Callers to my door.

antiskeptic

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?

You confuse a Christian's (per the 'Protestant' view) oft-failed struggle against the combined forces of sin, his own flesh and the devil with his not being concerned about cutting his beloved Fathers heart to the quick through his sinful actions.

A Christian can and will both sin .. and be concerned about it. One who is concerned about it won't see his sure salvation as licence to sin. And if he is so inclined, he can expect discipline will follow.

-

To suppose us easy about sin - merely because we can no longer be condemned - reveals more about the kind of relationship you think exists between God and a Christian. God himself chose to model the relationship on Father/Son and Husband/Bride - the very closest relationships we humans understand.

You seem to be suggesting that unless the threat of the strap exists we'd all be off misbehaving. This just isn't the model of God and his children as revealed in scripture. Can you see why I'd forgo a Church that would teach any different than scripture?

philologos

I'd only encourage you to read Galatians and tell me what you think about the Gospel that Paul communicates. This isn't about leaving church or even dropping church teaching in this case but just understanding how central grace and mercy are definitely at the centre of Christianity. Actually, even ask your priest about it.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

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.

I'm not talking about packaging. I'm talking about contents. Rules to be obeyed or else.

The rules might vary from religion to religion but the principle remains the same: your salvation is down to your following the rules prescribed by the religion/cult in question.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not talking about packaging. I'm talking about contents. Rules to be obeyed or else.

The rules might vary from religion to religion but the principle remains the same: your salvation is down to your following the rules prescribed by the religion/cult in question.

The packaging?

Sections of the reformed/Protestant faith fundamentally oppose RCC on a myriad of issues both theological and doctrinal.
Free Presbyterians for example.

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

The packaging?

Sections of the reformed/Protestant faith fundamentally oppose RCC on a myriad of issues both theological and doctrinal.
Free Presbyterians for example.

Sure they do - but those other issues connect down to the core issue of works vs. faith. Take the Roman Catholic priesthood mirroring of the Old Convenant priesthood - mediators between God and man in both cases and completely ignoring the new convenant ushered in with the tearing in two of the temple curtain.

The Old Covenant is a convenant of works: "if you'll obey my commands I'll bless you".

wolfsbane

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 believe so. Just as an Anglican can remain in a church that is run by virtual atheists. And many other denominations that have long ago departed from their articles of faith.

This brother puts it well:
Are Roman Catholics saved?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8abGONvwv4&feature=share

********************************************************************************
John 19:38 After this, Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus; and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took the body of Jesus. 39 And Nicodemus, who at first came to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pounds.

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure they do - but those other issues connect down to the core issue of works vs. faith. Take the Roman Catholic priesthood mirroring of the Old Convenant priesthood - mediators between God and man in both cases and completely ignoring the new convenant ushered in with the tearing in two of the temple curtain.

The Old Covenant is a convenant of works: "if you'll obey my commands I'll bless you".

Again we're at the fork in the road.
My view is that the packaging and the contents are both important issues.

Free Presbyterians opposition to the Holy Mass for example is a case in point.
And this applies to many other sections of RCC theology and doctrine which the FP's vehemently oppose.
They oppose both packaging and the contents!

Donatello

Originally Posted by philologos
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?

Salvation by understanding.:p

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sure they do - but those other issues connect down to the core issue of works vs. faith. Take the Roman Catholic priesthood mirroring of the Old Convenant priesthood - mediators between God and man in both cases and completely ignoring the new convenant ushered in with the tearing in two of the temple curtain.

The Old Covenant is a convenant of works: "if you'll obey my commands I'll bless you".

Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works. I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. Blessed are they that wash their robes in the blood of the Lamb: that they may have a right to the tree of life, and may enter in by the gates into the city. Without are dogs, and sorcerers, and unchaste, and murderers, and servers of idols, and every one that loveth and maketh a lie.

Apoc. 22:12-15

If you love me, keep my commandments.
- Jn. 14

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

Matthew 26:26
Mark 14:22
Luke 22:19
1 Corinthians 11:24

All of the above Christ refers to the bread He Consecrated at the Last Supper as His Body. Literally. Not figuratively. Christ Himself turns the bread into His Body and commands His followers to eat it.

Matthew 26:28
Mark 14:24
Luke 22:20
1 Corinthians 11:25

All of the above Christ refers to the wine He Consecrated at the Last Supper as His Blood. Literally. Not figuratively. Christ Himself turns the wine into His Blood, the precious Blood to be spilled for the remission our sins and commands His followers to drink of it.



Christ says " the bread that I will give is my flesh"

[56] For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. [57] He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him. [58] As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me. [59] This is the bread that came down from heaven.



Yes it refers to the spiritual life. Those who refuse to eat His Body and drink His Blood will die a permanent death. Those who eat His Body and Drink His Blood will have life everlasting.



