Posted on 05/17/2012 5:40:57 PM PDT by Gamecock
Every argument needs to build on recognized truths. When your initial premise seeks to build upon the falsehood that Catholics are not among "Bible believing Christians" there can be no acceptable proof of your thesis.
If you begin with a premise that the Catholic Church teaches a different interpretation of the Bible than your particular flavor of non-Catholic then we can build upon.
By the way, your link is a discussion of Justification, not Grace. As for differentiating Catholics from so-called "Bible believing Christians" would you care to expand upon the differences in the doctrines related to grace and justification between Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Wesley, Knox, Arminius, Murray and Swedenborg.
Peace be with you.
And verse 9 gives the reason why......
9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. 13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
Yes, all the “toxicity” around here is all the Catholic’s part; Catholics would rather “burn the place down” then let anyone “get away with” having another faith.
It’s just a coincidence that this thread was posted only an hour after This one: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2885062/posts Yep, just a coincidink. < /sarc>
(Anticipated likely response: “Of course this thread was posted after; it’s a response to the former’s silliness” which, if you, or anyone does say that, it only will show ignorance of your own hypocrisy WRT the claim that the Catholics “just can’t let anyone get away with it”, meaning of course Catholics are the only ones who would rather “burn the place down” then let testimonies of conversion stand.)
More like couldn't be happier! And KNOW they are blessed!
I have seen these debates here many times. I have no problem giving my testimony and admitting my love for Christ here on the forum. If I am ashamed of Christ on earth, He will be ashamed of me in the presence of His Father.
However, it is always the same. Evangelical Christians will point to scripture - which is black and white. The Catholics deny the scripture, say it doesn't mean what it says it does, look for ways to trap people, take 1/2 of argument "A" and merge it with new argument "B" and then blame the other poster for the leap, accuse others of lying and never really being Catholic, and my favorite - ridiculing their faith in Christ and telling them if come crawling back to the Catholic church they might (just might....mind you) have a shot at heaven.
**The Catholics deny the scripture, say it doesn’t mean what it says it does, look for ways to trap people, take 1/2 of argument “A” and merge it with new argument “B” and then blame the other poster for the leap, accuse others of lying and never really being Catholic, and my favorite - ridiculing their faith in Christ and telling them if come crawling back to the Catholic church they might (just might....mind you) have a shot at heaven.**
Perhaps you need to give some examples here. In what I see on FR, I do not see the Catholics lying as you say they do.
Catholics do read the Bible every day. What is your problem with that? Don’t you see the Daily Readings posted?
We are in the presence of God all the time as long as we haven’t committed a mortal sin, but especially in the presence of God during the Mass. And especially when that REAL PRESENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is received reverently in Holy Communion.
Do you remember?
The term "Bible believing Christians" is certainly not a descriptor I made up. It is well recognized and widely, widely used. Almost universally.
At the very heart of this debate is God's word. That is what should be the authority. Period.
I certainly did not invent this "premise" that the Catholic church either ignores or misinterprets scripture vis a vis its doctrine. I could start at the Reformation and move from there.
Catholics do read the Bible every day.
Very, very few Catholics read scripture on a regular basis. My experience (and I am not alone in this whatsoever) was that the church highly discouraged independent bible study.
There are many sources for that, but I will simply post one posted on this very thread by daniel1212:
42.1% of Evangelical Protestants and 7.1% of Catholics Read Scripture weekly or more.
In my experience, those number are pretty accurate. We could argue the mean, the mode, and the standard deviation - or find other sources. Honest sources will almost universally be in agreement that the study of scripture is a very low priority for Catholics. The simple truth is that the great majority of Catholics do the exact opposite of what you said they do regarding the study of scripture.
We are in the presence of God all the time as long as we haven’t committed a mortal sin
Where in scripture is "mortal sin" listed? Chapter and verse please.
You won't find it. You see.....this is the problem. You are spouting Catholic doctrine, Catholic tradition, Catholic invention. There is no such distinction as "mortal sin" or "venial sin." Sin is sin. The Bible addresses it as such. The Bible does not teach (as the Catholic church does) that some sins are worthy of eternal punishment and some are not. It teaches that all of us have sinned (Romans 3:23).
I keep hearkening back to your one comment from your post to me:
What is your problem with that?
