| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/18/2017 12:24:33 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish personal comments |
Posted on 03/13/2017 8:58:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
Two trials, two appeals to conscience.
Trial 1: I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I can do no other, so help me God. Amen.
Trial 2: If the number of bishops and universities should be so material as your lordship seems to think, then I see little cause, my lord, why that should make any change in my conscience. For I have no doubt that, though not in this realm, but of all those well learned bishops and virtuous men that are yet alive throughout Christendom, they are not fewer who are of my mind therein. But if I should speak of those who are already dead, of whom many are now holy saints in heaven, I am very sure it is the far greater part of them who, all the while they lived, thought in this case the way that I think now. And therefore am I not bound, my lord, to conform my conscience to the council of one realm against the General Council of Christendom.
What is the difference of these two quotes?
The first, from the friar Martin Luther, asserts the primacy of conscience over the universal consent of the Church and the tradition.
The second, from a laymen Thomas More, notes the agreement of conscience to the faith of Christendom, the history of the Church, and the saints of Heaven.
Why are these appeals to conscience significant? I think Belloc is fundamentally correct in his assessment of the nature of Protestantism as a denial of religious authority, resting in a visible Church:
The Protestant attack differed from the rest especially in this characteristic, that its attack did not consist in the promulgation of a new doctrine or of a new authority, that it made no concerted attempt at creating a counter-Church, but had for its principle the denial of unity. It was an effort to promote that state of mind in which a “Church” in the old sense of the word-that is, an infallible, united, teaching body, a Person speaking with Divine authority-should be denied; not the doctrines it might happen to advance, but its very claim to advance them with unique authority.
The individual quickly emerged to fill the vacuum left by the Church, as the dominant religious factor in the modern period.
Martin Luther: Revolutionary, Not Reformer In this year of the five hundredth anniversary of the Reformation, we have to take stock of the legacy of the renegade, Catholic priest, Martin Luther. What were his intentions? It is commonly alleged, even among Catholics, that he had the noble aim of reforming abuses within the Church.
In fact, Martin Luther discovered his revolutionary, theological positions about a year before he posted his 95 theses. Probably in the year 1516, while lecturing on Romans at the seminary in Wittenburg, Luther had a pivotal experience, which shaped the way he viewed the Christian faith. Essentially, his “tower experience,” resolved his difficulty of conscience. He saw God and His commandments as a moral threat:
But I, blameless monk that I was, felt that before God I was a sinner with an extremely troubled conscience. I couldn’t be sure that God was appeased by my satisfaction. I did not love, no, rather I hated the just God who punishes sinners. In silence, if I did not blaspheme, then certainly I grumbled vehemently and got angry at God. I said, “Isn’t it enough that we miserable sinners, lost for all eternity because of original sin, are oppressed by every kind of calamity through the Ten Commandments? Why does God heap sorrow upon sorrow through the Gospel and through the Gospel threaten us with his justice and his wrath?” This was how I was raging with wild and disturbed conscience. I constantly badgered St. Paul about that spot in Romans 1 and anxiously wanted to know what he meant.
Reading Romans 1, while in the tower of his monastery, Luther suddenly saw the resolution of his troubled conscience through faith: “All at once I felt that I had been born again and entered into paradise itself through open gates. Immediately I saw the whole of Scripture in a different light.”
As we see in Trent’s teaching on justification and the Joint Declaration of Faith, there is nothing wrong with the realization that righteousness (same word as justification) comes through faith alone, moved by the grace of God. The problem is the re-reading of Scripture and all of the Christian tradition in a different light through this realization. Luther’s troubled conscience and experience of faith led him eventually (as it took him a while to work it out) to reject many of the Sacraments, books of the Bible, and the Church’s authority all in the name of liberty of conscience. A great schism would follow from Luther’s personal experience.
The Significance of Luther’s Teaching on Conscience No doubt reforms were needed in the Catholic Church in 1517. Contrary to popular opinion however, Luther primarily sought to spread his understanding of the Gospel, not to correct abuses. Catholic practices became abuses precisely because they contradicted his tower experience of 1516.
