Posted on 01/26/2016 7:32:29 PM PST by ebb tide
The ‘catholic church is not Jesus’s ekklesia, although there are no doubt many many members of His Ekklesia ensnared by catholiciism. Just as there are many many Baptist who are members of His Ekklesia. But to purposely conflate the institutions with The Church God began with the Advent of Jesus is to reject the Truth of God’s Spirit as Author and Finisher of your Salvation.
That’s not a requirement of the RM, at least not on the RM’s home page. Only sufficient reference to make sure copyrights are not being infringed.
How do expect me to answer my question to you, "Are you a Catholic?"
If you'd really like me to venture an answer for you, it would be, "No."
Poster rwa265:
The Catholic Church does not condemn Augustine or Chrysostom. In fact, the Church regards them as Doctors of the Church, citing them several times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
The Catechism doesn't agree with them. For example, when it comes to the concept of universal grace, or the "universal saving will":
CCC 1256 "The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation." Cf. 1 Tim 2:4.
Please note how the catechism cites 1 Tim 2:4. Some more quotes from Roman Catholicism:
"In the New Testament, the universal salvific will of God is closely connected to the sole mediation of Christ: '[God] desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ, who gave himself as a ransom for all' (1 Tim 2:4-6)." (Cardinal Ratzinger, Dominus Jesus, n. 13)
"Pope John Paul II: "The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation." (Redemptoris Missio, n. 10).
Salvation is universal in that it is offered to all human persons. But this offer is not merely theoretical. Salvation is concretely available to all persons. The grace of Christ in the Spirit enables each person to obtain eternal life by free cooperation with grace. For "Christ died for all men," not only for some (Gaudium et Spes, n. 22).
From: http://www.catechism.cc/articles/predestination-salvation.htm
So now let's compare Augustine on universal grace and his position on 1 Tim 2:4:
"Or, it is said, "Who will have all men to be saved;"[1 Tim 2:4] not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then, explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presence of some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), but that we are to understand by "all men," the human race in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings, subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the sound in body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, the poor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants, boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of every fashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerable differences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is that makes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is there out of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nations through His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them; for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and had especially added, "For kings, and for all that are in authority," who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp of worldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith. Then saying, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour," that is, that prayers should be made for such as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground of despair, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" [I Tim. 2:1-4]. God, then, in His great condescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humble the salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples of this. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel, when He says to the Pharisees: "Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb" [Luke 11:42]. For the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of other lands. As, then, in this place we must understand by "every herb," every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we may understand by "all men," every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not done: for setting aside all ambiguities, if "He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and in earth" [Ps. 115:3]. as the psalmist sings of Him, He certainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done." (Augustine, Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Ch. 103. Interpretation of the Expression in I Tim. 2:4: "Who Will Have All Men to Be Saved".)
"Wherefore, the Lord, about to give the Holy Spirit, said that Himself was the bread that came down from heaven, exhorting us to believe in Him. For to believe in Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again. A babe within, a new man within. Where he is made new, there he is satisfied with food. (12) What then did the Lord answer to such murmurers? Murmur not among yourselves. As if He said, I know why you are not hungry, and do not understand nor seek after this bread. Murmur not among yourselves: no man can come unto me, except the Father that sent me draw him. Noble excellence of grace! No man comes unless drawn. There is whom He draws, and there is whom He draws not; why He draws one and draws not another, do not desire to judge, if you desire not to err." (Augustine, Tractate 26)
"We know that God's grace is not given to all men. To those to whom it is given it is given neither according to the merits of works, nor according to the merits of the will, but by free grace. To those to whom it is not given we know that it is because of God's righteous judgment that it is not given." (Augustine, August. ad Bonifac. Ep. 106)
"And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for "He has mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardens." (Augustine, The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 98. Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.)
As you can see, not only does Augustine reject what the catechism teaches here, he is also a Monergist, contrary to the synergism of Roman Catholicism.
Mad Dawg:
A lot of Catholics seem inordinately focussed on the small question of merit.
