Posted on 06/16/2019 4:55:18 AM PDT by CharlesOConnell
In Captains Courageous, with Spencer Tracey, Freddy Batholomew is a blowhard millionaire's son who is socially, poorly adjusted. He uses his father's incredible wealth, to bully his classmates and even his teacher, but he's roundly disliked, and ostracized. While on an ocean liner, he unsuccessfully tries to impress some other boys by eating 5 ice cream sodas. When he has to throw up, to escape the mocking boys, he runs into a lifeboat area to evade their ridicule while purging his overindulgence, and manages to fall overboard into the ocean.
Instances of people falling overboard into the open ocean are rather commonly reported in the news. Usually they are lost, but if by chance their accidents are observed and a life-preserver is thrown to them, is that the end of the story, do we just say, "oh, well, you have a floatation device, you're okay now"?
No, we have to pull them in. The life-preserver, the lifesaver, is only part of the formula for saving their lives. There is also a rope, which must be attached to the life-preserver, and must be used to finally accomplish their salvation.
Jesus Christ is the one mediator between God and man. But on the man side of the equation, unlike the radical individuality most typified by J.J. Rousseau, we who life the life of Christians do so in communities. But even then, we do not abide as atomistic individualists. We live our Jesus-oriented life in relation to our fellows. "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching." – Hebrews 10:25.
Jesus' first disciple was his mother, who gave us the total account of his early life and who "treasured these things up in her heart". "A sword will pierce your own soul too, so that the secret thoughts of many hearts might be revealed". On the cross, he gave his mother to John to take in his home, but when you take your master's mother, she takes care of you.
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple; and there were flashes of lightning, voices, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.
And another portent appeared in heaven; behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems upon his heads. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven, and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to bear a child, that he might devour her child when she brought it forth; she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, and the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, in which to be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. …
And when the dragon saw that he had been thrown down to the earth, he pursued the woman who had borne the male child. But the woman was given the two wings of the great eagle that she might fly from the serpent into the wilderness, to the place where she is to be nourished for a time, and times, and half a time. The serpent poured water like a river out of his mouth after the woman, to sweep her away with the flood. But the earth came to the help of the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed the river which the dragon had poured from his mouth. Then the dragon was angry with the woman, and went off to make war on the rest of her offspring, on those who keep the commandments of God and bear testimony to Jesus. - Rev 11:19 -- 12:17
She forms the body of Christ. She schools her son's disciples. Those who won't attend her school, remain ignorant.
We are in a time when any merely human institution would be washed away. Our churches are going under the shadow of a new Heresy of Ba'al of Peor, as when the Hebrew people were successfully attacked and overwhelmed through human sexuality. Our churches are now pro-gay and as soon as the civil authority authorizes child sex, they will be indistinguishable from the denizens of the town of Sodom: "Bring them out that we may know them".
Jesus' mother forms the few of the elect who will resist being fooled by the great apostasy. Those who will not avail themselves of the lifeline of Mary, will be lost.
12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.
This precedes the passage your link sought to focus upon. The passage exclaims we are under Grace. So the works alluded to are not a means to become saved, they are to be the result of having been saved. THIS glorifies the One Who Died for our Grace gift, not us doing stuff we ought to do as members of His Body.
They are hearing voices from down below
Our friends are just basking in Mary’s glow
Prayers they send
But yet in the end
It really doesn’t help me in Jesus to grow
😁👍🇵🇭
Cuteness!
(We were going to the farm store for some ducks.)
I’m going to assume that your answer is ‘yes, works earn salvation’ then; if you object to that, you’d better warn me off.
I am not sure what the Catholic Church is teaching now. I think sometimes they change up. All I know, is that when I was a catholic, we were told salvation was by faith and works. As I recall, I was taught that baptism got us into Heaven, but our good works kept us from getting booted out of Heaven.
Upon reading your link, I am informed.
It unfortunately doesn’t quite answer the question I was trying to ask, though. Do works EARN salvation, or are works something that just should be done? To make a crude analogy, is there like a ledger that you have to balance before you’re allowed in, or what?