One of Luther’s early tracts, Appeal to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation (1520), lays out the implications of his view in more detail:
Besides, if we are all priests, as was said above, and all have one faith, one Gospel, one sacrament, why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is correct or incorrect in matters of faith? What becomes of the words of Paul in I Corinthians 2:15: “He that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man,” II Corinthians 4:13: “We have all the same Spirit of faith”? Why, then, should not we perceive what squares with faith and what does not, as well as does an unbelieving pope?
All these and many other texts should make us bold and free, and we should not allow the Spirit of liberty, as Paul calls Him, to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we ought to go boldly forward to test all that they do or leave undone, according to our interpretation of the Scriptures, which rests on faith, and compel them to follow not their own interpretation, but the one that is better….
Thus I hope that the false, lying terror with which the Romans have this long time made our conscience timid and stupid, has been allayed.
Luther never condoned license (though he did condone Philip of Hesse’s bigamy), as he said his conscience was captive to the Word of God, but he did separate the decision of his conscience from the authority of the Church. This proved absolutely foundational for Protestantism and modern, religious experience.
Father of the Modern World The claim that Luther stands at a crucial moment between medieval Christendom and the modern world is not contentious. This is need for care, however. His separation of faith and reason and insistence on the spiritual nature of the Church, in my opinion, did quicken the advance to secularism. However, Luther did not directly intend the creation of the modern, secular world as know it. Yet his stand on conscience and his individualistic interpretation of faith did lend itself to modern individualism, which I would even say is the heart of modern culture.
Cardinal Ratzinger suggested that Luther stood at the forefront of the modern movement, focused on the freedom of the individual. I recommend looking at this piece, “Truth and Freedom” further, but his central insight on Luther follows:
There is no doubt that from the very outset freedom has been the defining theme of that epoch which we call modern…. Luther’s polemical writing [On the Freedom of the Christian] boldly struck up this theme in resounding tones…. At issue was the freedom of conscience vis-à-vis the authority of the Church, hence the most intimate of all human freedoms…. Even if it would not be right to speak of the individualism of the Reformation, the new importance of the individual and the shift in the relation between individual conscience and authority are nonetheless among its dominant traits (Communio 23 [1996]: 20).
These traits have survived and at times predominate our contemporary religious experience. The sociologist, Christian Smith, has noted in his study of the faith life of emerging adults, Souls in Transition, that an evangelical focus on individual salvation has been carried over into a new religious autonomy. He claims that…
the places where today’s emerging adults have taken that individualism in religion basically continues the cultural trajectory launched by Martin Luther five centuries ago and propelled along the way by subsequent development of evangelical individualism, through revivalism, evangelism and pietism…. Furthermore, the strong individualistic subjectivism in the emerging adult religious outlook—that “truth” should be decided by “what seems right” to individuals, based on their personal experience and feelings—also has deep cultural-structural roots in American evangelicalism.
Luther’s legacy clearly points toward individualism in religion, setting up a conflict with religious authority and tradition. The average Western Christian probably follows his central assertion that one must follow one’s own conscience over and against the Church.
Luther’s View of Conscience in the Catholic Church The key issue in debating Luther’s legacy on conscience in the Catholic Church entails whether the teachings of the Church are subordinate to one’s own conscience or whether conscience is bound by the teaching of the Church.
I know an elderly Salesian priest who told me with all sincerity that the purpose of Vatican II was to teach us that we could decide what to believe and how to live according to our conscience. This is clearly the “Spirit of Vatican II,” as Gaudium et Spes, while upholding the dignity of conscience, enjoins couples in regards to the transmission of life: “But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel” (50). Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican’s Declaration on Religious Liberty, holds together two crucial points, stating that one cannot “be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience,” (3) as well as that “in the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church” (14). The Council upheld the dignity of conscience as well as its obligation to accept the authority of the Church.
