CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: All things Christianity

[hoosierdoc]

Salvation thru works instead of faith alone? So are you saying a person that likes to rape 5 year old boys but believes in GOD will go to heaven? Especially when he has no remorse what so ever for all the sins he has committed?

By my reading it's faith in Jesus and the resurrection, not God. To answer your question, I don't think so.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does itprofit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your[a] works, and I will show you my faith by my[b] works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead?[c] 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.”[d] And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Tahoma, Calibri, Geneva, sans-serif]26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.[/FONT]

 

[ViperJock]

John 10:30 "I and my Father are one"

John 10:38 "But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him."

The Jews that were around Him were going to stone Him because they understood that He was saying He IS God.

Actually they would stone him for even saying that he was the "Son of Man." So...

john 7
28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.

why would he refer to himself as another person who sent Him?

We we can do this all day but that's not the point.

 

[ATM]

...why would he refer to himself as another person who sent Him?

We we can do this all day but that's not the point.

"Hi, I'm Ice. Liquid sent me. I'll send Vapor back soon." Different personalities, unique manifestations of water.

Past, present and future - time

Space, time, matter - the universe. (I forgot, what does uni mean?)

I could do this all day, too.

 

[D-Ric902]

"Hi, I'm Ice. Liquid sent me. I'll send Vapor back soon." Different personalities, unique manifestations of water.

Past, present and future - time

Space, time, matter - the universe. (I forgot, what does uni mean?)

I could do this all day, too.

Also translation into one of the most inexact languages, English

 

[hoosierdoc]

That is rather sublime. I'll bring this up with your CO too

"Hi, I'm Ice. Liquid sent me. I'll send Vapor back soon." Different personalities, unique manifestations of water.

Past, present and future - time

Space, time, matter - the universe. (I forgot, what does uni mean?)

I could do this all day, too.

 

[T.Lex]

Salvation through works instead of faith alone, an "infallible" human called the pope, praying to people instead of God, confessing sins to people instead of God, the invented idea of "Purgatory," holding human tradition up with a greater authority than the Bible... and many more. These were the among the bases for the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago. (Christians "protested" Catholicism and left the Catholic church.)

What is the difference between Catholics and Protestants?

Only skimmed the rest of the thread, but didn't see an answer to this.

First, on infallibility, there's a bait-and-switch in the link.

As such, the Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (with authority on matters of faith and practice), making his teachings infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church.

Ok, so, I highlighted certain parts.

First, "the ability" to speak ex cathedra is not the same as being infallible. When divine truth has been revealed to the Pope (or college of bishops), that's when he speaks ex cathedra. It is doctrinal, not personal. If the pope says after breakfast, "Wow, that bacon was the best evah!" It does not mean that the bacon was truly the best that has ever been created.

Rather, it is when a specific set of criteria has been fulfilled related to a fundamental part of Catholicism. It is not issued lightly.

Second, the blue and red are the bait and switch. Not all of the pope's teachings are infallible. Like I said above, it is only certain things.

Is there a particular one you have issue with?

Praying to people? I already tried to explain it. At some point, bringing it back up becomes rude.

Confessing to priests - that's more a traditional thing. Isn't required. Feels more tangible than just, "Oh, I can take care of it myself."

Ok, then Purgatory.

First, does this really make a difference? None of us knows how it works. Hopefully, some of us will find out (in a good way) at some point.

Second, it is a bit of a syllogism that makes Purgatory makes sense. Sin makes our souls impure. Nothing impure can enter Heaven. Somehow, our souls are made pure before entering Heaven. Thus, Purgatory - or some similar process.

Finally, Catholicism does not hold up tradition higher than the Bible. Unless you care to cite specific examples, I'm not sure what else to say.

By the way - did you know that we didn't "invent" guardian angels?

Also thought about starting a new thread, but not sure if it would be an issue. Anyone watching The Bible Continues on NBC? Basically follows Acts, but has some really interesting storylines to "flesh out" the events. Some of it is totally made up, but some is rooted in the real life politics of the time. I think they did a good job with it.

 

[JettaKnight]

Which books?

You do understand the original Christian/Catholic Bible predates the KJV by centuries. Right?

You'll have to define what is "the original Christian/Catholic Bible". That's not easy. Many books have a solid history, others have a sketchy one. What is and is not canonical did tend to vary a bit over time. For the most part, everyone agrees about it, but there's a few books that are in dispute.

Furthernore, while these books in questions where included in many compilations, they never carried the same weight or authority as others.

For some, full dogmatic canonization wasn't until the Council of Trent, after the Reformation. Others have a different history.

 

[rambone]

Adding to scripture / Papal infallibility

First, on infallibility, there's a bait-and-switch in the link.

