You have no idea how pleased I am that you no longer have the power to be the Judge and Executioner of those you deem to be heretics.
Let God be my judge.
Posted on 07/07/2008 10:39:05 PM PDT by Gamecock
A caller to our weekly radio program asked a question that has come up before: Are Roman Catholics saved? Let me respond to this as best I can. But I need to offer a qualifier because I think this is going to be somewhat dissatisfying for some because I am not going to say a simple "aye" or "nay." My answer is: It kind of depends. The reason I'm saying that is because of certain ambiguities.
My point is this, I think that in the area of the doctrine of salvation, Roman Catholic theology, as I understand it, is unbiblical because salvation depends on faith and works, not just faith alone. This was the specific problem Paul addressed in the book of Galatians and was the subject of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15: Is simple faith in Jesus adequate, or must gentile followers of Christ now keep the Law as a standard of acceptance before God?
I know not all Catholics would agree that this is a fair way of putting it, but I think that most Catholics would actually say the faith/works equation is accurate. Your faith and your works are what save you. I was raised Catholic and that’s what I was taught. (For my take on the biblical relationship between faith and works, see “Faith & Works: Paul vs. James.”)
Now, I need to add this too. Many Protestants feel the same way. Many Protestants are confused on this issue, so this is not a Catholic vs. Protestant concern so much. It's just that Catholicism across the board has more of an official position that amounts this, where Protestants have a more diversity of views, some that don't even seem to be consistent with Protestantism.
But the fact that one believes Jesus is the Messiah and that He is the savior, not our own efforts, is critical. If you reject this notion, like the Jews do, then as far as I can tell from the biblical revelation, there is no hope for you. That seems to be clear. But when somebody says they believe in Jesus and He is their Savior, but somehow works are mingled in with the picture, then I can't really say to you how much faith that person is putting in Jesus and how much faith that person is putting in their own efforts to satisfy God. If a person has all their faith in their own efforts, then they are going to be judged by their own efforts. It's as simple as that. If they have their faith in Jesus, they will be judged by the merits of Jesus. Anyone judged by their own merits is going to be found wanting. Anyone who is judged by the merits of Jesus is not going to be found wanting because Jesus is not wanting.
What if you are kind of a mixture? I think most Catholics are, frankly. Many Protestants are, as well.
I reflect often on a comment that was made by a friend of mine named Dennis. He was a Roman Catholic brother in Christ that I knew when I was a brand new Christian. He asked me this: "Greg, how much faith does it take to be saved?" I said, "A mustard seed." And he said, "There you go."
And so, it seems to me, there are many Christians—Protestant and Catholic—who believe in Jesus as their savior and have a mustard seed of faith, but are confused about the role of works. I think that Jesus is still Savior in those cases.
The Church is the ark through which men are saved. Noah and his family were the only men saved on the ark, but even animals who had no understanding of the matter were saved with them. As the ark saved all on it, even those who had no knowledge, so does the Church, as the universal sacrament of salvation, dispense the graces won by Christ and applies them to all men of every place and condition. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2037913/posts
OLD REGGIE: Please don't patronize me. I consider it insulting and I don't believe you are doing so deliberately.
If the above quote is an accurate summary of Annalex's Church (and it's difficult to say since it always seems to change according to circumstances) and something that Annalex himself holds then I wouldn't be so sure it wasn't deliberate since he believes he's dealing with a lower level animal.
When we focus our thinking on glorifying Him, after returning to Him and confessing any and all known and unknown sins, instead of glorifying ourselves or others, we find ourselves walking the Christian way of life.
That is why it is not Canonical and is not in the Holy Word of G-d.
Therefore, the follow-up questions were not red herrings but legitimate questions to discover why you believe other books Jesus did not quote from are canonical.
Please don't mischaracterize the discussion.
Thanks, but that has nothing to do with my question.
Rav Shaul(Paul) taught from the Tanach.”
OLD TESTAMENT GUIDELINES: 1. The book must have been written, edited, or endorsed by a prophet. 2. The Old Testament books were endorsed by Christ and Paul. 3. The New Testament quotes all but seven of the Old Testament books. The Apocrypha, those books included in the Roman Catholic Canon, were never quoted in the New Testament.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
This is a summary of guidelines that were used in determining the canonicity of the books of the Bible.
Christ, Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39.
Paul, 2 Timothy 3:16.
(Obadiah, Nahum, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Esther, Ezra, and
Nehemiah. Some list only Esther, Ecclesiastes & Song of Solomon.)
The Apocrypha was accepted as part of the Catholic Canon at the Council of Trent in A.D. 1546.
Let God be my judge.
Let God be my judge.
