is it ironic that a non christian

I know I'm in the minority but I do believe that Catholics can be Christians.

I'm familiar with the teaching of the Catholic church but salvation and theological knowledge are two different things. Catholics aren't saved or not saved based on church teachings, they're saved the same way baptists are saved. It's ironic that the same people who condemn the Catholic church for teaching that one is saved by the Catholic church would condemn them for the same reason. Catholic are damned if they do and damned if they don't in some eyes.

I don't know if Mel Gibson is a Christian or not but, if he's not, I have a lot of respect for him because from everything I'm reading, he's seeking God and trying to do the will of God more than many people who supposedly are Christians.

 

Catholics don't deny biblical justification. They deny Protestant interpretation of biblical justification. They take James 2 literally (which is in the Bible, but which the father of the Protestant reformation, Luther, wanted removed from the Bible).

James 2:21,24-25 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?...[24] Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. [25] Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent [them] out another way?"

I'm not wanting to turn this thread into a debate about James 2, I only mentioned it to show that Catholics *do* have believe "biblical justification", they just disagree with your view of it.

This is very large misrepresentation of what Catholics believe.

Don't assume to know how God will deal with Mel Gibson and others.

 

massdak
"you know Mioque I think your wrong on this because"
Much better

Before we go any further, I'm a lifelong member of an independent fundamentalist baptist church.



"your view is very liberal and based on your modern view of how you perceive how the catholic system works."
It is based on observing the Catholic bureaucracy up close for a number of years, both in the Netherlands and in Italy.

"the cafeteria style process toward its doctrine is so vast with differing catholic opinion, one is hard pressed to know exactly where they stand, at any one time."
In a sense true, the individual movements within that church are extremely diverse and the individual Catholic laymen even more so.

"The irony is that I am probably the only one of us 2 with a degree in church history.
you have a degree in church history?
i rather would be led by the Spirit of God for truth. "
So you don't have such a degree

"And I am probably also the one of us 2 with the most exposure to the inner workings of Roman Catholicism.
my question to you then is, do you see a different gospel in the rcc? "
I see about 200 different gospels in the RCC, including one that are close to what you and I see as the Truth.
Is it close enough? God only knows!

"what exactly are you defending here? "
7 years of hard work to become a serious scholar on the subject. The reputation of my alma mater, (the university of Rotterdam) who decided I was one and especially the Truth, that you are endangering by accidently turning it into a caricature of itself.


"again forget about your degree look at historical writings and how the council of trent came into play, see how this historical curse was administered. "
I read +/- 1800 pages worth of material on the counter-reformation total, including as primary source material everything decided by the council of Trente. I've had to take a long and complex exam on that council.

To get back on the original subject of this thread, I am currently rereading, the collected works of Anna Catharina Emmerich (a 19th century German nun) whose writings apparently influenced Gibson's film. I'm very interested in finding out how much of her visions will show up in the film.

 

Brian, as a non-catholic, I have no problem with James 2. Luther doesn't speak for all of us. In fact, I would disagree with the guy in most instances.

As far as Christ goes, my statement is accurate. The different catholic teaching back it up as well.

We believe that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believing sinner. This saves him. Christ accomplished all that is necessary for salvation.

Catholics violently (as evidenced by history) disagree with this.

We cannot both be correct. One of us believe a false gospel.

 

Catholics have the book of Galatians, AND the book of James.

At least you admit that came from "understanding", because scripture never says that. How do you know it was "God given" understanding though? I believe grace is more powerful than to be nullified so easily.

 

Well, I would read that scripture if I could find it. Can you provide the reference? I find passages that talk about works *without* faith not cutting the mustard, and I also find passages that say faith *without* works is dead - but I can't find any that say what you're saying.

 

Sorry, I assumed you were familiar with that cliché. "not cutting the mustard" just means "not enough" or "doesn't meet the requirements". I didn't mean there's a verse that literally has the word "mustard" in it. Examples of a verses that says works without faith is not good enough is Rom 4:2, Rom 11:6, Gal 2:16, Eph 2:8-9, etc.

 

Do you want to know how *I* reconcile it, or how Catholics reconcile it?

What's to reconcile? I can take that verse at face value. What problem do you think I have with it?

Yep. Including James 2, 1 Cor 3:12-15, Matt 25:14-46, etc.

When are you going to answer my question about where in scripture does it say grace is nullified by adding works to faith? I've been answering your questions.

 

At your request, I read it three times. I don't see the part about works being added to faith nullifying grace. Faith isn't even mentioned at all in the verse. In fact, this verse isn't even about personal salvation in the first place, it is about why there is a remnant in Israel. Read the preceeding 5 verses to see what "it" in the verse is referring to.

Care to try again?

 

I have concluded you are unable to provide the scripture you claimed existed.

If you have faith, of course your works are acceptable to God. Are you reading none of the verses I posted, like 1 Cor 3:12-15, Matt 25:14-46, James 2?

Quite possibly, again because of the passages already mentioned. Especially James 2.

 

Just because someone calls themself a Roman Catholic does not mean that they believe all the RCC teaches. I went to a Soutbern Baptist Seminary and pastored Southern Baptist Churches but do not agree with all that Southern Baptists believe. It is the dissenters who make change. Whitsitt did not agree with the Landmark Baptists and was fired, but today all SBC seminary profesors that I know of would support his teaching.

I know of a pastor in an RCC church that gives an invitation at the end of his sermons (at least he did when I lived in the town).

 

Wheee...New Graemlins
First of all thanks Brian for sparing me a lot of work.

Massdak
What he said! (points at Brian)

An old university friend of mine (a holdover from my foolish&irresponsible period) is the manager of an arthouse cinema.* I have convinced him to show the Passion (Gibson's movie) next spring assuming it is made available.

*I think that is the right word, he runs a movie theater where they only show 'art' movies. And when I say art I don't mean pornography.

 

Sure. That sounds about right.

I don't see how you reached that conclusion. I don't believe that at all.

I support them in the sense that I don't see how grace is nullified if Catholics do sacraments because of, and with, their faith. If Catholics do not have faith in Christ, or only have faith in the sacraments themselves, those works are unacceptable by themselves. Faith makes righteousness, you posted verses to that effect yourself. If you do works with your faith, how can you be made righteous and unrighteous at the same time?

Yes, for now. But I'm starting to wonder about the 'baptist' part.

I notice a few things about your reply: 1. it still hasn't provided the scripture you claim existed, 2. it did not disagree with let alone refute what I posted earlier, and 3. I have responded to the scriptures you posted, you have not responded to the ones I've posted.