As such, the Pope has the ability to speak ex cathedra (with authority on matters of faith and practice), making his teachings infallible and binding upon all Christians. On the other hand, Protestants believe that no human being is infallible and that Christ alone is the Head of the Church.

Ok, so, I highlighted certain parts.

First, "the ability" to speak ex cathedra is not the same as being infallible. When divine truth has been revealed to the Pope (or college of bishops), that's when he speaks ex cathedra. It is doctrinal, not personal. If the pope says after breakfast, "Wow, that bacon was the best evah!" It does not mean that the bacon was truly the best that has ever been created.

Rather, it is when a specific set of criteria has been fulfilled related to a fundamental part of Catholicism. It is not issued lightly.

Second, the blue and red are the bait and switch. Not all of the pope's teachings are infallible. Like I said above, it is only certain things.

Is there a particular one you have issue with?

I understand your point, but I think this is a distinction without a difference. The idea that every living pope can create new infallible doctrines that bind Christians is completely unbiblical. Yes, I have an issue with the entire concept of adding to scripture. The practice is repeatedly condemned in the bible.


"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you." Deuteronomy 4:2

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar." Proverbs 30:5-6

"I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book." Revelation 22:18-19


Furthermore, we are warned repeatedly that evil forces will infiltrate the church and spread Satanic heresies. They will seem like Christians on the outside, but they will twist, pervert, and ignore the Word of God and lead people astray.


"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves." Matthew 7:15

"For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11:13-14

 

[T.Lex]

I understand your point, but I think this is a distinction without a difference. The idea that every living pope can create new infallible doctrines that bind Christians is completely unbiblical. Yes, I have an issue with the entire concept of adding to scripture. The practice is repeatedly condemned in the bible.

You miss the point. It is not adding to scripture.

In Matthew 23: 2-3 Jesus spoke of the authority of the Old Testament magisterium saying, "The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair [Gk. cathedras] of Moses. Therefore, do and observe whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach what they do not practice." Since Jesus recognized the authority of the Old Testament magisterium when it spoke ex cathedra (with the authority of Moses), we recognize that the New Testament magisterium of the Church, which speaks with the authority not of Moses but of Jesus Christ himself (Mt 10:40, 16:18-19, 18:18; Lk 10:16; 2 Cor 5:18-20), possesses a binding, infallible teaching office which is guaranteed by Christ (Mt 28:20; Jn 14:16, 26, 16:13).

And, it might be worth noting, that the only 2 infallible positions I can think of are Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption into Heaven. Do Protestants differ on those? Sure. Those are a couple things that make us Catholic.

There's probably a list out there somewhere.

Oh wait. There isn't. (Googled as I typed this up.)

From the wiki:

Regarding historical papal documents, Catholic theologian and church historian Klaus Schatz made a thorough study, published in 1985, that identified the following list of ex cathedra documents (see Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium, by Francis A. Sullivan, chapter 6):

1. Tome to Flavian, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon;
2. Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople;
3. Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just after death rather than only just prior to final judgment;[SUP][70][/SUP]
4. *** occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical;
5. Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical;
6. Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
7. Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary.

There is no complete list of papal statements considered infallible. A 1998 commentary on Ad Tuendam Fidem issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published on L'Osservatore Romano in July 1998[SUP][71][/SUP] listed a number of instances of infallible pronouncements by popes and by ecumenical councils, but explicitly stated (at no. 11) that this was not meant to be a complete list.
One of the documents mentioned is Pope John Paul II's apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis on reserving priestly ordination to men alone,[SUP][72][/SUP] which the Congregation earlier stated to be infallible, although not taught ex cathedra (i.e., although not a teaching of the extraordinary magisterium), clarifying that the content of this letter has been taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium.[SUP][73][/SUP] This was confirmed in a commentary by the same Congregation[SUP][71][/SUP] and in commentaries by Cardinals Joseph Ratzinger[SUP][74][/SUP] and Tarcisio Bertone.[SUP][75][/SUP]

So, it even looks like some infallible propositions can be walked back a bit.

Ultimately, this is a bit of anti-Catholic strawman. If papal infallibility in practice created angst-ridden divisions, that would be one thing. But, the reality is that it is reserved for foundational things. Those tend to be revealed extraordinarily rarely.


ETA:

Bwhahahahaha I am truly LMAO. Anyone here remember Latin? The preposition "with" is spelled like "sum" but with a "c" at the beginning. That word gets filtered.

Why does INGO hate Latin?!?!?!

 

[steveh_131]

Did I really just watch Penn and Teller try to load off-scale toy animals onto a plastic toy battleship to show that the flood in the bible never happened?

These guys are a joke.

 

[rambone]

re: Praying to God's creation and other dangerous forms of idolatry

Praying to people? I already tried to explain it. At some point, bringing it back up becomes rude.

