Justification

[Illya_Kuryaukin]

One of the largest reasons that I left Protestantism after 25 years to become Catholic is the issue of justification.

Simply put Protestants believe that justification in the sinner is nothing more the a declaration. In otherwords the sinner stands before the Father and the Father only sees Christ and not the sinner. So it is God who is changed in how he sees the sinner and not the sinner at all.

In Catholicism the sinner is infused with rightousness and actually changes to be more rightous. Sins are covered from Christ's blood but through free will and God's grace we are expected to be obedient to God's commands as St.Paul said when he said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

The whole idea of "imputed rightousness" was unheard of prior to Luther and the other "Reformers" as the sinner cooperates with God's grace through free will. In Protestanttism the only change that can happen is through sanctification but that has nothing to do with justification as in the Protestant view the sinner is saved end of story.

In Protestantism justification is a court room decree from the FAther even though the New Testament doesn't use this imagery to convey the message of justification. It does use the imagery of being familial with the Father. In Catholic theology we are welcomed into the Family of God and are not just a "dung hill covered in snow" as Luther put it.

Illya

[Norrin Radd]

One of the largest reasons that I left Protestantism after 25 years to become Catholic is the issue of justification.

Simply put Protestants believe that justification in the sinner is nothing more the a declaration.

There is a Scriptural basis for that, in that Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 teach that faith is "credited" to us as righteousness.



In otherwords the sinner stands before the Father and the Father only sees Christ and not the sinner. So it is God who is changed in how he sees the sinner and not the sinner at all.

Since you acknowledge below that Catholics also believe sins are "covered," then Catholics also believe "God is changed in how He sees the sinner."



In Catholicism the sinner is infused

Though some groups teach it more eagerly than others, Protestants believe that Xians are indwelt by the Spirit, are "partakers of the divine nature," etc.



with rightousness and actually changes to be more rightous. Sins are covered from Christ's blood but through free will and God's grace we are expected to be obedient to God's commands as St.Paul said when he said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

I don't know of any Protestant group that does not teach that we are to be obedient.



The whole idea of "imputed rightousness" was unheard of prior to Luther and the other "Reformers"

That is utterly absurd unless Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 were only added to Scripture at the time of the Reformation.



as the sinner cooperates with God's grace through free will. In Protestanttism the only change that can happen is through sanctification but that has nothing to do with justification as in the Protestant view the sinner is saved end of story.

Here we have an example of the fact that all too frequently, the "theological" uses of certain terms do not consistently match the Scriptural uses. There is a strong basis for the Protestant notion of salvation as a "done deal" in that the vast majority (BUT NOT ALL) uses of the word are in a "completed" tense. However, the case is not too different for "sanctification"; most of the occurrences of the relevant words are ALSO in a "completed" tense, so if Protestant theology were consistent, it would teach that both salvation AND sanctification were "done deals."



In Protestantism justification is a court room decree from the FAther even though the New Testament doesn't use this imagery to convey the message of justification. It does use the imagery of being familial with the Father.

It uses various types of terminology -- legal, accounting, familial, and maybe more.



In Catholic theology we are welcomed into the Family of God and are not just a "dung hill covered in snow" as Luther put it.

Illya

Glad to hear it. Luther was not the only voice of Protestantism. Most of us understand that we are born of God, born from above, born of the Spirit, temples of the Spirit, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, seated with Him where He is seated far above all rule and authority.

[tealblue]

I think the real question that devides is this. Is salvation itself the result from us being santified(made holy) or is being sanctified(being made holy) the result of us being saved. As Catholics we believe that our salvation is somethin attained from being sanctified. As the apostle Paul puts it"Those who endure til the end will be saved"

[Norrin Radd]

I think the real question that devides is this. Is salvation itself the result from us being santified (made holy) or is being sanctified (being made holy) the result of us being saved. As Catholics we believe that our salvation is somethin attained from being sanctified. As the apostle Paul puts it "Those who endure til the end will be saved"

Actually it was Jesus Who said that, and the context (Matt. 10:22 and 24:13, and Mark 13:13) seems to always involve deliverance from temporal danger, not salvation in the eternal sense.

Regarding your other point, I would say it again depends on how one defines terms. If you mean that God sets us apart and makes us holy, then I would sort of agree with you, tho' I would be more inclined to view "salvation" and "sanctification" as simultaneous. However, if by "sanctification" you mean "obedience," and that we are only saved *after* a lifetime of consistent obedience, I would say that Catholicism is an anti-Christian heresy, cut off from Christ and worthy of anathema.

[tealblue]

The problem with the idea that salvation and sanctification is simutanius is that denies the basic human elemant of free will. Paul himself thought he could lose his salvation so why do we think that we can't lose ours.

As for matt 10:22 it sure does sound like on the surface he is talking of temporal danger but I haven't looked into it. But there is plenty of other scripture where its for sure talking of eternal salvation.

20
That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.
21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.
22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

I'm curius how you take this passage as it relates to salvation.

[Norrin Radd]

The problem with the idea that salvation and sanctification is simutanius is that denies the basic human elemant of free will.

Again, that depends on how one defines "sanctification," and on which Scripture passages one chooses to emphasize. If you're saying there are passages that exhort us to actively "be" holy, to live in a holy or sanctified manner, I agree. But if you wish, I can show you plenty of passages that use "holy" and "sanctified" as normal labels for ALL Christians. I can show you plenty of passages that portray sanctification NOT as something "we do," but that "God did," to or for us.



Paul himself thought he could lose his salvation so why do we think that we can't lose ours.

As an Arminian, more or less, I believe it is at least theoretically possible that a Christian who routinely and unrepentantly engages in sins may eventually choose to willfully abandon the faith. But I do not believe we can -- "Oops, it was here a minute ago!" -- "lose" our salvation, and I don't believe Paul taught any such thing.



As for matt 10:22 it sure does sound like on the surface he is talking of temporal danger but I haven't looked into it. But there is plenty of other scripture where its for sure talking of eternal salvation.

20
That is so. They were broken off because of unbelief, but you are there because of faith. So do not become haughty, but stand in awe.
21
For if God did not spare the natural branches, (perhaps) he will not spare you either.
22
See, then, the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who fell, but God's kindness to you, provided you remain in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off.

I'm curius how you take this passage as it relates to salvation.

In context, it is all about faith vs. unbelief. Those who have faith are "in" those in unbelief are "out." If the unbelievers come to have faith, they will be grafted back in; if the believers abandon faith, they will be cut out.

[caritas007]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2008/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20081119_en.html

Last year Pope Benedict XVI gave an important sermon on Justification:"From
Works to Faith".
"We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love. Luther's
phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it not opposed to faith in charity(Agape), in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life... hence, to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love." --Pope Benedict XVI, 11/19/08, Rome.