The misinterpretation of the Council’s teaching on conscience as license found its first test case just three years after the Council closed in Humanae Vitae. Theologians such as Bernard Härring and Charles Curran advocated for the legitimacy of dissent from the encyclical on the grounds of conscience. The Canadian Bishops, in their Winnipeg Statement, affirmed: “In accord with the accepted principles of moral theology, if these persons have tried sincerely but without success to pursue a line of conduct in keeping with the given directives, they may be safely assure that, whoever honestly chooses that course which seems right to him does so in good conscience.”
Conscience also stands at the center of the current controversy over the interpretation of Amoris Laetitia. I’ve already written on how Amoris stands in relation to the Church’s efforts to inculturate the modern world in relation to conscience. Cardinal Caffarra claimed that the fifth dubium on conscience was the most important. He stated further: “Here, for me, is the decisive clash between the vision of life that belongs to the Church (because it belongs to divine Revelation) and modernity’s conception of one’s own conscience.” Recently, the German bishops, following those of Malta, have decided: “We write that—in justified individual cases and after a longer process—there can be a decision of conscience on the side of the faithful to receive the Sacraments, a decision which must be respected.”
In light of the current controversy on conscience, it is troubling that Luther is now upheld as genuine reformer. The most troubling is from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity in its Resources for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity and throughout the year 2017: “Separating that which is polemical from the theological insights of the Reformation, Catholics are now able to hear Luther’s challenge for the Church of today, recognising him as a ‘witness to the gospel’ (From Conflict to Communion 29). And so after centuries of mutual condemnations and vilification, in 2017 Lutheran and Catholic Christians will for the first time commemorate together the beginning of the Reformation.” The Vatican also announced a commemorative stamp (which to me sounds like the United States issuing a stamp commemorating the burning the White House by British troops).
Pope Francis has spoken of Luther several times in the past year, including in an inflight press conference returning from Armenia: “I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct.” In response I ask, what did Luther reform? Francis pointed to two things in his journey to Sweden. The Reformation “helped give greater centrality to sacred scripture in the Church’s life,” but it did so by advocating the flawed notion of sola scriptura. Francis also pointed to Luther’s concept of sola gratia, which “reminds us that God always takes the initiative, prior to any human response, even as he seeks to awaken that response.” While the priority of God’s initiative is true and there are similarities to Catholic teaching in this teaching (that faith is a free gift that cannot be merited), Luther denied our cooperation with grace, our ability to grow in sanctification and merit, and that we fall from grace through mortal sin. Francis also noted, while speaking to an ecumenical delegation from Finland: “In this spirit, we recalled in Lund that the intention of Martin Luther 500 years ago was to renew the Church, not divide Her.” Most recently he spoke of how we now know “how to appreciate the spiritual and theological gifts that we have received from the Reformation.”
It is true that Martin Luther did not want to divide the Church. He wanted to reform the Church on his own terms, which was not genuine reform. Luther said he would follow the Pope if the Pope taught the pure Gospel of his conception: “The chief cause that I fell out with the pope was this: the pope boasted that he was the head of the Church, and condemned all that would not be under his power and authority; for he said, although Christ be the head of the Church, yet, notwithstanding, there must be a corporal head of the Church upon earth. With this I could have been content, had he but taught the gospel pure and clear, and not introduced human inventions and lies in its stead.” Further he accuses the corruption of conscience by listening to the Church as opposed to Scripture: “But the papists, against their own consciences, say, No; we must hear the Church.” This points us back to the crucial issue of authority, pointed out by Belloc.
Conclusion: More Over Luther We should not celebrate the Reformation, because we cannot celebrate the defense of erroneous conscience held up against the authority of the Church. As St. Thomas More rightly said in his “Dialogue on Conscience,” taken down by his daughter Meg: “But indeed, if on the other side a man would in a matter take away by himself upon his own mind alone, or with some few, or with never so many, against an evident truth appearing by the common faith of Christendom, this conscience is very damnable.” He may have had Luther in mind.
More did not stand on his own private interpretation of the faith, but rested firmly on the authority of Christendom and, as Chesterton put it, the democracy of the dead: “But go we now to them that are dead before, and that are I trust in heaven, I am sure that it is not the fewer part of them that all the time while they lived, thought in some of the things, the way that I think now.”
