Posted on 10/13/2013 12:01:40 PM PDT by matthewrobertolson
You mean like in Matthew 18: 21-22, where it says, "Then Peter came and said to Him, "Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him? Up to seven times?" Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven times, but up to seventy times seven."
It's not The Word, and it's not The Book.
It's what the person reading The Word and The Book chooses to apply, and how.
That's why Jesus said in John 13:34 – "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another."
He was talking about how to choose and apply scripture. He was warning against the taste for condemnation, against the lack of humility, and against hypocrisy.
That's why he also warned: "“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."
He makes it clear that he's talking about the savagery of your judgement, not prohibiting discrimination.
The teaching couldn't be clearer.
I disagree. There is no choosing. Jesus was clear. We must trust and obey Him. So it is not about what we choose to do, we do it. We are either slaves to flesh and sin or slaves to His Grace. We call Him Lord for a reason and that means we submit ourselves to His Will and not the flesh/sin.
I hear you, and accept that that is your position.
I just believe that submitting to his will means submitting to Matthew 22:37-40 and John 13:34 as the supreme interpreter of all Law, because that is what I believe He commanded us to do in those very commandments.
So we disagree, but we have shared out beliefs with each other in peace. We could have done worse.
May Jesus continue to guide us both.
I strongly believe that sola fide is at the heart of many Western problems. Self-professed Christians have used it as an excuse to not care for the disadvantaged, to engage in profane sexual activity, etc. – the list goes on and on.
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflict.
Well, i see another pro catholic anti-protestant hit piece while they complain when counter. I am just getting to this today, but it is Catholic "apologetics" like this that are an argument against Catholicism. Per usual, so poor is his polemic that the author effectively resorts to using a straw man that only one who is ignorant of Protestantism would believe.
The idea that sola fide teaches that conversion is simply as matter of simply pleading to the judge he concurs he is guilty and thus the judge should not do so, reduces fide to one that actually has not faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save him from his sins, and thus has no corresponding works of repentance. Which is far from what historical reformation faith taught. In which sometimes there was even a tendency to make the way to the cross too narrow, perhaps in reaction against the Antinomianism, which RCs erroneously teach sola fide basically means. As noted in an account of Puritans during the early American period,
..the essential unanimity of the New England preachers about the experience of true conversion is much more impressive than their disagreement over related issues. 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.’”
Even the Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, stressed the importance of both justification and sanctification (which involves “necessary” good works). — http://www.apuritansmind.com/justification/CramptonGaryJustification.htm
Thus, rather than sola fide being at the heart of many Western problems, it is that what faith means that is the problem, that of the modern accommodationist gospel which reduces faith in the Lord Jesus to be faith in a promise giver, but not one who loves righteousness and hates iniquity, (Heb. 1:9).
One cannot believe in any Lord with moral standards without it effecting their lives toward obedience according to the knowledge they have of his will. And thus true faith and works go together, without the latter (given opportunity and ability) there is not the former, even if it is not our degree of holiness or the merit of our works done by grace that gain us acceptance with God, as per Rome.
In Rome one is said to first be counted righteousness due to the interior holiness one gain (usually) thru infant sprinkling in recognition of proxy faith, and thus such (usually) endure suffering in purgatory to become good enough to enter Heaven. Which is not what the apostles preached in Scripture.
Rome does make fine distinctions btwn types of merit, but which are lost on the laity, who most naturally believe (as man will) that their good dead and Rome's power will gain them eternal life with some mercy thrown in. And as we will see, it is the gospel that Rome most effectually conveys that results in little commitment and moral laxity, in contrast to evangelical faith the author seems to want to attack.
But rather than being good enough to morally deserve Heaven, we are souls who are bad enough to go to Hell, which one sin makes us, bur those who abase themselves as damned and destitute sinners but exalt that Lord as holy and just, and place all their faith in the Lord Jesus, are counted as righteous, accepted in the Beloved, (Rm. 4:4-6; Eph. 1:6) on Christ's account, and thus live for them.
God in His grace does reward works, counting them worthy of eternal life in the light of their works, (Mt. 25; Rv. 3:4) because these testify to faith, which faith hath great recompense of reward, (Heb. 10:35) as God is faithful to do so as part of His grace, but such is not because they are actually holy enough so as to deserve eternal life.
Protestant arguments for the belief simply do not stand in the face of such scenarios or substantial scrutiny.
Because he has yet to really present a real Protestant argument but instead makes his own straw man scenarios .