Those who refuse to believe Christ when he said the bread and wine He consecrated into His Body and Blood are really His Body and Blood do not really believe. They refuse to come to Him to eat His Body and Blood. Therefore they constantly hunger and thirst seeking justification for their faith.



Are you ignoring how many times Christ says "this is my flesh", "this is my blood" and that we must eat his flesh, and drink his blood?

Part of believing in Him is believing He gave us His flesh to eat and His blood to drink so that we may have life.




Surely looking at bread and wine and saying they are bread and wine and not Christ's flesh and blood is looking on outward things and refusing to look at the spiritual.

You read His words in John, and quote them, yet you refuse to believe Him.

Just as the Jews had difficulty with Christs words you too are saying "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"

Your last sentence sums up your blindness well - the Jews had difficulty because they took literal/earthly meanings, rather than the spiritual ones Christ spoke of. Spiritual blindness.

But we all start out there - even the apostles had to be enlightened:

*****************************************************************************
Matthew 15:10 When He had called the multitude to Himself, He said to them, “Hear and understand: 11 Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man; but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.”
12 Then His disciples came and said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying?”
13 But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted. 14 Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into a ditch.”
15 Then Peter answered and said to Him, “Explain this parable to us.”
16 So Jesus said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. 20 These are the things which defile a man, but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile a man.”

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

Again we're at the fork in the road.
My view is that the packaging and the contents are both important issues.

Free Presbyterians opposition to the Holy Mass for example is a case in point.
And this applies to many other sections of RCC theology and doctrine which the FP's vehemently oppose.
They oppose both packaging and the contents!

In making the packaging/contents analogy I was trying to differentiate between the core issue and what stems from it. By all means the packaging should be looked at

- priesthood > mediator > Old Covenant > work

- the mass > repetitious sacrifice > repetitious Old Covenant sacrifice > work


...but what is of most interest is where these practices stem from. What the motivation is..

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

In making the packaging/contents analogy I was trying to differentiate between the core issue and what stems from it. By all means the packaging should be looked at

- priesthood > mediator > Old Covenant > work

- the mass > repetitious sacrifice > repetitious Old Covenant sacrifice > work


...but what is of most interest is where these practices stem from. What the motivation is..

You don't understand the Catholic doctrine. It re-presents to the Father the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

CCC 1323 "At the Last Supper, on the night he was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic sacrifice of his Body and Blood. This he did in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the cross throughout the ages until he should come again, and so to entrust to his beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of his death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a Paschal banquet 'in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us.'"

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

In making the packaging/contents analogy I was trying to differentiate between the core issue and what stems from it. By all means the packaging should be looked at

- priesthood > mediator > Old Covenant > work

- the mass > repetitious sacrifice > repetitious Old Covenant sacrifice > work


...but what is of most interest is where these practices stem from. What the motivation is..

We're not even speaking the same language here at this point, Antiskeptic.

wolfsbane

Festus said:

You follow, you worship, you seek. Is that not work? Is fighting sin not also a work, or at least an effort?

If it has no bearing on your eternal soul why do it?

If I may interject:
Yes, all these are works. And the very works Christians are called to do. But they are not the basis of our salvation - we do not win any merits toward our justification. Christ alone provided all the merit by His atonement.

We are saved by grace - God's unmerited favour. That grace comes to us by faith. And Faith itself is a gift of God. Salvation is ALL of His grace.

Where do works come in? God's grace, received by faith, gives us a new heart - and this new heart longs to do His will. We love God, and therefore want to do all that pleases Him. So good works inevitably follow from true faith.

We can't not do good works - it would be against our new nature. We are created in Christ for good works, not by them.

***************************************************************************
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

You don't understand the Catholic doctrine. It re-presents to the Father the one sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

..copying the Old Covenant practice. Just as eating the sacrfice copies the Old Covenant practice.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

Festus said:

If I may interject:
Yes, all these are works. And the very works Christians are called to do. But they are not the basis of our salvation - we do not win any merits toward our justification. Christ alone provided all the merit by His atonement.

We are saved by grace - God's unmerited favour. That grace comes to us by faith. And Faith itself is a gift of God. Salvation is ALL of His grace.

Where do works come in? God's grace, received by faith, gives us a new heart - and this new heart longs to do His will. We love God, and therefore want to do all that pleases Him. So good works inevitably follow from true faith.

We can't not do good works - it would be against our new nature. We are created in Christ for good works, not by them.

***************************************************************************
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

If a Christian does good works in the state of grace, they are meritorious and will add to that soul's brightness in heaven. Elsewise, Christ would not have said, 'Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.'

antiskeptic

hinault wrote: »

We're not even speaking the same language here at this point, Antiskeptic.

So clarify things.

What do you see as packaging. What do you see as contents?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

So clarify things.

What do you see as packaging. What do you see as contents?