More is a crucial example of standing firm in a rightly formed conscience. We should remember why he died and not let his witness remain in vain. He stood on the ground of the Church’s timeless teaching, anchored in Scripture and the witness of the saints. If we divorce conscience from authority, we will end in moral chaos. As Cardinal Ratzinger asked in his lucid work, On Conscience: “Does God speak to men in a contradictory manner? Does He contradict Himself? Does He forbid one person, even to the point of martyrdom, to do something that He allows or even requires of another?” These are crucial questions we must face.
Rather than celebrating the defender of erroneous conscience, let’s remember and invoke the true martyr of conscience, who died upholding the unity of the faith.
It is.
And on the next day he got up and went away with them, and some of the brethren from Joppa accompanied him. 24On the following day he entered Caesarea. Now Cornelius was waiting for them and had called together his relatives and close friends. 25When Peter entered, Cornelius met him, and fell at his feet and worshiped him. 26But Peter raised him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am just a man.” Acts 10:22-26 NASB
8I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. 9But he said to me, “Do not do that. I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God.” Revelation 22:8-9 NASB
The NT is clear...we do not pray or worship created beings.
We haven't even started covering all of the idols of Mary.
Catholics mistakenly conflate the Christian view of Mary which is based on the infallible NT, vs the Roman Catholic view which is based on the fallible writings of man, as hatred.
For example.
| Second Vatican Council (Lumen gentium ## 61-62) | The Greatest Commandment: Matthew 22:36-38 and Titus 2:13-14 | |
| Mary invoked by Roman Catholicism as Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiuxtrix and Mediatrix. | For this reason, the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adiutrix, and Mediatrix. | For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 1 Timothy 2:5 13looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds. Titus 2:13-14 |
Bible quotes from NASB
RCC position on Mary from https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya4.htm
I've said the standard issue prayers to both Mother Mary and to St. Michael, the archangel.
The Stations of the Cross was also new to me, but it's very powerful and highly recommended.
I would recommend you follow the teaching of the NT on this issue...and others.
Pray only to God. Worship only God.
The Orthodox probably is as well, but I don't know much about them, nor are there any Orthodox churches close to me.
Unfortunately, the Catholic church is a large institution, not unlike our GovCo, and as with most large institutions, it is incompatible with my personality.
It chaffs me some to need something from any large institution, just as it does now with me needing things found in the Catholic Church.
“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Son”. Is that truth?”
You undoubtedly believe Matthew’s gospel is inspired. No where in scripture does it ever say Matthew wrote an inspired gospel. Isn’t that true?
“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)”. Is that truth?”
You undoubtedly believe the book of Esther is inspired. Where in the Bible does it actually say Esther’s author was inspired but Judith’s was not?
“In the book of Acts, where detailed stories of water baptisms are found, the name of Jesus is mentioned, but not the triune formula. Is that truth?”
No where in the scriptures is there an inspired table of contents of the Bible. Isn’t that true?
“In the four gospels and the book of Acts, we find actual occurrences of mortal people praying to no one other than God. Is that truth?”
Jesus, in every gospel, says that he is/or will give His flesh/body for people to eat. Isn’t that true?
“In Ephesians 2:20, Paul tells the saints (1:1), that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”
Jesus, in every gospel, says that he is/or will give His blood for people to drink. Isn’t that true?
“In 1Peter 2:5-8, Peter declares Jesus Christ to be the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”
In Matthew 16, according to Orthodox, Catholic and many Protestant scholars, Jesus declares Peter the Rock. Here are examples of Protestant scholars admitting it: http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2006/09/protestant-scholars-on-mt-1616-19.html Since that is true, then isn’t any attempt by an attacker against the Catholic Church to create an impression that if 1 Peter 2:5-8 says Jesus is the cornerstone just a duplicitous way of trying to undermining the standard and ancient orthodox understanding of Peter as the Rock of Matthew 16?
“Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough?”
