Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
When Paul speaks of works, the context is always there to point to a particular kind of work, -- work for reward or out of obligation, but when James speaks of faith, he does not make any distinction between true and claimed faith. The scripture supports the historical Church's view, as usual. Indeed there is such a thing as claimed but false faith, referred to elsewhere in the scripture, but there is no indication that true faith is not grown from work just as good works grow, in turn, from faith.
This is very true. I remember reading Robert Novak when he said he converted because he was drawn to the rituals of the church. He admired the saints and statues and incense.
Since he came from a Jewish background, I would say Novak traded one sense of tradition for another.
True: the purpose of the free will is to drive us to Heaven, and God always offers reconciliation and renewal after the crash.
Why would you say it is impossible to protect me from driving into a telephone pole? We're talking God here. :) I could give a baby a certain toy and only let him play with it while I was sitting right in front of him and looking right at him. This would protect him from injuring himself. I think God watches us that closely all the time.
Watches, yes, protects us -- no, not always. The scripture is filled with men chosed by God who nevertheless drive themselves into telephone poles, the entire Hebrew nation being one example, St. Peter the other. Christ said that He will pray for Peter, and He warned Peter, but He did not protect him from denying Him.
Verse 54 DOES take us this far. But then, in order for eternal life to actually BE eternal, you impose a second condition, that of repeating the sacraments along with everything else one needs to do in order to keep eternal life. This second condition is not found in the verse, nor do I believe it is found anywhere in scripture. Eternal means forever.
But I gave you just recently verses about perseverance and making the election sure. Hence the eternal life can be lost through our actions. Was the Eucharist meant to be taken once? This is at least a strange hypothesis. Most people eat every day, and Christ said "food indeed". The parallel is with manna from heaven, and that was eaten every day till the journey lasted: "the children of Israel ate manna forty years, till they came to a habitable land" (Exodus 16:35). Besides, if your interpretation were correct, the Eucharist would have been an initation rite, but we already have one, baptism.
POTS says that perseverance is guaranteed by God for the elect
POTS may say the strangest things, but where does the scripture say it?
YOU may make sure [re. 2 Peter 1:10]. By faith first, you knew it originally. That is different from it being sure in fact, it has to do with our knowing it continually. This is a perfect verse for showing that works are an evidence of an already held faith, and not an independent component of salvation.
This is a very innatural mental gymnastics, not supported by the plain text. St. Peter lays out an elaborate programme of growing in virtues just so that you know what you objectively already have? Verse 8 warns of actual, not illusory emptiness and fruitlessness; verse 9 speaks expressly of forgetting the cleansing of OLD sins, not of present or future sins. It is hard to imagine that this admonition is all about subjectively forgetting an objectively assured salvation, especially with the numerous references to perseverance elsewhere.
The difference is whether saints, after physical death, actually pass along prayers they have received from us or not. So I agree that the incense is not the prayer of the living person on earth itself. The prayers of the people on earth go directly to God.
The scripture says they pass the prayers at Judgement, and it says that the members of the Church are all connected in the Mystical body of Christ, so I stand by my reading of Apoc 5 and 8.
First, the issue is, where do the Catholics find a biblical justification for the veneration of saints. The question is not whether interpretations of these verses exist that are not Catohlic.
Second, for your interpretation to even make sense you have to explain why these prayers (Apoc 5 and 8) are delivered to God by saints at the Judgement day if they are not connected to the people being judged.
As you rattle off 1 Timothy 2:5, let me remind you that you still owe me an explanation why Timothy while alive may pray for the king (1 Tim 2:1-5), but once dead he may not, doctor.
Scripture tells us that while we are alive we are encouraged to pray for others who are also alive.
Nowhere in Scripture are we told to pray for dead people. God has already dealt with the dead who are either in heaven or hell.
You either did not understand the question in 11,345 or do not have an answer.
Besides, in reference to the prayers for the dead, we do not go by what the parts of the scripture that the lying fraud Luther liked does not contain.
As a convert, I would tell you that I converted because I already knew scripture and I knew I wasn't seeing it lived out in the church I was in.
Precisely and exactly said! FK, this is called "typology". The OT is filled with it. the mysterious priest Melchizedek is a type of Christ. A prime example of typology is what we call the "Hospitality of Abraham" from the story in Genesis 18 where Abraham and Sarah provide hospitality to three angels. This is a type of the Holy Trinity. Indeed, the icon of the Holy Trinity is this (this one is the greatest, by Rublev):
Thanks thanks.
Humblingly great to hear that from you.
Likewise.
that the lying fraud Luther liked does not contain.
= = =
How would you like it and respond if we called:
--any specific Pope
--Mary
lying frauds?
Did Mary or any Pope remove from the Holy Scripture any books that disagreed with the theological pantasies that they had?
Ahhhhhh, avoiding the question.
I think orgies, political corruption, illegetimate children, wars for powermongering, political gain etc. are
AT LEAST as bad.
But that avoids the question.
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL AND HOW WOULD YOU RESPOND.
Actually, we already know.
1/10th that affrontery sends several of you folks utterly ballistic and rabidly frothing at the mouth. But dishing it out seems to be no problem.
Is this
DOUBLE STANDARD
business part of Roman dogma?
Oh, you may lay any abuse you want at the debauched popes, dear.
Which Magicsterical body or council decreed that henceforth
a RABIDLY LOPSIDED DOUBLE STANDARD WOULD BE
SANCTIONED ROMAN CATHOLIC DOGMA of great service to the Roman Gospel?
Or was that buried somewhere in the Aporcrypha that I missed?
OK.
I think I may be getting a better grasp of the geography of outrage.
Mary is instant ballistic outrage over even
PERCEIVED slight insults.
Where do the recent Popes lay in terms of that geography?
I'm not trying to prove they are unscriptural with these observations.
According to you, because we do not cite them, they must not be of importance to us.
But yes, this IS what I'm trying to show, that since you quote from them so rarely, they must not be of the same importance to you as other scripture.
This is a false premise, because I have yet to see someone cite Philemon or Obediah... Jesus Himself did not cite from a number of books from the OT. So this line of reasoning that you have presented is a faulty one.
In my Bible, the books of Philemon and Obediah COMBINED take up a grand total of 4 pages. That includes the study notes. :) You're putting that up against 7 books, presumably most of which are much much longer? I know that Jesus did not quote from every OT book, and that does not diminish them as scripture. But here we are talking about 7 full books as a block. I would imagine that together they cover a fair amount of material.
Would it make a difference to you if I DID cite the Deuterocanonicals more often? I doubt it.
Since I do not claim that they are necessarily all wrong, I would treat them as non-authoritative, which may or may not be persuasive. I think Luther included them in a separate section in his Bible, so they probably can't be all bad. :)
Dr. E, I'm begginning to get the impression that the first 1 triggers of
extreme exceptional ballistic outrage on the part of a number of RC's are . . .
1. Mary
2. Mary
3. Mary
4. Mary
5. Mary
6. Mary
7. Mary
Looks like a pattern.
An idolatrous pattern, seems to me.
Of course, I'm willing to be enlightened otherwise . . . but only by FACTS.
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.