Posted on 08/18/2012 9:13:06 PM PDT by Salvation
“When I was Protestant, having someone point out my error was about as effective as a Protestant telling you there’s no Real Presence.”
~ ~ ~
The respectful replies from Protestants and Catholics
are comforting.
You understand much better having lived both. I post personally often sharing the faith in my own words. In this thread, I did reply with two copy and pastes from Catholic Thinker.net, the OP because they are so amazing and the reply was directed to me, not kind, and today, another mock “Toys R Us”, about the prophetic.
I was converted -reverted- by private revelation. I have
a devotion to the messages from Heaven and oh are they
rejected but God is not silent, He speaks to His chosen
prophets every day, you only have to believe. God speaks to
Catholic and Protestant both.
Everyone respects Billy Graham’s touching “altar call” hymn with “O Lamb of God, I come, I come” lyrics in it. If we could only help our brothers and sisters see further, agreed, Jesus is the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant AND God has set it up, we consume the Passover Lamb in the New Covenant too by receiving the most Holy Eucharist.
What was it, would you share, that first turned your heart and mind to the faith?
Interesting that you limit God to one means. I see him as able to bestow his gifts by any and all means he chooses, not merely by repentant faith.
Sorry but you will not find anyone converted in the NT who did not repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ to save them, nor will you find souls being born again by taking part in the Lord's Supper (though you will find some dead because they did so hypocritically).
That you cannot even accept this is consistent with your recourse to rejecting contextual systematic theology as "jumping thru hoops."
Who'd partake of the Eucharist if they didn't believe in Christ? (I mean in those days, not present days where some do so to profane the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or steal the precious body of the Lord for black masses.) Faith in Jesus and repentance for one's sins don't preclude Jesus from manifesting himself in the Eucharist as he said. If Jesus chooses to bring us additional grace via his presence in the Eucharist, I believe he is fully capable of doing so. You are free to disbelieve if you choose.
nor will you find souls being born again by taking part in the Lord's Supper
Never said I believed that. RCC teaches that rebirth takes place at baptism.
That you cannot even accept this is consistent with your recourse to rejecting contextual systematic theology as "jumping thru hoops."
Actually I was not willing to waste more of your time or mine trading scriptures back and forth because it appears likely we'd reject each other's interpretations. You are free to disbelieve the Lord's words about his presence in the Eucharist. For me, discounting his words takes more faith than simply believing what he said, therefore my reference to hoops. If my choice of words was insulting to you, I apologize. Peace be with you.
You need to look at the last sentence — might be verse 59 or the one after it.
“And one of you is a devil.” Christ doesn’t name Judas personally, but John refers to Judas more than any other Gospel.
Yes, there is a tie to the Last Supper.
Do you understand the statement that I used above? John was writing theology for the people of his day, not a historal synoptic Gospel, but theology. There are so many levels of meaning when you do a Bible Study of John.
No, sorry, it is not false it IS a common occurrence with many Catholics, and you cannot deny it truthfully. It happened to me, to people I know and have known and what gets posted here by many showing the "Borg-like" obedience with not a clue about the why. What I find absurd is how you can take a smidgen of my sentence and expound upon it while totally omitting the rest of my statement - that is insulting. My point has to do with the exclusivity of much of what passes as Catholic apologetics these day - both online and on television. If Catholics are so sure about what they believe, then why the constant attacks on "Protestants"? We believe in the same God, the same Savior, the same Bible (well most of it) and, presumably the same good news of the gospel. I wonder why you fail to express the same exasperation towards your fellow Catholics who post such things that blatantly go after "Protestants"? Do you LIKE arguing the same things over and over? Why not encourage them to post articles about your religious dogmas to Caucus threads rather than rant and rave at those who dare respond to polemics that blatantly attack the "others"?
Catholic doctrine recognizes and embraces mysteries. Protestantism often treats a mystery as a failure of human reason. For Catholics mysteries are are not things that are inherently self contradictory or require cognitive dissonance. We see mysteries for what they are; ideas and beliefs beyond the capability of humans to fully fathom, but not beyond a faith based acceptance. This goes to the core of our understanding of divine revelation. Catholics believe that divine revelation is the vehicle God uses to share knowledge not otherwise achievable by science and human understanding. That is why we find it so grotesque when Protestantism attempts to subordinate mysteries and divine revelation to human reason.
Baloney! I have no problems at all with divine mystery and I accept fully what God has revealed through the Scriptures - I believe every word of it. Science and human understanding has a secondary place in faith, if at all, and all that God has revealed, we accept by faith. Your broad brush is like a mile wide, isn't it?