I am not trying to be rude, but the explanation was found to be insufficient and a debate has ensued. The bible says that "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17), meaning we are meant to discuss the scriptures with one another and take nothing for granted. False teachings cannot be allowed to stand without being rebuked. If a doctrine is not consistent with the Bible then it must be exposed for what it is.

I have a copy of The Confirmed Catholic's Companion on my bookshelf, from a previous life. The book is what was given to Catholics upon Confirmation. It is chock full of Catholic prayers, including prayers "TO" people, which the exact wording they use in the book. There are over a dozen prayers to Mary, as well as prayers to various saints, and even prayers to angels.

Some of the prayers within describe Mary as a "sinless virgin" such as the "Ave, Maria Stella" on page 36. Many of the other prayers ask Mary for some kind of supernatural provision of strength, wisdom, protection, etc. This whole concept is unbiblical. As mentioned earlier, even communicating with the dead is crossing the line. God wants all of our praise and affection. If there is any scripture to refute what I am saying, please post it.

 

[rambone]

Confessing to priests - that's more a traditional thing. Isn't required. Feels more tangible than just, "Oh, I can take care of it myself."

The reason it matters is because it removes the personal relationship we are meant to have with God. The Catholic tradition seems to indicate that we have to insert some holy person in between us and God, such as a priest, a saint, or Mary. It creates a middleman and makes our connection to God impersonal.

Ok, then Purgatory.

First, does this really make a difference? None of us knows how it works. Hopefully, some of us will find out (in a good way) at some point.

Second, it is a bit of a syllogism that makes Purgatory makes sense. Sin makes our souls impure. Nothing impure can enter Heaven. Somehow, our souls are made pure before entering Heaven. Thus, Purgatory - or some similar process.

It does matter, first because we are not to add or subtract from scripture, as mentioned earlier.

Secondly, we DO have enough biblical text to clarify the sanctification process. The work of Jesus Christ was wholly and completely sufficient to purify or justify us before the Father in Heaven.

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Romans 5:9

ONLY the Blood of Christ can make us presentable, not fire! The concept of Purgatory cheapens the work of Christ. It says to Christians that Jesus's crucifixion was insufficient to save us. Wrong! Christ is enough. God WILL keep his promise. Believers will not burn.

"There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Romans 8:1

Finally, Catholicism does not hold up tradition higher than the Bible. Unless you care to cite specific examples, I'm not sure what else to say.

Some of this discussion seems to lean that way.

By the way - did you know that we didn't "invent" guardian angels?

Perhaps not, but who did? The concept of guardian angels cannot be positively asserted from the bible. Angels are not described with halos or wings, they are terrifying warriors and/or messengers of God; assigned specific missions. There is no mention of angels constantly watching over us, nor is it necessary with the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.

Do we have guardian angels?

 

[T.Lex]

I am not trying to be rude, but the explanation was found to be insufficient and a debate has ensued. The bible says that "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17), meaning we are meant to discuss the scriptures with one another and take nothing for granted.

Shirley, you know by now that I don't mind a good debate.

It is chock full of Catholic prayers, including prayers "TO" people, which the exact wording they use in the book. There are over a dozen prayers to Mary, as well as prayers to various saints, and even prayers to angels.

Indeed, and as I mentioned in the former thread where this came up, that kind of language is easy, but somewhat imprecise. Generally, they ask for intercession with God or direction for the individual. Along the lines of, "St. Jude, help me to deal patiently with my hardships."

To me, that's not exactly worshiping St. Jude.

Some of the prayers within describe Mary "sinless virgin" such as the "Ave, Maria Stella" on page 36. Many of the other prayers ask Mary for some kind of supernatural provision of strength, wisdom, protection, etc.

From whom? God.

Ave, Maria Stella:

Meek above all others,
Make us, set free from (our) sins,
Meek and chaste.
Bestow a pure life,
Prepare a safe way:
That seeing Jesus,
We may ever rejoice.
Praise be to God the Father,

To the Most High Christ (be) glory,
To the Holy Spirit
(Be) honour, to the Three equally. Amen.

(I admit, had to look that one up. My kids know WAY more of the obscure prayers than I do.)

Does not God want us to be stronger, wiser, more protective of each other? Praying to saints for help in being better Christians does not seem unChristian to me.

This whole concept is unbiblical. As mentioned earlier, even communicating with the dead is crossing the line. God wants all of our praise and affection. If there is any scripture to refute what I am saying, please post it.

What is there to refute? Giving all praise and affection to God is not mutually exclusive to praying for the intercession of the saints. Just as they are able to intercede (or try), they are also conduits to God of our love an intention.

This is what makes sense to me.

 

[T.Lex]

The reason it matters is because it removes the personal relationship we are meant to have with God. The Catholic tradition seems to indicate that we have to insert some holy person in between us and God, such as a priest, a saint, or Mary. It creates a middleman and makes our connection to God impersonal.

