Posted on 09/06/2013 11:32:01 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
If one truly places their faith in Christ, His grace is sufficient for their salvation. One cannot buy salvation by doing good works. If it were so, how would we ever have the assurance of everlasting life? We would always wonder if we had done enough.
Scripture makes it clear that it is Christ's work on the cross that saves us, not how often we attend church or how many checks we write or how nice we are to others, etc. Those things are all good and pleasing to God, but they do not remove the guilt of sin.
Those who deny this truth, clearly explained in Scripture, are calling God a liar.
No. Just the opposite.
Bishop Dolan was given the very difficult assignment of cleaning up the mess in the diocese of Milwaukee. In spite of being sabotaged by the homosexual network already in place he got rid of many of them and helped clean up the Archdiocese.
The homosexuals already in place were discovered and removed. Many of them had sexually molested the sons of parishioners and had been protected by Archbishop Weakland. The lawsuits against the diocese for these earlier crimes forced them to seek protection in bankruptcy court.
Bishop Dolan did a very difficult and thankless job of removing the homosexual network from the diocese. He deserves credit for what he did.
Well stated.
The RCC has always been steeped in Communism and Totalitarianism. Failure to abide in the group-think results in a cultiist act of "Excommunication." Would Jesus Christ EVER "excommunicate" any of his flock? Of course not. All He asks is repentance in sin and belief in His Grace.
“Believes” in Him, means His Teaching as proclaimed by Peter, and His other disciples. Before the New Testament was written, there were oral traditions passed down by Peter and to His successors. The Catholic Church is the one true repository of this teaching and faith based on scripture, sacred tradition, and revelation through its saints and martyrs. We can’t have 35, 000 different “Christian” sects proclaiming this belief from Rev. (Kool-Aid) Jim Jones and David Koresh to Rev. (”God Damn America”) Jeremiah Wright.
The question of faith begs the further question, faith in what? taught by whom?
I believe canon law provides for excommunication for those that publicly lead people Into mortal error. I think a few e communications of the very worst most blatant a d persistent violators in public office or public life would help a lot.
That doesn't really make sense.
"the Protestants" isn't actually a denomination, to try to describe all Christians who aren't members of the Catholic denomination, as a single denomination, for example, Episcopalians and Southern Baptists, as a single church controlled by a Protestant Vatican, just doesn't work, or make sense.
In Romans it says,
•"because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20)
•"for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28)
•"For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3)
•"Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1)
•"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
“”the Protestants” isn’t actually a denomination, to try to describe all Christians who aren’t members of the Catholic denomination, as a single denomination, for example, Episcopalians and Southern Baptists, as a single church controlled by a Protestant Vatican, just doesn’t work, or make sense. “
Wasn’t trying to describe all Christians other than Catholics. Just the Protestants. Lutherans, Church of England, etc.
Biblical Christian churches don’t have credibility problems. The only ones with credibility problems are the big institutional churches that parted company with the Bible so many years ago. Protestants.
You know, the folks that had the right idea in the first place, and then ended up pretty close to where the Catholic Church was before the Reformation? Protestants.
All of those Scriptures are referring to the Mosaic Law. They are not referring to works of charity, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. What do you make of Jesus’ description of the final judgment, where those who did works of charity go to Heaven, and those who did not do works of charity go to Hell?
His cat told him.
So when people use the category “Protestant” they are excluding the baptists and many other denominations?
All of those Scriptures are referring to the Mosaic Law. They are not referring to works of charity, such as feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc. What do you make of Jesus’ description of the final judgment, where those who did works of charity go to Heaven, and those who did not do works of charity go to Hell?
What Scripture Really Means by “Works” and “Works of the Law” – Evidence in Romans,/b> One must now consider these questions: what does Romans have to say about not being justified by works and works of the law? Does Paul intend for his audience to take away from his teaching that mere boundary-markers do not justify? Can we understand Paul to be saying that ceremonial regulations do not justify but other works can?
Offering a sobering context to works and works of the law in Romans 2 and 3 is Douglas J. Moo who notes:
"Again and again, Paul insists in 2:1-29 that it is not dependence on the law or circumcision as such that renders the Jews liable to judgement, but their disobedience of the law. Transgressions of the law are the reason why the Jews cannot presume on the covenant for salvation. And these transgressions are said to involve the ‘same things’ that Gentiles do (2:2-3) – clearly making it a matter not of ‘inner’ Jewish issues but of sin against God generally. It is this larger and more basic problem of transgression of the law that informs Paul’s conclusion to the section in 3:20: ‘no human being will be justified by works of the law’”(13).
It is odd to interpret 3:20 as Dunn and others do (i.e., as denying justification by these mere ceremonial boundary markers). This is because in context Paul also refers to the moral aspects of the law as not being met (2:18-24; 3:10-18). Thus when we're told works of the law do not justify there it is natural to broaden the scope.