It is strange that you seem to relish saying, "we find it so grotesque when Protestantism attempts to subordinate mysteries and divine revelation to human reason", when that is NOT at all what this dialog has been about. I take what God says and I understand it through the means of what ALL of Scripture says. What I reject is where human traditions have been added to the tenets of the faith that contradict the clear teaching of those tenets revealed in Holy Scripture. Case in point is the expiatory sacrifice of the "Mass" and the purpose of the Eucharist. BOTH which are disproved by Scripture and which the Catholic Church only began to develop after centuries of Platonic influence. I have a link that expounds on that subject, The Wobbly and Heretical Evolution of Rome’s Doctrine of “Real Presence”.
To expect that Catholics will be swayed from their faith based positions by the literary skills and persuasive arguments of Protestant apologists, amateur and professional is preposterous. Frankly, it smacks of spiritual pride; that love of self for the love of God, that is the antithesis of holiness and contradicts the love of other.
I have no fantasies at all that mere words from ANY person can touch another's heart - that is the realm of the Holy Spirit, alone. As to what you consider is motivated by pride, love of self and unholiness that goes against the love of others, all I can say is that EVERYONE deserves to hear the truth of the Gospel. I didn't get it when I was in the Roman Catholic Church, I only heard it and read it for myself when a caring person opened the Bible to John 10:27-30 and the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the truth. I believe there are many more just like me still unaware that there IS a Gospel of grace - one where God saves by faith and not based on human merit. All that this ongoing controversy over the Eucharist has made plain is as Martin Luther said, "The external rite does not commend us to God, but the inner unity of faith and love does!". Examine yourself for that pride you seem to so easily pin on another.
Did the Catholic Church make you give up your eternal security when you joined? I always wondered how someone could go from believing we HAVE everlasting life, as Jesus promised to those who believe, to you can only hope you might. Or do you still know you are saved?
I was converted -reverted- by private revelation. I have a devotion to the messages from Heaven
That's wonderful. God works in each of us the way he knows is best :) That kind of thing wouldn't have touched my heart. I remember my not-so-charitable thoughts the first time I heard about Fatima. I didn't have the foundation to appreciate it.
What was it, would you share, that first turned your heart and mind to the faith?
I wrote a book about it but never published it. It's a story I wouldn't expect anyone else to believe because I'm not sure I'd believe it if told to me. It's not mystical experiences or anything like that. It's just an unusual tale that takes place over many years.
I think my mind was open to Catholicism because I wasn't raised by parents or a church that instilled antiCatholic notions in me. I knew better than to believe they worship idols, etc. Still, I didn't necessarily accept their answers to my questions :)
My heart was opened to Catholicism when I attended my first Catholic wedding. I felt the distinct presence of Christ in that church. I couldn't explain it but I knew beyond any doubt he was there. That was the initial seed that would eventually sprout into a plant that I failed to nourish and actually tried to uproot numerous times.
But the Gardener was patient. He kept tending the little plant no matter how many times I abused or neglected it. Finally the day came when he had to apply pesticide to save the plant. As you know, bug spray stinks and I found it difficult to be anywhere near the little plant. But it was necessary if the little plant was to be preserved and eventually bear its fruit. After the bug spray, the plant got more robust. Then came the unexpected pruning shears. I objected to the unfairness of cutting a plant that looked prettier than it ever had before, but the Gardener said it was necessary. The next season, the plant bore its fruit and I entered the RCC.
Moral of the story: If Jesus invites you to his Church, don't be bullheaded. Accept the invitation and avoid the headache and heartache that goes with procrastination and refusal.
I think I hear an echo in here :) Pray tell, boatbums, which protestant belief have I misrepresented? Not which have I disagreed with, but which protestant position have I distorted? Not which Catholic position I have defended in way you disagree with. I'd like to know which Protestant position you think I deliberately misstated.
Did the Catholic Church make you give up your eternal security when you joined?
LOL. Wasn't it Reagan who said, "There you go again."
I always wondered how someone could go from believing we HAVE everlasting life, as Jesus promised to those who believe, to you can only hope you might.
Lemme guess. This is your idea of a gotcha question, right? Because as an exCatholic, you are aware of numerous verses supporting the Catholic position. So let's say I pull out 1 Jn 3:15: "Any one who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him." If I take the position that we are to conform our conduct to Christian teachings, in return I get the accusation that I'm relying on works not faith. That's how this gotcha question works, isn't it? Oops, I said "works."
Or do you still know you are saved?