"For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement:'You shall love your neighbor as yourself'" Galatians 5:14

[tealblue]

Again, that depends on how one defines "sanctification," and on which Scripture passages one chooses to emphasize. If you're saying there are passages that exhort us to actively "be" holy, to live in a holy or sanctified manner, I agree. But if you wish, I can show you plenty of passages that use "holy" and "sanctified" as normal labels for ALL Christians. I can show you plenty of passages that portray sanctification NOT as something "we do," but that "God did," to or for us.

However you look at it sanctification is something done to us. But is sanctification a result of salvation or is sanctification somethin God gives us in achieving salvation. Not saying we save ourselves but like "working out our salvation with fear and trembling"

As an Arminian, more or less, I believe it is at least theoretically possible that a Christian who routinely and unrepentantly engages in sins may eventually choose to willfully abandon the faith. But I do not believe we can -- "Oops, it was here a minute ago!" -- "lose" our salvation, and I don't believe Paul taught any such thing.

Not everyone who comes to me and says lord lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven. There are those who will strive to enter in to the straight gate but will not be able to. These are two stories i'm sure you are familiar with. Both accounts describe people who want to be saved but ultimately will not. Jesus in the semon on the mount tells us that "unless you DO the will of the father you WILL NOT get in.
In context, it is all about faith vs. unbelief. Those who have faith are "in" those in unbelief are "out." If the unbelievers come to have faith, they will be grafted back in; if the believers abandon faith, they will be cut out.

Depends on how you describe faith. I see faith as active. The problem with protestantism is that you are left to interpret what scripture means so in sense you could be faithful to your self.

Do you absolutely have to attend church every single week? One of Gods commandments is to remember the sabath and keep it holy. I doubt the apostles early on went golfing instead. So here is the question if you don't go to church every sunday do you have faith? I'm not pointing anyone out but to me Faith is just something anyone makes it out to be. If you don't like your church's beliefs you go to one that does. This is one of many examples of things that bible only christians have free reign to belive or not.

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Again, that depends on how one defines "sanctification," and on which Scripture passages one chooses to emphasize. If you're saying there are passages that exhort us to actively "be" holy, to live in a holy or sanctified manner, I agree. But if you wish, I can show you plenty of passages that use "holy" and "sanctified" as normal labels for ALL Christians. I can show you plenty of passages that portray sanctification NOT as something "we do," but that "God did," to or for us.

However you look at it sanctification is something done to us. But is sanctification a result of salvation or is sanctification somethin God gives us in achieving salvation. Not saying we save ourselves but like "working out our salvation with fear and trembling"

If we must "achieve" salvation, is it still a gift?

Do we "work out" our salvation, in the sense of contributing our own efforts in order to bring it to pass, or do we "act (it) out" because it is already true within us (as the subsequent verse, Phil. 2:13, might suggest)?


Originally Posted by Norrin Radd As an Arminian, more or less, I believe it is at least theoretically possible that a Christian who routinely and unrepentantly engages in sins may eventually choose to willfully abandon the faith. But I do not believe we can -- "Oops, it was here a minute ago!" -- "lose" our salvation, and I don't believe Paul taught any such thing.

Not everyone who comes to me and says lord lord will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

True. And yet the context suggests their cries of "Lord, Lord" were not genuine. It is not that obedience merits entrance into the Kingdom, it is that obedience is evidence of knowing Him, and knowing Him gains us entrance.



There are those who will strive to enter in to the straight gate but will not be able to.

Actually, few will *find* it. The context of Matt. 7 really is not clear about the meaning of the "narrow gate" metaphor. If 7:13-14 are intended to link to the subsequent part about false prophets, then it may be similar to John 10, meaning that Jesus is the only way in.



These are two stories i'm sure you are familiar with. Both accounts describe people who want to be saved but ultimately will not. Jesus in the semon on the mount tells us that "unless you DO the will of the father you WILL NOT get in.

Yes, He did. And in John 6:29 He said that the only "work" required is faith. Now what?



Originally Posted by Norrin Radd In context, it is all about faith vs. unbelief. Those who have faith are "in" those in unbelief are "out." If the unbelievers come to have faith, they will be grafted back in; if the believers abandon faith, they will be cut out.

Depends on how you describe faith. I see faith as active.

I never denied that faith should be "active." What I deny is that any such "activity" has merit in "achieving" salvation or sanctification.



The problem with protestantism is that you are left to interpret what scripture means so in sense you could be faithful to your self.

Yes, yes, the old saw about everyone being his own Pope. And of course the counter-argument is that your loyalty must necessarily be to Pope, bishops, etc. above Scripture. You cannot be a Berean and test what your leaders say, because they have authority to tell you your interpretation is wrong.



Do you absolutely have to attend church every single week? One of Gods commandments is to remember the sabath and keep it holy.

AND He commanded it be observed on the LAST day of the week -- Saturday -- not Sunday. He also commanded circumcision and Kosher eating. But we are redeemed from the curse of the Law, we are no longer under Law but under grace.



I doubt the apostles early on went golfing instead. So here is the question if you don't go to church every sunday do you have faith?

I have faith that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and that no one may judge me in regard to food and drink, festivals and Sabbaths.



I'm not pointing anyone out but to me Faith is just something anyone makes it out to be. If you don't like your church's beliefs you go to one that does. This is one of many examples of things that bible only christians have free reign to belive or not.

And as I said, you must believe whatever you are told by church authorities.

[tealblue]

If we must "achieve" salvation, is it still a gift?

Do we "work out" our salvation, in the sense of contributing our own efforts in order to bring it to pass, or do we "act (it) out" because it is already true within us (as the subsequent verse, Phil. 2:13, might suggest)?

We work out our salvation in the way of cooperating with grace

True. And yet the context suggests their cries of "Lord, Lord" were not genuine. It is not that obedience merits entrance into the Kingdom, it is that obedience is evidence of knowing Him, and knowing Him gains us entrance.

depart from me evildoers I never knew you. It seems as though focus is on the I never knew you but the fact he refered to them as evildoers gets skipped

Actually, few will *find* it. The context of Matt. 7 really is not clear about the meaning of the "narrow gate" metaphor. If 7:13-14 are intended to link to the subsequent part about false prophets, then it may be similar to John 10, meaning that Jesus is the only way in.

To be honest I hope its the case.
Yes, He did. And in John 6:29 He said that the only "work" required is faith. Now what?

again, depends on what definition of believe you have. I think words like faith and believe mean more than a definition out of websters


I never denied that faith should be "active." What I deny is that any such "activity" has merit in "achieving" salvation or sanctification.