“Faith alone” has had a terrible impact on society. People often now shy away from discussing religion or morality with others, fearing conflic
Which is refuted above, while those who profess sola fide the most (evangelicals) are far more conservative and committed than the majority Rome treats as members in life and in death, as is abundantly testified to.
Martin Luther told his followers to “sin and sin boldly” (among other things, as I have documented)
If RCs spent 5% of the time examining the source and context of such as many of them do for the pope, i think most of them would not be used. James Swan in his bloghas spent much time researching these, which should be first stop when confronted with these.
And rather than actually teaching as doctrine "sin and sin boldly" (note Paul was also accused of such), Luther taught such things as
it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!
if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit.
where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith where there are no good works.
“This is why St. Luke and St. James have so much to say about works, so that one says: Yes, I will now believe, and then he goes and fabricates for himself a fictitious delusion, which hovers only on the lips as the foam on the water. No, no; faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit and wholly and completely converts him.
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.
(Sources )
Even though I was ill-educated in theology at the time, I knew that it was illogical.
He is still ill-educated in theology, and his argument a logical fallacy.
Sola fide does not work either logically or practically; it fails on all counts. Now, you know why I hate it.
Rather, it is his polemic that fails on all counts, and i can see what he would hate an honest comparison.
In conclusion, as James said,
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)
The work Roman Catholicism fosters is overall mainly liberalism and relative little commitment wherever she predominates, in contrast to the conservative evangelical faith that her apologist attacks as her greater threat. For it is not holiness that is their highest goal, but Rome's preeminence, ostensibly for the salvation of souls.
Posters who simply post links in lieu of an argument are in kind ignored.
Then rather than speaking cryptically, explain your usual scorn .
What is at the heart of many Western problems is not sola fide. Rather it's Catholics who believe they can go to mass on Sunday, take a wafer, and have God's grace imparted to them in this manner.
Those who have been saved by sola gratia understand very well what sola fide is all about.
Catholics really need to understand what Augustine meant when he stated in his prayer, "Command what you will, and grant what you command."
If one understood this prayer, they would understand both sola gratia and sola fide.
Ya know what is amazing? About 1950 years ago Paul anticipated your very objection!
Romans 6:1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? 2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.Let me know if I help in any other way!
>> If you need a pinstriped blue suit to make it, then God will see that you bump into one. If you need works of faith to make it, then He’ll see they’re provided.
Are you more Calvinist, or more Armenian?
Just curious. That sounds Calvinist, and not a bad encapsulation of Calvinist theology, either. But I don’t like to assume.
Not so fast and not so easy.
The Great Commission
Matthew Chapter 28, Verse16
“And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
All power: See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all that is true: and that He may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, He promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world.
How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ Himself, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. St. John 14.
We cannot have each one interpreting their own version or take on the Gospel because to do so would mean each one having their own idea of Jesus’ teaching. There can be ONE truth and this ONE truth taught by ONE Church with ONE clear authority until the end of the ages.
The Central Truth is the Eucharist.
Protestant attacks on the Catholic Church often focus on the Eucharist. This demonstrates that opponents of the Church—mainly Evangelicals and Fundamentalists—recognize one of Catholicism’s core doctrines. What’s more, the attacks show that Fundamentalists are not always literalists. This is seen in their interpretation of the key biblical passage, chapter six of John’s Gospel, in which Christ speaks about the sacrament that will be instituted at the Last Supper. This tract examines the last half of that chapter.
John 6:30 begins a colloquy that took place in the synagogue at Capernaum. The Jews asked Jesus what sign he could perform so that they might believe in him. As a challenge, they noted that “our ancestors ate manna in the desert.” Could Jesus top that? He told them the real bread from heaven comes from the Father. “Give us this bread always,” they said. Jesus replied, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst.” At this point the Jews understood him to be speaking metaphorically.
Again and Again
Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: “‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’” (John 6:51–52).
His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him” (John 6:53–56).
No Corrections
Notice that Jesus made no attempt to soften what he said, no attempt to correct “misunderstandings,” for there were none. Our Lord’s listeners understood him perfectly well. They no longer thought he was speaking metaphorically. If they had, if they mistook what he said, why no correction?
On other occasions when there was confusion, Christ explained just what he meant (cf. Matt. 16:5–12). Here, where any misunderstanding would be fatal, there was no effort by Jesus to correct. Instead, he repeated himself for greater emphasis.
