No elaboration necessary, the point was understood just fine. Let me point out two results of your interpretation of those verses. 1) If the sacrifice of Jesus wasn't enough for your salvation alone, what was the purpose of His sacrifice at all? Couldn't He have just given humanity a laundry list of things to do and saved Himself some time? (He actually gave us a list, the 10 commandments, that no one could accomplish but Him.) Your views make His death unecessary. 2) Because good works are necessary for your salvation, at what point would you know you have done enough to deserve it? You will spend the rest of your life worrying about whether you have done enough. That's neither peace nor contentment, which should define children of God. It is instead rather unsettling, not knowing if you're own works deem you worthy. I'd rather believe that Jesus paid it all, and be certain of my future. It's better for my non-existant ulcer.
We don't use God. We know of him through reason and faith, but we know a little about him through revelation which takes faith. Revelation gives Catholics the first precepts of the church from which we draw greater conclusions to form the fullness of the faith. God is God, he is the end and the beggining the Alpha and the Omega. He is there because he must be there. He is that which is in philosophical terms.
If I'm not mistaken, "Lutheran" is the all encompassing name for "Protestant" to Catholics, kinda like calling all photocopy machines "Xerox machines." Luther was the one who spearheaded the Reformation and Lutheranism was the first Protestant denomination. The main difference between Catholic and Protestant views of faith is that faith in Catholicism is an act whereas in Protestantism its an atitude.
That is a very crude (and not entirely accurate, though it has some truth) understanding of the Christian view of salvation. Being "saved" is not just "making it to heaven." It is having a new life, so-called "eternal life." The afterlife is just the "eternal" part of the life. You don't wait till you die to have eternal life. You get it right here and now. This new life does not just "do whatever I choose" because it is a life having relationship with God. I hope this clarifies somewhat.
I don't know if you read the article or not. It seems as if you didn't, or if you did, it just wasn't enough. Let's keep it clean though gootan. Ok, you say the sacrifice of Jesus....but weren't you saying before that it was by faith alone? Was Jesus simply a bartering chip with God to get us off the hook? You forget some things. James says, it is not by faith alone. Pretty direct. Therefore, how does the sacrifice of Christ enter into the picture. Well, lets look at the last supper, it is by teh physical taking of the Body and blood of Christ that man is able understand what Jesus did. So... don't put words into my mouth. The sacrifice of Jesus is not faith. It was an action that is still taking place to this day. You have a negative outlook on the capabilities of man. By taking on Christ man is able to live up to the ten commandments though. Of course we sin, all of man does, but it is the act and the faith in what you are doing of taking up Christ that make it possible. Stop describing me as a piece of dung covered up by Christ. MAn, through Christ, makes himself better. My views make his death (and resurection I think you forgot that point) very neccesary. This is the point I was making. Its not a legal equation. Doing good works is doing things in the spirit of love that Christ and God bestow upon us through the Holy Spirit. I really think you failed to read the article, maybe it was too long, I don't know I tend not to read posts that are really long.... It is too easy for man to kill, rape, pillage, all without a guilty conscience simply because he can say oh yeah I believe. And you know what, you've never done enough good works. The world can always use more, so if you got the time and ability, you should get out there and do some if you aren't already?! And by the way, you can't attain salvation while your still alive so stop being self-righteous. That decision is up to God buddy. He knows. And thats not even what the Church means when it says good works...its not like there is someone writing everything down.. a good work is encapsulated in the way you greet the lady at the deli, or how you drive your car. This spirit of love permeates throughout every phase of life.
Well do you choose to have an attitude? Or does it just drop down from heaven along with the Bible. You take reason away.
But you know what guys... either this needs to be in another thread or something.... because, I doubt that you guys will be swayed by mystical catholic rhetoric to actually become CAtholic... and there sure aint no dung covered snowball in hell way your guys weak arguments are going to persuade me to drop my faith (that was supposed to be a knock against both of us by the way ). So either we can move it to another forum and discuss it till the cows come home, or we can just agree to make a better attempt to understand each other....