Again, intentional or not, this is a misrepresentation. We do not "have" to insert someone. We can if we want. It is optional, but recommended, to confess to a priest. To me, it is akin to having a "sponsor" in AA to keep people honest. We are human. Humanly frail and subject to rationalization. Saying our sins out loud is important to truly changing our ways.

It does matter, first because we are not to add or subtract from scripture, as mentioned earlier.

Secondly, we DO have enough biblical text to clarify the sanctification process. The work of Jesus Christ was wholly and completely sufficient to purify or justify us before the Father in Heaven.

"Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God." Romans 5:9

ONLY the Blood of Christ can make us presentable, not fire! The concept of Purgatory cheapens the work of Christ. It says to Christians that Jesus's crucifixion was insufficient to save us. Wrong! Christ is enough. God WILL keep his promise. Believers will not burn.

Good thing you're trying to stay civil.

Purgatory does not cheapen Christ's work. To even get to Purgatory, one must follow Christ's example. Purgatory is "punishment" only in the sense that standing in line at Kings Island to ride the Vortex is punishment (which, BTW, I [strike]had[/strike] got to do with my kid's class trip this past weekend). Once in Purgatory, the good news is that Heaven will be the next step, eventually.

Perhaps not, but who did? The concept of guardian angels cannot be positively asserted from the bible. Angels are not described with halos or wings, they are terrifying warriors and/or messengers of God; assigned specific missions. There is no mention of angels constantly watching over us, nor is it necessary with the Holy Spirit dwelling within us.

I am not a biblical expert.

Matthew 18:10.

See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.

Going back to intercession of the saints, and Purgatory, gets into what do you think happens to our soul when we die? Final judgment before the Lord purifies us? Again, keeping in mind none of us have an firsthand experience with this I totally understand that there are an infinite number of ways this might turn out.

Catholicism has the Communion of the Saints that follows the rough syllogism I set out before. Only human souls that have been perfected in the eyes of God can enter into Heaven.

 

[D-Ric902]

Mayhaps there was a good reason for the rule in the first place

 

[rambone]

Sinless virgin Mary?

Here is the first part of Ave, Maria Stella. The whole prayer can be found at OurCatholicPrayers.com.

Hail, bright star of ocean,
God's own Mother blest,
Ever sinless Virgin,
Gate of heavenly rest.


Now, here's what the Bible says.


"Surely there is Not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins." Ecclesiastes 7:20

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8

"As it is written, 'None is righteous, no, not one; No one understands, no one seeks God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; No one does good, not even one." Romans 3:10-12


The doctrine that a human can be sinless -- earn heaven on his own merits without a savior -- is completely contrary to the scriptures. Yet these heresies are continued to be taught to Catholic children, century after century.

 

[JettaKnight]

Also thought about starting a new thread, but not sure if it would be an issue. Anyone watching The Bible Continues on NBC? Basically follows Acts, but has some really interesting storylines to "flesh out" the events. Some of it is totally made up, but some is rooted in the real life politics of the time. I think they did a good job with it.

Got sidetracked. I hope to pick back up.

Last not my wife made me watch "God is Not Dead". The most ham-fisted moved I've seen in a long time.

 

[T.Lex]

Yet these heresies are continued to be taught to Catholic children, century after century.

Yeah... never mind.

 

[JettaKnight]

Purgatory does not cheapen Christ's work. To even get to Purgatory, one must follow Christ's example. Purgatory is "punishment" only in the sense that standing in line at Kings Island to ride the Vortex is punishment (which, BTW, I [strike]had[/strike] got to do with my kid's class trip this past weekend). Once in Purgatory, the good news is that Heaven will be the next step, eventually.

Gosh, I've been quoting Luke 23:43 wrong all these years.
“Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Purgatory.”

That whole concept seems to me to be as un-biblical as a Mormon's celestial heaven(s).

Catholicism has the Communion of the Saints that follows the rough syllogism I set out before. Only human souls that have been perfected in the eyes of God can enter into Heaven.

Only those who's sins have been washed away by the blood of Christ can enter Heaven.



So does doing good works here on earth shorten one's stay in Purgatory? Does someone go from Purgatory to hell? Is that a possibility?

 

[D-Ric902]

Yeah,
I think this has just about run its course.
maybe we can start an "all things Athiest" thread.
"all things Science"

the "all things Islam" thread has a grand total of 0 replies.

the more I see the self immolation of the people of God, the more the anti-Christians laugh and point to their science textbooks as the sole answer to life.
And we lose them.

Some self ban because it gets so damn vicious, and I understand that more and more.
plenty of our "community" have no problem attacking anything Christian.
(hence the 0 replies to the Islam thread) why?

cause the dogs don't eat where there is no food.
We don't need to tenderize each other for them to feast

I'm out