It can be - for those who only need it once. God, in His wisdom, however, foresaw that people would sin so He gave us the sacraments to aid us. The sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist can be received more than once and should be.
“If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly?”
Why read the Bible more than once? Why pray more than once? Why tell your wife you love her more than once? Jesus said to do this (meaning the Eucharist) in remembrance of Him. He never said, “Do it only once.”
“If once is not enough, then why is that?”
Again, for some, once may be enough, for most it is not because of our own sinful choices. Again, is reading the Bible ONCE enough for YOU? Is praying ONCE enough for YOU?
“Does it not have eternal power?”
Yes, it does. But we don’t. God gave us free will. We choose to sin. God’s Word has eternal power - but I bet you read the Bible more than once, right?
Did you even think through your questions? Apparently not.
Perhaps you missed the part about Luther's translation being in GERMAN? He didn't write in English - a language which was in development in the 1500's. He translated the Hebrew and Greek texts into common German (versus "High" German). Yet, as the linked source (which someone translated Luther's German into modern English) says:
“I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -- if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”
It is immaterial whether or not any modern English versions of Scripture include the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Luther's rationale is sound and he was far from the only one who saw the rightness of translating that verse that way (Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola). We have many other verses that back up and reinforce that it is faith ALONE in Jesus Christ ALONE by the grace of God ALONE that we are saved.
Additionally...Catholic translations prior to Luther spoke of faith alone at Romans 3:28. Hence, the Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had “allein durch den glauben,” while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had “per sola fede.”
He wasn't the first. Jerome (and certain others), favored the Masoretic canon for the Old Testament, excluding apocryphal books in his non-binding canon as being worthy to properly be called Scripture, but included most of them in a separate section, as per Jerome.
The first text to omit them was in 1627 and it was an unexplained publisher decision. The KJV began omitting them in the late 1800’s.
You can't blame Luther for that, can you? He died in 1546.
If you want to ramble on about what is, or isn’t scripture, before,...or after,.. answering yes or no, that’s fine. And if you want to answer in an affirmative, or negative way, without actually saying the words yes or no, that’s fine. But, if you could have found proof in your version of the Bible (that you apparently credit your predecessors for preserving), to justify a ‘no’ answer to one or more of the first four questions, I believe that you would have.
(Do you happen to play for that NL baseball team in LA?)
I gave very specific questions. You, in turn, gave me very specific questions. By normal debate rules, you should have answered mine first, so I will give you more time. Meanwhile, I will penalize your evasiveness by giving you two more very specific questions:
If Acts 2:38 is in your bible, just as it is in my bible, it shows baptism is done for remission of sins. Does the remission of sins wear off? (I mean, hey, according to you, your predecessors decided that Acts 2:38 was inspired)
If Hebrew 9:22 (without the shedding of blood is no remission) is in your bible, just as it is in mine, then blood must be miraculously applied to the soul being baptized, as per Acts 2:38. Yes of no?
**Did you even think through your questions? Apparently not.**
(Don’t forget to send flowers to be placed on Saul Alinsky’s grave)
That's Romish fantasy.
The Lord did not "found" the rotten parts of Roman Catholic theology. The Lord (nor the apostles) were not the inventors of hosts of things still within Catholicism today. That much has been well proven over and over and over again, although it can be difficult work, and much of it hinge upon things of subtlety, which can be as difficult to grasp as they are well protected by members of the cult. In past ages they'd murder a guy just for raising pointed criticisms. That's what we're dealing with here. They'd still murder critics today --- iF THEY COULD GET AWAY WITH IT. Of that I am quite certain.
The sundry claims made in support of the accumulated theological novelty, inventions and error (interwoven and overlaid upon things that are quite right enough in many aspect, on their own) have been examined for a long time now.
What has been discovered by millions; the parts which cause the most division among 'other Christians not Catholic' and the RCC, are not *quite* what the RCC cracks them up to be in way of origination and conformance to the written Word.
Not as advertised. Fraudulent. In error. Significant portions === Man-made religious system. Built right on top of what the Lord had instituted, and that is what makes the man-made and introduced novelties and smotherings so grievous.
