Christians Evangelizing Catholics

[Littledrummerboy]

Craig,

Bless you! Sometimes I feel like my head is spinning in circles because of all of the running around we do here, and your input helps a lot, if not only to allow me to collect my thoughts. First off, is it xylem or phloem that helps the water travel up the tree? It has been a great while since my last Biology class...

Second off, I think Pastor Larry's problem is one I have called out on him before, and I do not think he does it on purpose. He begs the question a lot. We discuss something, such as soteriology, and when we begin the dialogue, he will immediately begin to start with his conclusion as a proof for that conclusion as opposed to setting up logical (or means otherwise) means of setting up the process of how he came to that conclusion. This is the fallicy of Begging the Question, and we see that he has done it here again. I am almost certain he is not doing it out of intellectual dishonesty, but rather, as most logical fallicies occur, our of pure oversite. That being said, his argument still does fall apart.

Again, thank you for you input.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Bro. James:
Christians who are not Catholic nor Protestant--

Ah, you mean the Eastern Orthodox? (Who never seem to get a mention BTW)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Pastor Larry]

Craig, I have studied these passages in depth. You are incorrect in your understanding. I posted a link to a very clear, but technical article on James 2. It may be too deep for you; I am not sure. But the point remains clear that James and Paul are answering two different questions. I could answer in detail to your post and refute it soundly, but it would serve no purpose since you are not interested in dialogue. If you want to learn, begin with the article I previously cited. Once doen with that, you will be in a better position to continue this conversation. Your "solutions" lead to the direct contradiction of biblical truth because you fail to read the Bible carefully and clearly. It confuses others and leads to their doctrinal error as well.

Stephen, I do not assume my conclusions. You have already tried to make that case, but failed. I assume the truth of Scripture and what it says. We do not need to argue to Scripture, we argue from Scripture.

The problem now, as it always is, is one of authority. You and Craig, and others, are willing to accept an authority that I am not. Scripture is the authority from God. It alone determines what we belive. When it is trifled with, as the RCC done, and as Craig has tried in vain to do, it is made a pawn in the hands of ruthless religionists. The Bible will continue to be the authority and will stand as judge over those who reject it.

 

[grace56]

Way to go Littledrummerboy. Ok I used to be go to a protestant church only till I happened to go to a Catholic servce with a friend. After the service I was't sure what I felt all I knew is I felt like I had seen Christ's true church as he ment it to be. I tried to go back to my home church and to be happy there but it feels shallow, I want to know where the rest of my Christian heritage was. Where was the first 1500 years if my history? and yes I felt it in the Catholic Church. Am I leaning to the Cathloic Church? You bet!!! I feel like we Protesants have been cheated!! I want the fullness of Christ!! Jesus didn't say this repesent my body he said "THIS IS MY BODY"!!! THIS IS MY BLOOD"!!
It's a simple as that!!

grace56

 

[Bro. James]

Eastern Orthodox--

Are the first reformation of Rome--they rejected the papa. Kind of like Henry VIII--who made himself papa. Does that make them a daughter? Depends on how one looks at it. She could be a reproduction of Rome--without the papa.

Not much different about their doctrine--they too are real heavy into relic and icon worship. I passed through one of their temples in Antochya, Turkey several years ago. I saws lots of paintings, dead men's bones and high backed hiearchy chairs. It seemed more iconic than a RCC Cathedral--if that is possible.

Selah,

Bro.James

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Pastor Larry,

I have not tried to make that case; rather, you made it for me and I pointed it out. I will try again:

If we are debating an issue (here it is whether or not the Bible is the FINAL authroity), and anywhere within the argument you bring up your conclusion as a supporting premise, that is called Begging the Question.

Now, we are talking about whether or not the Bible is the final authority. This is the debate. This is the contested issue. I CANNOT stress that enough. If, in this debate, you simply say, "no you are wrong, because the Bible is the final authority," then you are begging the question. Now the one way you could still present this argument and NOT be Begging the question is if you can admit that you were never really interested in the debate to begin with; instead, you only wanted to give your piece. If that is the case, then why not just say so? Just say you are not interested in debate, and in proving a point, but rather just wanted to give an explanation, then I would have said, "ok, I disagree with you," and would have left it at that. I am not sure exactly which you are doing, but IF you are arguing the point of whether or not the Bible is the final authority, and you use your conclusion to justify the argument, then you are begging the question. It matters not if you agree with that conclusion, just as it matters not if you believe 2+2=4. The laws of logic are just like the laws of mathematics, they cannot be changed simply because one wills them to be changed. I am not trying to slight you here. You are an intellegent person and I have enjoyed our sparring, and I hope you have too. I am more interested in you developing a hardy argument than I am in "winning" this thing because wrestling out ideas and matter of God is one way to connect with him. I hope I have clarified myself a bit.

Matt,
As always the voice of reason. I forget my westerness sometimes...which is quite terrible considering I have a good amount of friends within the Easter Orthodox faith. Thank you for the heads-up!