Yes, I know I am saved through Christ's sacrifice for me on the cross :) And I know that He is a more merciful and fair judge than you or I could ever hope to be. I rest confident in his love and mercy. And I wish you peace :)
Yes, there is a tie to the Last Supper.
That is your evidence that John 6 ties to the Last Supper? Seems very contrived to me.
There are so many levels of meaning when you do a Bible Study of John.
John gives the purpose statement of his gospel at the end. Everything must fit together to demonstrate his purpose. The miracles he included were put together intentionally. It is John's intended meaning that is the sole interpretive motive here, not some multi-leveled theological meanings.
Authorial intent is the objective standard that should keep the interpreter from going astray chasing all kinds of meanings from the text. Perhaps this is where we would part ways.
If the Church was actually like it is so often described in these threads by bitter ex-Catholics those of us who actually know and lover her would hate her even more passionately. What is "Borg-like" is the predictability of the repeated lies concocted in the minds of those who have been conditioned to hate the Church by centuries of anti-Catholicism. If you are comfortable in the cacoon of lies, peace be with you.
Who'd partake of the Eucharist if they didn't believe in Christ?
The context continues to be that of how one receives life in them, versus have no life, (Jn. 6:53) and it remains that it is not by taking part in the Lord's supper, but by repentance and faith in the gospel message. This will result in doing more things, but this is not how one obtains life in them
For me, discounting his words takes more faith than simply believing what he said..
No one is discounting his words, but what is discounted is proven principles of sound exegesis, as such "plain meaning" literalism would also literally turn John the Baptist into Elijah, ("this is Elias:" Mt. 11:14; Mk. 9:11-13) or believers into literal water fountains, (Jn. 7:37) and require actual cutting off of one's hand if it causes you to sin.(Mk. 9:43) Which makes a mockery of Biblical hermeneutics. Meanwhile RCs will expend great effort in trying to disallow the normal "plain meaning" of Mt. 1:25 from even possibly meaning that.
“Sola fide” does not mean an inert faith is salvific, but that it is precisely the faith that is behind works that is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 5:5,10,11), “God “purifying their heart by faith,” (Acts 15:9) which manifest confirming confession in turn justifies the person as having true faith. (Rm. 10:9,10)
Thus God can require a work that requires such humble contrite faith. And as faith is shown by works, one is judged by his works as to whether he is saved, and recompensed. (Mt. 25:31-40; 1Cor. 3:8-15; 4:5) “Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. “ (Hebrews 10:35)
And that the kind of faith that saves is one that effects obedience is what Reformers preached: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html
Belated thanks.
“Sola fide” does not mean an inert faith is salvific, but that it is precisely the faith that is behind WORKS that is counted for righteousness, (Rm. 5:5,10,11), “God “purifying their heart by faith,” (Acts 15:9) which manifest confirming confession in turn justifies the person as having true faith. (Rm. 10:9,10)”
~ ~ ~
You included “works” , yes, it is faith and works
and NOT Luther’s “Sola Fide.” We still by the gift of free will have to choose to do a good work or not and this happens with the “help” of God’s grace. God doesn’t make us do anything, so logically, FAITH doesn’t make us do anything.
Martin Luther was not a reformer but a revolter, to his loss. The Council of Trent “reformed” the abuse of indulgences. We are all sinners...our fallen nature.
_ _ _
“Some Protestants insist that it is the faith that does the work in us not we ourselves. Faith (God’s gift to man through His Word / Eph 2:8; Rom 10: 17) is a necessary motivation for us to obey but it DOES NOT make us obey. Man has a choice to resist or yield, therefore the obedience is our responsibility. It is our OBEDIENCE in response to FAITH that brings justification (and Eternal Life). Justification then brings “perfect” or “complete” faith, the proof we have that Eternal Life (See John 3:36!). Further, Eternal Life is something we possess in degrees and that corresponds to how close we have grown to Christ. It is Eternal Life we are given not a promise of the eternal possession of that life. That Life, however, is so powerful that nothing in all the universe, but one’s own self will and sin, can remove us from Christ’s hand (Romans 8:35-39).”