Well, I could turn try and turn the tables and ask you the very same question. In fact, I posted very early on in this thread that people would have "a problem" with allowing former Catholics professing salvation through faith in Jesus alone to not be allowed to rest.
This is a fundamental issue. In fact, it is THE issue for humanity: how can we be reunited with God? Since the fall of Adam, this has been the issue.
The difference between you and I is that I profess being saved by Grace through Faith alone in Jesus Christ; and you profess what the Catholic church teaches.
If you want to stand on that side of the river, you have every right to do that. You cannot be argued into the Kingdom of God. Believe what you want and stay with your faith if that is what you choose to do. You may disbelieve my faith if you wish.
However, I will bear witness when I feel called upon to tell people what Christ did for me. In fact, that is the 'Great Commission' that Christ gave to us in Matthew 28:16-20, isn't it?
I accept what Jesus said completely! No, he did not lie, he cannot lie because he is Almighty God incarnate. Think how much easier it is if we just take Jesus at HIS word. He said he is the door to the sheepfold. Is he made of wood? He said he is the vine and we are the branches, is he a plant? He said he was the bread of life, is he made of wheat and yeast? He is the water of life, is he H2O? He said he is the resurrection and the life, is he limited by our semantics of words? Were the followers of Jesus? When they were assembled that last night before the Crucifixion the next day, Jesus was celebrating the Jewish observance of the "seder". Those elements of bread and wine were part of that and they had quite specific reasons for being there all those thousands of years of the same observance by the Jews. Do a little research about the symbolism of each of those elements and what they represented. Go back and think about when Jesus started talking about himself being the "bread of life" and the "water of life". He was giving simple to understand similes and object lessons so that these simple people could grasp his meaning.
Now think forward two thousand years and see how convoluted and twisted his words have become. The simple lesson that he is the bread of life and whoever "ate" of him - meaning believed/received him - would NEVER be hungry (spiritual hunger), would HAVE eternal life. But what have men done with his words? "Special" priests have to "confect" the elements of the Eucharist (which simply meant thanksgiving). They do some actions, say some "special" words, and viola! the bread and wine are literally - yes, that is what they say - changed into the body and blood of our savior so that all those who come forward and eat that tiny piece of cracker are literally receiving the life of Christ into their souls. But if you go back to the first century life of the Christians, they had "love feasts" where they partook of the bread and wine just like Jesus told them to do - in REMEMBRANCE OF ME. They did not look at that as the way they could be given the grace to be saved. They already KNEW they were saved because they had already accepted the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior before they came together in their local assemblies to share in this observance.
From the site http://www.the-highway.com/eucharist_Webster.html we learn:
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that when the priest utters the words of consecration, the bread and wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ. He is then offered to God on the altar as a propitiatory sacrifice for sin. The Council of Trent explicitly states that ‘in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner who once offered himself in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross’. There are thus two aspects of the Roman doctrine: transubstantiation, which guarantees the ‘real presence’ of Christ; and the mass, in which Christ, thus present bodily, is re-offered to God as a sacrifice. This, however, is not the only view which has been expressed in a consistent way throughout the history of the Church. From the beginning of the Church the Fathers generally expressed their belief in the Real Presence in the eucharist, in that they identified the elements with the body and blood of Christ, and also referred to the eucharist as a sacrifice, but there was considerable difference of opinion among the Fathers on the precise nature of these things, reflected in the fact that the ancient Church produced no official dogma of the Lord’s Supper. Interpretation of the meaning of the eucharist in the writings of the Fathers must be done with great caution for it is very easy to take a preconceived theology of the eucharist and read it back into their comments and teachings.
I encourage you to go to the link and read the excerpts given of some of the Early Church Fathers and their views about the subject. It clearly shows that the idea of the "eucharist" becoming the body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ and its propitiatory purpose was NOT held by the Apostles nor the first Christians and, instead, it was a process of development of doctrine and changes over centuries that give us the dogmas the Catholic Church teaches today. Rather than this church's contention that it teaches the orthodox Christian faith as it has ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE been believed is patently untrue. It is NOT "only in my mind" that I don't accept the teaching about this observance, it is what Scripture says and I believe God's word over fallible men who presume to contradict God's word. You can choose to believe they have that right, but I hold the truths of God's word to be THE authority NOT men.