Men came along and distorted what Christ had instituted. That's the Church of Rome. Still. In many ways. She won't admit it. Cannot admit to having been in error. It would blow the fantasy she has constructed and has lived by since prior to Luther's complaints to smithereens. But some would make it through the explosion alive and intact. The ones who are among the Lord's adopted, and right now as we speak, just happen to be within [Roman] Catholicism. I'd like to think there's more than just a few of those.
But go ahead vladi. Yourself and many other FRomans. Keep posting your hatred of 'Protestants' for the world to see. It's just that much evidence Roman Catholicism does not bring sight to the blind, does not cure (or only rarely, and that as if by mistake) one of spiritual ills.
Voter disenfranchisement? [seriesly]
They kicked him out? (drove Him out?) He won't tell them what they want to hear when they want to hear it.
I've got the same problem, but can't evict Him. I've tried. Didn't know I was but I was. trying.
For Rome, they've got statues to comfort them. Me, I got no statues. Always thought that stuff looked funny, even if it was just a horse or something...
I haven’t had time to respond completely, but will say that first, I said that Paul and James don’t contradict each other. It’s the Catholic version that says, on the one hand, that they don’t contradict each other, yet on the other treats them as if they do, and nullifies what Paul wrote about faith and grace. And as I said, the common Catholic position also claims that Protestants are only about “cheap grace” - antinomianism - even though Catholics who are paying any attention to evangelical Christians know that many of us believe in living according to God’s righteous laws to the extent we’re able to. I’ve mentioned this here numerous times concerning myself, but years ago I lived as a lesbian. I repented. I’m an evangelical Christian. If I only believe in “cheap grace” and not works in some way, why am I not saying God’s forgiveness through the cross of Christ covers all my sins and it would be okay to live that way? Why do so many evangelical Christians strive to live upright lives in the sight of God, including doing works of charity, if we only believe in “cheap grace” without works?
That is what I tried to explain to you, for a start, that we haven’t abandoned works but have a very different understanding of them, but you really didn’t respond directly to the points I raised.
On Luther inserting the word “alone” into Romans 3:28 - “For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law” - I would be inclined to be believe he did that to compensate for the long-standing neglect by the Catholic Church of God’s grace.
“The other seemingly disingenuous element of Luther’s interpretation of Romans 3:28 was to ignore the significance of the phrase “prescribed by the law.”
This is one area where I don’t have all the time I’d need to reply completely, but for a start, I’ll just comment on a few things. First, I see that you seem to have gotten the version that says “works prescribed by the law” from the New Revised Standard Version. But where do they get that from? It isn’t evident in the original Greek, which says “choris” means simply “without” or “apart from,” and that may explain why only a couple of the more obscure versions translate the passage that way.
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rom3.pdf
http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs/ref/?stgh=greek&stnm=5565
It’s not in the Douay-Rheims or the Revised Standard Version:
http://www.biblestudytools.com/romans/3-28-compare.html
Right now I don’t have time to really get into what Paul is talking about on the Jews and the Gentiles and the works of the law, but will only say that James wrote that to offend against the law in even one point was to be guilty of offending against the whole law, and even apart from this discussion in Romans, Paul and the other New Testament writers, as well as most importantly the Lord Himself, talk about how we are saved by faith through God’s grace and not by works. That I’ll talk about more another time too.
“These are all from Paul and completely support James.”
And that seems to be what’s a big part of the problem for the Catholic interpretation. “These are FROM PAUL and SUPPORT JAMES.” It always seems to be about Paul supporting James, and not the two supporting each other. What’s more, what James wrote is taken to mean WORKS SALVATION, and that seems to be taken on face value and needs no further discussion. Only what Paul wrote does. James’ words speak for themselves, but Paul’s words need to be discussed and interpreted at length in order to fit these words of James. Protestants certainly try to see how Paul supports James, but we also try to see how James supports Paul, including what Paul wrote on grace and on works. Ever try to understand how James supports Paul on us being saved by grace and not by works?
