[undotwa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

And I am saying that is nonsense. Through Christ we have grace. The Catholic Church is never NEEDED. But it isn't a BAD thing.

The Church is the body of Christ. Christ is the Church. Christ gave the power to the apostles to forgive sins (give graces) in His name. Christ is the ultimate source of our grace, and he delegates the ability to give grace to the Church through the sacraments.

No, no they were not. They were followers of Christ. Catholicism didn't even exist. They were saved because they followed Christ. Not the Catholic Church.

See my post above quoting St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The term 'Catholic' emerged to separate those who followed the true way of Christ from heretic sects which plagued the very beginnings of the Church. The application of the word Catholic did not change anything.

You seem to be putting the Catholic Sacraments above Jesus's dying for our sins. If that isn't the case, I apologize. Catholicism is just another form of Christianity. Like it or not. Admit it or not. The Bible doesn't somehow enlighten people more if their name is in the Catholic Church's membership. It's Dogma like that that turns people away.

Look - you're assumptions are mind boggling. You should read some books about the Catholic Church's teachings and history. The Catholicism didn't just come out of thin air and the Church's teachings are not without any basis.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by undotwa:
The Church is the body of Christ. Christ is the Church. Christ gave the power to the apostles to forgive sins (give graces) in His name.

Forgive sin through him. We don't have to go to priests to ask Jesus for forgiveness. We can do that on our own.

Christ is the ultimate source of our grace, and he delegates the ability to give grace to the Church through the sacraments.

And the person next to Jesus on the cross did not commit to such sacraments. It was in his hart that mattered.

The term 'Catholic' emerged to separate those who followed the true way of Christ from heretic sects which plagued the very beginnings of the Church. The application of the word Catholic did not change anything.

Yes it does. These people weren't saying hail maries, These people did not follow Catholicism like we know it today.

Look - you're assumptions are mind boggling. You should read some books about the Catholic Church's teachings and history. The Catholicism didn't just come out of thin air and the Church's teachings are not without any basis.

Oh I have. Believe me I have.

It's mostly Catholic Dogma. Man made rituals.


I don't need another man to talk to God. Nor do I need another man to tell me my sins are forgiven.

I can skip the middle man. He is not needed.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:

Forgive sin through him. We don't have to go to priests to ask Jesus for forgiveness. We can do that on our own.
[/b]

�Receive the Holy Spirit. For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sin you retain, they are retained� (John 20:22-23)

The apostles were given the power to forgive sins because of the Spirit of God which was specifically given to them. As it says they can 'forgive sins'.

And the person next to Jesus on the cross did not commit to such sacraments. It was in his hart that mattered.

Have you no understanding of the huge sacramental nature of Jesus Christ himself? The Mass is a rememberence (while at the same time being a sacrafice) of the events at Calvary. The simple fact is that the dieing thief partook in the sacrafice at Calvary in the same way I do by attending Holy Mass.

Yes it does. These people weren't saying hail maries, These people did not follow Catholicism like we know it today.

Marianism developed in the Church that is true, but Mary was from the beginning always seen as a intercessor to Jesus Christ for our salvation.

[b]
Oh I have. Believe me I have.

It's mostly Catholic Dogma. Man made rituals. [/]

What do you base that on? Prejudice? Do you have anything to back that up?

I don't need another man to talk to God. Nor do I need another man to tell me my sins are forgiven.

Do away with Jesus Christ then if you are the source of salvation! The simple fact is the Jesus Christ gave the power to forgive sins to certain men, who were also given the guardianship of the Church and to Peter was given the ability to make infallible dogma. 'The Breaking of the Bread' was always seen as some form of sacrafice which brings grace. Can't you see how these things parallel with the Old Testament? These are all recorded in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles.

I can skip the middle man. He is not needed.

There is no middle man, only Jesus Christ. Priests when they perform the sacraments do so as Jesus Christ.

[voodoo]

Some people in this thread claim to be Christian when they are not. These people would have been take in by the Inquisition and punished as heretics back in the day.

Deservingly so.

I can see now how important it is for the true believers to renounce these heretics that call themselves Christian. They are perhaps the single most dangerous threat to the religion. They are the ones who undermine and destroy.

A man starts this thread and asks: what makes you Christian?

The heretics calling themselves Christian have already answered a few times and sown seeds of doubt in the minds of those who don't know better on what Christianity is all about! Maybe the thread starter will take the 'information' given by the heretics and tell his friends who may know little about Christianity to begin with and by such chain reaction undermine the meaning of Christianity in the minds of the people who haven't had the chance to learn for themselves. They don't know about the heretics.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I don't need another man to talk to God. Nor do I need another man to tell me my sins are forgiven.

I can skip the middle man. He is not needed.

If you are Catholic... that's not true.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Some people in this thread claim to be Christian when they are not. These people would have been take in by the Inquisition and punished as heretics back in the day.

Deservingly so.

You might do well to separate in your statement; The Medieval Inquisition, The Roman Inquisition, or the Spanish Inquisition. You may be hard-pressed in convincing someone they would be deserving of the Spanish Inquisition style of punishment for example. You may then see fit to remove the smilee face.

I can see now how important it is for the true believers to renounce these heretics that call themselves Christian. They are perhaps the single most dangerous threat to the religion. They are the ones who undermine and destroy.

