-----------------------------------------------------
 
HomeGalleryFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Catholicism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
eternalmystery

avatar

Number of posts : 730
Age : 31
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 4233

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:06 pm

olias wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:


No. We do not score points with God. We cannot. God does E V E R Y T H I N G. Our justification, our sanctification, our regeneration, etc., is all done solely by God. Any good works that we may do, only demonstrate to the outside world (note, the outside world) that we have been born again. It does not demonstrate to God that we are born again, because since He is doing all the work, I'm pretty sure He's already aware that we are saved. Razz


You misunderstand me. I mean, do you believe that WE believe that?

Oh sorry, I went back and re-read your post and found the "we". LOLZ

Working at soup kitchens, helping people, etc.? No.
Doing penance and other good works prescribed by the Church? Yes. Rome is clear in their teaching that we must cooperate with God in a joint effort and achieve salvation.
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
eternalmystery

avatar

Number of posts : 730
Age : 31
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 4233

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:07 pm

LastFirstborn wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:
olias wrote:
BOXXYBABEEBROOTAL wrote:
Mark wrote:
Calvinism makes Christianity meaningless. What's the point of the Gospel if God is just going to pick and choose who gets saved?
Well that isnt flaming at all.....

Christ died for all of mankind. Not a select predistined few. What Mark said is not mockery. It is a bluntly put, but truthful observation.

Christ DID die for all. But, not all will be saved.

Well, that's about as clear as a glass of Coke mixed with a loving spoonful of crude oil. Elaborate?

You think we can begin a new thread about Calvinism? I don't wanna derail this one.
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
The Last Firstborn

avatar

Number of posts : 2576
Age : 26
Registration date : 2009-04-07
Points : 6800

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:10 pm

eternalmystery wrote:
LastFirstborn wrote:
eternalmystery wrote:
olias wrote:
BOXXYBABEEBROOTAL wrote:
Mark wrote:
Calvinism makes Christianity meaningless. What's the point of the Gospel if God is just going to pick and choose who gets saved?
Well that isnt flaming at all.....

Christ died for all of mankind. Not a select predistined few. What Mark said is not mockery. It is a bluntly put, but truthful observation.

Christ DID die for all. But, not all will be saved.

Well, that's about as clear as a glass of Coke mixed with a loving spoonful of crude oil. Elaborate?

You think we can begin a new thread about Calvinism? I don't wanna derail this one.

Yeah, we already have one Catholicism thread and a handful of active black metal threads, what's one more controversial thread? Laughing
Back to top Go down
olias

avatar

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 28
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 6168

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:47 pm

Works doesn't mean wearing scapulars and saying hail marys. It means bearing the fruits of love of Christ.
Back to top Go down
eternalmystery

avatar

Number of posts : 730
Age : 31
Location : Franklinton, Louisiana, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-03
Points : 4233

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:19 am

olias wrote:
Works doesn't mean wearing scapulars and saying hail marys. It means bearing the fruits of love of Christ.

I wouldn't disagree with this at all. But is this what Trent is saying though?
Back to top Go down
http://www.eternalmystery.co.nr
olias

avatar

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 28
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 6168

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:48 pm

Trent? As in Council of Trent?
Back to top Go down
TheBeastSlayer

avatar

Number of posts : 2165
Age : 26
Location : Kingdom of God,State Of Delusion, USA
Registration date : 2009-03-26
Points : 6147

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Wed Feb 24, 2010 1:23 pm

olias wrote:
Trent? As in Council of Trent?
Yeah.
Back to top Go down
http://www.purevolume.com/themasterofawesomeness
Vigilance Saints Arise

avatar

Number of posts : 328
Age : 56
Registration date : 2009-08-03
Points : 3810

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Wed Feb 24, 2010 5:43 pm

I learn something true every day.

Christians of all Denominations are true Brothers and Sisters
in Christ. Ecumenicalism

Jim is a Baptist
Mike is a Methodist
Bill is a Penticostal
Rick is a Lutheren
Al is a Full Gospel
Tim is a Tele Evangeist
Dan is a Non Denominatial
Joe is a Evangelical
and Peter is Catholic Christian

But when one says
"I am a Protestant."
This person protests the
Catholic Church.
And has Religious arguments
against the Church:

The Pope
Infant baptism
Confession
Priests and Nuns
Holy Mass
Christ's True presence
in Holy Communion
Confermation
No sex before
Marriage
No divorce
No birth control
Last rights
No abortion
Capitol punishment
Faith healing
The communion
of Saints
Purgatory
War and peace
Euthanasia
Church art
What Bible and
books to read
Interpretation
of the written
Word and
History
Tradition

Ewtn.com
The Eternal Word
Televison Network


Last edited by Vigilance Saints Arise on Fri Apr 09, 2010 1:00 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3598

PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:42 pm

I obviously haven't been around for awhile--work and all.

I am comfortable in saying that I think a catholic can certainly defend his or her faith on Scriptural and rational grounds. I myself came to Catholciism after such a journey, as have many others who knew the Bible extremely well. There are LOADS of former Protestant ministers, theology prfoessors, etc. who have entered into full communion with the catholic church (as well as the Orthodox). They are aware of pretty much all of the objections raised here, and then some.