I referred to the Holy Mass earlier on.
RC's must attend Holy Mass every Sunday and on holy days of obligation.
Apart from that the Holy Mass has a theological and doctrinal basis which is central to RCC teaching.
So the content and packaging is encapsulated above.

Free Presbyterian church claim that the Holy Mass is an abomination and that it is an example of idolatry,
Separately it advocates the attendance of it's followers to attend "services".

The only thing that FP and RCC share is that we must keep holy the sabbath day.
In every other regard concerning the sabbath, we're pointing in opposite directions.
How we keep holy the sabbath day and the basis for keeping the respective acts of worship on the sabbath day are a world away from each other.

I hope that this illustrates my point.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

If a Christian does good works in the state of grace, they are meritorious and will add to that soul's brightness in heaven. Elsewise, Christ would not have said, 'Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.'

..it's the role of works in getting to heaven in the first place that is of interest. Perhaps you could clarify that Roman Catholicism is a works-based religion in that respect.

I don't envisage Protestant problems with a saved mans work on earth having an eternal significance for him.

Festus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Festus said:

If I may interject:
Yes, all these are works. And the very works Christians are called to do. But they are not the basis of our salvation - .

They are not the basis of salvation for Catholics either. What are you getting at?

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

..it's the role of works in getting to heaven in the first place that is of interest. Perhaps you could clarify that Roman Catholicism is a works-based religion in that respect.

I don't envisage Protestant problems with a saved mans work on earth having an eternal significance for him.

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?

You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works.

Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called "the friend of God."

See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

And in the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she welcomed the messengers and sent them out by a different route?

For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Festus

ignorants are bliss

PDN

hinault wrote: »

The only thing that FP and RCC share is that we must keep holy the sabbath day.

And neither of you do that since the Sabbath is a Saturday.

wolfsbane

Donatello wrote: »

If a Christian does good works in the state of grace, they are meritorious and will add to that soul's brightness in heaven. Elsewise, Christ would not have said, 'Behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to every man according to his works.'

I agree that good works bring reward in heaven. I don't agree that they get us to heaven in the first place. Only Christ's merits do that. We are justified by faith, apart from the works of the law. Once justified, our works are accepted by God - indeed empowered by God - and bring us reward in heaven.

********************************************************************************
Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

philologos

Donatello wrote: »

Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless?

I understand that you care about your position, but I haven't seen antiskeptic call you an "ignoramus" yet, so perhaps it would be best if you left that kind of nonsense out of the argument.

Mutual respect is the best starting point in an argument.

wolfsbane

Festus wrote: »

They are not the basis of salvation for Catholics either. What are you getting at?

I'm sorry, I thought you and the RCC held that we are saved, to some extent, by our works.


******************************************************************************
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Donatello

philologos wrote: »

I understand that you care about your position, but I haven't seen antiskeptic call you an "ignoramus" yet, so perhaps it would be best if you left that kind of nonsense out of the argument.

Mutual respect is the best starting point in an argument.

Lol that was in the Scriptural translation of James 2. I included it for comic effect.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm sorry, I thought you and the RCC held that we are saved, to some extent, by our works.


******************************************************************************
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Aren't we?

But if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.
- Mt. 6:15

Isn't this forgiveness a 'work'?

philologos

It is. But are we saved by our works, or are we saved by faith in order to do good works which God the Father has ordered in advance? (Ephesians 2:8-10).

I would see it that I am saved by faith in the Lord Jesus, but it is God who calls me to good works not because I better do them so I won't go to hell, but because I love God fully and wholly.

Donatello

The Catholic position is basically that we are justified/redeemed by grace. We receive this gift by faith in Christ. We must, however, work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Redemption is the gift of Christ obtained on the cross; salvation is our personal responsibility - for us to work out in fear and trembling. If we accept the redemption offered by Christ and then seek to live a holy lifestyle, obeying the Commandments, and persevering to the end, then we will be saved.

Justification is the free ticket to heaven. Keeping the Commandments is equivalent to wearing the wedding garments that have been provided. If we don't wear the garments provided, our free ticket will be invalidated, and we will be thrown into the outer darkness.

H/T to Dr. Richmond, of whose work this is only a brief summary.

PDN

Donatello wrote: »

The Catholic position is basically that we are justified/redeemed by grace. We receive this gift by faith in Christ. We must, however, work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Redemption is the gift of Christ obtained on the cross; salvation is our personal responsibility - for us to work out in fear and trembling. If we accept the redemption offered by Christ and then seek to live a holy lifestyle, obeying the Commandments, and persevering to the end, then we will be saved.

Justification is the free ticket to heaven. Keeping the Commandments is equivalent to wearing the wedding garments that have been provided. If we don't wear the garments provided, our free ticket will be invalidated, and we will be thrown into the outer darkness.

H/T to Dr. Richmond, of whose work this is only a brief summary.

Serious question. How does infant baptism fit into what you have posted above?