Should we be more concerned of offending religion, or God? Are the heretics the single biggest threat to religion, or the salvation of mankind in your view?

A man starts this thread and asks: what makes you Christian?

Actually, the question posed in this thread is; What is the minimum requirement to be considered "Christian"?
I found a statement of yours to be interesting; "I can see now how important it is for the true believers..." What is the minimum requirement in your view, to be held as a "true believer"?

The heretics calling themselves Christian have already answered a few times and sown seeds of doubt in the minds of those who don't know better on what Christianity is all about!

You've not gone far enough. What is Christianity all about?

Maybe the thread starter will take the 'information' given by the heretics and tell his friends who may know little about Christianity to begin with and by such chain reaction undermine the meaning of Christianity in the minds of the people who haven't had the chance to learn for themselves. They don't know about the heretics.

But then...it is entirely possible that the thread starter simply views a debate on the minimum requirement to be Christian and sees that some may view religion (the very word in and of itself with roots to "tie and bind") as the Way the Truth and the Light, The I AM and others who view simply Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Light. The great I AM. Jesus was not esoteric in His message, He was very clear.

In short, I want to know what you consider to be heretical?

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Some people in this thread claim to be Christian when they are not. These people would have been take in by the Inquisition and punished as heretics back in the day.

Deservingly so.

I can see now how important it is for the true believers to renounce these heretics that call themselves Christian. They are perhaps the single most dangerous threat to the religion. They are the ones who undermine and destroy.

A man starts this thread and asks: what makes you Christian?

The heretics calling themselves Christian have already answered a few times and sown seeds of doubt in the minds of those who don't know better on what Christianity is all about! Maybe the thread starter will take the 'information' given by the heretics and tell his friends who may know little about Christianity to begin with and by such chain reaction undermine the meaning of Christianity in the minds of the people who haven't had the chance to learn for themselves. They don't know about the heretics.

You believe that the Inquisition was a good thing? You think people deserve to be tortured because of their beliefs?

[ebuddy]

Quick summary of thoughts here;

History of the actual word religion; Most regard the English word "religion" to be derived from the Latin word religare which is closely aligned with the root word religo.The prefix re means "back" or "again," and the word ligare refers to "binding, tying or attaching.

Some schools of thought might have you think that this means simply a "tying" of God to man through religion. Yet, we know a profound effect of Jesus' purpose in a sinless life, perfect sacrifice in death, and the resurrection to be the tying of God to a degrading man and culture.

Many religions will use tradition and hold it as such over God. Tradition and indoctrination can bind you to religion and tradition in many respects over God Himself. In my view, this is a mistake. One such mistake is to presume that man cannot go directly to God for forgiveness. Some examples include;

"Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" Mark 2:7

"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you." Ephesians 4:32

"Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need." Hebrews 4:16

"I acknowledged my sin unto thee... I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the LORD; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin..." Psalm 32:5

King David speaking directly to God; "Look upon mine affliction and my pain; and forgive all my sins." Psalm 25:18

"Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight..." Psalm 51:2,4

"... if any man have a quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." Colossians 3:13

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." 2 Chronicles 7:14

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
You believe that the Inquisition was a good thing? You think people deserve to be tortured because of their beliefs?

I'm awaiting BTW a good response to the discussion of papism.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm awaiting BTW a good response to the discussion of papism.

there is none.

If there were more decent popes (J.P.II was exceptional), this would hardly be an issue. Alexander VI (along with most of the Borgia and de'Medici pontiffs)? `nuff said. I'm sure the early Fathers wouldn't have imagined that those particular Roman patriarchs would be such scumbags. It's difficult to mend fences with those guys at the helm.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Some people in this thread claim to be Christian when they are not.

Don't be a spineless naysayer. Tell us who you are talking about.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Don't be a spineless naysayer. Tell us who you are talking about.

He means anyone who claims faith outside of the Roman See. It's that type of arrogance and ignorance which turns people off to their flavor of Christianity. Not even their clergy professes such nonsense (at least not openly). Torquemada would be proud, "thumbscrews for Christ".

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He means anyone who claims faith outside of the Roman See. It's that type of arrogance and ignorance which turns people off to their flavor of Christianity. Not even their clergy professes such nonsense (at least not openly). Torquemada would be proud, "thumbscrews for Christ".

Indeed.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He means anyone who claims faith outside of the Roman See. It's that type of arrogance and ignorance which turns people off to their flavor of Christianity. Not even their clergy professes such nonsense (at least not openly). Torquemada would be proud, "thumbscrews for Christ".

There are no flavors of Christianity. Only one and it comes from Christ through the apostles. Anything else is heresy.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There are no flavors of Christianity. Only one and it comes from Christ through the apostles. Anything else is heresy.

Jesus was a heretic?

John 14
5 Thomas said to him, �Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?�
6 Jesus answered, �I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus still loves you Voodoo even if you dont belive what He says.

[saab95]

What is the minimum requirment to be considered "Christian"?

Baptism.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Jesus was a heretic?

Well he wasn't a Christian, that's for sure.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There are no flavors of Christianity. Only one and it comes from Christ

Fixed.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Jesus was a heretic?