Grace,

Congratulations! Should you become a Catholic, you are embarking on a life long journey with Christ. My confirmation (I too have a similar story, PM me if you'd like to talk about it) was one of the happiest nights of my life, and I try to thank God daily for the path he has made for me! Continue to always search for truth, and God will give it to you. Amen!

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Brother James,

Do you actually read the posts here? I have asked you before to give historically proof of your claims, and instead of offering any, you simply continue on with them.

As for the differences in doctrine, they have quite different doctrine than the RCC does, though they are similar in form, the matter is quite different.

As for the inside of the church, I find the Eastern idea of church to be facinating, and I think you would too. They decorate their churches as they think heaven would look (so far as it is described within scripture). That is why everything is gold...good stuff. You were right about the icons too, but in our world, they are not a bad thing.

Perhaps a few examples would greater strengthen any argument you wish to propose, or at least it would give some coherency to your claims.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Pastor Larry]

If we are debating an issue (here it is whether or not the Bible is the FINAL authroity), and anywhere within the argument you bring up your conclusion as a supporting premise, that is called Begging the Question.

But the point is that I did not bring up the conclusion as a supporting premise. I proved the premise by quoting Scripture. Scripture, the words of the God who cannot lie, said it is the final authority. So here are the options: 1) God is a liar; 2) Scripture is the final authority. There is no middle ground. Once you say that God did not say that, you have removed all possibility of coherent communication since the words God used say exactly that and they must be redefined to say something else.

This is not a contested issue if you accept the authority of Scripture. If you don’t accept the authority of Scripture, then you will contest it, but you will have no solid theological or philosophical foundation on which to build an answer.

I used to come in this thread a lot and I have stopped for the most part because of this disagreement. We have no common place to discuss anything from because there is no commonality of source. You use a source of authority that I do not. I do not use your source of authority because 1) it is not a biblical source; indeed it’s existence as an authority contradicts Scripture; and 2) because your authority has a 1500 year history of changing positions and contradicting Scripture.

I am not interested in winning. I make a few points here and there and then get out of the discussion. Until we agree on authority, we will not come to any mutual conclusions. I am sorry that that is the case, but there is no way around it. The historic biblical position has been the authority and sufficiency of Scripture. That is what the OT taught; it is what Christ taught; and it is what the apostles taught. Anything else is unbiblical.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Craig, I have studied these passages in depth. You are incorrect in your understanding. I posted a link to a very clear, but technical article on James 2. It may be too deep for you; I am not sure. But the point remains clear that James and Paul are answering two different questions. I could answer in detail to your post and refute it soundly, but it would serve no purpose since you are not interested in dialogue.

I am interested in reading your point. But I see none here. Sounds like a "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguement.

 

[Bro. James]

Historical proof--

Not from Grimm's Fairy Tales for sure.

Most of my statements are based on personal experience.

Having been a Catholic, Methodist, Mormon, atheist, agnostic, evolutionist I have spent several hours(45 adult years) considering what Truth might be(obviously with spiritual blinders on).

Then The Lord saved my soul.

Then the Scripture began to make sense.
(The Word of God is spiritually discerned.)

It is just like Jesus told Nicodemus: "do not marvel at what I say to you--you must be born again". John Ch. 3.

One can join every church in the world and still go to hell. Church membership has absolutely nothing to do with salvation of the soul.

That applies to everyone--including the Pope.

I can only repeat what the blind man said to the pharisees: "I once was blind, but now I see".

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Craigbythesea:

James writes that faith alone is not, and cannot be, saving faith. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews illustrates the teaching of James very clearly throughout the eleventh chapter. “By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain. . . . By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household. . . . By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed. . . . By faith he lived as an alien in the land of promise. . . . By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac. . . .By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . . By faith. . . .” And lest he be misunderstood, James writes,

James 2:26. For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.

Those who suppose that any of this conflicts with anything that Paul wrote has not carefully read Paul,

Rom. 3:28. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Neither James nor the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews is saying anything at all about works of the Law (which cannot save us). Both of them write of the same thing, the works that are inseparable from faith.

I believe that works are the proof of one’s faith. Works that are good do not necessarily indicate a faith in Jesus. But a faith in Christ is exhibited in good works consistent with a genuine saving faith.

In James, the Jews had a faith not from God; it was not a saving faith. But it was what they called faith. In reality it was the Shema–nothing more than words on a page.

Seems to me that James is comparing the person who says who claims to have faith (a Jew) and the person who has a genuine saving faith (a real Christian). The person who claims to have faith and has no works, his faith is dead–worthless. His faith is nothing more than a statement. But the person who has a genuine saving faith, has faith in Christ accompanied by good works. Faith by itself is no proof of a genuine saving faith. Works by themselves is no proof of a genuine saving faith in Christ. The both work together.

The point is walk the talk.