>”You included “works” , yes, it is faith and works
and NOT Luther’s “Sola Fide.” We still by the gift of free will have to choose to do a good work or not and this happens with the “help” of God’s grace. God doesn’t make us do anything, so logically, FAITH doesn’t make us do anything.”<
Once again a Catholic who will not look what refutes his erroneous but convenient conception of what Reformers taught, and continues to argue the same errors refuted before. As apparently you would not follow the link, i will post some of what it provides, showing SE does not exclude the need for salvific faith to be one that effects works:
“In those therefore in whom we cannot realize good works, we can immediately say and conclude: they heard of faith, but it did not sink into good soil. For if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, “the kingdom of God is not in word but in power.” It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]
“Such a faith will work in you love for Christ and joy in him, and good works will naturally follow. If they do not, faith is surely not present: for where faith is, there the Holy Ghost is and must work love and good works.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:21-22]
“For it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:40]
[Saving faith is] “a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn’t stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever...Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire! “[http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
Christ is the priest, all men are spiritual lepers because of unbelief; but when we come to faith in him he touches us With his hand, gives and lays upon us his merit and we become clean and whole without any merit on our part whatever. We are therefore to show our gratitude to him and acknowledge that we have not become pious by our own works, but through his grace, then our course will be right before God...[Sermons of Luther 1:152]
“..faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.” [Martin Luther, as cited by Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther [Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1963], 246, footnote 99]
And truly, I wonder exceedingly, how it came to be imputed to me, that I should reject the Law or ten Commandments, there being extant so many of my own expositions (and those of several sorts) upon the Commandments, which also are daily expounded, and used in our Churches, to say nothing of the Confession and Apology, and other books of ours. Martin Luther, “A Treatise against Antinomians, written in an Epistolary way”, [http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_against_the_antinomians.html]
The Gospel proclaims liberty from the ceremonial law: but binds you still faster under the moral law. To be freed from the ceremonial law is the Gospel liberty; to pretend freedom from the moral law is Antinomianism .[Adam Clarke Commentary, Gal. 5:13]
To which the Presbyterian commentator Mathew Henry concurs: “There are many who in word and tongue profess to know God, and yet in their lives and conversations deny and reject him; their practice is a contradiction to their profession.” [Matthew Henry Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible, Titus 1]
Contemporary evangelical theologian R. C. Sproul writes,
The relationship of faith and good works is one that may be distinguished but never separated...if good works do not follow from our profession of faith, it is a clear indication that we do not possess justifying faith. The Reformed formula is, “We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.” [“Essential Truths of the Christian Faith,” Google books]
Also, rather than the easy believism Rome associates with sola fide, in Puritan Protestantism there was often a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomian controversy as described in an account (http://www.the-highway.com/Early_American_Bauckham.html) of Puritans during the early American period that notes,
“They had, like most preachers of the Gospel, a certain difficulty in determining what we might call the ‘conversion level’, the level of difficulty above which the preacher may be said to be erecting barriers to the Gospel and below which he may be said to be encouraging men to enter too easily into a mere delusion of salvation. Contemporary critics, however, agree that the New England pastors set the level high. Nathaniel Ward, who was step-son to Richard Rogers and a distinguished Puritan preacher himself, is recorded as responding to Thomas Hooker’s sermons on preparation for receiving Christ in conversion with, ‘Mr. Hooker, you make as good Christians before men are in Christ as ever they are after’, and wishing, ‘Would I were but as good a Christian now as you make men while they are preparing for Christ.’”
As for your unsubstantiated assertion that “some Protestants insist that it is the faith that does the work in us not we ourselves,” such are only true if they refer to what faith enables, that of God working in us and thru us as we walk by faith, (Phil. 2:12,13) not that our will is not involved.
SE does not mean faith forces you to do something against your will, but faith moves you to choose to act according to what you believe, and enables you to do so. Everyone acts out what they believe.
“Then said Jesus unto him, Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe. The nobleman saith unto him, Sir, come down ere my child die. Jesus saith unto him, Go thy way; thy son liveth. And the man believed the word that Jesus had spoken unto him, and he went his way. “ (John 4:48-50)
“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)
“By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith. “ (Hebrews 11:7)
“I think my mind was open to Catholicism because I wasn’t raised by parents or a church that instilled antiCatholic notions in me. I knew better than to believe they worship idols, etc. Still, I DIDN’T necessarily ACCEPT their answers to my questions :)
My heart was opened to Catholicism when I attended my first Catholic wedding. I felt the distinct presence of Christ in that church. I couldn’t explain it but I knew beyond any doubt he was there. That was the initial seed that would eventually sprout into a plant that I failed to nourish and actually tried to uproot numerous times.”
~ ~ ~
Thank you for your kind words and especially for sharing your conversion to Catholicism. The in-CAPS sentence is a help, why Catholics seem to get no where sharing the faith in all the FR threads with non-Catholics. We keep hoping though...if only.
Listening to/watching conversion stories on EWTN’s The
Journey Home, Protestant lay people and ministers, many do take a period of time to finally cross the Tiber after the “light bulb” moment so do not feel bad. You hear five years often. It makes me think the soon “awakening”,
Catholics hear it called the Great Warning, when it happens,
it will be astounding, shocking, undeniably divine. There isn’t going to be a grace period of a long time after to decide for what you’ve been shown by God.