James tells us that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

Yes, yes, the old saw about everyone being his own Pope. And of course the counter-argument is that your loyalty must necessarily be to Pope, bishops, etc. above Scripture. You cannot be a Berean and test what your leaders say, because they have authority to tell you your interpretation is wrong.

The Catholic church has few official interpetation on anything in scripture. I would more say my loyalty is to the church. When I mean church I mean more its teachings. There are some bishops who are in favor of lets say birth control. Well that goes against church teaching and they are wrong.

AND He commanded it be observed on the LAST day of the week -- Saturday -- not Sunday. He also commanded circumcision and Kosher eating. But we are redeemed from the curse of the Law, we are no longer under Law but under grace.

Well jesus said he came not to destoy the law but to fulfill it. When I mention law I'm talking of ten commandments. Eating meat and circumcission
are not commandments. James also said that its the doers of the law not the hearers of the law that are righous before God.rom 2:13. I have a hard time believing somene who reads ch 2 of romans can't see plainly works will play a part of our judgment. Martin Luther really wanted james to be removed from the cannon.

I have faith that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, and that no one may judge me in regard to food and drink, festivals and Sabbaths.

I can't possible judge any mans soul. Including my own.

And as I said, you must believe whatever you are told by church authorities.

I only believe what the church teaches not any one individual. The church is bigger than any one pope or bishup.

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
... context suggests their cries of "Lord, Lord" were not genuine. It is not that obedience merits entrance into the Kingdom, it is that obedience is evidence of knowing Him, and knowing Him gains us entrance.

depart from me evildoers I never knew you. It seems as though focus is on the I never knew you but the fact he refered to them as evildoers gets skipped


Perspective, I suppose. I see it as saying they were "evildoers" BECAUSE they never genuinely "knew" Him.




in John 6:29 He said that the only "work" required is faith. Now what?

again, depends on what definition of believe you have. I think words like faith and believe mean more than a definition out of websters


Of course. And in context, the meaning is what we must "do" to inherit eternal life. Specifically, what "acts" or "works" must we perform.



I never denied that faith should be "active." What I deny is that any such "activity" has merit in "achieving" salvation or sanctification.

James tells us that we are justified by works and not by faith alone.

And Paul repeatedly maintains we are saved and justified by faith apart from works. Hmm...



Yes, yes, the old saw about everyone being his own Pope. And of course the counter-argument is that your loyalty must necessarily be to Pope, bishops, etc. above Scripture. You cannot be a Berean and test what your leaders say, because they have authority to tell you your interpretation is wrong.

The Catholic church has few official interpetation on anything in scripture. I would more say my loyalty is to the church. When I mean church I mean more its teachings. There are some bishops who are in favor of lets say birth control. Well that goes against church teaching and they are wrong.


But the Bereans tested Paul himself. Paul warned the Galatians not to accept different, works-based Gospels, even if he himself or even an angel should later come preaching such a "gospel." Are you allowed to test even "official" church teachings in light of Scripture? Paul challenged the behavior of Peter, who to you was the first "Pope." Do bishops today have such authority?





AND He commanded it be observed on the LAST day of the week -- Saturday -- not Sunday. He also commanded circumcision and Kosher eating. But we are redeemed from the curse of the Law, we are no longer under Law but under grace.

Well jesus said he came not to destoy the law but to fulfill it. When I mention law I'm talking of ten commandments. Eating meat and circumcission are not commandments. James also said that its the doers of the law not the hearers of the law that are righous before God.rom 2:13. I have a hard time believing somene who reads ch 2 of romans can't see plainly works will play a part of our judgment. Martin Luther really wanted james to be removed from the cannon.

That's understandable. He probably got so infuriated by what at first sounds diametrically opposed to Paul's consistent teaching that he missed James 2:18. That verse shows that James was really saying the same thing as Paul -- that "works" (in context, works of love and mercy) naturally result from genuine faith. Paul's emphasis is that the works themselves have no merit. James corrects the misunderstanding that there can really be "faith" if "works" do not result.

[tealblue]

Perspective, I suppose. I see it as saying they were "evildoers" BECAUSE they never genuinely "knew" Him.





Of course. And in context, the meaning is what we must "do" to inherit eternal life. Specifically, what "acts" or "works" must we perform.




And Paul repeatedly maintains we are saved and justified by faith apart from works. Hmm...

The word Faith alone only apears once in the new testement and that in james where we are told we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE
But the Bereans tested Paul himself. Paul warned the Galatians not to accept different, works-based Gospels, even if he himself or even an angel should later come preaching such a "gospel." Are you allowed to test even "official" church teachings in light of Scripture? Paul challenged the behavior of Peter, who to you was the first "Pope." Do bishops today have such authority?


We can challenge the bahavior but not the church teaching but paul was talking of works apart form grace not works themselves.

That's understandable. He probably got so infuriated by what at first sounds diametrically opposed to Paul's consistent teaching that he missed James 2:18. That verse shows that James was really saying the same thing as Paul -- that "works" (in context, works of love and mercy) naturally result from genuine faith. Paul's emphasis is that the works themselves have no merit. James corrects the misunderstanding that there can really be "faith" if "works" do not result.

Works outside Gods grace have no merit. But if you say that works do not accompany faith you faith is not valid then by definition works are required for salvation. I'm talking about works that are a result of Gods grace not works outside of grace kind of like the idea that we are earning our salvation. Martin luther made a statement that you can murder thousand times a day and still be saved.

[Norrin Radd]

Norrin Radd: And Paul repeatedly maintains we are saved and justified by faith apart from works. Hmm...

The word Faith alone only apears once in the new testement and that in james where we are told we are justified by works and NOT BY FAITH ALONE

Right. So is James right, or are Luther and Paul right, or is it that James means something OTHER THAN the idea that we must ADD works to faith in order to be saved?




But the Bereans tested Paul himself. Paul warned the Galatians not to accept different, works-based Gospels, even if he himself or even an angel should later come preaching such a "gospel." Are you allowed to test even "official" church teachings in light of Scripture? Paul challenged the behavior of Peter, who to you was the first "Pope." Do bishops today have such authority?


We can challenge the bahavior but not the church teaching but paul was talking of works apart form grace not works themselves.


Malarkey. Paul was exhorting his readers to "test" anything he or any other supposed man of God -- or even angel of God -- taught them. But thanks for answering; you confirmed my point that for you, "official church dogma" supercedes both Scripture and conscience.




That's understandable. He probably got so infuriated by what at first sounds diametrically opposed to Paul's consistent teaching that he missed James 2:18. That verse shows that James was really saying the same thing as Paul -- that "works" (in context, works of love and mercy) naturally result from genuine faith. Paul's emphasis is that the works themselves have no merit. James corrects the misunderstanding that there can really be "faith" if "works" do not result.