I'll take just a couple of things here. First, it is simply incorrect to say that the catholicc hurch has taught, as its once-and-for-all official position, anything which has later been proven "false." The Galileo affair is much misunderstood, for example. In fact, some top scientific thinkers are catholic, including the fact that one of the earliest proponents of the the Big Bang was a priest--and the late Fr. Stanley Jaki was a widely respected physicist and philosopher of science. One thing that complicates this for people is that church procedure can be very technical and detailed, and people often have an oversimplified understanding of how it proceeds--for example, Galileo's position was never condemned per se. Basically, he was asked to hold off on presenting his position as fact until it could be further investigated by the Church. He was "silenced" only as a temporary matter. One may not agree with this, BUT it is by no means correct to say that the C hurch officially taught something which later was proven wrong.

In any case, I'll explain what my own personal difficulty with Sola Scriptura is. First, it is conceptually problematic, very much so. To begin with, sola Scriptura if taken seriously must mean that the truth of all theological matters can be determined by Scripture alone. But the question of which books constitute the Bible--one of the most important theologicval matters if one is sola Scriptura--is not given in Scripture! And, even if it was, one would ahve a logival circularity problem--a book claiming that it is scripture only is authoritative in making this declaraiton, but it can be known as authoritative only if it can already be known to be scripture. But this just creates a logical circle--it is Scripture because i.t claims it is, and its claims should be beleived because it is Scripture. However, the scripture doesn't give us the books of the Bible to begin with, so true sola Scri[ptura is already debunked. Note, one cannot simply try to defend the choice of books in the canon on some other basis--it must be by Scripture alone, if one is tryuly Sola Scriptura. And once again, this fails,b because 1) the Bible provides no complete canon, and 2) even if it did, above circularity problem ensues.

There are other problems with sola Scriptura--I'm just naming the most obvious ones.

BTW, Catholic teaching does hold that all dogma must have at least "implicit" support in Scripture. Granted, many will scoff at the notion of "implicit," and what seems "implicit" may be a mattert of what one is inclined to see in light of being taught to interpret Scriptrues particular ways, etc.--still,
it does at least take Scripture to be a necessary component in forming dogma--even if it needs to be given interpretation through the Church, etc.

The sola fide thing has come up before. To me, it is abundantly clear that some verses seem sdola fide, others seem to incorporate works. Those who read the works sounding verses through the faith only lens are simply giving a privileged status to the faith-only sounding verses, though one could just as easily do things te other way around. For example, in Romans 11, Paul speaks of being "nearer our salvation than when we first beleived," suggesting that the moment of faith is NOT synonymous with salvation. Now, there are obvious ways one can try to get around this, but the point is, one finds these "getting around": approaches only convincing if one has already accepted a certain understanding of sola fide. Sim,ilar to Paul's reference to "working out" salvation. And one can find various places throughout the NT which suggest that one can lose salvation by falling into sin. It also appears on the surface that James is making the opposuite case of Romans--and luther's discomfort with James clearly points this out.

besides this, unless one is willing to bite the bullet and be a strcit calvinist, it seems to me that "faith" is a work in some sense. If we must be willing to have faith (0r freely choose not to resist the gift of faith, or whatever) ,it is something WE are doing. There is no way around this, unless one holds that God absolutely predestines some to have the faith and others not to have it, apart from any free will they bring to the matter.
I find such a position problematic, both Scripturally and conceptually--for one thing, it seems to me that part of beign in the image of God would involve the possibility of authentic freedom. If freedom is essential to being God, then our being in His image must be as well.

At the same time, Catholcisim completely agrees that one cannot "earn" faith in the sense of doing soemthing that "obligates" God to save us. We are always at God's mercy. Catholics and Protestants alike agree that we are saved by GRACE. The question has to do with how this grace can lead to works which transform us toward salvation.

This leads to a deeper point. Works are "necessary" for Catholics because they do not hold to a "forensic" view of salvation. That is, we are not saved by being "counted" as righteous--we are seen as saved by being made actually righteous. God doesn't pretend to see us as we are not. True, we find verses that speak of bieng saved for the sake of Christ--but here's the thing--catholics hold that God doesn't just regard Christ's sacrifice as paying a penalty" we accrued. Rather,
His death and resurrection actually provide us with the grace to be transformed genuinely into righteousness. We cannot do it without Him--in fact, this makes is sacrifice out to be MORE efficacious, because it says that ti has the power to actually transform us, not just "count in our favor." God has said we are to be holy as He is holy--not just be "regarded as holy." But this is only possible through Christ. Such an understanding completely nullifies common caricatures of what Catholics consider regarding "works.' It all about availing ourselves to the grace C hrist has provided for us to be transformed into genuine Christlikeness.

I'll touch on other subjects as the points arise.

Peace, graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Catholicism   

Back to top Go down
 

Catholicism

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
BlabberBoard - Archives :: General Discussion :: Christian Discussion :: Theology-
Create a forum on Forumotion | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Forumotion.com