About 95% of what was in the link you posted could easily be taught in faithful Protestant churches after all, with the subtle but important difference being that we teach that faith alone saves, but that a faith that does not produce good works is no faith at all.
And I think I’ll appropriate that quote from Chrysostom for future teaching.
And how'd that work out for you when you did?
I think the baby ones are the cutest! Grown-ups not too sure, but I bet they have their own personalities.
Could someone explain how saying faith is what saves you but your works are what keep you saved ISN'T saying you're saved by your works?
If they say it’s 99% faith, and only 1% works, then you can say it’s the same as 💯% by works. It won’t cut the mustard. 😁
... I bet they have their own personalities.
You are absolutely right!
Likewise, if they say it’s 99% Jesus, and only 1% Mary, you get the same result.
But even many NON-Catholics teach a gospel where a person is 100% saved by grace.
And then are KEPT by works...
I understand what you are asking. Let me see if I can find something else that does a better job at clearing things up. I was about ready to sack myself when I looked last night, so maybe there is something else out there. I am quite picky about what I will put forth as a Catholic reference.
The stakes are much higher, and so is the temperature. And while ad hominems are forbidden by the RM (and which includes labeling a poster anti-Catholic) - though as warranted they can be Scriptural, but not due to lack of argument - yet as the RM also advises ,
Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected Posters may argue for or against beliefs, deities, religious authorities, etc. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule. “Open” RF debate is often contentious. It requires thick skin. A poster must be able to make his points while standing his ground, suffering adverse remarks about his beliefs - or letting them roll off his back. Members of religions which are as much culture as belief sometimes take religious debate personally. If you keep getting your feelings hurt because other posters ridicule or disapprove or hate what you hold dear, then you are too thin-skinned to be involved in “open” RF debate. You should IGNORE “open” RF threads altogether and instead post to RF threads labeled “prayer” “devotional” “caucus” or “ecumenical.”
Catholic chauvinism on display frequently ....it happened to me yet again two days ago here courtesy EbbTide in spite of the fact I was being approving of Catholic history against Islam etc
Too often it seems only "true RCs" can attack and even reject the pope and engage in criticism of Catholic history, and since you were not wearing the correct uniform, you were subject to some pot shot.
And yes non Catholics who often seem to be ex Catholics attack Rome
Indeed, usually in response to provocative promotions of her, as this thread, who are reproved but those who see the differences btwn what the NT church believed and what Rome claims it did, based upon what she can "infallibly" channel out of her tradition."
And believers are commanded "ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." (Jude 3)
I simply know any Baptists or Presbyterians or Pentecostals or methodists where I live who hate Catholics
Now you are sounding like liberals who equate warranted opposition to such things as the homosexual agenda to hating them. I do not hate Catholics, and live in a predominately RC are, with friends who are, but esteem for Scriptural doctrine has resulted in my both contending against prohomosexual polemics as well as those of cults, liberal Protestant and Catholicism.
But since it is the latter that is the predominate single religious group here which has turned FR into a RC news and polemical service, by the hands of traditional RCs who exalts her as the one true church while seriously misrepresenting it, and being fundamentally contrary to it, then such calls provoke can call for reproof.
Nor did I grow up with Catholics in my own extended family and friends who loathed my Southern Baptist denominational Faith
But note that traditional RCs is what you are dealing with here, some of whom uphold the historical teaching on EENS without the V2 spin, ,such as
Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull promulgated on February 4, 1441
We do find the Mary thing and Pope tradition odd admittedly
It is not simply "odd," but odious to exalt the holy, humble, virtuous spirit-filled mother of Jesus to being an almost almighty demigodess, attributing to her powers and position and glory and titles that go far far above that which is written, (1Co. 4:6) and are nowhere given to any created being, but which largely parallel those of the Divine Son of God.