John 14
5 Thomas said to him, �Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?�
6 Jesus answered, �I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus still loves you Voodoo even if you dont belive what He says.

Exactly.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
there is none.

Why not?

If there were more decent popes (J.P.II was exceptional), this would hardly be an issue. Alexander VI (along with most of the Borgia and de'Medici pontiffs)? `nuff said. I'm sure the early Fathers wouldn't have imagined that those particular Roman patriarchs would be such scumbags. It's difficult to mend fences with those guys at the helm.

Well yes, it would have been hard to imagine for many of the Church fathers. But this was foreseen by Jesus Christ himself when he said (I can't remember the exact quote, but you know what I'm speaking of) 'do as they say not as they do'.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
He means anyone who claims faith outside of the Roman See. It's that type of arrogance and ignorance which turns people off to their flavor of Christianity. Not even their clergy professes such nonsense (at least not openly). Torquemada would be proud, "thumbscrews for Christ".

There are some 'Roman Catholic' clergymen who deny the infallibility of the Pope and the Pope's right to weild his influence over the entire Catholic church, but those are the minority (mainly more liberal priests who see Catholic doctrine in a less strict way). But these priests are actually on the verge of heresy.

I wouldn't call this arrogance or ignorance. Pope Paul II is neither, nor was Pope Pius IX or Pope Gregory.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by voodoo:
There are no flavors of Christianity. Only one and it comes from Christ through the apostles. Anything else is heresy.

That is true. In a document called 'Dominus Iesus' published in 2000 (I think) the Vatican reaffirmed the belief that Jesus Christ is the soul mediator and saviour of the world and that only through him is salvation.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
That is true. In a document called 'Dominus Iesus' published in 2000 (I think) the Vatican reaffirmed the belief that Jesus Christ is the soul mediator and saviour of the world and that only through him is salvation.

So before that it wasn�t a sure thing? You need the Vatican to tell you that what Jesus was saying was correct. So 5 years ago in 2000 you started believing that Jesus was right about this whole thing cause the Vatican said it was ok? So what if the Vatican didn�t say that. What if it still wasn�t a "sure thing"? Would you follow a rotting man and some council sitting under their laughably huge hats or Jesus himself by his teachings?!!?!

No, I'm sure you believed before but imagine the person that didn�t. The one who wont believe that until the Vatican says its ok... I pity him

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by Splinter:
So before that it wasn�t a sure thing? You need the Vatican to tell you that what Jesus was saying was correct. So 5 years ago in 2000 you started believing that Jesus was right about this whole thing cause the Vatican said it was ok? So what if the Vatican didn�t say that. What if it still wasn�t a "sure thing"? Would you follow a rotting man and some council sitting under their laughably huge hats or Jesus himself by his teachings?!!?!
No, I'm sure you believed before but imagine the person that didn�t. The one who wont believe that until the Vatican says its ok... I pity him

Agreed and I'd like to add; While the Pope kisses the Koran. A book that claims Jesus was no more than a great teacher, who never gave his life as the Divine sacrifice for which Christianity is rooted. This is not a knock on Islam, this is a disagreement with Islamic doctrine. The Pope, on the other hand is in fact tainting the definition of "Christianity" by watering down his own faith. He is in fact, more concerned of offending man, than offending the God he supposedly gave his own life in service to. It doesn't stop there, realize as you call an estranged man, a priest, your father-you are in fact going against the very book you claim credibility for canonizing. Remember, as you forgive your sins to a mortal man, that you are in that as well, going against the book your religion claims to have canonized and worse than that, your testimony is done in secret, and remains invisible where no one else can use it as a guide to righteousness. Realize that by baptizing your baby to cover original sin, you neglect the fact that Jesus did this with his own death. A death that may not suffice in your view? When you say your rosary, are you not saying 10 prayers of praise to Mary for every one to the Father?

To be clear, I'm generally not this critical of the Catholic faith. I hesitated in mentioning these things until I witnessed first-hand, an attempt to make me somehow unworthy of salvation for not adhering to the Catholic Faith as I believe they are in NO position or authority to make that claim! Having been born and raised in the Catholic church, having served 5 years as an altar boy receiving the Serra award issued by then bishop; Daniel Sheehan, and having embraced 8 years of Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, I saw a great many good things the Church had done through local ministries and International ministries. What I left was a Church wrought with symbolism and praise to entities other than Christ. I was raised in a family that prayed to St. Jude for a safe journey to Chicago each summer, St. Anthony to help me find my car keys, St. Steven when I felt persecuted...I then recalled the Bible. A book which tells me to go directly to Christ in all things. A book I learned in the Catholic Church.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
So before that it wasn�t a sure thing?

Notice the word 'reaffirm'.

Many had been wanting the the Pope to grant the title coredemptrix to Mary, mother of God. Such a title though is pushing the concept of Marianism to extremes (as quite a few in the Catholic church are trying to do). Coredemptrix would mean that Mary herself would redeem you under her own power. Devotion to Mary is a good thing, but when we begin to adore Mary we then become actually less Catholic. We need checks and balances which is why the Church needed to reaffirm that was is written in the Bible (something which we can check our teachings against) - that Jesus Christ is the sole mediator and redeemer of Mankind.