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. (Jeremiah 29:13)
I do not disagree with your discourse here. My point is that both ‘transsubstantiation’ and ‘transliteration’ are man’s theological attempts to make communion, breaking of bread together, something that it is not. And by the way, I believe we are shown in the Word that the early church celebrated this together frequently, probably at least once a week, not once a quarter, or at say, Easter and Christmas. Fact is, I suspect the early church had no special ‘Easter/Christmas’ celebrations.
And you are correct...communion has no special ‘saving the soul’ qualities. That is totally dependent on each of us personally accepting the gift of grace offered by our Lord in His death and reserection.
The world’s systems would have none of Him and that is their downfall. The religious, the political, the economic systems of the world – they are not His way and they are crumbling. Fear not. He is in control. Let His way be our way and let His peace be our peace.
Problem is....
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.
If the eucharist is an unbloody sacrifice, it's useless. A *sacrifice* without the shedding of blood is meaningless killing.
Besides, Christ's life was not taken from Him; He offered it Himself. His death provided payment in full for all our sins.
His death was so that God's justice could be satisfied not so that some priest in some church could offer Jesus to God in an attempt to appease God by offering Him as a sacrifice to God for us. (Which by Catholics own admission still isn't even good enough because you don't meet a practicing Catholics who is sure of getting to heaven)
Hebrews 9:24-28 24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25 Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Hebrews 10:8-14 8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “Behold, I have come to do your will.” He does away with the first in order to establish the second. 10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.
Jesus is not in heaven being continually offered for sin as a perpetual sacrifice, He is seated at God's right hand having FINISHED that work.
Last but not least,.....
Hebrews 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.
Amen! And on this thread that speaks about why some Catholics leave the Catholic Church to join the "Protestant" ones, I believe that your statement is probably the best reason why the majority do it. There is a stirring in our souls - the result of the Holy Spirit - convicting us that there IS truth and it is NOT found where we are. I recognized it at sixteen years old and, all these years later, the more I learn, the more I am convinced that it was indeed the Spirit of God leading me out of a false, man-made religious system into the glorious Gospel of His grace. I have lived the truth that God is a rewarder of those that diligently seek him. Every day I thank him for loving me and saving me and leading me to THE truth. It is a promise He gives to ALL who search for Him with all their hearts - He WILL be found.
They will say that these are all divorced people ..LOL
My reformed church is also filled with ex RC’s
I learned about Grace from studying the Baltimore Catechism, back in the early 60s.
~ ~ ~
SuziQ, Natural Law, everyone reading this thread,
Have you ever read the writings of Father Matthias Scheeben?
I love his book, The Glories of Divine Grace. It might
be on the Net to read.
“Jesus is not in heaven being continually offered for sin as a perpetual sacrifice, He is seated at God’s right hand having FINISHED that work.
Last but not least,.....
Hebrews 10:18 Where there is forgiveness of these, there is no longer any offering for sin.”
~ ~ ~
The Holy Masss, the “everlasting sacrifice” is offered in Heaven. Scott Hahn a former Protestant minister said when he went to his first Mass...”this is the Book of Revelation!”
Read the footnotes for Hebrews 10:18. God the Holy Spirit
does not lead every person into their own interpretation
of Scripture. If that were true, you would have multiple
beliefs and churches...ecclesiastical communities, yes?
Hebrews 10:18
Now where there is a remission of these, there is no more an oblation for sin.
[18] There is no more an oblation for sin: Where there is a full remission of sins, as in baptism, there is no more occasion for a sin offering to be made for such sins already remitted; and as for sins committed afterwards, they can only be remitted in virtue of the one oblation of Christ’s death.
Hebrews 10:10-20
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before, This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.
Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; And having an high priest over the house of God; Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
So, no, your "interpretation" of this one verse, implying that it is speaking only of sins committed prior to baptism as being remitted, but future sins needing the application of the grace received at the performance of the Mass, is plain wrong. The sacrifice of Jesus Christ perfected FOREVER those that are sanctified - made holy/set apart. By His ONE OFFERING - forever, for all who receive Him as Savior.
I almost expected a "hearafter reffered to as the third party" line after that.I'll have my lawyer look into the matter and get back to you.
Thankyou for your posts bb and the time you take to write them.God bless.
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.