Works outside Gods grace have no merit. But if you say that works do not accompany faith you faith is not valid then by definition works are required for salvation. I'm talking about works that are a result of Gods grace not works outside of grace kind of like the idea that we are earning our salvation.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to insist on having it both ways -- that is that the works are necessary, but not salvific. Or in other words, they are necessary BECAUSE we ARE saved, not IN ORDER TO BE saved. Paul said not only EXPLICITLY but REPEATEDLY that we are NOT saved as a result of works:

Eph. 2:8-9
2 Tim. 1:9
***. 3:5

Those of course coming in addition to Romans and Galatians.

The common pattern of Paul is to present the things we are to "do" as FOLLOWING FROM what is already true about who we "are" (or about what has been done TO and FOR us). So, in Eph. 2:10, good works follow from the fact that we are already saved apart from works; in 2 Tim. 1:13 our obedience follows after what is true because of 1:9; in ***. 3:8, we devote ourselves to "good works" after it has already been established that He saved us NOT because of any works.



Martin luther made a statement that you can murder thousand times a day and still be saved.

Marty said a lot of bodacious things that I would not readily affirm. OTOH, I also would not hastily denounce them, because I've heard that he employed extreme hyperbole, according to some of the rhetorical practices of his day.

After all, if we are to honor a brother's request for forgiveness 7 times daily, or 70 times 7 (or 70 times 7 daily, depending on how we harmonize Matt. 18 and Luke 17), won't God forgive *at least* that much?

[tealblue]

Right. So is James right, or are Luther and Paul right, or is it that James means something OTHER THAN the idea that we must ADD works to faith in order to be saved?


Or maybe Paul means something else then what he seems to say


Malarkey. Paul was exhorting his readers to "test" anything he or any other supposed man of God -- or even angel of God -- taught them. But thanks for answering; you confirmed my point that for you, "official church dogma" supercedes both Scripture and conscience.


Well thats if you are asuming that Church teaching and scripture contradict each other.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to insist on having it both ways -- that is that the works are necessary, but not salvific. Or in other words, they are necessary BECAUSE we ARE saved, not IN ORDER TO BE saved. Paul said not only EXPLICITLY but REPEATEDLY that we are NOT saved as a result of works:

Eph. 2:8-9
2 Tim. 1:9
***. 3:5

Nessesary in what ways then? When Paul is talking about works here he is refering to works of the jewish law not God's law.


Those of course coming in addition to Romans and Galatians.

The common pattern of Paul is to present the things we are to "do" as FOLLOWING FROM what is already true about who we "are" (or about what has been done TO and FOR us). So, in Eph. 2:10, good works follow from the fact that we are already saved apart from works; in 2 Tim. 1:13 our obedience follows after what is true because of 1:9; in ***. 3:8, we devote ourselves to "good works" after it has already been established that He saved us NOT because of any works.


I think Paul's main point was talking specifically to the jews who were trying to combine jewish law into the christian church


Marty said a lot of bodacious things that I would not readily affirm. OTOH, I also would not hastily denounce them, because I've heard that he employed extreme hyperbole, according to some of the rhetorical practices of his day.

After all, if we are to honor a brother's request for forgiveness 7 times daily, or 70 times 7 (or 70 times 7 daily, depending on how we harmonize Matt. 18 and Luke 17), won't God forgive *at least* that much?

Well that is assuming someone is asking for forgiveness. I don't buy into the idea that when a peson recieves salvation they are forgiven for all past present and future sins.

[disciple]

Greetings TB,
You said,"Well that is assuming someone is asking for forgiveness. I don't buy into the idea that when a peson recieves salvation they are forgiven for all past present and future sins."
When a man is born again he is saved from the penalty of sin and we are being saved from the power of sin eveyday. Death and the grave have no claim on the one who recieves salvation. If salvation does not include forgivness of all your sins then how do you define salvation"
Therefore, having been justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom 5), There is now therefore no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. (Rom 8)
You cannot walk according to the Spirit unless you are born again, if you are born again you have eternal life, if you have eternal life ALL your sins have been forgiven.

[Norrin Radd]

Originally Posted by Norrin Radd
Right. So is James right, or are Luther and Paul right, or is it that James means something OTHER THAN the idea that we must ADD works to faith in order to be saved?

Or maybe Paul means something else then what he seems to say

Valid point. I take it from what you say below that you believe Paul refers exclusively to works of Jewish Law. I'll address that possibility down there where you broach it.



Malarkey. Paul was exhorting his readers to "test" anything he or any other supposed man of God -- or even angel of God -- taught them. But thanks for answering; you confirmed my point that for you, "official church dogma" supercedes both Scripture and conscience.

Well thats if you are asuming that Church teaching and scripture contradict each other.


I understand the risk of "assuming," but I assume your church's stance is similar to what I've been told is the stance of the Eastern Orthodox Church: Scripture is one PART of Holy Tradition. It (Scripture) does not override other parts of Holy Tradition, including official Church *interpretations* of Scripture.

If that is true, then obviously Church teaching and Scripture *cannot ever* be in contradiction, because the Church has authoritatively defined and declared otherwise. It is correctness by virtue of making up the rules.




I'm sorry, but I'm going to insist on having it both ways -- that is that the works are necessary, but not salvific. Or in other words, they are necessary BECAUSE we ARE saved, not IN ORDER TO BE saved. Paul said not only EXPLICITLY but REPEATEDLY that we are NOT saved as a result of works:

Eph. 2:8-9
2 Tim. 1:9
***. 3:5

Nessesary in what ways then? When Paul is talking about works here he is refering to works of the jewish law not God's law.


1) It is much easier to make that case in regard to Romans and Galatians, because in those cases -- especially Galatians -- Paul explicitly mentions "circumcision." It is much harder to make that case in the cases from Ephesians and ***us, because shortly after denying the efficacy of "works," Paul turns around and encourages "works," using the same word, "ergon."

In fact, the words, "Jew" or "Jewish" occur nowhere in Eph. and only once in ***us, not in the context under discussion. We do find a likely circumlocution for "law of the Jews" in Eph. 2:15, but it really does not help your case. Why? Because...

2) ... Often when one distinguishes between the "Law of the Jews" and the "Law of God," he is making a distinction between the Ceremonial Laws and the Ten Commandments; presumably, the Ceremonial Law expired, while the Ten Commandments remain mandatory. I acknowledge merit to this view, and I also find fault with it. The merit is that unlike the Ceremonial Laws, several of the Ten Commandments are directly reaffirmed in the NT. The fault is that at least one of them -- mandatory Sabbath-keeping -- is loosened by Jesus and totally released by Paul. Beyond that, the aforementioned Eph. 2:15 explicitly says that Jesus did away with the Law with its "commandments and ordinances," much as Col. 2:13-14 says He did away with the record against us, with its "legal demands."