You need the Vatican to tell you that what Jesus was saying was correct. So 5 years ago in 2000 you started believing that Jesus was right about this whole thing cause the Vatican said it was ok? So what if the Vatican didn�t say that. What if it still wasn�t a "sure thing"? Would you follow a rotting man and some council sitting under their laughably huge hats or Jesus himself by his teachings?!!?!

No, I'm sure you believed before but imagine the person that didn�t. The one who wont believe that until the Vatican says its ok... I pity him

This has always been a Catholic teaching, I was simply clearing air for those who believe that Catholics think that there can be a mediator between Christ. Christ is the sole mediator, and that will never change.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Agreed and I'd like to add; While the Pope kisses the Koran. A book that claims Jesus was no more than a great teacher, who never gave his life as the Divine sacrifice for which Christianity is rooted.

This is not a knock on Islam, this is a disagreement with Islamic doctrine. The Pope, on the other hand is in fact tainting the definition of "Christianity" by watering down his own faith. He is in fact, more concerned of offending man, than offending the God he supposedly gave his own life in service to.

The Pope isn't claiming the Quran has doctrinal significance for Catholics by kissing the Quran. Kissing is a sign of respect, and by no means should we show disrespect to the beliefs of the Moslems, as they are worthy of respect.

It doesn't stop there, realize as you call an estranged man, a priest, your father-you are in fact going against the very book you claim credibility for canonizing.

"I do not write this to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14�15)

Remember, as you forgive your sins to a mortal man, that you are in that as well, going against the book your religion claims to have canonized and worse than that, your testimony is done in secret, and remains invisible where no one else can use it as a guide to righteousness.

No mortal man forgives my signs, only Jesus Christ. The man I see consecrating the bread and wine to become His Flesh is Jesus Christ not a mere priest.

My point is, priests perform the sacraments as Jesus Christ themselves. They are the representatives of Christ himself.

Realize that by baptizing your baby to cover original sin, you neglect the fact that Jesus did this with his own death.

Jesus Christ has not saved us, he saves us. Salvation does not come automatically by proclaiming Christ as Jesus. Only through constant faith and good works can come salvation both of which come side by side (How could you be a follower of Jesus Christ if you don't follow his teachings in practice?)

A death that may not suffice in your view? When you say your rosary, are you not saying 10 prayers of praise to Mary for every one to the Father?

Actually no. When I say the rosary I say: 1 creed, 1 our father, 10 hail maries, 1 gloria (glory be to the father the son and the holy spirit etc.) and 1 Prayer of Fatima (O my Jesus forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of hell, bring all souls to heaven especially those who most need thy mercy.) But that is besides the point

Why shan't we offer praises to Mary? After all should not all generations call her blessed (Luke 1:44-55)? Are not we simply following Mary's command? When Elizabeth says: Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb Jesus is not there an eery parallel being drawn there, saying that both the Fruit of her womb and herself are filled with the same grace of our father?

To be clear, I'm generally not this critical of the Catholic faith. I hesitated in mentioning these things until I witnessed first-hand, an attempt to make me somehow unworthy of salvation for not adhering to the Catholic Faith as I believe they are in NO position or authority to make that claim! Having been born and raised in the Catholic church, having served 5 years as an altar boy receiving the Serra award issued by then bishop; Daniel Sheehan, and having embraced 8 years of Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, I saw a great many good things the Church had done through local ministries and International ministries. What I left was a Church wrought with symbolism and praise to entities other than Christ.

It is good to know that you know something about the Catholic faith and you understand its teachings.

I was raised in a family that prayed to St. Jude for a safe journey to Chicago each summer, St. Anthony to help me find my car keys, St. Steven when I felt persecuted...

Hehe! I think such devotions are becoming out of fashion, with all those devotions usually prescibed for various saints just going towards Mary.

I then recalled the Bible. A book which tells me to go directly to Christ in all things. A book I learned in the Catholic Church.

Devotion to Mary is not incompatible with Biblical teachings.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Jesus Christ has not saved us, he saves us. Salvation does not come automatically by proclaiming Christ as Jesus. Only through constant faith and good works can come salvation both of which come side by side (How could you be a follower of Jesus Christ if you don't follow his teachings in practice?)

Isaiah 41:24
But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; he who chooses you is detestable.

Isaiah 57:12
I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:9
not by works, so that no one can boast.

Zechariah 4:6
'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty

It is not by our own good deeds by our own might or power but by grace we are saved and made clean before Him.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Isaiah 41:24
But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; he who chooses you is detestable.

Isaiah 57:12
I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:9
not by works, so that no one can boast.

Zechariah 4:6
'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty

It is not by our own good deeds by our own might or power but by grace we are saved and made clean before Him.

You are misinterpreting the Catholic teaching. When I was saying 'faith and good works' brings salvation, it is not that we are saved by our own accord or because of our own worth. In all instances we rely on God's grace, as that is what is necessary for salvation. But grace doesn't simply come from a declaration of faith, nor are you saved in one instant. Good works reinforce faith as faith reinforces good works as means of receiving grace from God.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
But grace doesn't simply come from a declaration of faith, nor are you saved in one instant.

You are right; it doesn�t simply come from a declaration of faith. It comes from a declaration of faith and from your heart. You are catholic you believe as anyone that God is omnipotent and can see the "true you" correct? He doesn�t require works for salvation that was the purpose of Jesus dying for us so that he would be our atonement instead of the animals that were required for sacrifice before that. Works have nothing to do with salvation and lots to do with being a saved person.