ACatholics take what James wrote on face value to mean exactly what it says. So do they take these passages on face value to mean exactly what they say?:
“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast.”
“For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law.”
That’s as much as I have time to reply to for now.
They can't hear it. Too painful. Truth, I mean. Ruins everything about certain and particular well circulated oft republished Romish fantasies, and their objects of "faith in their faith".
The distracting ones made of hatin's on Luther though...how do they manage that? Oh, I know! Call everyone that doesn't hate on Luther a something-or-another. Yeah, that's the ticket. Keep the troops in line.
Eurasia has always been at war with Oceania (in this instance there's some truth to the rumor, lol, though I pulled the 'ol switcheroo on the fake nations names).
Don't look at the man behind the curtain! There, behind you (and off to the side a little) there is your enemy! Fight fight fight. 'Cuz Jesus said. fight. them. to their deaths. God want's 'em dead just as much as we do, troops, so fire at will!
Make double sure none of them have any faith in God (if you can rip it from their breasts! rip rip rip it hard all of it out make sure they are miserable [as we are inside]) because their faith in God ain't how we'uns do it. And we'uns are the onlyiest ones doing "it" right. so fight. hurt 'em bad. getting mean is ok. God likes it when you get mean for Him. And let's face it, men. getting mean comes right natural to us. Stomp on their faith in Jesus (and them too with a snear) 'cuz we don't get to tell 'em how it's done. right. and that's wrong.
Does that about cover some of the noise we keep hearing from some of this crew? This thread sure brought them out, didn't it?
Was Moses predestined to lead the Israelites out of bondage in Egypt? Scripture does strongly infer that, there having been prophesy of how many years they would be "in Egypt".
Was the Messiah predestined to be slain for the sins of many? Ask yourself what was prophesied to Mary at the Temple when the baby was brought for dedication.
Paul wrote of the Messiah as the lamb that was slain from the foundations of the world. If that not be so in God's own economy (if I can use the term economy) how then would, or could the leading of Abram out from Ur of the Chaldees (and the promises given by God to Abram/Abraham), the later bondage of Abraham descendants in Egypt, the miracles leading them out, including the first Passover of the Angel sparing the Israelites who had done as Moses instructed, the later codifications of how sacrifices be made unto God to cover/or else remove sins..? What was that all for? What was it leading up to, and how could that all not have been predestined? (or did Luther sneak all that stuff into the book, you know, among all those ;changes; evil 'ol Luther did?)
29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
Does God not know the end of a thing from before the beginning? He would have to if He can send to the world prophecy.
I see (or at least think I see) possibility for God knowing it all, yet we ourselves still left to have degree of choice, and what choices made known from before we were born --- just what those would be. This is not to confuse our wills, the potion of our own which does not conform to what He would prefer for all, if all were left to His more preferred will, alone.
Have you ever wondered that we may have been created, in part, so that God would not be alone? Regardless of answer to that almost idle (and potentially theologically dangerous) musing;
What a glorious thing to have been created by such a One as He, and so much more so when by His Spirit be reborn of His Holy Spirit to be adopted as children of His.
How would you?
How' 'bout what does the word "call" mean to you?
How was that word framed in context?
Is it ok to sweep it all away thinking/saying "the Church dunit, so it's what He would have wanted the way things to be ('cuz the Church dunit)"?
Among Southern Baptists (not to claim them as 100% prefectomundo) they call their Pastors "brother". The Pastor calls men of the church "brother".
There's an application. Good enough? If not, then you tell me what's wrong with that (not tell me something else, or go off on tangents, not unless telling me that FIRST). You asked a question you got an answer. Now it's your turn.
You could post answer addressed to Elsie, instead of me, if you'd prefer to leave me out of this...
I wouldn't be offended if you did.
Amen! The minds reels!
mind 8-/
You've been misinformed.
We have NO 'hostility' towards Mary of the bible; Jesus' mother; at all.
What we ARE upset about is the creature created by Rome: The MARY of Hyperdulia and excessive Adoration; the Untier of Knots and Co-Redemptrix.
THIS 'mary' gets our rejection and our revulsion.
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.