Isn’t it something, the “grace” of conversion? Mine was
definitely what Catholics, you are aware, refer to as an “actual grace”...a help, a boot from God. I was dead in mortal sin at the time. Everyone think of your far away loved ones, pray, pray, pray, and God will send them the needed grace.
“SE does not mean faith forces you to do something against your will, but faith moves you to CHOOSE to act according to what you believe, and enables you to do so. Everyone ACTS out what they believe.”
~ ~ ~
Daniel, no one taught “Faith Alone” until Martin Luther, it
is his lie. You don’t want to let go of it even though
you include in your latest replies “works” which are our ACTS and “cooperation” because we do “CHOOSE” to accept
God’s grace. God wants us to freely choose for Him...every time.
It’s not “Faith Alone.” You’re becoming Roman Catholic,
come further believe int Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist.
Who wouldn’t? Juice and crackers vs receiving God Himself!
You can do it, pray, ask Our Lord, He will help you.
This isn't a faith vs works thing, if that's what you mean. I don't "do" anything at communion except internally express faith, love, desire for unity, etc. What I "do" is heart-related, not an action per se. Christ freely gives me grace in the Eucharist. If you understand the Catholic concept of grace as God sharing his very self, that he shares his very own LIFE with us, then yes, we are given Life in the Eucharist. Disbelieve that if you like, but I think it's a stretch to portray an internal receptivity to God's action in us as a "work," if that's what you're saying.
Which makes a mockery of Biblical hermeneutics.
I am grateful for having a magisterium competent to make Biblical interpretations that sync with oral teachings passed down through the ages. I understand you don't accept the magisterium, but I thank God for not forcing me to rely on my own understanding. (Prv 3:5; 2 Pt 1:20).
Meanwhile RCs will expend great effort in trying to disallow the normal "plain meaning" of Mt. 1:25 from even possibly meaning that.
I assume you're referring to "heos" in Greek, translated as "to" or "until," also used in 2 Sam 6:23: "And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child until the day of her death." Does this mean she gave birth on the day she died? Or Dt 34:6, did we discover Moses' burial place today? Does Lk 1:80 mean John the Baptist left the wilderness? We have copious examples of "to," "til," and "until" being used in ways that tell us "plain meaning" doesn't necessarily indicate future change. In fact we use it that way until this very day. We both understand when I say "until this day" that it will also be used this way tomorrow too.
Peace be with you.
That is a categorically impossible accusation because it implies that there is one "Protestant Biblical teaching" when in fact there are over 30,000 versions of Protestant teachings, each differing from the other 29,000+ on some point of doctrine important enough to cause a schism.
I don't claim that those who profess to defend their version of Protestantism in these threads speak for all of Protestantism and all Protestants. However, many here are marked by the clear demonstration that they prize their own intellect, powers of reason and individuality over faith and communion when they repeatedly imply that Catholics cannot and dare not think for themselves. The spiritual hubris of those who believe that their own powers of deduction are superior to those who sat at the feet of the Apostles and Disciples and the faith in the teachings of the Church leaves me gobsmacked.
Peace be with you
I think Catholics and nonCatholics alike get caught up in the need to be right. And often basic Christian charity gets lost in the conversation. I have a hard time believing Jesus would be very pleased with many of the conversations we have about him.
Frankly, I think the "faith vs works" debate is a good example of us talking past each other most of the time. We're so adamant that we're right and the other side is wrong that we miss what is often a good deal of mutual agreement. And we miss it because we're essentially saying very similar things but conveying them in different terms and pointing to different sources. At least that's my view having been on both sides of the debate. The result is that we overlook what we can discuss in common and fling around insults, fueling dissension and provoking anger. I don't recall those being fruits of the Holy Spirit.
Earlier today I was considering Mt 25:31-46. The righteous weren't aware that they'd done what was necessary for salvation (Lord, when did we see you and welcome you?). The condemned erroneously thought they had been doing what was necessary (Lord, when did we see you and not minister to you?) We can argue all we want but I'm guessing we're all off the mark in our understanding of God's mercy and his grace. Way off :) And this so that in eternity we never stop being astounded at his mercy for condescending to suffer physically for us, love us forever, and share himself eternally.
Peace be with you. I think I will sign off this thread now so as not to fuel any further seeds of dissension. I have stated what I believe as truth and others can disagree or agree as they please. I have no need to be right. Jesus is Truth, not me. I extend peace and gratitude to all who participated with me on the thread.
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.