Salvation comes by grace when you ask God because he knows your heart better then you know it yourself. After that your works do not prove anything to God... they prove God to man. "They shall know you by your works" By your nature by how you live by how you talk whom you associate with... But salvation is never by works.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by undotwa:
But grace doesn't simply come from a declaration of faith,.. nor are you saved in one instant.

If that delcaration is in your heart, it sure does. Ask the man that was hanging on the cross next to Jesus.

[undotwa]

James 2: 14-20:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

-----------------------------


The idea is that you cannot have faith which is unaccompanied by good works. fides et bona opera.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
You are right; it doesn�t simply come from a declaration of faith. It comes from a declaration of faith and from your heart. You are catholic you believe as anyone that God is omnipotent and can see the "true you" correct? He doesn�t require works for salvation that was the purpose of Jesus dying for us so that he would be our atonement instead of the animals that were required for sacrifice before that. Works have nothing to do with salvation and lots to do with being a saved person.

Salvation comes by grace when you ask God because he knows your heart better then you know it yourself. After that your works do not prove anything to God... they prove God to man. "They shall know you by your works" By your nature by how you live by how you talk whom you associate with... But salvation is never by works.

This is a good post, I will rebut it shortly.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
James 2: 14-20:

What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, You have faith; I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness, and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

-----------------------------


The idea is that you cannot have faith which is unaccompanied by good works. fides et bona opera.

I don�t think we are arguing that... I think we are arguing whether your salvation has to do with deeds. Not your walk by faith... if you walk by faith and you live your life as god has called you then you will heed his direction and your actions will speak for your faith. However your actions do in no way save you.

Like Z said if your only salvation was through faith and deeds then the man next to Jesus on the cross would have gone to hell. He had no chance to do "good deeds" for the Lord. Salvation is faith; it is in your heart and soul. A WALK of faith requires the deeds/works/actions that God WILL call you to do for Him.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
I don�t think we are arguing that... I think we are arguing whether your salvation has to do with deeds. Not your walk by faith... if you walk by faith and you live your life as god has called you then you will heed his direction and your actions will speak for your faith. However your actions do in no way save you.

Like Z said if your only salvation was through faith and deeds then the man next to Jesus on the cross would have gone to hell. He had no chance to do "good deeds" for the Lord. Salvation is faith; it is in your heart and soul. A WALK of faith requires the deeds/works/actions that God WILL call you to do for Him.

You see, again you're not understanding what the Church teaches.

Good works don't save you, but good works accompanied with faith. That teaching is supported by my quote above.

You could be the best man, live without breaking any of God's laws but you are not necessarily saved (though God's grace is limited to those in the Church as the Catholic Church teaches). You cannot though have true faith without good works accompanying it, and your faith strengthens with good works. Lest I forget the other very important part of salvation in Catholic doctrine: The Sacraments which I believe goes under 'faith'.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You see, again you're not understanding what the Church teaches.

Good works don't save you, but good works accompanied with faith. That teaching is supported by my quote above.

You could be the best man, live without breaking any of God's laws but you are not necessarily saved (though God's grace is limited to those in the Church as the Catholic Church teaches). You cannot though have true faith without good works accompanying it, and your faith strengthens with good works. Lest I forget the other very important part of salvation in Catholic doctrine: The Sacraments which I believe goes under 'faith'.

I disagree; I think that quote is talking about what you do when you are saved. Now how you GET saved. Because it is in God's nature to not allow us to be saved by our own deeds alone and not accompanied by faith. That was we cannot claim any of the "glory" you are saved by grace by faith by belief all of these but you walk with god after that in faith and with the direction He gives you doing what he directs you to.

You know that�s how God works. He waits until there is no physical human way to get out of some situation then he helps you out so that you will KNOW it was him who delivered you.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
I disagree; I think that quote is talking about what you do when you are saved.

Here is a specific sentence from the quote:

"His faith was made complete by what he did." - In other words works are apart of gaining faith 'completing faith'.

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." - id est. grace comes from both works and faith.

I cannot see how you get your conclusion from this passage, please explain?

Now how you GET saved. Because it is in God's nature to not allow us to be saved by our own deeds alone and not accompanied by faith. That was we cannot claim any of the "glory" you are saved by grace by faith by belief all of these but you walk with god after that in faith and with the direction He gives you doing what he directs you to.

From the quoted passage above:

"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did" - does not that lend you to believe that it was Abrahams works which made him righteous aswell as his faith?

You know that�s how God works. He waits until there is no physical human way to get out of some situation then he helps you out so that you will KNOW it was him who delivered you.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't necessarily suppose that God works like that, I'm not one to determine what God's will is for us, as for we mortals can not comprehend at all the mysteries of our God.

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Here is a specific sentence from the quote:
"His faith was made complete by what he did." - In other words works are apart of gaining faith 'completing faith'.