Those of course coming in addition to Romans and Galatians.

The common pattern of Paul is to present the things we are to "do" as FOLLOWING FROM what is already true about who we "are" (or about what has been done TO and FOR us). So, in Eph. 2:10, good works follow from the fact that we are already saved apart from works; in 2 Tim. 1:13 our obedience follows after what is true because of 1:9; in ***. 3:8, we devote ourselves to "good works" after it has already been established that He saved us NOT because of any works.

I think Paul's main point was talking specifically to the jews who were trying to combine jewish law into the christian church

That was certainly PART of the background. But I don't think it reasonably leads to a conclusion along the lines that the only "works of law" from which we are freed are circumcision, food laws, and other Jewish iden***y markers.




Marty said a lot of bodacious things that I would not readily affirm. OTOH, I also would not hastily denounce them, because I've heard that he employed extreme hyperbole, according to some of the rhetorical practices of his day.

After all, if we are to honor a brother's request for forgiveness 7 times daily, or 70 times 7 (or 70 times 7 daily, depending on how we harmonize Matt. 18 and Luke 17), won't God forgive *at least* that much?

Well that is assuming someone is asking for forgiveness. I don't buy into the idea that when a peson recieves salvation they are forgiven for all past present and future sins.

Then in what sense has he been "saved"? How does he obtain that forgiveness?

[tealblue]

People always make the statement that tradition trumps scripture. This always comes from the perspective that whoever is saying that a certain catholic church teaching is contrary to scripture. Catholic aren't the only ones who see works as justification and they get this right from scripture itself. You have to understand from a catholic perspective teachings are from the original church. Its different than when a group of people who decide to start up a community church one day decide what beliefs based on how they interpret scripture. I can see how people grow up that everything in the christian faith everything must be questioned. when I became Catholic I had to ask myself these questions

1 How far back does the catholic church go

2 Did jesus even establish an organized church

3 Did the church become corrupt

4 Is it corrupt now

5 what makes my interpreation of scripture right anyway

[AllyManderson]

I have never seen any reason why, If I were not a Christian, and I were to be cut off from society that I could not find the love of Christ in my Bible. I have never needed anyone to teach me scripture. I have never required a Pope a Bishop or a Council.

Now, this is all simple "opinion" of mine. Why is it then - that I am criticised so heavily by Trent?

Why is it, that as Protestants we believe that many (A majoirty?) Roman Catholics are saved while Roman Catholics officially believe us to be anathema? It is a great burden to carry.

[AllyManderson]

One of the largest reasons that I left Protestantism after 25 years to become Catholic is the issue of justification.

Simply put Protestants believe that justification in the sinner is nothing more the a declaration. In otherwords the sinner stands before the Father and the Father only sees Christ and not the sinner. So it is God who is changed in how he sees the sinner and not the sinner at all.

In Catholicism the sinner is infused with rightousness and actually changes to be more rightous. Sins are covered from Christ's blood but through free will and God's grace we are expected to be obedient to God's commands as St.Paul said when he said "work out your salvation with fear and trembling."

The whole idea of "imputed rightousness" was unheard of prior to Luther and the other "Reformers" as the sinner cooperates with God's grace through free will. In Protestanttism the only change that can happen is through sanctification but that has nothing to do with justification as in the Protestant view the sinner is saved end of story.

In Protestantism justification is a court room decree from the FAther even though the New Testament doesn't use this imagery to convey the message of justification. It does use the imagery of being familial with the Father. In Catholic theology we are welcomed into the Family of God and are not just a "dung hill covered in snow" as Luther put it.
Illya

While Luther said this, he did not teach that Christs glory and grace merely covered up a person's sins.

You are making a terrible error to highlight one particular thing that was said and take it as the basis of religious teachings. Luther taught that a person justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone would begin a transformation and actually become a pile of snow!

I would simply say to you "If Abraham were justified by works..."

[AllyManderson]

People always make the statement that tradition trumps scripture. This always comes from the perspective that whoever is saying that a certain catholic church teaching is contrary to scripture. Catholic aren't the only ones who see works as justification and they get this right from scripture itself. You have to understand from a catholic perspective teachings are from the original church. Its different than when a group of people who decide to start up a community church one day decide what beliefs based on how they interpret scripture. I can see how people grow up that everything in the christian faith everything must be questioned. when I became Catholic I had to ask myself these questions

1 How far back does the catholic church go

2 Did jesus even establish an organized church

3 Did the church become corrupt

4 Is it corrupt now

5 what makes my interpreation of scripture right anyway

1) Unknown, What do you call the Roman Catholic Church? If I sat in my house and said "I have fromed the Republican-Democratic Party" and 60 years later I register it and 5000 years later it stands for election - what date do you place on its creation?

2) No, I have no scriptural or historical evidence to support it. But, if he did and Peter was Pope then I can turn your argument on its head and use it to deny Papal infallibility.

3) Sale of Indulgences, counter-reformation answers this.

4) Sexual Molestation of Children covered up by the Church in Scotland (I don't know if this problem extends to North America). With the Vatican providing additional financial support to cover up loses as a result.

5) You are but a person and you can err. The Pope is but a man. The councils are only men and they err constantly! But the scripture is plain and if you study it dutifully then you will come to the answer.

Moreover - what does a Catholic Call scripture?

The Apocrypha is not Scripture. But a Catholic would say it is.

So to convert to Catholicism you have to change your definition of certain things.

[Columcille]

Now, this is all simple "opinion" of mine. Why is it then - that I am criticised so heavily by Trent?

Why is it, that as Protestants we believe that many (A majoirty?) Roman Catholics are saved while Roman Catholics officially believe us to be anathema? It is a great burden to carry.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent.html

I thought the following site would be good to review. Everyone always talks about the "anathema," but never get to the meat of what Trent has said beyond it.

Oxford English Dictionary states the following:

Anathema:

2. The formal act, or formula, of consigning to damnation. a. The curse of God. b. The great curse of the church, cutting off a person from the communion of the church visible, and formally handing him over to Satan; or denouncing any doctrine or practice as damnable. Hence c. Any denunciation or imprecation of divine wrath against alleged impiety, heresy, etc. d. A curse or imprecation generally.

The anathema's stated in Trent are not of specific persons; hence the sense that is best understood is the OED 2.b. More specifically, the part of denouncing any doctrine or practice as damnable. On justification, it is the sixth session from which we should be looking at specifically.

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

There are 33 canon laws here to look at, but 16 chapters from which we can gain context for the canon laws. If you for the purpose of review suspend the "anathema" until a later purpose, you might be surprised on how much you agree with it canon laws themselves. If anyone thinks that good works will grant them justification, such a focus is so out of sync with God's plan that such a belief will lead them into a precarious sitution that in all probability is damnable. Please tell me which of the 33 canon laws applies to you specifically AllyManderson, because I am unsure if you have even read it in context.