I have no idea what you're referring to, but Augustine was a Monergist-- that is, salvation was entirely in the hands of God. Catholicism is Synergistic. This difference is not "small," but so massive that it destroys Catholicism.
As for "modifications" of tradition, if Catholicism isn't really THE ancient religion, but one that has rejected the doctrines that characterized the Reformation and people like Augustine, then Catholicism is severely damaged.
Now Hilda:
" You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." - James 2:24 That's the only place where the Bible uses the words "faith alone." How can you have "Sola Scriptura, sola fide," when the Scriptura says "NOT be sola fide"?
James 2:24 isn't the only place that discusses justification, and the fact that we are justified by faith alone. Paul does it too, and plainly strips away works from justification:
"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, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." (Rom 4:4-8)
Without any doubt, we who are ungodly are justified by faith "without works." If we believe that good works are imputed to our righteousness, then we contradict Paul, who plainly teaches that we are saved by grace only, and if by grace, it is not debt: "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)
James and Paul do not contradict, as Augustine says, "good works follow justification." James is talking about the difference between a dead faith, that is, a mere empty knowledge of God, and the living faith of Paul that justifies without works, but is yet always accompanied by works as its fruit.
Salvation knows, she’s been spamming me with the “provide links!” for years. I never do because it annoys her, and, anyway, even when I do provide a link, she does not read it.
Look, I've worked on this issue since 1969. (Yeah, I did some other stuff along the way.) At my college we had to write an essay ever year, a serious essay. That year mine was on Calvin and Aquinas: Merit and Grace. I learned a lot writing it and in the oral exam.
My seminary, 1972 - 1976 with a year off as a hospital chaplain, was in a Calvin - Barth - Neo-Orthodox phase when I was there. (My personal opinion is that a 3 years M. Div. is a joke.) We didn't have enough time to really dig into these questions seriously. I think the superficiality of a lot of Episcopal seminaries contributed to the current train wreck in that communion. I realized once — when in a practice teaching session I did a survey of the great Eucharistic doctrines — that my classmates, for the most part, had next to no theology or philosophy. One guy actually, seriously, proposed that the law of the Conservation of Matter and Energy provided a counter-argument to Transubstantiation! He obviously didn't know the difference between substance and matter.
(And that's when I realized that one can't eschew metaphysics. Everybody has a metaphysics, but the people who THINK they don't actually have an incoherent metaphysics.)
In any case, I saw, and still see, that you must do nothing to be saved. (Yet it's interesting that when IHS is asked that, that's not the answer that he gives. Why not?)
So I set out to do nothing. That's not easy!
But, as a consequence, I began to think that in these conversations we're talking skew-wise. So your side can say, “Look at what Augustine says!” and I'm left saying,
“Augustine, priest and bishop in Hippo, who received and administered Sacraments (or “Ordinances,” the name doesn't change what they are)? That Augustine who wrote the rule on which the Dominican rule is based? I might nibble and quibble about the edges, but I have no deep problem with him. His memorial day is a feast for us Dominicans.”
Everybody comes roaring into the conversation (including, in this instance, Pope Leo) looking for a fight. Can it be a surprise that we're not disposed to understand one another?
As for me, the apologetic disputes on Free Republic have taught me a lot. But I keep my distance these days because the “THAT will settle their hash!” vibe, on either side, does nothing for me. I ask a question and am told I a ego-tripping. Really?
Here one side comes roaring in like Jan Sobieski, but instead of routing the Turks, they are routing the Protestants or the Catholics. Yeah, well, routing doesn't interest me a lot. Better, IMHO, the Lord of Armies rout us both than that we should ride over one another’s heads.
Freeper etiquette requests you ping anybody mentioned in a posting.
