Callers to my door.

philologos

Festus wrote: »

But you do do therefore you do work.

God works in me may be more accurate. My point is, I don't have to work to be saved. The works happen in me because I am saved already, and because I am thankful to God for bringing me into a new relationship with Him.

Festus wrote: »

Looks like you, by your own admission, are just as works based as we are.

I think that works are important, but they don't arise in us out of our own effort.

Festus

philologos wrote: »

I think that works are important, but they don't arise in us out of our own effort.

Who is saying that they do arise in us out of own effort?

antiskeptic

Festus wrote: »

maybe I misunderstood. Are you an atheist and merely looking for opportunities to insult Catholicism or are you a Protestant who looks down on Catholics for doing works?

An atheist who prays?

I'm a Christian who believes there is but one gospel and that that gospel is a gospel of grace. That a Christian is called to do good work doesn't alter the gospel of salvation being a gospel of grace.

I don't look down on anyone. I resist and oppose all who would propagate a what I believe to be a false gospel - whether that 'gospel' stems from Rome or Jehovahs Witness or Hinduism

philologos

If this is the case Festus, there's no difference between our positions at all.

keano_afc

Just as an aside, non RC does not automatically equal Protestant. I was saved out of Catholicism a long time ago, but I am not automatically a Protestant. I protest againt false gospel in the same way all believers would, but the label of "Protestant" in not one I would apply to myself.

philologos

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't look down on anyone. I resist and oppose all who would propagate a what I believe to be a false gospel - whether that 'gospel' stems from Rome or Jehovahs Witness or Hinduism

keano_afc wrote: »

I protest againt false gospel in the same way all believers would, but the label of "Protestant" in not one I would apply to myself.

Gentlemen I have a question to ask ye then as a result. Is it possible that a Roman Catholic can understand the Gospel of grace and still continue to identify as a Roman Catholic and still go to a Roman Catholic church. I think they can, but what say ye?

antiskeptic

keano_afc wrote: »

Just as an aside, non RC does not automatically equal Protestant. I was saved out of Catholicism a long time ago, but I am not automatically a Protestant. I protest againt false gospel in the same way all believers would, but the label of "Protestant" in not one I would apply to myself.

Fair point. By describing us thus we are referenced in relation to Rome (albeit in opposition to Rome) as if that's our core concern. But hey - tolerance on non-essentials is our Protestant motto!

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

Gentlemen I have a question to ask ye then as a result. Is it possible that a Roman Catholic can understand the Gospel of grace and still continue to identify as a Roman Catholic and still go to a Roman Catholic church. I think they can, but what say ye?

I've no doubt of it given the difficulty I myself have in truly understanding the gospel of grace. Isn't it one of our biggest obstacles: apprehending - and continuing to apprehend God's unconditional love for us who are in Christ? What difference whether we get caught up in Roman Catholic legalism or the legalism suggested to us by the thief who would destroy.

It's the same source in both cases in my view.

Those Catholics who I suspect to be brothers in Christ tend not to manifest their Christianity in a Catheschism-thumping, Rosary-bead counting, legalistic way though.

God saves despite the workings of man: whether that work is philsophical atheism or Roman Catholicism.

philologos

antiskeptic wrote: »

I've no doubt of it given the difficulty I myself have in truly understanding the gospel of grace. Isn't it one of our biggest obstacles: apprehending - and continuing to apprehend God's unconditional love for us who are in Christ? What difference whether we get caught up in Roman Catholic legalism or the legalism suggested to us by the thief who would destroy.

This is a very good point. I see legalism on a frequent basis. I sometimes fall into it and I have to remind myself that that isn't the point. A few months ago when I was coming home from work I had a conversation with the taxi driver who happened to be a Seventh Day Adventist about the need to keep to the Torah laws. Protestant denominations are about as guilty as any other in respect to legalism. So it is refreshing to see your response recognise this.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Those Catholics who I suspect to be brothers in Christ tend not to manifest their Christianity in a Catheschism-thumping, Rosary-bead counting, legalistic way though.

Agreed, thanks for the clarification.

antiskeptic

philologos wrote: »

Protestant denominations are about as guilty as any other in respect to legalism. So it is refreshing to see your response recognise this.

Isn't it the remnant of self-righteousess. Not only in our being legalistic but in our wallowing in our guilt. It struck me rather forcibly a while back that we are sinning if we wallow in guilt. Guilt being the right of the condemned - amongst whom we don't find our number.