[Columcille]

1)Moreover - what does a Catholic Call scripture?

The Apocrypha is not Scripture. But a Catholic would say it is.

The council of Carthage lists the same books as at the Council of Trent. You must realize that the Ecumenical Council of Nice II ratified this regional council's canon laws. As such, 72 books of the bible have always been Scripture. The term apocrypha applies only because Jerome did not have the Hebrew manuscripts when he translated those works and so placed it into an appendix. However, the Septuagint has always been favored by the Christians in the early Church and this is seen no more prevalent in the fact that the O.T. quotations in the N.T. are mainly taken verbatum from this source. If anyone has taken away, it was the Protestants. As is, it was not until the King James Version that the apocrypha was not placed in the same binding, yet it was translated. I have a facsimile of the 1599 Geneva bible and they include it in their binding. The Church has always had these books, and while some individuals speculate on what book is included or not, or beneficial or only partially beneficial, the Church is not based on one individual but as a community. Most of the people who have listed their own canon lists do not even agree with the current Protestant list of 66 books, yet you quote them as though they had more authority than the regional council of Carthage or the Ecumenical Council of Nice II. In fact, you base your O.T. on an apostisized Jewish community who rejected their messiah and in 90 A.D. with the first canon list from Josephus is speculated on because of the Christian explosion and the Christian use of the Septuagint. If you check your facts in regards to the chronology of events, you would see how this plays out.

[Illya_Kuryaukin]

There is a Scriptural basis for that, in that Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 teach that faith is "credited" to us as righteousness.

The problem with that argument is that the word that is used doesn't denote something is not, but something that is becoming. Big problem for Protestants.




Since you acknowledge below that Catholics also believe sins are "covered," then Catholics also believe "God is changed in how He sees the sinner."

God is not changed since we hold to infused rightousness. If we held to simply imputed then yes it is God who is changed. Please read what I say.




Though some groups teach it more eagerly than others, Protestants believe that Xians are indwelt by the Spirit, are "partakers of the divine nature," etc.

That has to do with sanctification and nothign to do with justification. That is the problem. Protestants make a distinction between sanctification and justification when the Bible doesn't make any distinction at all. CAtholic and Protestants mean two entirely different things.




I don't know of any Protestant group that does not teach that we are to be obedient.

Protestants believe that obedience is the natural outflow of a saving faith. You either are or you are not. Period. Obedience has nothing to do with salvation in the world of "faith alone." Obedience is simply a fruit that the believer exhibits from a saving faith.




That is utterly absurd unless Rom. 4 and Gal. 3 were only added to Scripture at the time of the Reformation.

The only absurd thing is how Protestants have taken scripture from a sola scripura point of view and created 33000 different denominations all claiming to be the right one. Romans 4 and Galations 3 were there. But which interpretation do you have out of the 33000?




Here we have an example of the fact that all too frequently, the "theological" uses of certain terms do not consistently match the Scriptural uses. There is a strong basis for the Protestant notion of salvation as a "done deal" in that the vast majority (BUT NOT ALL) uses of the word are in a "completed" tense. However, the case is not too different for "sanctification"; most of the occurrences of the relevant words are ALSO in a "completed" tense, so if Protestant theology were consistent, it would teach that both salvation AND sanctification were "done deals."

Give me a break, you have not dealt with one single scripture that contradicts "faith alone." James 2:24 flat out says that man is NOT saved by faith alone." So it is you who is not dealing with the facts and you are trying like most Protestants to get out of it by giving me just your opinion. I am not interested.




It uses various types of terminology -- legal, accounting, familial, and maybe more.

Famial is used mostly and legal our courtroom is used mostly in the "final judgement" and that is all. Read the Bible if you don't believe me. You show me where a court room decree is used to describe our relationship with God.




Glad to hear it. Luther was not the only voice of Protestantism. Most of us understand that we are born of God, born from above, born of the Spirit, temples of the Spirit, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, seated with Him where He is seated far above all rule and authority.

You're right, you had Calvin, Zwingli, and the rest who wanted to kill Luther. Great start to a "terrific movement."

Illya

[tealblue]

1) Unknown, What do you call the Roman Catholic Church? If I sat in my house and said "I have fromed the Republican-Democratic Party" and 60 years later I register it and 5000 years later it stands for election - what date do you place on its creation? The word Catholic dates back to the first century.2)

No, I have no scriptural or historical evidence to support it. But, if he did and Peter was Pope then I can turn your argument on its head and use it to deny Papal infallibility. Plenty of historical evidence showing peter as first pope.

3) sale of Indulgences, counter-reformation answers this.

I think the protestant church as awhole is way more corrupt: gay marriage, remarriage after divorce, Birth control, abortion

4) Sexual Molestation of Children covered up by the Church in Scotland (I don't know if this problem extends to North America). With the Vatican providing additional financial support to cover up loses as a result.

So the Catholic church is isolated in this

5) You are but a person and you can err. The Pope is but a man. The councils are only men and they err constantly! But the scripture is plain and if you study it dutifully then you will come to the answer.

Moreover - what does a Catholic Call scripture?

The Apocrypha is not Scripture. But a Catholic would say it is.

Where in scripture tells us which books belong in the bible? up until the reformation the 7 deutercanonicals were always scripture.

So to convert to Catholicism you have to change your definition of certain things.

Its definately a change. you could also say that to become protestant you have to change.

[Norrin Radd]

People always make the statement that tradition trumps scripture. This always comes from the perspective that whoever is saying that a certain catholic church teaching is contrary to scripture.

Our perspective is that Scripture teaches that it is the responsibility of the hearer to "test" any preacher and any tradition -- Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant -- in light of Scripture. If things are set up such that by definition tradition *cannot* be contrary to Scripture, then the Scriptures that teach we are to test them are meaningless.



Catholic aren't the only ones who see works as justification and they get this right from scripture itself.

Sure. And we get the idea that works do NOT justify or save -- and the idea that any who teach contrarily rightly risk anathema -- "right from Scripture itself."



You have to understand from a catholic perspective teachings are from the original church. Its different than when a group of people who decide to start up a community church one day decide what beliefs based on how they interpret scripture. I can see how people grow up that everything in the christian faith everything must be questioned. when I became Catholic I had to ask myself these questions

1 How far back does the catholic church go

I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.



2 Did jesus even establish an organized church

With a formal official hierarchy? Not really.



3 Did the church become corrupt


4 Is it corrupt now

It has never been pure and perfect. The NT is proof of that, because most of it was written to correct errors that were already extant in the earliest days.