Praise G-d ! that we are free of man's tyranny.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
Nor I you.
But that changes not that those who advocate false teachings teach heresy. And sola scriptura is just another man-made heresy in a long line of them.
Nope. Puritans. But could have been any one of a number of heretical strains of protestantism that had a penchant for eliminating those they deemed heretics.
That said, do you really want to compare the "eliminations" of "heretics" by Puritans vs the Catholics?
Um...no, I said they were not Unitarians. Reading glasses are in order. I said the picture depicts Puritans.
No, but a comparison of “heretics” eliminated by Catholics vs. “heretics” eliminated by protestantism would show very little difference and belies more about the times than it does about the relative merits of either set of beliefs.
It has to do with the Christian way of life. If one’s question doesn’t glorify Him, it isn;t theough faith in Him.
I understood what it had to do with the first time around. It still has nothing to do with the question I asked.
Of course; that's why the Catholic Church teaches just that: we are as a general proposition all sinners. However, the scripture also contains descriptions of some men who are "just and perfect [...who walk] with God" (Gen 6:9), who are fit to enter heaven (4 Kings 2:11), who are "full of grace" (Luke 1:28). There are also as many references to righteous people in the Psalms as are to the wicked. We read those two, and conclude that the text you referenced allows for some exceptions.
ZERO Biblical evidence that Mary was sinless
This is not longer a matter of plain reading. Once you decide to conclude something from absence of a scripture, the field is open to all kinds of speculation. After all, there is no reference to her sin either. The thesis is, that plain reading of the scripture in context leads one to the Catholic Church, not that the wildest extrascriptural speculations as to sinlessness of Mary, sufficiency of the scripture, salvation by faith alone, predestination of the reprobates, and other superstitions cannot be conceived.
Let me also add that indeed, much in Catholicism is not directly derived from the scripture, and some peripheral matters, such as, for example, celibacy of Latin priests, can be said to contradict some very natural interpretations of Titus 1:6. The thesis is that the fundamental Catholic theology is all plain scripture -- in other words, one reading the scripture without preconceived bias will agree with the Catholic/Orthodox explanation of the scripture and disagree with the fundamental tenets of Protestantism. On the facts known primarily from tradition: the liturgical practice, Church disciplines such as celibacy, sinlessness of Mary, lives of saints, and much more,-- the scripture is silent and so it won't convert you. In fact, on some of this extrascriptural stuff the Orthodox and the Catholics disagree also.
The plain meaning of 2 Tim. has scripture being all we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
It doesn't say "all we need". It says "profitable" or if you will "useful". Again, the thesis is that plain reading leads to Catohlicism, while mischaracterizing of the text leads to Protestantism, and you've shown the latter.
But then, the Church must reach outside of scripture to claim that your clergy also has that power today
Obviously, the scripture does not say anything specifically of today, but it has general promises to the Church and it mentions passing on the apostolic function to future generations. We also continue to witness miracles, -- thousands of saints of the Catholic Church who work them attest to that today.
I agree that the Deuterecanonical books are not quoted directly. Apocryphal books are quoted. See my 3107.
don't patronize me
I won't.
It doesn't follow from the citation, now, does it?
Then you're not looking. Interpretation starts with the four corners. It doesn't end there. Not with the Constitution and not with the Bible. Nor should it.
As I have been saying, your general approach is precisely the liberal philosophy of judicial interpretation. If the four corners say what you want, then fine. If they don't then expand the search arena to include things close to the original. If they say what you want, then fine. If they don't then keep expanding until you find something that DOES fit what you want. Thereby, the proper scope of consideration has been "fairly" determined. Along these lines, conservative Justice Scalia has skewered liberal Justice Breyer in his reasoning because Breyer is so fond of citing foreign law as authority (for him) over the United States Constitution itself.
Likewise it is in Bible interpretation. When Catholics see that the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, they say "fine" and stop there because that is what they believe. However, when they don't see any evidence in the Bible of Mariology then it becomes correct to expand the scope to include uninspired writers hundreds of years later in some cases. However long it took to find someone to agree with today's belief is defined as the authoritative moment.
This practice has branched out to now include every ex Cathedra statement by every Pope since the beginning which is not supported by scripture. So for example, what is the interpretive authority for Mary's assumption? It's not the Bible, and it's not any Council. No, it's an infallible decision made only 60 years ago. The Bible is of course reinterpreted to comport with this new view. This is exactly how liberals do it. The original document is seen as "living and breathing". Truth changes with the times, etc.
You have been saying it and you are still wrong.
...then it becomes correct to expand the scope to include uninspired writers...
Nope.
I guess that would depend upon whether you think ol’ Reg is on the “ark”.
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.