You see in this example, the individual had faith to begin with. Good points overall Undotwa, but I think it's important to remember that the gift of Grace manifests itself in the fruits. For example, an unfaithful person (Biblically-speaking here) can likewise do good works, but may find those works to be in vain, or for self-gratification boasting all the while. Little good comes of these good works, The works of the faithful on the other hand, bear much more fruit. You may know the faithful by their fruits. In other words, the result of their works, not just works in general. Good works do build faith, but faith is to be attained prior to those works being 'man-accomplished' under God's Will.

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." - id est. grace comes from both works and faith.

I disagree. Faith comes first, then the fruits of that faith are manifest in your works as a faithful. You are attempting to elevate 'works' to an equal plane with Faith. Faith must be had prior to the works or your works will likely be in vain. One of the fruits of being faithful is the desire to do good works. When motivated by God in these works as opposed to the manipulative sin-nature of man, the fruits become more abundant and serve to witnesss God's Will in man, not man's will.

From the quoted passage above:
"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did" - does not that lend you to believe that it was Abrahams works which made him righteous aswell as his faith?

No, without faith his works would've been seen as good works by man. Abraham had faith, first and foremost and the works became witness of his faith. Abraham brought glory back to God with his works because of his faith, not glory to man. Faith is the most critical piece. I might be splitting hairs with you here, just wanted to add my .02.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't necessarily suppose that God works like that, I'm not one to determine what God's will is for us, as for we mortals can not comprehend at all the mysteries of our God.

In some things indeed God is mysterious, but I find sweet simplicity abounds as well. Especially, in His Word to us.

[Splinter]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Here is a specific sentence from the quote:

"His faith was made complete by what he did." - In other words works are apart of gaining faith 'completing faith'.

"You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." - id est. grace comes from both works and faith.

I cannot see how you get your conclusion from this passage, please explain?

With both of those sentences one could say it means this and another person could say it means this and they would never agree. It's not specific enough... when it says "his faith" does it mean his salvation? Or his walk of faith? When it says, "justified" is it talking about what occurs in a person when they are saved or what is in their life after they are saved?

My only deterrent in agreeing with your standpoint on both of those is the past teachings in the Bible that show us that God doesn�t want our works to have anything to do with our being saved that way we know its totally and completely by him.

Originally posted by undotwa:
From the quoted passage above:

"Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did" - does not that lend you to believe that it was Abrahams works which made him righteous aswell as his faith?

Again. Is "considered righteous" the point at which he was saved? Or an ongoing part of his life? We disagree on that point.

Originally posted by undotwa:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are talking about. I don't necessarily suppose that God works like that, I'm not one to determine what God's will is for us, as for we mortals can not comprehend at all the mysteries of our God.

I was pointing out that many times god will purposefully let us run out of human physical logical answers to problems we are facing so that we are forced to turn to him and ask for his help realizing that we ourselves can do nothing.

[barang]

Originally posted by paully dub:
What is the minimum requirment to be considered "Christian"?

For salvation, the process is simple according to the bible. Simply believe in your heart that Jesus was God, that he died for you and that he is Lord. This include realizing that you're a sinner and that you can't get yourself to heaven with good works. That is the absolute minnimum needed to be a real "Christian."

There is more to the doctrine of protestant christianity, though, including the fact that the bible is the actual infalable Word of God, the birth of Jesus from a virgin, that Jesus lead a sinnless life, died, was ressurected after three days, and is returning someday.

Read your Bible. This is straight from it.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Splinter:
With both of those sentences one could say it means this and another person could say it means this and they would never agree. It's not specific enough... when it says "his faith" does it mean his salvation? Or his walk of faith? When it says, "justified" is it talking about what occurs in a person when they are saved or what is in their life after they are saved?

My only deterrent in agreeing with your standpoint on both of those is the past teachings in the Bible that show us that God doesn�t want our works to have anything to do with our being saved that way we know its totally and completely by him.



Again. Is "considered righteous" the point at which he was saved? Or an ongoing part of his life? We disagree on that point.



I was pointing out that many times god will purposefully let us run out of human physical logical answers to problems we are facing so that we are forced to turn to him and ask for his help realizing that we ourselves can do nothing.

Here's another quote for you to think about:

"To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them." Romans 2:6-15

Such a quote reflects a lot of the teaching of the Catholic Church, being somewhat more pluralistic than the evangelical churches (though it would be wrong to call the Catholic Church pluralist). The primary source of grace in the Catholic Church is of course faith and the sacraments, but God's grace can be granted through extraordinary means. People who reject Jesus only do so out of ignorance and therefore it is not necessarily their fault, Catholics don't say that non-Catholics and non-Christians won't go to heaven, they may or may not we don't know.

[randallina2001]

Just catching up on reading some of these threads and just have to say, this was an excellent read. So many of you added carefully worded, researched and at times, inspired words. Thanks you all.

During the knee jerk reaction to the election, I read an article on a lefy blog where the writer claimed to "must now change from being a Christian to being a 'Follower of Christ", because of the right wing main stream media's constant harping about 'Christian moral values' swinging the election. I thought that was rediculous. How can a Christian change the name of their faith just because of the appearance that the religion had been hijacked by fundie righties? Jeeze, grow a spine lady.