Seriously Lil Pun, I think Clutch would be ok with starting a new thread. If we use God to explain the unexplainable yet God is unexplainable himself, how does that make sense? Why did man create something that is unexplainable to explain the unexplainable? You're right, it doesn't make sense. I guess the real question is Did man create God? Also, where did God come from? If he created everything we know today then who or what created him? This is at least philosophy 301. We know that, through recent scientific findings, the universe had a beginning, right? We also know by calculations and extrapolation that it will also probably end. This is the definition of finite, having a beginning and an end. Now say something was responsible for the universe, that was also finite, and in turn the thing that created that creator was also finite. Now, try to think back to the very, very beginning when nothing existed (because that would be the case if everything was finite.) It doesn't make sense, (right?) because everything must come from something else. We know something had to be there at the beginning because we know we exist. Therefore that first thing needs to be infinite because without it, finite things could never exist. (This also works on loops of finite things causing each other endlessly. Something infinite had to start the loop.) Does that mean I can do whatever I choose for the rest of my life but as long as I believe in my heart then I will be let into heaven? If so, what is the purpose of believing and going to church, and praying, and so on and forth? In Christianity, you can't believe just a part without believing the whole shmear. If you believe He is God and that He has saved you, you also must believe His other commands for you, because He is God. The purpose of believing is that you admit you are a sinner deserving of death, you believe Jesus is Lord and is capable of taking that death sentence away, and confess that He is lord of every part of your life. Going to church (corporate worship in a fellowship of believers) is commanded by God because He understands living Christian lives isn't easy. It's for support and encouragement. Prayer is also commanded so that we as Christians can be active in our relationship with Him. It keeps us on a firm foundation when trying to make sense of this world. Also, where did the devil or idea of the devil come from? For Christians, the Bible. I thought God gave us the 10 Commandments, not Jesus? For most "Christians" (there you go FB) Jesus and God the father are both God. And their relationship (the Holy Spirit) is also characterized as God. There is one God in three parts. (To better understand this concept, take for example time (past, present, future) and material (solid, liquid, gas). Three distinct concepts, all the same thing.)
Since, my view is pretty clear, I'll just respond to this small snippet and leave you to your Jesus "eat me" wafers and blood drinking for salvation. (Isn't it odd that ancient worshippers of Ra performed the same transmutation ceremony as the RCC? They must have been onto something.) Revelation 20 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
Well that was the biggest beef Luther had with Catholic soteriology. The semi-pelagian view prevalent in the Church at that time put too much weight on human effort/reason/choice, so much so that it conflicted with Paul's clear teachings against salvation by merit.
classic scare tatic Nazi's used this tatic/ KGB used this tatic / Saddam used this tatic / Stalin / Ashcroft "as recorded in the books" who is recording? what is being recorded? everything? only bad things?
The discussion about the use of the word “alone” was not very strong, IMO. It’s not how I read what Romans was saying. The later comments about Gal 5:6 as a work I found odd too, but it made me thing that maybe we’re closer together on this than we think. We’re just coming from different perspectives so label things differently which many not be as different as it may first appear. I’ll elaborate in a minute. The James 2 passage is a curious one, but as I read it in context I think its meaning shifts a bit. Let me start by saying I think that genuine faith without deeds is impossible. It is my experience that once I became a Christian and experienced that spiritual transformation I wanted to do good deeds, or more accurately live out of love. Not to do so would be (and was for me for a short period of time) shear agony, because at that point one understands that that is the only thing that really matters in life, living by the spirit. The perspective this paper seems to be taking is that a person of faith needs to choose to live by the spirit, implying that it’s possible not to. Strictly speaking, this may be possible, but it would be very hard, and you wouldn’t want to do it anyway. But, this could be what the paper is referring to. Maybe it is also a warning to those who claim to have faith that if this spirit isn’t what’s in their heart, they may not be being honest with themselves about their faith. For understanding the manifestations of a genuine faith I have always found the passages about the fruit of the spirit helpful. A good tree doesn’t bear bad fruit and a bad tree doesn’t bear good fruit, (Matt 7) and the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Gal 5). I see this as the expression of the spirit that one receives at the point of justification. I should also add that one is never perfect in expressing these things. Sadly we are typically far from it, but these represent the nature of the tree. They are the primary drivers, so to speak, and as we continue to pursue a greater understanding of God and this new spirit we get better and wiser about living by them. I do believe, however, that justification comes at the point one receives the spirit, although this is certainly not where the journey ends. And I don’t think justification can be lost (Romans 8:38), although