Posted on 02/08/2010 7:55:53 PM PST by Salvation
Both are needed and supported by Scripture. Please read the entire post before jumping into a heated discussion.
The Bible is the authority here -- not us.
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
Here you are. It’s not complicated.
Absolutely! Without the Bible we wouldn't know what God's will for us is. Acceptable "works" are the result of our "faith" that God is and will do what He promised in the Holy Scritpures.
Very forthright presentation in my estimation. These authors are great in giving both sides and showing the difference — using the Bible!
I love it!
Welcome to FR!
So, is there a reason other than your personal opinion, why you disagree with the article?
You don't know me, but I know you from my exchanges with Truth Defender, who numerous times referred me to your site.
I am saddened to know that Truth Defender is no longer with us. I pray for his immortal soul.
I believe that you are a very original thinker. In my opinion, -- I am bringing to mind my conversations with Truth Defender about immortality of souls, -- the reference to God's ability to destroy the soul He created in Matthew 10:28 does not say that God actually destroys the reprobates, but rather that He could do so if He wanted. The point of bringing this possibility up seems to be not to state it as a fact, but to underscore the absolute sovereignty of God.
Anyway, that is not the topic of this thread. We may have a chance to discuss it further at some point. The religion forum always benefits from a good debate, so let me encourage you to post your writings and not be disappointed by unpleasant posts. Before you do so, study the caucus rules posted at the Religion Moderator profile; it might give you possibilities to better represent your views.
Myself, I am a very committed lay Catholic, so you are not likely to find me in theologocal agreement with much of Protestantism. However, I like people with opinions, and in that spirit, welcome to FR.
Grace through faith, not faith + works.
John 5:24, 6:37, 10:28-29, Romans 8:38-39, 1 Corinthians 1:7-8, 1 Thessalonians 5:23-24, Ephesians 1:13-14, 2:9, 4:30, 1 John 5:13, Titus 3:5, 2 Peter 2:4-5 with Genesis 7:13,16
Grace through faith.
Yes, the faith comes first, but then the works are manifested out of the faith?
Do you practice any of these works as quoted in Romans 12: 9-21? I bet you do.
Sure I do. But so do some many nonbelievers. Yet they are not covered by grace.
John 5:24
21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and giveth life: so the Son also giveth life to whom he will. 22 For neither doth the Father judge any man, but hath given all judgment to the Son. 23 That all men may honour the Son, as they honour the Father. He who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, who hath sent him. 24 Amen, amen I say unto you, that he who heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath life everlasting; and cometh not into judgment, but is passed from death to life. 25 Amen, amen I say unto you, that the hour cometh, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live. 26 For as the Father hath life in himself, so he hath given the Son also to have life in himself: 27 And he hath given him power to do judgment, because he is the Son of man. 28 Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God. 29 And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment.
Not only verse 24 says nothing about "grace through faith", the context actually supports the Catholic doctrine (see v. 29). Would you, please, shorten the list to the Bible quotes you are prepared to seriously discuss, or if the first one is such a quote, discuss it before we move to the others?
Sorry, I’m not going to shorten the list. They are easily pulled up on sites like biblegateway.com and biblos.com
It is best to read the verses in-context and in-chapter. I am not attempting to debate, verse-by-verse or otherwise. My only concern is souls.
I can only hope that you will read and study the verses/chapters I gave you with an open mind and heart.
Hmm...I disagreed? Actually, no, I didn't. In fact, I said I absolutely agreed! Didn't you read my post?
You expressed your opinion. The authors of the article though presented the scripture and then showed how the Church summarized it. They did not simply stated what their opinion is.
Hmm....Yes, I stated my opinion. So did the writers of that article, even though they quoted some Scripture with it. An opinion is an opinion, regardless of quoting Scripture. Everything is an opinion, other than the Scriptures - they are given as the teachings of God and His Christ, Jesus. And, I may say, there are opinions stated within the Bible itself - read Job to see that, it's real plain that some of it is opinion.
I am saddened to know that Truth Defender is no longer with us. I pray for his immortal soul.
He is sleeping until the resurrection and will receive his reward of immortality at that time. I, personally, don't believe you prayers would help, for his life is now hid in Christ Jesus; however, you are free to pray.
Myself, I am a very committed lay Catholic, so you are not likely to find me in theologocal agreement with much of Protestantism. However, I like people with opinions, and in that spirit, welcome to FR.
I'm just a very committed Christian minister, not a Protestant. I have no connection with Protestant churches: I affiliate with independent Christian churches in the Evangelical community. While it's true I do a lot of study, and have done so since the 60's, hardly anything I write or have written is all that original. A lot of it was a repeat of what was stated by early Christian writers: that's my education in History speaking :-)
Anyhow, many thanks for the welcome to FR. I hope to hear from you in any of the articles I create a thread on. After all, it's the "lay" people who are the main readers of them from what I gather. They will, I guarantee, be controversial to many readers.
Which is why the necessity of faith is covered in the original post.
If I tell you that a car requires a motor and the wheels, and then in one place I say that a motor is required and in another place I say that the wheels are required, then all these statements are true, and you cannot use the statement that a motor is required to build a car, to "prove" to me that wheels are not required.