I am a Christian but probably don't qualify in some's eyes. I go to chruch only on Easter and Christmas and funerals and weddings and baptisms and stuff. But I do beleive he is my personal saviour and that I will get to heaven through this beleif. I also beleive that this is the only way I can get to heaven. I but do not imagine however that I have the infinite wisdom to assume that this applies to everyone, As a kid growing up a Presbyterian, I encountered many views, some more strict that others. I always had a hard time beleiving that an innocent child who dies without the knowledge of Christ would be cast into the fire just because he wasn't up to speed on religion.

In closing, I found these definitions in the March 03 Scientific American:

Evangelicals are "born again", (that is have experience a conversion resulting in a personal relationship with Christ), accept the full athority of the Bible in matters of faith and personal conduct, and are committed to spreading the gospel. Not all evangelicals are fundamentalist.

Fundamentalists, such as Jerry Falwell, emphasize doctrine and in particularr, biblical inerrancy.

Pentecostals, such as Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert, are theologically and culturally alin to fundamentalists but accentuate religious experience rather than doctrine.

Charismatics, such as Pat Robertson, accentuate spiritual gifts such as prophecy and are nondenominational.

Neoevangelicals, such as Billy Graham, accept the basic tenets of conservative Protestanism but reject the extreme anti-intellecualism and sectarianism of fundamentalism.

Again thanks for all you thoughtful discussion........r

G4 YIKES, dead Wallstreet

[ebuddy]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Here's another quote for you to think about:

"To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them." Romans 2:6-15

How does the above Bible passage preclude the importance of faith? By what law are the unfaithful to abide??? What exactly is 'evil' to the unfaithful. By what template shall they gauge evil? What is the "truth" to someone who does not have faith in God? This passage is referring to simply; a non-jew. Hence the word, gentile-not to be misconstrued with; "the unfaithful". We soon find out that ALL fall short of salvation. Faith in Christ attains that salvation and the works are manifest through you in the Holy Spirit and serve to glorify God. You may know there is hardly a being on earth who has not heard "the law". What of our salvation in these days?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
How does the above Bible passage preclude the importance of faith? By what law are the unfaithful to abide??? What exactly is 'evil' to the unfaithful. By what template shall they gauge evil? What is the "truth" to someone who does not have faith in God? This passage is referring to simply; a non-jew. Hence the word, gentile-not to be misconstrued with; "the unfaithful". We soon find out that ALL fall short of salvation. Faith in Christ attains that salvation and the works are manifest through you in the Holy Spirit and serve to glorify God. You may know there is hardly a being on earth who has not heard "the law". What of our salvation in these days?

The quote wasn't strictly relevant to the 'fides et bona opera' argument, but I thought it would be good to discuss a variety of differing teachings in the Church.

I have made reference to some good quotes in the Bible concerning the importance of good works 'completing' faith etc. and some good quotes were made against it, it remains a teaching which can be argued either way. While the Catholic Church likes to make its teachings explicit through Canon Law and the Catechism etc. doing so only highlights how impossible it is to truly make black and white rules about everything.

The difference between the standard protestant teaching on fides et bona opera and the Catholic Church teaching is so minute yet it is of greatest importance. It reminds me of the Council of Nicea over the dispute with Arius, Constantine could not comprehend why they are arguing over something so trivial.

Read over the many quotes I had given you and you can see how the idea of salvation with faith and good works arises. To me, faith brings salvation, but there is no faith without good works "faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead" as it 'completes faith'.

[barang]

Originally posted by Splinter:
Isaiah 41:24
But you are less than nothing and your works are utterly worthless; he who chooses you is detestable.

Isaiah 57:12
I will expose your righteousness and your works, and they will not benefit you.

Romans 11:6
And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace.

Ephesians 2:9
not by works, so that no one can boast.

Zechariah 4:6
'Not by might nor by power, but by my Spirit,' says the LORD Almighty

It is not by our own good deeds by our own might or power but by grace we are saved and made clean before Him.

Hit the nail on the head.

[barang]

Originally posted by undotwa:
You see, again you're not understanding what the Church teaches.

The Catholic Church does teach that, but the Bible makes it very clear in a huge number of passages that faith ALONE saves us.

Ephesians:

For by grace are you saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.



The Catholic Church bases their position on what a Pope and a bunch of cardinals came up with at a gathering back in the 14th century, not just on what the bible says.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by barang:
The Catholic Church does teach that, but the Bible makes it very clear in a huge number of passages that faith ALONE saves us.

Ephesians:

For by grace are you saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast.

The Catholic Church bases their position on what a Pope and a bunch of cardinals came up with at a gathering back in the 14th century, not just on what the bible says.

Here is the Navarre (a leading Catholic University in Northern Spain which is run by Opus Dei, an authoritive source on Catholic Church teaching) commentary upon Ephesians 2:8-9. Please read all of it as it will bring much of the Church's teachings into context. The last paragraph basically sums up the Catholic Church's interpretation of the scripture mentioned. It is important to note how easy it is to misinterpret the Catholic Church's teaching, as ultimately all grace comes through the Ultimate Most Perfect Sacrafice, the Christ.:

Salvation is the work of God, a gratuitous gift of God: it originates in God's mercy. It acts in man by means of faith, that is, by man's acceptance of the salvation offered him in Jesus Christ. But even faith, St Paul tells us, is a divine gift; man cannot merit it by his own efforts alone; it is not exclusively the outcome of human freedom; at all stages, from the very beginning, recognition and acceptance of Christ as Saviour means that God's grace is at work.