In John 6:60 we read: “Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” These were his disciples, people used to his remarkable ways. He warned them not to think carnally, but spiritually: “It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life” (John 6:63; cf. 1 Cor. 2:12–14).
But he knew some did not believe. (It is here, in the rejection of the Eucharist, that Judas fell away; look at John 6:64.) “After this, many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him” (John 6:66).
This is the only record we have of any of Christ’s followers forsaking him for purely doctrinal reasons. If it had all been a misunderstanding, if they erred in taking a metaphor in a literal sense, why didn’t he call them back and straighten things out? Both the Jews, who were suspicious of him, and his disciples, who had accepted everything up to this point, would have remained with him had he said he was speaking only symbolically.
But he did not correct these protesters. Twelve times he said he was the bread that came down from heaven; four times he said they would have “to eat my flesh and drink my blood.” John 6 was an extended promise of what would be instituted at the Last Supper—and it was a promise that could not be more explicit. Or so it would seem to a Catholic. But what do Fundamentalists say?
Merely Figurative?
They say that in John 6 Jesus was not talking about physical food and drink, but about spiritual food and drink. They quote John 6:35: “Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.’” They claim that coming to him is bread, having faith in him is drink. Thus, eating his flesh and blood merely means believing in Christ.
But there is a problem with that interpretation. As Fr. John A. O’Brien explains, “The phrase ‘to eat the flesh and drink the blood,’ when used figuratively among the Jews, as among the Arabs of today, meant to inflict upon a person some serious injury, especially by calumny or by false accusation. To interpret the phrase figuratively then would be to make our Lord promise life everlasting to the culprit for slandering and hating him, which would reduce the whole passage to utter nonsense” (O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, 215). For an example of this use, see Micah 3:3.
Fundamentalist writers who comment on John 6 also assert that one can show Christ was speaking only metaphorically by comparing verses like John 10:9 (”I am the door”) and John 15:1 (”I am the true vine”). The problem is that there is not a connection to John 6:35, “I am the bread of life.” “I am the door” and “I am the vine” make sense as metaphors because Christ is like a door—we go to heaven through him—and he is also like a vine—we get our spiritual sap through him. But Christ takes John 6:35 far beyond symbolism by saying, “For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed” (John 6:55).
He continues: “As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me” (John 6:57). The Greek word used for “eats” (trogon) is very blunt and has the sense of “chewing” or “gnawing.” This is not the language of metaphor.
Their Main Argument
For Fundamentalist writers, the scriptural argument is capped by an appeal to John 6:63: “It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.” They say this means that eating real flesh is a waste. But does this make sense?
Are we to understand that Christ had just commanded his disciples to eat his flesh, then said their doing so would be pointless? Is that what “the flesh is of no avail” means? “Eat my flesh, but you’ll find it’s a waste of time”—is that what he was saying? Hardly.
The fact is that Christ’s flesh avails much! If it were of no avail, then the Son of God incarnated for no reason, he died for no reason, and he rose from the dead for no reason. Christ’s flesh profits us more than anyone else’s in the world. If it profits us nothing, so that the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ are of no avail, then “your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished” (1 Cor. 15:17b–18).
In John 6:63 “flesh profits nothing” refers to mankind’s inclination to think using only what their natural human reason would tell them rather than what God would tell them. Thus in John 8:15–16 Jesus tells his opponents: “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one. Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone that judge, but I and he who sent me.” So natural human judgment, unaided by God’s grace, is unreliable; but God’s judgment is always true.
And were the disciples to understand the line “The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life” as nothing but a circumlocution (and a very clumsy one at that) for “symbolic”? No one can come up with such interpretations unless he first holds to the Fundamentalist position and thinks it necessary to find a rationale, no matter how forced, for evading the Catholic interpretation. In John 6:63 “flesh” does not refer to Christ’s own flesh—the context makes this clear—but to mankind’s inclination to think on a natural, human level. “The words I have spoken to you are spirit” does not mean “What I have just said is symbolic.” The word “spirit” is never used that way in the Bible. The line means that what Christ has said will be understood only through faith; only by the power of the Spirit and the drawing of the Father (cf. John 6:37, 44–45, 65).
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them.
Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
In a fifth-century homily, Theodore of Mopsuestia seemed to be speaking to today’s Evangelicals and Fundamentalists: “When [Christ] gave the bread he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my body,’ but, ‘This is my body.’ In the same way, when he gave the cup of his blood he did not say, ‘This is the symbol of my blood,’ but, ‘This is my blood,’ for he wanted us to look upon the [Eucharistic elements], after their reception of grace and the coming of the Holy Spirit, not according to their nature, but to receive them as they are, the body and blood of our Lord” (Catechetical Homilies 5:1).