Anyway, a couple more from your list.
John 6 is the discourse on the Eucharist. This is how it starts:
Amen, amen I say to you; Moses gave you not bread from heaven, but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life to the world. 34 They said therefore unto him: Lord, give us always this bread. 35 And Jesus said to them: I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall not hunger: and he that believeth in me shall never thirst.36 But I said unto you, that you also have seen me, and you believe not. 37 All that the Father giveth to me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will not cast out. 38 Because I came down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him that sent me. 39 Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day. 40 And this is the will of my Father that sent me: that every one who seeth the Son, and believeth in him, may have life everlasting, and I will raise him up in the last day.
Of these you chose verse 37, which is not even talking about either faith or works. It is a shorter version of a longer discourse in John 10 about the perseverance of saints. It sure refers to those who "come to Him" but says nothing about what "coming to Him" means. In some places of the Gospel people come to Jesus and He praises their faith; in others, He urges them to give what they have to the poor, i.e. urges them to do works of charity. That proves the article, and disproves your Protestant illusion of faith alone.
Your better prooftext would have been verse 40 (or 47), but again it only shows a desire for salvation of all who come. Toward the end of the conversation, many of those who came, left for good, so it is hard to argue that a one time conversion is enough for salvation. The discourse goes on to say "He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day". From verse 50 to near the end of the chapter the discourse is about the necessity of receiving the Holy Eucharist, which is a form of works, this time it is liturgical work.
Let's skip John 10 because it also is about perseverance of saints, not on how to be one. The next one from your list, Romans 38-39 is can be read to prove security of salvation, but it says nothing about whether works play any part in it. Most directly is simply explain the power of divine love, which extends, let us remember, to saint and sinner alike.
This is why I asked you to substantiate your quotes: because I have gone down that list a bit and found them not proving faith alone. They are not even the best that are usually offered as prooftexts for "faith alone".
On the other hand, if you do not wish to debate that, then that is fine too.
Yes, that’s right. Truth Defender mentioned that you are deep into the patristics and are independent from Protestant ideology.
Please flag me to your articles as you post them.
I don't know exactly what Dale said about me, but then I wasn't around all the time. He lived with us for a few years and used my computer to do his blogging. Yes, I really dug deep into the early writings of Christianity in my research; also Egyptian, Persian, Greek and Latin writers. Very interesting stuff.
Please flag me to your articles as you post them.
Wilco.
Sorry, like I said earlier I do not wish to debate anyone. (And unfortunately that’s how my father was until he was on his deathbed and accepted Christ after being a life-long catholic). He had the attitude that he wanted to prove one wrong.
I gave you many verses that showed what it takes to be saved. The most glaring truth is in Ephesians 2 8-9).
The “Holy Eucharist” is a catholic invention after the death of the Apostles. To say that Peter is the founder of the catholic church is risible. Not only did he never go to Rome, he was a preacher/teacher of Jews, not Gentiles. If anyone should’ve been chosen, it should’ve been Paul. He went to Rome and brought the Gospel to the Gentiles.
The devil’s biggest deception is fooling people that they can get to heaven by adding or taking away from the gospel. Or as Paul said, “If anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed.”
God bless your father and forgive him his sins.
Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches grace alone, which is a Catholic doctrine, — not faith alone. The apparent denial of the salvific character of works is in fact only referring to works for social status. The next verse, “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them” should disabuse any Protestant of his error.
For someone who does not wish to debate anyone, you have quite a collection of anti-Catholic nonsense that concludes your post, and has nothing to do with the topic that you are actually quite welcome to debate. Let me touch on these briefly.
The Eucharist is referred to many times in the Gospel, although not by that name. The name, by the way, — Greek for Thanksgiving — is fully biblical as Jesus himself gave thanks during the Last Supper. To learn about the Eucharist, read, when you have time, the scene of the Last Supper in all synoptic gospels, the discussion, already mentioned here, in the second part of John 6, and the definitive statement on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist in 1 Cor. 11:20-30. Do not miss the figure of transubstantiation in the supper at Emmaus episode.
St. Peter is the first Pope because Christ made him so: see the granting of the keys, the renaming, the call to feed the flock, and the promise Jesus made at the Last Supper to specially pray for him, St. Peter, so that he could fail not and convert his brethren, that is, other bishops. But he is not the founder of the Church, Christ is. All these are of course expressed in well known verses most people remember readily; if you need a reference, ask, or better still, wait till an appopriate catechetical thread on the Eucharist comes up and post your questions then.
Whether St. Peter ever went to Rome would have nothing to do with his papacy. The pope is pope not because he lives in Rome, but because he is appointed one. Whether he went to Rome or not is not a known fact, but there is evidence, both scriptural and historical that he did.
That St. Paul would have been a wonderful pope no one can deny; he wasn’t around when the papacy was established, and apparently preceded St. Peter in martyrdom.
But it is not correct to portray St. Peter as exclusively dealing with the more difficult task of converting the Jews. St. Peter was the one who converted the first Gentile and initiated lifting the restrictions of Mosaic law, which made Gentile conversion difficult.
I fully agree that preaching another gospel is damnable. Why do you think I am willing to explain the gospel to all non-Catholics who’d listen?
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.