But personally if an individual prefers Catholicism so what and same for other Christian sects
You mean salvific and basic doctrine is a dirty word, and it does not matter if you think God is a polygamist and Mormonism (which also has a tradition of a heavenly Mother) is the one true church, or that Christ is a created being and that there is no eternal punishment for the wicked save for annihilation, and that the Watchtower Society is the one true org, or that grandiose delusions of Swedenborg do not call for reproof when promoted here, or those of the cultist Roy Masters, all of which have been here, but nothing of the magnitude of Catholics.
While as concerning basic conservative values, all such can, to varying degrees, work against the common enemy of Western liberalism and fundamental Islamic Jihad, and in that regard we would elect a Pharisee to Congress overall any of the Democrats.
Yet which liberalism includes your seeming premise that salvific and basic doctrinal Truths are inconsequential, that what Scripture teaches besides moral values should not matter. But which leads to its moral values not mattering either, which is liberalism. While evangelicals voted 80% for a Mormon to be president over a liberal, yet that does not mean the perverse beliefs of that cults are to be reproved. At least the TradCaths believe in the importance of doctrine, while being subscribing to false doctrines of Rome.
Here it’s like a war and you’re a brigadier at a minimum Daniel... Is this a northern thing?
No, it's a Biblical thing, for we are indeed in a war, not simply a cultural war in which the conservative remnant of Catholics and cultists may join the majority of evangelicals against the common enemy of liberalism and fundamental Islam, but a larger, spiritual war for the souls of men, in which the devil seeks the damnation of souls. And who not only works thru liberals in seeking to create (thru proxy servants of his) an alternative "secular" world with demonic immoral perversions of what God has ordained, but also in the religious world, introducing and fostering perversions of spiritual Truth essential for salvation.
The Scribes and Pharisees were ultra conservatives, and evangelicals are the strongest political supporters of their descendants, yet pride and denial of need for salvation thru the risen Divine Christ, on His account, not the merits on one's own self or one true church (or Mary), means dying in your sins and suffering eternal damnation. And love for God, His Truth and souls means contending for both Scriptural morality and doctrine, as the Lord and His prima NT church did, though I come far short of both.
I am open to correction here.
Which "every" is wrong, since much or most of Scripture was written directly as so, while your reasoning would be as absurd as reasoning that since Scripture came out of tradition, then all that was passed down orally is also reliable. Which would mean that the NT is invalid in the light of Jewish tradition.
Instead, all Scripture being inspired of God means that this applies to Script-ure, to the writing of it. And that in so doing, then as seen in some duplicate accounts, the Holy Spirit of Christ can contract or expand what was originally said - Christ yet being the author - in providing a fitting and complimentary, conflative and more comprehensive revelation.
And God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Psalm 102:18; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
And as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching subject to testing by Scripture, and not vice versa.
It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that brought about a national revival, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:
And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)
And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)
Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do.
You mean how can it make sense that the NT church began in dissent from the magisterial preservers/stewards of the OT and leaders over Israel, the nation that provided the Scriptures, manifestly approving of what the Lord invoked as its prophetic and doctrinal foundation, but disagreeing with them over its meaning, and condemning the followers of the Lord?
Based upon your logic, 1st century souls should have submitted to all the judgments of these magisterial preservers/stewards of the OT, rather than on one hand, presenting them as are evil, while on the other hand, the Scriptures they approved and kept intact is supreme. What make sense to you your problem.
Once again your logic would require 1st century souls to have submitted to the judgments and oral tradition of the magisterial preservers/stewards of the OT, rather than following itinerant preachers whom those who sat in the seat of Moses rejected.
In addition, since as with oral tradition, the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of some Truths from pagan sources, then by your logic the totality of these must also be held as inspired.
Instead, Scripture separates the "wheat" of oral tradition from the "chaff," and with the establishment of a canon being due to the unique enduring heavenly qualities of these writings, which conciliar decisions are to affirm.
And in reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon - after the death of Luther.
Affirmative sir. We are saved 💯% by Jesus, or 💯% by Mary, but in no way, shape or form, is it any combination of the two. 😁 I know, some do their own YOPIOS, and try to interject works and Mary Into the equation. I won’t buy it, not now, not ever. Some might say I am dogmatic about that. They would be dead right on. 👍😆
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.