Trying to shed our guilt (which means fully living under the light of God) is even more difficult than trying not to live legalistically. In my case at least

Agreed, thanks for the clarification.

keano_afc

antiskeptic wrote: »

Fair point. By describing us thus we are referenced in relation to Rome (albeit in opposition to Rome) as if that's our core concern. But hey - tolerance on non-essentials is our Protestant motto!

My friend, my post wasnt directed at you. I get frustrated at our RCC friends being of the belief that if you disagree with their "we are right coz we are right" hypothesis you are automatically Protestant.

I would wager that we have far more in common doctrinally at the end of the day brother!

antiskeptic

keano_afc wrote: »

My friend, my post wasnt directed at you. I get frustrated at our RCC friends being of the belief that if you disagree with their "we are right coz we are right" hypothesis you are automatically Protestant.

I would wager that we have far more in common doctrinally at the end of the day brother!

I was merely highlighting what I thought your objection to the term was. That they define our belief as relating to Roman Catholicism (even if in the negative sense of that relationship)

So long as you're not a Calvinist then I see no issue between us..

(am only jesting Wolfsbane )

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

It means that a favorable position before God - especially when it comes to your being saved - is reliant on what you do (or don't do). What you have to do varies from works religion to works religion but the overarching principle is the same.

You work, you get salvation (or whatever the favorable afterlife outcome happens to be for that religion). Typically this involves following the rules of the religion.

Roman Catholicism is one such. JW-ism another.

Thanks.

keano_afc

philologos wrote: »

Gentlemen I have a question to ask ye then as a result. Is it possible that a Roman Catholic can understand the Gospel of grace and still continue to identify as a Roman Catholic and still go to a Roman Catholic church. I think they can, but what say ye?

Yes, I believe so. I would second anitskeptic's answer and also add that taking the gospel from 1 Corinthians 15, in my experience doing outreach to the RCC goers in Dublin many of them have a fine understanding of the gospel. They believe that Christ died for their sins and rose again the third day.

In my experience the problem arises when they think that somehow Christ's sacrifice isn't enough. Its only the "start", and we then need to earn our place in heaven. Praise God that all the work is done.

I have had some fine conversations with Catholics on this site that I would have no problem calling a brother in Christ, kelly1 would be an example.

homer911

philologos wrote: »

Gentlemen I have a question to ask ye then as a result. Is it possible that a Roman Catholic can understand the Gospel of grace and still continue to identify as a Roman Catholic and still go to a Roman Catholic church. I think they can, but what say ye?

Absolutely, I would agree with antiskeptic's comments

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

I pray, I try to follow God's law, I worhship, I seek forgiveness of sin - but if I didn't it would have no bearing on my eternal destination. I cannot suspect my motivations to be self-serving - I'm free to pray in spirit and in truth.

The fork in the road, Antiskeptic.;)

homer911

antiskeptic wrote: »

Isn't it the remnant of self-righteousess. Not only in our being legalistic but in our wallowing in our guilt. It struck me rather forcibly a while back that we are sinning if we wallow in guilt. Guilt being the right of the condemned - amongst whom we don't find our number.

Trying to shed our guilt (which means fully living under the light of God) is even more difficult than trying not to live legalistically. In my case at least

I think this is a concept many RC's cant understand about non-catholics - they seem to have a "must-feel-guilty-and-do-penance" attitude which is to fail to live the life that Christ would have them live and to dwell on their sinfulness - God's grace has set Christians free from that. Yes, we must confess our sins and turn away from them, but then we need to leave them at the cross - God has wiped them out and so should we - my 2 cents anyway..

hinault

homer911 wrote: »

I think this is a concept many RC's cant understand about non-catholics - they seem to have a "must-feel-guilty-and-do-penance" attitude which is to fail to live the life that Christ would have them live and to dwell on their sinfulness - God's grace has set Christians free from that. Yes, we must confess our sins and turn away from them, but then we need to leave them at the cross - God has wiped them out and so should we - my 2 cents anyway..

Therefore I can go out and shoot my neighbour but I'm saved because Jesus died for that murder (the sin I committed)?
Have I got this correct?

philologos

hinault wrote: »

Therefore I can go out and shoot my neighbour but I'm saved because Jesus died for that murder (the sin I committed)?
Have I got this correct?

No. One fully transformed in Christ won't be inclined to murder. Grace does not mean license to do anything rather it means being led by the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 5:13-18 wrote:

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other. So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

PDN

hinault wrote: »

Therefore I can go out and shoot my neighbour but I'm saved because Jesus died for that murder (the sin I committed)?
Have I got this correct?