this would be interesting point of discussion and there are some verses in Hebrews which seem to suggest otherwise. The later section suggesting the need for works I find to be quite off base, largely a misreading of Romans (I don’t know who the author is and I hope I’m not being to offensive by saying that. This is just my opinion of what he’s saying). Let me take the last part of it as an example. It refers to Romans 2, specifically these verses: It is important to read Romans 1 and 2 to understand what is being said here though. They can be found here. http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on This is a letter that was to be read to a crowd of Romans, and in it Paul uses rhetorical devices to make some of his points. Notice the end of Romans 1 and the transition to Romans 2, for example. He mentions an impressive list of mans sins. Notice the order they are listed in. Lust, homosexuality, greed, murder … You can just picture the crowd furrowing their brows and murmuring in self-righteous indignation, and then he proceeds. Gossip, slander, arrogant and boastful, disobey parents … Now you can picture the crowd starting to squirm as the become convicted by their own sin. Then he states in the very beginning of Romans 2. 1You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Notice the “therefore.” What he said before was clearly a setup to convict the crowd of their hypocrisy, to convict them of their own sin. He is speaking to people who are falling short of the law and yet are judging others for falling short. The next section is a continuation. He is saying to them, “If you want to judge by the law you will be judged by the law.” God will give to you according to what you have done, if you persist in living by the law. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” But he has just convicted them of their sin, so they know that they haven’t done this. Indeed, in the very next chapter he says, “No one is righteous, not even one.” So is all hope lost? No, because as is also stated in the next chapter: Righteousness Through Faith 21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[9] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Rather than saying that there are works you need to do to achieve salvation, Romans 1-3 are saying that there is nothing you can do to earn your salvation, because by your works you don’t deserve it. But, by grace through faith, made possible by the sacrifice Jesus made, you are justified. I should add that this does not mean that works are not part of the equation. Once you receive the spirit you are compelled to live by the spirit, and you will exhibit the fruits of the spirit, albeit perfectly. There are also lots of people who say they are Christians and yet don’t exhibit any of the fruits of the spirit. IMO, Matthew 7:21-22 addresses this, but read all of Matthew 7 while you’re at it. It provides some very good context. http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...age=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on I guess I should also add that I know Catholics who I consider to be good Christians. I’m not at all suggesting that Catholics are necessarily not Christians. There are certainly many prominent Protestant churches who twist and selectively use the bible for their own purposes. Ultimately faith isn’t about your church at all, it’s about the individual and his or her relationship with God. The Bible is a great reference. Other people can be good references too. BUT, in the end it’s all about you and your personal, honest, humble, pursuit of God, and the relationship that ensues.
The origin of the seven deadly sins is described here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010601.html To paraphrase... The seven deadly sins go back a long way, having gotten their start in Eastern monasticism. The fourth-century Egyptian monk Evagrius Ponticus defined eight deadly sins, which were later reduced to seven, presumably for the same reason there are seven sacraments, seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, and seven dwarfs. (In case you're wondering, they condensed eight to seven by combining pride and vainglory.) But it hasn't always been the same seven. The current heptad (pride, envy, anger, sloth, avarice, gluttony, and lust) was fixed by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Earlier, instead of sloth, there was accidie, often translated as sadness or listlessness. You're thinking: Sadness? It isn't bad enough I'm depressed in this life, I'm going to rot in hell for it in the next? I can only point out that the list was developed by desert monks living lives of Survivor-type privation. You got some slacker who's not doing the dishes, you want that b*stard to pay. To be strictly accurate, the preferred term isn't seven deadly sins but seven capital vices, which better conveys the thought that the seven aren't sins in themselves, merely habits or predilections disposing one thereto. This point was made by Saint Gregory the Great in the sixth century AD and later restated by Aquinas. But the term seven deadly sins survives for obvious reasons--it sounds a lot snappier. -- droxford
Many biblical scholars reject the inerrancy doctrine, thereby concluding that not all the New Testament is accurate, factual, or reliable. The authors of both Mark and Matthew are believed to have worked from a similar source document, which many refer to as "Q." There were many gospels, but most were culled from the Bible by commission around 325 AD. The Bible is not a book, but a library of books. They were each chosen at some point by an editor, and the New Testament was particularly the product of editing to mold the message of the 4th century of the Common Era. The diversity within Christianity is a testament to the many interpretations given the Bible. Ironically, many of the Bible churches of today would have been apostate 300 years ago. Fascinating topic.
