Christian.
...”When I tell people at the office I’m Catholic I inevitably hear, “I didn’t know that. You don’t seem like a spiritual person.”.......
Reminded me of when two catholics I worked with....bragging they were catholic, at which my response was, Oh I’m sorry, can I help?”
So I suppose the differnce is if or not the persons responding even understand what it means to not be catholic.
That's simply because in real life the vast majority of professing Catholics live pretty carnal lives.
If you choose to contest that statement, tell me how many Catholics are twice a yearers vs almost weekly attenders.
I remember the huge difference in attendance for Christmas and Easter vs any average Sunday from when I was a child. Not only was it 40+ years ago, but it left enough of an impression on me that I remember that.
And there's no way anyone is going to convince me that it's any better now.
Am I to understand that the protestant position is to examine externals for evidence of being born again and thereby negating the sola fide position? And so because I exhibited no external sign at the office that I am a Christian I am therefore not a Christian? After all aren't good works supposed to be a natural outflow of being born again and failing to exhibit such works constitutes the status of an indvidual's place within the Body of Christ and their salvation?
Just what good works are you exhibiting at work? Sure there are good people out there who do mot profess any faith in Christ and yet are good enough to live with people. Some even have pretty good morals. Mr. mm even works with a man who is an atheist by upbringing from an atheist regime country, and he is a very moral upright person.
The response should be when they find out I'm a Christian, oh of course, I should have known. It makes sense.
Sadly, it's sometimes, *REALLY? You don't act like a Christian.* (Actually meaning that it isn't the perception of what they think a Christian is. My daughter encountered that when she said she didn't hate gays.)
There are other evidences of a spiritually reborn person besides doing a laundry list of *good works*. The fruit of the Spirit is some.
We all struggle with sin, that's true. But A Christian is still a Christian regardless if they are unrepentant in their sin. It just makes them a bad Christian.
Yes.
Unfortunately, with much of protestantism based on personal interpretation and opinion, the ability to follow scripture and rebuke our fellow man only goes so far defined by the "as evidenced" standard. And so, the Christian in a position to help their fellow man fails to act charitably because they have been biased by their ability to see the "as evidenced" evidence and their own personal opinion on when a Christian is no longer a Christian.
No. A christian who fails to act charitably has their own issues to deal with. It's no short coming of interpretation of Scripture.
We are to be ambassadors of reconciliation.
One would be to help reconcile unbelievers with God, in salvation, and the other is to help reconcile believers with God when they have fallen out of fellowship with God through sin.
At that point, it takes it out of our hands to decide if he person is saved or not, which isn't our decision anyway,
WOW! I'm gonna need to bookmark this as it seldom gets said by a FRoman Catholic. The next time one claims non-Catholics are not Christians and cannot be saved unless they become Catholics, I'll be sure to refer them to you. Thanks!