5 what makes my interpreation of scripture right anyway

God told me. :)

Ok, more seriously: My pope told me. And since "pope" means "father," and Jesus said to call no man "father" (in a spiritual sense), and since like all Xians I am born of God, born of the Spirit, born from above, then God is my Father. So... um, yeah -- God told me.

[kentuckypreacher]

To the question, Did Jesus establish a church? The answer is "yes," and it most decidedly was not the Roman Catholic Church.

And in the one church is justification - Jesus is the Savior of the body. It is in His body reconciliation occurs.

The church is the saved - the saved are the church.

[tealblue]

Our perspective is that Scripture teaches that it is the responsibility of the hearer to "test" any preacher and any tradition -- Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant -- in light of Scripture. If things are set up such that by definition tradition *cannot* be contrary to Scripture, then the Scriptures that teach we are to test them are meaningless.

Ok so what do you do when you and I have a dispute over testing by scripture. Matt 18:16 tels us to take disputes to the church


Sure. And we get the idea that works do NOT justify or save -- and the idea that any who teach contrarily rightly risk anathema -- "right from Scripture itself."

James tells us plainly that we are not justified by faith alone


I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.

The word Catholic church appears as early as the first centruy and if you read the early church fathers they really sound Catholi in the beliefs.


With a formal official hierarchy? Not really.




It has never been pure and perfect. The NT is proof of that, because most of it was written to correct errors that were already extant in the earliest days.




God told me. :)

Ok, more seriously: My pope told me. And since "pope" means "father," and Jesus said to call no man "father" (in a spiritual sense), and since like all Xians I am born of God, born of the Spirit, born from above, then God is my Father. So... um, yeah -- God told me.

For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Call no man father is taken way out of context. Does that mean that we don't call our own parent father.

[tealblue]

To the question, Did Jesus establish a church? The answer is "yes," and it most decidedly was not the Roman Catholic Church.

And in the one church is justification - Jesus is the Savior of the body. It is in His body reconciliation occurs.

The church is the saved - the saved are the church.

For the first 1500 years if you were christian you went to a Catholic church or in some cases an orthodox church which is really a section of the Catholic church temperarly seperated. No protestant denomination existed before the reformation.

[Norrin Radd]

tealblue

Norrin Radd:
Our perspective is that Scripture teaches that it is the responsibility of the hearer to "test" any preacher and any tradition -- Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant -- in light of Scripture. If things are set up such that by definition tradition *cannot* be contrary to Scripture, then the Scriptures that teach we are to test them are meaningless.

Ok so what do you do when you and I have a dispute over testing by scripture. Matt 18:16 tels us to take disputes to the church


The passage deals with personal disputes where one believer "sins" against another, not about doctrinal disputes. The procedure if I sin against you is that first you confront me one-on-one, then if that fails you get one or two witnesses and gang up on me, then if that fails you bring it to the larger group of whatever local assembly to which we belong. Of course today that doesn't necessarily carry a ton of weight, since I can just shop for another local church.



Sure. And we get the idea that works do NOT justify or save -- and the idea that any who teach contrarily rightly risk anathema -- "right from Scripture itself."

James tells us plainly that we are not justified by faith alone

First -- Paul tells us we are, and Jesus says belief in Him is sufficient to obtain everlasting life.

Second -- James agrees, since in context he teaches that works *demonstrate* faith, not add to it.


I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.

The word Catholic church appears as early as the first centruy and if you read the early church fathers they really sound Catholi in the beliefs.

I choose to view the RCC as beginning when the Pope was formally given higher authority than the other bishops.

...

God told me.

Ok, more seriously: My pope told me. And since "pope" means "father," and Jesus said to call no man "father" (in a spiritual sense), and since like all Xians I am born of God, born of the Spirit, born from above, then God is my Father. So... um, yeah -- God told me.


For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Call no man father is taken way out of context. Does that mean that we don't call our own parent father.


I was careful to note that it applies in a "spiritual" sense, not in terms of natural parentage.

In regard to 1 Cor. 4:14-15, if I am taking Matt. 23:9 out of context, you are doing at least as much with Paul's words.

[kentuckypreacher]

For the first 1500 years if you were christian you went to a Catholic church or in some cases an orthodox church which is really a section of the Catholic church temperarly seperated. No protestant denomination existed before the reformation.

When I speak of Christ's church, I do not mean the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church, nor any Protestant denomination. "No Protestant denomination existed before the reformation" - agreed! And no Catholic denomination existed int he 1st century.

None of that is Christ's church

[tealblue]

The passage deals with personal disputes where one believer "sins" against another, not about doctrinal disputes. The procedure if I sin against you is that first you confront me one-on-one, then if that fails you get one or two witnesses and gang up on me, then if that fails you bring it to the larger group of whatever local assembly to which we belong. Of course today that doesn't necessarily carry a ton of weight, since I can just shop for another local church.

So if you are saying this particular passage of sripture has no meaning today then what else in scripture has no meaning. This leads to picking and choosing what is and isn't relevent. Also this passage doesn't necesarily negate a doctrinal dispute.


First -- Paul tells us we are, and Jesus says belief in Him is sufficient to obtain everlasting life.

Second -- James agrees, since in context he teaches that works *demonstrate* faith, not add to it.

So when you read Romans 2 which is written by paul he clearly says in verse 7 that salvation to those who remain in good works. yes Paul says many general things about salvation but there is deeper meaning when lets say when Jesus says Believe in me and you will be saved. Well lets say he meant something more than simple belief. same with paul. I see more than a few one liners.


I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.

The word Catholic church appears as early as the first centruy and if you read the early church fathers they really sound Catholi in the beliefs.

I choose to view the RCC as beginning when the Pope was formally given higher authority than the other bishops.

Thats a matter of historical perspective. Most Historians who are unbiased will say the catholic church is the first christian church.
God told me.

Ok, more seriously: My pope told me. And since "pope" means "father," and Jesus said to call no man "father" (in a spiritual sense), and since like all Xians I am born of God, born of the Spirit, born from above, then God is my Father. So... um, yeah -- God told me.


For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel" (1 Cor. 4:14–15).

Call no man father is taken way out of context. Does that mean that we don't call our own parent father.


I was careful to note that it applies in a "spiritual" sense, not in terms of natural parentage.

In regard to 1 Cor. 4:14-15, if I am taking Matt. 23:9 out of context, you are doing at least as much with Paul's words.[/QUOTE]

[tealblue]

When I speak of Christ's church, I do not mean the Orthodox or Roman Catholic Church, nor any Protestant denomination. "No Protestant denomination existed before the reformation" - agreed! And no Catholic denomination existed int he 1st century.