Speaking of sacraments, Augustine didn't believe in transubstantiation, but believed in suprasubstantiation:
"They said therefore unto Him, What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?" For He had said to them, "Labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth unto eternal life." "What shall we do?" they ask; by observing what, shall we be able to fulfill this precept? "Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He has sent." This is then to eat the meat, not that which perisheth, but that which endureth unto eternal life. To what purpose dost thou make ready teeth and stomach? Believe, and thou hast eaten already." (Augustine, Tractate 25)
"If the sentence is one of command, either forbidding a crime or vice, or enjoining an act of prudence or benevolence, it is not figurative. If, however, it seems to enjoin a crime or vice, or to forbid an act of prudence or benevolence, it is figurative. Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man, says Christ, and drink His blood, you have no life in you. John 6:53 This seems to enjoin a crime or a vice; it is therefore a figure, enjoining that we should have a share [communicandem] in the sufferings of our Lord, and that we should retain a sweet and profitable memory [in memoria] of the fact that His flesh was wounded and crucified for us. Scripture says: If your enemy hungers, feed him; if he thirsts, give him drink; and this is beyond doubt a command to do a kindness. But in what follows, for in so doing you shall heap coals of fire on his head, one would think a deed of malevolence was enjoined. Do not doubt, then, that the expression is figurative; and, while it is possible to interpret it in two ways, one pointing to the doing of an injury, the other to a display of superiority, let charity on the contrary call you back to benevolence, and interpret the coals of fire as the burning groans of penitence by which a man’s pride is cured who bewails that he has been the enemy of one who came to his assistance in distress. In the same way, when our Lord says, He who loves his life shall lose it, we are not to think that He forbids the prudence with which it is a man’s duty to care for his life, but that He says in a figurative sense, Let him lose his life-- that is, let him destroy and lose that perverted and unnatural use which he now makes of his life, and through which his desires are fixed on temporal things so that he gives no heed to eternal. It is written: Give to the godly man, and help not a sinner. The latter clause of this sentence seems to forbid benevolence; for it says, help not a sinner. Understand, therefore, that sinner is put figuratively for sin, so that it is his sin you are not to help." (Augustine, Christian Doctrine, Ch. 16)
Augustine also rejected Roman Catholic conceptions of the Papacy:
"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable" (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).
"Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal." (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 2:8)
"It is also our pleasure that if the priests, deacons and inferior clergy complain of the adjudications of their own bishops in their causes, the neighboring bishops shall hear them, and decide whatever is between them... But if they think it necessary to appeal from them, they shall only appeal to African councils or to the primates of their provinces. If any one shall appeal beyond the seas, let him be received into communion by none in Africa."
"Here follow the signatures of Sixty Bishops."
"4th Signature. I, Augustine, bishop of Hippo, legate of the province of Numidia, have subscribed these acts."
"This was the Milevitan council which decided against appeals to the Bishop of Rome in opposition to Popes Zosimus, Boniface, and Celestine." (From Archbishop Manse's complete Collection of Councils, tom. 4, p. 507. Printed at Venice, 1785.)
What a farce and abomination to celebrate one of the most evil of antisemites Martin Luther who to his dying days sought to persecute Jewish refugees. Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning. Again, a new commandment I write unto you, which thing is true in him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shineth. He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
Leviticus, Catholic chapter nineteen, Protestant verse eighteen,
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty two, Protestant verses thirty seven to forty,
First John, Catholic chapter two, Protestant verses three to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
This is accurate. Before JPII's 1983 Canon of Law (which codified Vatican II)the Catholic Church never let any non-Catholic receive until they actually converted to the Faith.
This should be cause for real concern for any Catholic.