Unanimous Testimony
Whatever else might be said, the early Church took John 6 literally. In fact, there is no record from the early centuries that implies Christians doubted the constant Catholic interpretation. There exists no document in which the literal interpretation is opposed and only the metaphorical accepted.
Why do Fundamentalists and Evangelicals reject the plain, literal interpretation of John 6?
For them, Catholic sacraments are out because they imply a spiritual reality—grace—being conveyed by means of matter. This seems to them to be a violation of the divine plan. For many Protestants, matter is not to be used, but overcome or avoided.
One suspects, had they been asked by the Creator their opinion of how to bring about mankind’s salvation, Fundamentalists would have advised him to adopt a different approach. How much cleaner things would be if spirit never dirtied itself with matter! But God approves of matter—he approves of it because he created it—and he approves of it so much that he comes to us under the appearances of bread and wine, just as he does in the physical form of the Incarnate Christ.
Source?
Whether or not I agree with your doctrine — this has turned into a GREAT Religion thread! Very profitable comments throughout.
Thanks for getting the ball rolling, and all praise to GOD for His WORD and our salvation!
If you left "Protestantism" because you were ill-educated on theology, it sure looks like you STILL haven't learned anything. If you want to use the "guilty sinner before a just and holy God" example you MUST see it as GOD sees it and not as some human judge that must mete out punishment for wrongdoing. We are ALL guilty before God - all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Our sin demands DEATH - not good intentions, works of love, etc. We CANNOT pay that penalty because it is an ETERNAL punishment. That is why Christ died for us. He gave His life as a ransom for ours. He made propitiation for our sins by His precious shed blood.
If we got what we deserved for our sins - it would be HELL. But God in His mercy made a way for us to be with Him. By His grace we are saved THROUGH faith and that NOT OF OURSELVES, not of works, lest any man should boast. So, yes, we stand before the righteous judge, he passes a GUILTY verdict on us, then steps down from His throne and pays the debt FOR us. THAT, my FRiend, IS grace! It's too bad you didn't learn this as a "Protestant" and now find yourself preaching an accursed gospel that CANNOT save anyone! You are making the cross of Christ of none effect because you are making salvation based upon our works and not of grace. Genuine repentance and faith in Christ DOES cause an inward change - a new spiritual birth that desires to please God out of gratitude for what He has done for us.
For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus. (Phil. 1:6)
...so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. (I Cor. 1:7-9)
Sufficient detail exists in my comment for it to not require an explanation.
Which part of it didn’t you understand?
There is simply NOTHING in the text that would even suggest that kind of thinking on the part of the father.
How on earth would the father know whether or not the son was expecting a welcome home? He couldn't read his son's mind from afar.
That kind of thinking about God is far too prevalent in Catholicism. You have to be good enough, or God isn't going to accept you. It's totally a works based salvation. Not acceptance because of the Father's heart and His love for His children. Rejection because the son didn't perform.
What an appalling view of God.
SOP
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” James 2:24
If you would then, explain the reason that verse in James contradicts the weight of other passages of Scripture that state differently. IOW, explain the apparent contradiction.
Romans 3:21-26 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
John 1:10-13 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
John 3:14-18 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.
John 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
John 11:25-26 Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and everyone who lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?”
Galatians 2:15-21 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.
But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.
Galatians 3:1-29 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one.
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
Ephesians 2:1-10And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved— and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
2 Corinthians 5:17-21 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
Hebrews 9:22 Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
Purgatory doesn't work because it CAN'T work. People are not purified by suffering. That's not the work that suffering does in the life of the believer.
They are purified, sins are cleansed only by the shedding of blood from a sacrifice.
If you're not forgiven, you still have your sins. There is never any way anyone can pay the penalty for their sin. It HAS to be forgiven because the debt is too big.
I'm not sure what your point is except to belittle my position with the phrase "fast and easy." Except, who is being fast and easy, when I write out my beliefs myself, while you cut and paste from a book of apologetics? So was your insult suppost to provide the cognitve dissonance necessary to blind me from what you did? And if your position is so sound, why should you need to invoke such a dishonest mind trick?
After all, you apparently posted a part of a book that explains the Catholic position concerning the Eucharistic, as justified against Protestant beliefs which reject it. Okay, I am familiar with that issue, but I don't see what it has to do with me or what I've been saying.