I don't see how having a common hypothetical Q document proves that the New Testament is unreliable. They did not "cull from the Bible" the many other gospels. There were already many canonical lists (which were strikingly similar) way before the council met. What they did was more like comparing notes by people from different regions who already had discounted most of the non-canonical books. The New Testament was not "the product of editing to mold the message of the 4th century." In fact, it was the "heretics" who didn't want some part of the New Testament books. The inclusion of these books was far from a theological conspiracy as you portrayed. In fact, they presented theological difficulties for theological discussion due to some apparent conflict in the different parts of the New Testament. The existense of four rather than just one gospels is a strong indication that they had so much confidence on these books that they did not make a conscious effort to "harmonize" the various versions of Jesus' life. Diverse interpretations do not nullify the authority of a document. There are diverse interpretations of the Constitution. But they don't say, "Since nobody is sure of it meaning, let's throw the Constitution out of the window." Actually, the diversity within Christianity is a good sign. It presents some kind of check and balance in theological development. You have to be able to defend your interpretation. Unlike Buddhism, where the many sects have their own scriptures, Christianity's diversity is still centered around one single written authority. That's where the unity lies within the diversity.
Here's one link and an excerpt that is relevant. http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cea.stm Conflict and controversy were not new to Christianity; however the Christian Empire experienced some substantial disputes. When Constantine I became the ruler of Rome in 313, the Donatist controversy was raging in North Africa and Numidia. A soldier and a statesman who liked order and agreement, Constantine tried to quell it but not very successfully. Constantine was not a theologian, but he took steps during his rule to try to make Christianity less conflictual by calling the Council of Nicea to settle the Arian controversy. One result of the the council was the drafting of a version of what we now call the Nicene Creed. Ultimately creeds such as the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed were affirmed as "orthodox" -- right teaching. Those teachings not considered orthodox, such as Gnosticism, were defined as heretical. The process of canonization continued during the era of the Christian Empire. Those communities that became known as orthodox came close to agreeing on an authoritative collection of scriptures. As far as we know, Athanasius was the first person to name in 367 the 27 books of the New Testament accepted by most Christian groups today. Constantine played a significant role in the canonization of the Bible. His desire for and actions to create unity and uniformity contributed to the process of deciding upon a fixed canon. In addition, he financed fifty copies of the scriptures to be produced for use in Constantinople. The production of these manuscripts were supervised by Eusebius of Caesarea, who tells about of the request in his book Life of Constantine. Presumedly, these scriptures were the complete New Testament but some scholars think they consisted only of the four gospels.
here's another online squibb of some utility, the link with an excerpt http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/mark_mason/ch7ex1.htm Almost immediately after uniting the empire under himself, Constantine had convened the first general council of the Christian church at Nicaea. Having seen human "gods" like Diocletian fail as a binding force for the empire, and noting the wide appeal of Christianity, and the futility of Diocletian's attempts to persecute it, Constantine was determined to use Christianity as the "glue" to hold his empire together. At this council of Nicaea (in 325 A.D.) the precise nature of Christian faith was negotiated, and its relationship to Constantine and his successors established. The way Constantine orchestrated the council was brilliant. He seized the initiative from the eastern bishops who had called a smaller council to excommunicate some heretics who didn't believe in the full divinity of Jesus. In a letter announcing his imperial convocation, Constantine wrote: It had been agreed that the Synod of Bishops should meet at Ancyra of Galatia, but, it seems to us on a number of counts, that it would be better for a Synod to assemble at Nicaea, a city of Bithynia, both because the Bishops of Italy and the rest of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent temperature of the air, and so that I may be present as a spectator and participator in the things that will be done…[15] He didn't mention the excommunications; his desire was for unity, not confrontation. And moving the council to Nicaea brought it under his control. The bishops were summoned by the emperor to a place only a few miles from the palace where the recently defeated (and soon to be executed) Licinius lived. Constantine filled the church council with his imperial presence and purpose, and carefully created the grandeur of this first image of Christendom. Church leaders from the four corners of the world attended it. One eyewitness declared: "It might have seemed the likeness of the Kingdom of Christ." Later generations even believed this council had been directly guided by the Holy Spirit. And to this day, as Dean Stanley has pointed out, every church feels it has some standing in the Council of Nicaea.[16] The most important results of the Council of Nicaea were twenty statements containing rules of behavior for clergy, and the famous creed of faith known ever since as the Nicene Creed. Here is an early form of it from Rome at about 340 A.D.: I believe in God almighty. And in Christ Jesus, his only son, our Lord Who was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and was buried, And the third day rose from the dead Who ascended into heaven And sitteth on the right hand of the Father Whence he cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost The holy church The remission of sins The resurrection of the flesh The life everlasting.[17] *************************** Didn't I hear Michael Corleone mouth these words?