A: While The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod holds Martin Luther in high esteem for his bold proclamation and clear articulation of the teachings of Scripture, it deeply regrets and deplores statements made by Luther which express a negative and hostile attitude toward the Jews. In light of the many positive and caring statements concerning the Jews made by Luther throughout his lifetime, it would not be fair on the basis of these few regrettable (and uncharacteristic) negative statements, to characterize the reformer as "a rabid anti-Semite." The LCMS, however, does not seek to "excuse" these statements of Luther, but denounces them (without denouncing Luther's theology). In 1983, the Synod adopted an official resolution addressing these statements of Luther and making clear its own position on anti-Semitism. The text of this resolution reads as follows:
WHEREAS, Anti-Semitism and other forms of racism are a continuing problem in our world; and
WHEREAS, Some of Luther's intemperate remarks about the Jews are often cited in this connection; and
WHEREAS, It is widely but falsely assumed that Luther's personal writings and opinions have some official status among us (thus, sometimes implying the responsibility of contemporary Lutheranism for those statements, if not complicity in them); but also
WHEREAS, It is plain from Scripture that the Gospel must be proclaimed to all people--that is, to Jews also, no more and no less than to others (Matt. 28:18-20); and
WHEREAS, This Scriptural mandate is sometimes confused with anti-Semitism; therefore be it
Resolved, That we condemn any and all discrimination against others on account of race or religion or any coercion on that account and pledge ourselves to work and witness against such sins; and be it further
Resolved, That we reaffirm that the bases of our doctrine and practice are the Scriptures and the Lutheran Confessions and not Luther, as such; and be it further
Resolved, That while, on the one hand, we are deeply indebted to Luther for his rediscovery and enunciation of the Gospel, on the other hand, we deplore and disassociate ourselves from Luther's negative statements about the Jewish people, and, by the same token, we deplore the use today of such sentiments by Luther to incite anti-Christian and/or anti-Lutheran sentiment; and be it further
Resolved, That in our teaching and preaching we take care not to confuse the religion of the Old Testament (often labeled "Yahwism") with the subsequent Judaism, nor misleadingly speak about "Jews" in the Old Testament ("Israelites" or "Hebrews" being much more accurate terms), lest we obscure the basic claim of the New Testament and of the Gospel to being in substantial continuity with the Old Testament and that the fulfillment of the ancient promises came in Jesus Christ; and be it further
Resolved, That we avoid the recurring pitfall of recrimination (as illustrated by the remarks of Luther and many of the early church fathers) against those who do not respond positively to our evangelistic efforts; and be it finally
Resolved, That, in that light, we personally and individually adopt Luther's final attitude toward the Jewish people, as evidenced in his last sermon: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).
Thank you for a beautiful exposition of The Truth The Word of God declares.
Jan Sobieski has been dead for 320 years. If he has a FR account it’s probably inactive.
I made it clear why I celebrate how God used Blessed Father Luther, while acknowledging his flaws.
Your attempt to imply I would support anything else is just silly.
Your time would be better spent understanding the anti-semitic nature of Rome at the time - the very institution that set Blessed Father Luther on a bad course.
That God used him to recover the Gospel of Grace from the dustbin of Rome and release it to those who need eternal life is more of an accomplishment than most men ever have. Truly the Grace of God to use any of us, but he does.
I say with the Apostle Paul (who was a forgiven murderer and persecutor of Christ's Assembly that God chose to use), "Thanks be to God for His indescribable gift!"
This sort of binary thinking is not necessarily the only or the best way to approach a lot of questions. As an example, merit and grace are usually opposed. But what if merit is a kind of grace? Mercy and Justice are opposed, but they are one in God, so too strict an opposition in thought will at least suggest that our thought is defective, especially if it is firmly binary.
This is why (and how) I think Protestants and others who eschew philosophy err. They have an ‘organon’ but seem to think they don't. So there is a speedy assumption that if Augustine says the text refers to Christ and faith in Christ as “the rock” then it can't also refer to Peter (and his successors.)
IMHO, at the core of the faith v. works conundrum is Philippians 2:12-13, which is not readily interpreted with a strict “either-or” method.
To castigate Luther for anti-semitism and overlook the institution which taught/re-inforced that idea takes a special kind of bias that is troubling.
By starting out with a false basis of argument the likelihood of a false conclusion increases dramatically. There have been countless arguments on this forum on the differences of Peter and Jesus and Who is the real "Rock" that it hardly seems resurrecting again as minds are not open to the subject.
IMHO, the differences in Catholics and Prots are Prots are taught how to read and let the Holy Spirit lead and Catholics are taught (stringently) what to believe.
And your argument against firm binary thinking weakens your position the RCC being the only Church and not other Protestant Churches who differ slightly but have a common core.
Have a blessed day.
Since May 8, 2009
Possibly another screen name for someone carrying more than one ID at FR.
As expected you ignore the scriptures to defend your antisemitic hero Luther, which makes sense when one’s gospel is really based on Luther.
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.