However there is a part of your posting that I can perhaps see as something you would be presenting to me as a refutation of my position. And that is where you post:
We cannot have each one interpreting their own version or take on the Gospel because to do so would mean each one having their own idea of Jesus’ teaching. There can be ONE truth and this ONE truth taught by ONE Church with ONE clear authority until the end of the ages.
However this is not an argument, let alone a proof - it is a declaration of faith. As such, I respect it, while not sharing it, because it is not my declaration of faith. In addition, it is illogical, while apparently trying to use logic as its compelling force.
Specifically, that "one truth" is the truth of the existence of Jesus Christ, who is infinite, because He is God incarnate. The only value of His teachings - any and all of them - are to enable a person to reach God, who is also infinite.
While a church must have one teaching, the inifinite God is not so limited, and either is Jesus, being the manifiestation of that infinite God. Thus Jesus did not solely act in creating the words of the Bible, but continues to act in His infinite capacity. And that means as a personal savior for each and every human being, as each an every human being requires - and human beings are different.
Thus it is clear that the church must have one truth and one teaching, otherwise it will lose its cohesion. But it is not true that Jesus, the source of the teachings and the truth, must have only one way of reaching people, since Jesus is infinitely powerful.
Thus for anyone who decides to be Catholic, that entails accepting the one truth and one teaching of that one Church. Fine. But to flip the concept around and claim that the Catholic Church represents the only form of teaching the truth that the infinite Christ has made available to humanity, is, I believe, illogical.
I have always been dismayed that people cannot just accept and rejoice in their chosen way of reaching out to God. That they must then wage war, of mind, of heart, and all too often of body, against others who do not reach out to God in the same way. I think it is because there is not enough humility in people. They look around their world and name everything and believe they control those things through those names. But then they get to words like "infinite" and "God" and they forget that these are not finite words like "apple" and "shoe." And so they treat them in the same way, and thereby lose understanding and create great harm for themselves and others.
I understand your faith and I respect that it is your faith. Mine is based on a different understanding than yours, from different decisions I have made from you about what things mean.
If there is anything I do not respect about people of other faiths, it's that they so very often forget that their faith is a choice that they have made, that they are responsible for. And very often religions try to indemnify its members from that responsibility, which is even sadder, because it is a sign of doubt. Maybe that's why people attack others who disagree with them about faith - because they are afraid they are wrong, and the only way to feel confident is to have no disagreement.
That's why contemplating infinity so so beneficial, especially as applied to Jesus. It allows one to accept the understanding that the one truth does not require one way, and that Jesus is far beyond any particular religion. Jesus is infinite, and the human soul is the most valuable thing - not the Bible. The purpose of the Bible is to draw a person to God. Once that happens, the Bible has done its job. God is the living water, the living light, in a person's soul - not the Bible. To pound on the Bible and reject the soul connection to God is like mistaking the map for the place.
Funny though. All religious people talk about is reaching God. But if someone actually experiences God, they are immediately attacked as frauds. But on what grounds? That they are small, they are worthless, they are weak - all of which conveniently forgets that none of that matters if God is the one who did the work to reach them, and to fill them, and to guide them.
And who is to say the infinite God can't do that - or won't do that? Jesus came for us small, little, damaged people. Why is it so impossible when someone actually experiences the inspiration of God? Why shouldn't people rejoice when that happens, rather than crucify them with the map? And why should any acknowledgement, if it comes, be over huge miracles, rather than the small, simple guidance each person needs each day?
God touches many people every day. He's with us always, guiding us, healing us, teaching us. Yet we are supposed to be afraid of this, and seek guidance from the church before we accept the innermost touch of our souls from the Divine?
Robert Frost summed up how I feel about this, when he wrote: "Two roads diverged in a wood and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference."
And the main difference is that while I accept that you are reaching out to God in a way different from mine as legitimate, it appears that the fact of our difference means that you do not acknowledge my relationship with God as valid at all - specifically because it differs from yours. And worse, you have transferred total responsibility for your method of seeking God by the magic of deciding to belong to a church which, in turn, takes responsibility for your decision to join it, and thus claims to indemnify you from your own decision.
To which I wonder, why would such church legalisms be necessary if you truly felt confident in your spiritual path?
But then, if I'm a heretic, it really doesn't matter what I think, now does it? Because the church allows you to dismiss heretical thoughts without being responsible for considering them on your own.
There are some who consider such claims of "protection" legitimate before God.
And some who don't.
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.