Further proof that to be justified by faith and not by works or works of the law does not merely concern these ceremonial laws or badges is the fact that in Romans 9:11-13, after over and over stressing justification by faith and not works, Paul states: “though they [Jacob and Esau] were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad--in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls - she was told, ‘The older will serve the younger.’ As it is written, ‘Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated’” (Romans 9:11-13). Hence, “works” are clearly defined as anything "good or bad" for Paul and thus we must broaden works and works of the law. Jacob was elected, not based on his works (i.e., any good he did), but based on God’s call – His purpose of election.
Therefore it is careless for Catholics to claim along with NPP advocates that Paul would allow for works justification just as long as one is not trying to be justified by circumcision, food laws and Sabbath.
Moreover, when one examines the parallel of Romans 3:28 which is Romans 4:5 it is apparent that works of the law are more general works and not mere ceremonial law:
“For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (Romans 3:28).
“just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:6).
Still more, it is evident Paul does not only refer to ceremonial law but he rejects all attempts at merit or general works justification. We know this because he stresses that no one is able to boast within a proper salvation framework (Rom. 3:26-28; 4:2). If one is justified by the Ten Commandments, works of charity or loving thy neighbor how is boasting excluded in such a system? Clearly Paul is teaching no works justify and that is why no one can boast about their right standing with God.
Moo, after his massive study on Romans, sums up what Paul means by works and works of the law in this epistle:
“The Jews become, as it were, representative of human beings generally. If the Jews, with the best law that one could have, could not find salvation through it, then any system of works is revealed as unable to conquer the power of sin. The ‘bottom line’ in Paul’s argument, then, is his conviction that sin creates for every person a situation of utterly helpless bondage. ‘Works of the law’ are inadequate not because they are ‘works of the law’ but, ultimately because they are ‘works.’ This clearly removes the matter from the purely salvation-historical realm to the broader realm of anthropology. No person can gain a standing with God through works because no one is able to perform works to the degree needed to secure such a standing. This human inability to meet the demands of God is what lies at the heart of Rom. 3. On this point, at least, the Reformers understood Paul correctly”(14).
In the end the phrase works of the law refers to deeds done in obedience to the Mosaic Law and they “differ from the simpler term ‘works’ only in its designation of the source of the divine demand”.
http://www.reformedapologeticsministries.com/2013/02/works-and-works-of-law-in-paul.html
I left because:
The nuns were she-devils.
I got sick in private school and the nun wouldn’t let me go to the restroom so I threw up on my desk. She made me sit there the rest of the day. When I came back to school three days later, she made me clean up the dried mess.
We had to throw our shoes in a pile and I never got mine back. The nun was ugly about it.
The priest told us we sinned for going on a hayride with a friend at her Baptist church.
The priest got mad on Ash Wednesday because he didn’t want to move bangs out of the way so drew the ashes down our noses.
There is a long list of when I was a child and later as an adult, one of the court cases I had involved a perv priest. Eventually, he was moved on to an unsuspecting church.
One time, I helped clean a priest’s home. His bedroom was filled with suggestive photos of teen boys.
Never again. I’ve had enough.
His cat told him.
My cat stopped talking to me after I left the RC church.
In other words, you chose to become Lutheran.
The usual straw man. The Church does not teach this. Of course, works alone, devoid of faith will not suffice. Neither will faith without works.
That is precisely why St. Paul teaches that there is actually something greater than faith and that thing is love. "There are three things.......faith, hope and love and the greatest of these is love."
How does love manifest itself? That's right...in works.
That is why, in Matthew's Gospel, when Jesus speaks of the Last Judgment, he makes it clear that works are important.
And when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. [32] And all nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separateth the sheep from the goats: [33] And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. [34] Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. [35] For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in:
[36] Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. [37] Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? [38] And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? [39] Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? [40] And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.
[41] Then he shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand: Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. [42] For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat: I was thirsty, and you gave me not to drink. [43] I was a stranger, and you took me not in: naked, and you covered me not: sick and in prison, and you did not visit me. [44] Then they also shall answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister to thee? [45] Then he shall answer them, saying: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least, neither did you do it to me.
All of this explains a Scriptural passage much beloved of Protestants; the famous words of James that..."faith without works is useless".
When you refer to people, are you referring to everybody, Catholics, Protestants, or . . .
Great, one of those time wasting cutesy guys.
You didn’t want to answer the question.
That is NOT what James 2:17 says.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
The Greek word used there is nekros which means dead. Faith without action is indeed dead just as love without action is dead. Abraham’s faith was exhibited by his actions but it was indeed his faith that saved him.
That might seem like a small distinction to those who don’t understand but it’s really monumental.
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.