Posted on 05/08/2015 2:03:24 PM PDT by NYer
Many supposed "theological differences" between Catholics and Evangelicals are, I think, founded in semantics rather than in substantial disagreement.
For example, when I was an Evangelical one of the periodic arguments I ran across against Catholic moral theology was that the concept of mortal and venial sin is unbiblical. Sin is sin, say Evangelicals, and there's no good in trying to make out some sins as "minor." To us Evangelicals such nice distinctions smelled a great deal like rationalization and looked like an escape clause from the commandment "Be holy, for I, the Lord, am Holy." After all, James wrote, "Whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For he who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker" (James 2:10-11). So the forthright and honest Evangelical attitude was "We'll take our forgiveness straight, thanks! Let's have no plea-bargaining at the foot of the Cross."
Such an attitude to purity before God is, I think, entirely commendable. And, truth to tell, it contrasts very favorably to the lax Catholic who really does say "It's just a teensy-weensy little sin" as an excuse for doing whatever they like. Such Catholics need to be reminded that "Whoever can be trusted with a teensy-weensy little thing can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with a teensy-weensy little thing will also be dishonest with much" (Luke 16:10).
(Excerpt) Read more at ncregister.com ...
Wow! That has to be the mother of all repeated posts! I think I’ll take it as a sign that I should check this series out!! Seriesly! Hehe
Thanks,
Pings to the Misters Thomson! I thought you’d like to know about this. I kinda doubt miss marmelstein hit “Post” this many times. Haha. Seems to be a glitch somewhere.
LOL I’m sorry but I’m LOL so much right now. You should see my “Posts to Me” page LOL. That’s ONE way to clear it out! LOL.
Stuck key?
How does that happen? I only hit it once. (Unless my cat walked across the board when I wasn’t looking.) Apologies to all! Hope the mod takes them down.
**Come Judgment Day, they’re gonna have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.**
Aren't we all? I know I'm not perfect. So does God. And He's the One Who will be doing the judging.
PS: It's called a mitre and is derived from the headpiece worn by the High Priests in the Jewish Temple.
If you want to believe all sins are equal you are entitled to your beliefs. They are not mine.***
Very well stated, Miss M! One cannot read a person's soul: that is up to God.
We've all been there! 😀
GPH: Certainly, but those works are only the demonstration of faith. They do not Save, otherwise you contradict the scripture.
St. James says the following:
18But some man will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee, by works, my faith.
19Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.
20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar?
22Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?
23And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God.
24Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?
25And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way?
26For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead. -James 2 Douay-Rheims Bible
I thought maybe folks thought I was Mark Rylance’s (the star of Wolf Hall) publicity agent!
Sure does, but if you read him as referring not to the difference between true faith and professed faith, and what demonstrates or justifies a claim of true faith, then you contradict the Apostle Paul who declares justification and salvation without works.
Then was James lying? Does Paul take precedence over James? Or perhaps is the problem with the interpretation and/or context?
This is your own approach to the verses that is really the problem; that one author takes precedence over the other. Instead of debating in this form, literally putting the scripture against scripture, you should be able to demonstrate how your reading of James does not contradict Paul.
My dear, I'm not the sola scriptura Christian here. I believe, and have stated what my Church teaches. I want to know how a self-interpreter reconciles the difference: instead, I've received more personal criticism than straight answers.
That's a problem, because if Catholicism is not built on scripture, it is built only on assertions of authority. This is not how the Church Fathers historically defended their faith. They believed the Catholic Church was authoritative because its teachings were all substantiated by scripture, not because they can make up teachings separate from the scripture:
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.” (Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
“The question has been proposed: Is the Church of Christ among the Catholics or among the Donatists? This needs to be determined from specific and clear citations in Holy Scripture. First, evidence is brought forth from the Old Testament and then from the New Testament.” (Augustine, Introduction, On the Unity of the Church)
"But, as I had begun to say, let us not listen to “you say this, I say that” but let us listen to “the Lord says this.” Certainly, there are the Lord’s books, on whose authority we both agree, to which we concede, and which we serve; there we seek the Church, there we argue our case" (Chapter 5)
What you say is a dismissal and a rejection of what your religion is supposed to be founding upon-- not an infallible magisterium that is infallible only because it has declared itself so.
But to address the scriptures directly, we can safely say, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Paul considers men justified without the working of the law:
"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works," (Rom 4:4-6)
Now this righteousness is given without any activity of the believer. It is a justification that is based on faith which receives the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are imputed "righteous" "without works," not with them. And that is because salvation is all of grace. And if salvation is by grace, it cannot be given as a reward for labor provided, otherwise it ceases to be grace. As Augustine explains:
“For who makes thee to differ, and what has thou that thou hast not received?” (1 Cor. iv. 7). Our merits therefore do not cause us to differ, but grace. For if it be merit, it is a debt; and if it be a debt, it is not gratuitous; and if it be not gratuitous, it is not grace. (Augustine, Sermon 293)
Beyond a shadow of a doubt, without any ambiguity, Paul teaches that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone.