On the basis of this passage in Ephesians and other passages of Scripture the Church has taught: "According to the passages of Sacred Scripture and the explanations of the Holy Fathers, we, with God's help must believe and preach the following. The free will of man was made so weak and unsteady through the sin of the first man that, after the Fall, no one could love God as was required, or believe in God, or perform good works for God unless the grace of divine mercy anticipated him [...]. Even after the coming of Christ this grace of faith is not found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is conferred through the generosity of Christ, according to what has already been said and according to what the Apostle Paul teaches: 'It has been granted to ou that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake' (Phil 1:29). And also 'he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion a the day of Jesus Christ' (Phil 1:6). And again: 'By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God' (Eph 2:8). And the Apostle says of himself: 'As one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy' (1 Cor 7:25; cf. 1 Tim 1:13) [...]. And Scripture says further: 'What have you that you did not receive?' (1 Cor 4:7). And again: 'Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights' (Jas 1:17). And again: 'No one can receive anything except what is given from heaven' (Jn 3:27)"

The Second Vatican Council provides the same teaching: "By faith man freely commits his entire self to God [...]; before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior help of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth' (De gratia, can. 7: Dei Filius)" (Dei Verbum, 5).

When St Paul says that faith does not come from (v.9), he is referring to things man can do on his own, without the help of grace. If faith did come from works, then man would have something to boast to God about, something which would bring salvation without dependence on Christ-which would be inadmissible, becuase then our Lord's death would make no sense, nor would even the Incarnation of the Word, whom "God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord" (1 Cor 1:30-31).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by barang:

The Catholic Church bases their position on what a Pope and a bunch of cardinals came up with at a gathering back in the 14th century, not just on what the bible says.

I'm sorry, the Catholic Church's teachings on this matter (as a historical fact BTW) predate the 14th century by over a millenium. How can you not consider that the Orthodox Churches who broke off in 1054 and even the oriental orthodox churches who broke 451 A.D maintain a similar position on this teaching to the Roman Catholic Church? Tradition plays an utmost importance - in fact on par with scripture in the Church's eyes, the Church doesn't just make stuff up.

Sola scriptura on the other hand and sola fides however originated from the 14th century gradually being adopted by Luther in the 16th century! Which teaching is more ancient my friend?

(I cannot think of one Church father who rejects the importance of tradition).

[undotwa]

Originally posted by barang:
Hit the nail on the head.

Believe it or not, those quotes tie in quite nicely with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[barang]

Originally posted by undotwa:
The Second Vatican Council provides the same teaching: "By faith man freely commits his entire self to God [...]; before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior help of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth' (De gratia, can. 7: Dei Filius)" (Dei Verbum, 5).

When St Paul says that faith does not come from (v.9), he is referring to things man can do on his own, without the help of grace. If faith did come from works, then man would have something to boast to God about, something which would bring salvation without dependence on Christ-which would be inadmissible, becuase then our Lord's death would make no sense, nor would even the Incarnation of the Word, whom "God has made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; therefore, as it is written, 'Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord" (1 Cor 1:30-31).

This clarifies it a lot. Thanks.

So basically you're saying that the outward manifestation of faith is works, such as partaking in the sacraments? Is that right?

[undotwa]

Originally posted by barang:
This clarifies it a lot. Thanks.

So basically you're saying that the outward manifestation of faith is works, such as partaking in the sacraments? Is that right?

Well you see - what that passage is talking about is that we can't be saved by our own accord, we are only saved by the grace of God 'boast about' &c.

To say that we are saved by our own worth goes against the necessity of Jesus Christ as our saviour, for if we could save ourselves, who needs God's grace?

Basically this should clarifiy what the difference between the Catholic Church's teaching and that of the Lutheran Church (From the Catholic Encyclopedia):

---
(a) Faith and no works may be described as the Lutheran view. "Esto peccator, pecca fortiter sed fortius fide" was the heresiarch's axiom, and the Diet of Worms, In 1527, condemned the doctrine that good works are necessary for salvation.

(b) Works and no faith may be described as the modern view, for the modern world strives to make the worship of humanity take the place of the worship of the Deity (Do we believe? as issued by the Rationalist Press, 1904, ch. x: "Creed and Conduct" and ch. xv: "Rationalism and Morality". Cf. also Christianity and Rationalism on Trial, published by the same press, 1904).

(c) Faith shown by works has ever been the doctrine of the Catholic Church and is explicitly taught by St. James, ii, 17: "Faith, if it have not works, is dead." The Council of Trent (Sess. VI, canons xix, xx, xxiv, and xxvi) condemned the various aspects of the Lutheran doctrine, and from what has been said above on the necessity of charity for "living" faith, it will be evident that faith does not exclude, but demands, good works, for charity or love of God is not real unless it induces us to keep the Commandments; "He that keepeth his word, in him in very deed the charity of God is perfected" (1 John, ii, 5). St. Augustine sums up the whole question by saying "Laudo fructum boni operis, sed in fide agnosco radicem" -- i. e. "I praise the fruit of good works, but their root I discern in faith" (Enarr. in Ps. xxxi, P.L., IV, 259).

----

So you see, good works isn't a manifestation of faith it is apart of having faith.