None of that is Christ's church

Ignatius of Antioch



"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

Yes you can Argue that the catholic church he is talking about in the early second century isn't the same Catholic church we have today. Are you so possative that it isn't?

[Norrin Radd]

Norrin Radd: The passage deals with personal disputes where one believer "sins" against another, not about doctrinal disputes. The procedure if I sin against you is that first you confront me one-on-one, then if that fails you get one or two witnesses and gang up on me, then if that fails you bring it to the larger group of whatever local assembly to which we belong. Of course today that doesn't necessarily carry a ton of weight, since I can just shop for another local church.

Tealblue: So if you are saying this particular passage of sripture has no meaning today then what else in scripture has no meaning. This leads to picking and choosing what is and isn't relevent. Also this passage doesn't necesarily negate a doctrinal dispute.


I didn't say it "has no meaning today." I said that it doesn't carry much weight, and I meant that in a pragmatic sense. With the possible exception of a few groups like the Amish, it is simply not possible for any church to exercise discipline in anything close to what was possible in the First Century.


First -- Paul tells us we are, and Jesus says belief in Him is sufficient to obtain everlasting life.

Second -- James agrees, since in context he teaches that works *demonstrate* faith, not add to it.

So when you read Romans 2 which is written by paul he clearly says in verse 7 that salvation to those who remain in good works. yes Paul says many general things about salvation but there is deeper meaning when lets say when Jesus says Believe in me and you will be saved. Well lets say he meant something more than simple belief. same with paul. I see more than a few one liners.

Good. Perhaps then you also see that Paul continued on from Rom. 2 to Rom. 3, wherein he said that no one actually lives up to the standard set in Rom. 2, and so righteousness comes by faith, apart from works.



I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.

The word Catholic church appears as early as the first centruy and if you read the early church fathers they really sound Catholi in the beliefs.

I choose to view the RCC as beginning when the Pope was formally given higher authority than the other bishops.

Thats a matter of historical perspective. Most Historians who are unbiased will say the catholic church is the first christian church.


Probably. There are also quite a few, I think, that would point to the EOC.

[tealblue]

Norrin Radd: The passage deals with personal disputes where one believer "sins" against another, not about doctrinal disputes. The procedure if I sin against you is that first you confront me one-on-one, then if that fails you get one or two witnesses and gang up on me, then if that fails you bring it to the larger group of whatever local assembly to which we belong. Of course today that doesn't necessarily carry a ton of weight, since I can just shop for another local church.

Tealblue: So if you are saying this particular passage of sripture has no meaning today then what else in scripture has no meaning. This leads to picking and choosing what is and isn't relevent. Also this passage doesn't necesarily negate a doctrinal dispute.


I didn't say it "has no meaning today." I said that it doesn't carry much weight, and I meant that in a pragmatic sense. With the possible exception of a few groups like the Amish, it is simply not possible for any church to exercise discipline in anything close to what was possible in the First Century.

In the Catholic church we have that. We have recourse thru the bishups.

First -- Paul tells us we are, and Jesus says belief in Him is sufficient to obtain everlasting life.

Are you sure you are not minimizing what belief in Jesus really is. Jesus says that anyone who says they love him and don't keep the comandments is a liar.

Second -- James agrees, since in context he teaches that works *demonstrate* faith, not add to it.

I really don't see works adding to faith. I see works as faith itself.

So when you read Romans 2 which is written by paul he clearly says in verse 7 that salvation to those who remain in good works. yes Paul says many general things about salvation but there is deeper meaning when lets say when Jesus says Believe in me and you will be saved. Well lets say he meant something more than simple belief. same with paul. I see more than a few one liners.

Good. Perhaps then you also see that Paul continued on from Rom. 2 to Rom. 3, wherein he said that no one actually lives up to the standard set in Rom. 2, and so righteousness comes by faith, apart from works.

Notice he says works of the law. Works and works of the law are two different things. Also it says all have sinned not all will continue in sin
I'd say at most back to 495 AD, and maybe only to 1054.

The word Catholic church appears as early as the first centruy and if you read the early church fathers they really sound Catholi in the beliefs.

I choose to view the RCC as beginning when the Pope was formally given higher authority than the other bishops.

Thats a matter of historical perspective. Most Historians who are unbiased will say the catholic church is the first christian church.


Probably. There are also quite a few, I think, that would point to the EOC.

Two churches were one until 1054 when they mutually excomunicated themselves. The question is who had Authority.

[Norrin Radd]

Norrin Radd: The passage deals with personal disputes where one believer "sins" against another, not about doctrinal disputes. The procedure if I sin against you is that first you confront me one-on-one, then if that fails you get one or two witnesses and gang up on me, then if that fails you bring it to the larger group of whatever local assembly to which we belong. Of course today that doesn't necessarily carry a ton of weight, since I can just shop for another local church.

Tealblue: So if you are saying this particular passage of sripture has no meaning today then what else in scripture has no meaning. This leads to picking and choosing what is and isn't relevent. Also this passage doesn't necesarily negate a doctrinal dispute.


I didn't say it "has no meaning today." I said that it doesn't carry much weight, and I meant that in a pragmatic sense. With the possible exception of a few groups like the Amish, it is simply not possible for any church to exercise discipline in anything close to what was possible in the First Century.

In the Catholic church we have that. We have recourse thru the bishups.


Sure. And Presbys have it through the elders, etc. But anyone can still easily decide to just find another church.





First -- Paul tells us we are, and Jesus says belief in Him is sufficient to obtain everlasting life.

Are you sure you are not minimizing what belief in Jesus really is. Jesus says that anyone who says they love him and don't keep the comandments is a liar.


So... Any Xians who worship on Sunday instead of Saturday are liars?




Second -- James agrees, since in context he teaches that works *demonstrate* faith, not add to it.

I really don't see works adding to faith. I see works as faith itself.

I don't understand.




So when you read Romans 2 which is written by paul he clearly says in verse 7 that salvation to those who remain in good works. yes Paul says many general things about salvation but there is deeper meaning when lets say when Jesus says Believe in me and you will be saved. Well lets say he meant something more than simple belief. same with paul. I see more than a few one liners.

Good. Perhaps then you also see that Paul continued on from Rom. 2 to Rom. 3, wherein he said that no one actually lives up to the standard set in Rom. 2, and so righteousness comes by faith, apart from works.

Notice he says works of the law. Works and works of the law are two different things.

Hmm. Maybe. But other passages that I've previously cited -- Eph. 2, ***. 3, 2 Tim. 1 -- teach that we are saved NOT on the basis of any of our "deeds" or "works," and THOSE passages don't link "works" to "law" (except that Eph. 2:15 talks about Jesus having "abolished" the "law of commandments").



Also it says all have sinned not all will continue in sin

Um, ok... So?