Now Paul also teaches that good works follow justification, though they are not the cause of it, and so in this sense, faith and works are never alone, but always together; but these works do not save, but are only a demonstration of that faith.
In James, he is trying to refute those who deny that good works are necessary to follow with faith. It is, in other words, an attempt to refute those who claim they are Christians though they are sinners.
Jas 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
Note that he writes "thought a man SAY he have faith." The faith in question here is a professed faith in contrast to a true faith. James is not talking about the same faith that Paul is, but is discussing the difference between a professed faith and a true faith. Also note that James is speaking before men. "Show me thy faith," he writes, and is thus speaking not about man's relationship to God, but between men and men within the church. He is challenging a person to prove that they have faith. Thus this faith "justifies" in a purely temporal sense, as a matter between Christians within the church, but not before God who justifies "without works," but based on faith only.
The proper reading of all this is only: that if you have true faith, then you will show your faith by your works, because works follow justification. This is also how Augustine reconciles the verses:
“If Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified? The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification.” (Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4.)
Romans 2:5-11Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
5 But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.
6 Who will render to every man according to his works.
7 To them indeed, who according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:
8 But to them that are contentious, and who obey not the truth, but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.
9 Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.
10 But glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Can you as sola scriptura explain the dichotomy there? What does one do when they come across these? I have the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church, a synthesis of 2 millennia of wisdom and interpretation. I also have sacred tradition which explains things and puts them in context. You've more than amply expressed your disbelief in such. Then tell me, how do you interpret the differences which contradict one another?
Well, what you do is read the entire movement of his argument and don't just stop reading with one verse. Presumably the Magisterium would have to do that too, but they would simply be doing the reading and thinking for you, which, naturally, doesn't always work out. Paul is speaking the plain facts: that God, under the law, will fairly render to everyman according to their works; to the righteous, eternal life, to the wicked, eternal death. In chapter 1 Paul goes after the Gentile world and shows their guilt, and in chapter 2 he shows the guilt of the Jews. In Chapter 3, he concludes the argument, and finds all men guilty under the law:
Rom 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;
Paul has "before proved" that both Jews and Gentiles are under sin, and this is done in chapter 1 and 2.
If you can keep the law, you will certainly be justified. But the problem is that you can't keep the law, and that is why, even despite God's willingness to reward the righteous, that we must be justified by faith only.
That all the world is guilty before God, and thus cannot be justified by works, is clear even in how Paul refers to himself:
Rom_7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
Clearly, Paul does not consider himself righteous according to his own merits, but the imputed righteousness of Christ.
By the way, speaking of "tradition." I literally just got done quoting Saint Augustine backing me up in all my conclusions. You do not have tradition actually. You only have the magisterium.
If Christians must consider themselves brothers of all men and behave accordingly, this holy obligation is all the more binding when they find themselves before members of the Jewish people!...
the bishops of the Federal Republic of Germany put this sentence at the beginning: "Whoever meets Jesus Christ, meets Judaism."
Before God all men are of the same value and importance.
The first dimension of this dialogue, that is, the meeting between the people of God of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God [cf. Rom. 11:29], and that of the New Covenant, is at the same time a dialogue within our Church, that is to say, between the first and the second part of her Bible.
the tasks which we have in common. Jews and Christians, as children of Abraham, are called to be a blessing for the world [cf. Gen. 12:2 ff.], by committing themselves together for peace and justice among all men and peoples, with the fullness and depth that God himself intended us to have,
May all peoples in Jerusalem soon be reconciled and blessed in Abraham! May he, the ineffable, of whom his creation speaks to us: he, who does not force mankind to goodness, but guides it: he, who manifests himself in our fate and is silent, he, who chooses all of us as his people; may he guide us along his ways to his future!
Praised be his Name! Amen.
I believe in what the Church teaches; you believe in what the Bible alone, according to your interpretation (and perhaps someone's Commentary) are to you.
You don't follow what the Church Fathers say, yet choose passages to "support" your disbelief of our teaching. Times considered and contexts observed give a fuller picture. I chose the Catholic Church of my own volition, and choose to follow it the best I can in its entirety. You do as God calls you, and may He bless you. Neither of us are going to budge!
One question: how do YOU explain the appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus at the Transfiguration? Honest question, no debate intended. Thanks and good night!
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.