Obviously not since what you just posted has no relation whatsoever to what homer posted.

He stated that we should confess our sins and leave them at the Cross. He said nothing about being able to go out and commit more sin with impunity.

Donatello

homer911 wrote: »

I think this is a concept many RC's cant understand about non-catholics - they seem to have a "must-feel-guilty-and-do-penance" attitude which is to fail to live the life that Christ would have them live and to dwell on their sinfulness - God's grace has set Christians free from that. Yes, we must confess our sins and turn away from them, but then we need to leave them at the cross - God has wiped them out and so should we - my 2 cents anyway..

Our Blessed Lord said we must do penance or we too would perish. How much penance have you done today? (I've not done any. )

hinault

PDN wrote: »

Obviously not since what you just posted has no relation whatsoever to what homer posted.

He stated that we should confess our sins and leave them at the Cross. He said nothing about being able to go out and commit more sin with impunity.

Homer made a statement about how RC's view non-RC's.

I was seeking to clarify what Homer meant by suggesting that RC's "seem to have a "must-feel-guilty-and-do-penance" attitude which is to fail to live the life that Christ would have them live and to dwell on their sinfulness"

And now that I have your attention, some of the answers supplied here re-enforce my view that us RC's should have our own subforum.

PDN

hinault wrote: »

And now that I have your attention, some of the answers supplied here re-enforce my view that us RC's should have our own subforum.

That's certainly not my decision to make. I personally would have no problem with an RC Forum. There was a request made for this on Forum Requests and it was rejected by the Admins. So further discussion of it here would seem a bit pointless.

philologos

It would be tragic for there to be such a split. Wouldn't it be better to clarify what we think is in common between Roman Catholicism and other forms of Christianity? What are the "essentials" that have been talked about on the thread? What does it mean to be a Christian as opposed to an Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist or Roman Catholic?

There could be some value in the megathread, but this is up to PDN and Fanny Craddock to decide

hinault

philologos wrote: »

It would be tragic for there to be such a split. Wouldn't it be better to clarify what we think is in common between Roman Catholicism and other forms of Christianity? What are the "essentials" that have been talked about on the thread? What does it mean to be a Christian as opposed to an Anglican, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Baptist or Roman Catholic?

There could be some value in the megathread, but this is up to PDN and Fanny Craddock to decide

For myself, I think this thread has been very informative.

I am interested in reading the views and theological comments made by reformed/Protestant denominations.
As a RC, I am not exposed to these views and as such I find the views expressed interesting.

JimiTime

hinault wrote: »

Therefore I can go out and shoot my neighbour but I'm saved because Jesus died for that murder (the sin I committed)?
Have I got this correct?

Freedom FROM sin, not freedom TO sin. Its a simple concept. Your question above signifies a legalistic mindset. Here is a good rule of thumb to prevent such questions: 1) You can't pull the wool over Gods eyes. There are NO loopholes. The Pharisaic approach has already been torn down by Christ in his ministry as something disgusting. 2) Rituals don't gain you salvation. Nor does marking sin, against penance etc. 'Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing'.

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

That's certainly not my decision to make. I personally would have no problem with an RC Forum. There was a request made for this on Forum Requests and it was rejected by the Admins. So further discussion of it here would seem a bit pointless.

I would have no issue with an RC forum neither (though TBH, any catholicy threads here I ignore, as do most non RC's I think). I remember my objection to the request at the time was the BASIS for it. All kinds of baseless accusations were made as a reason why a RC forum should be created.

hinault

JimiTime wrote: »

Freedom FROM sin, not freedom TO sin. Its a simple concept. Your question above signifies a legalistic mindset.

Spare me the lectures, jimi.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The fork in the road, Antiskeptic.;)

Indeed. Between the narrow path and the broad way in my view.

Does it not cause you a moments pause; that every world religion and sect has works at it's heart (on the broad path when considering this critical point of how salvation is to be wrought)? Every one that is, except the gospel of grace alone - narrow to the point of but one way.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. Between the narrow path and the broad way in my view.

Does it not cause you a moments pause; that every world religion and sect has works at it's heart (on the broad path when considering this critical point of how salvation is to be wrought)? Every one that is, except the gospel of grace alone - narrow to the point of but one way.

No, it doesn't cause me a moments thought.

Reading the answers by AFC, Jimi, yourself and others, my view is that the RCC
is fundamentally different to the position set out by the others mentioned.