 

[grace56]

Thanks Stephen, I am listening to some seminars on tape right now. One is A Search For The Church: A Protestant Ministers Pigrimage to the Catholic Church by Stephen Wood (is this you?), then other one I have is Our Father's Plan: Salvation History from Genisis to the Catholic Church by Dr. Scott Hahn and Jeff Cavins both former Protestant ministers. I wonder what's happening in the church that so many ex-protesant ministers are finding the Catholic Church? I am just so glad that I am joing them in the fullness of the truth!!!

grace56

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by gb93433:
I am interested in reading your point. But I see none here. Sounds like a "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguement.

I gave a link to an article on James 2 that will be a good beginning for study. I already demonstrated that James is not discussing whether or not faith alone saves, but whether or not faith that fails to result in works is useful faith. He says that faith without works, or faith that does not bring works is useless faith ... useless for what it is intended to do ... bring about salvation.

 

[RTG]

Craig, I asked a ? a few days ago.I had 1 reply.It was not a good ?.You once told me there was no excuse for a lack of education.You are right about that. DHK replyed to my ? with a common belief.Im not ?ing your salvation.Your profile says your a consevative baptist.I have a few ?'s if you don't mind.What do you believe?
Why are you not a RC?What does this mean"Communicating Scripture in a culturally relevantway?Educate me Craig.Thanks RTG

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I am interested in reading your point. But I see none here. Sounds like a "My dad is bigger than your dad" arguement.

I gave a link to an article on James 2 that will be a good beginning for study. I already demonstrated that James is not discussing whether or not faith alone saves, but whether or not faith that fails to result in works is useful faith. He says that faith without works, or faith that does not bring works is useless faith ... useless for what it is intended to do ... bring about salvation. </font>[/QUOTE]I am not sure I undersand what you are saying. But if what I think you are saying is right, then I do not agree with you. James is addressing Hellenistic Jews. The Jews claimed to have faith in God. They thought they were already God's people. But James compares their faith of a creedal faith and just being a statement of belief but not accompanied by works--a dead faith to a genuine saving faith accompanied by works. Their faith was not a genuine saving faith but rather just a belief statement. James is saying that is not a real, genuine, saving faith focused on Christ. The Jews thought they had real faith but James said they had a dead faith.

I believe James compares a genuine, saving faith to a creedal, dead faith. That is his main focus.

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


Paul said salvation is by faith alone, not by works. James says that the faith taht saves is not alone. For James, salvation is prior to, and indepedent of works. Works merely demonstrate the reality of faith. James says that faith alone saves, but faith that is alone is not saving faith. Saving faith demonstrates itself by obedience, which is the same thing that Paul says in many places.

Here is an article that will help your understanding: http://dbts.edu/dbts/journals/1997/jas2.pdf

From what I could tell that article was a jumbled mess. I did not see where he even addressed the context. The book of James lies within the context of Judaism and what they see as faith. James was a Jew and so were the people he was addresssing. It is not a faith vs works argument, but rather a creedal faith vs a genuine saving faith.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Larry wrote,

Craig, I have studied these passages in depth. You are incorrect in your understanding. I posted a link to a very clear, but technical article on James 2. It may be too deep for you; I am not sure. But the point remains clear that James and Paul are answering two different questions. I could answer in detail to your post and refute it soundly, but it would serve no purpose since you are not interested in dialogue. If you want to learn, begin with the article I previously cited. Once doen with that, you will be in a better position to continue this conversation. Your "solutions" lead to the direct contradiction of biblical truth because you fail to read the Bible carefully and clearly. It confuses others and leads to their doctrinal error as well.

Falsely suggesting that I have not spent 20+ years studying and teaching Pauline theology and its inter-working with the theology of other New Testament writers is not a very honest way to refute my arguments from Scripture.

Larry wrote,

The problem now, as it always is, is one of authority. You and Craig, and others, are willing to accept an authority that I am not. Scripture is the authority from God. It alone determines what we belive. When it is trifled with, as the RCC done, and as Craig has tried in vain to do, it is made a pawn in the hands of ruthless religionists. The Bible will continue to be the authority and will stand as judge over those who reject it.

Larry, this is not the first time that you have falsely accused me of accepting an authority other than the Bible for New Testament doctrine. But even if your accusations were true, they are entirely irrelevant to my argument exclusively from Scripture that “faith alone” cannot save us. And you know very well that it is irrelevant, and you throw it up as a smoke screen to hide your inability to refute my argument that is exclusively from Scripture because in order to refute it, it would be necessary for you to use extrabiblical sources, the very thing that you are falsely accusing me of doing.

Larry further wrote in another post,

But the point is that I did not bring up the conclusion as a supporting premise. I proved the premise by quoting Scripture. Scripture, the words of the God who cannot lie, said it is the final authority. So here are the options: 1) God is a liar; 2) Scripture is the final authority. There is no middle ground. Once you say that God did not say that, you have removed all possibility of coherent communication since the words God used say exactly that and they must be redefined to say something else.

This is the most blatantly false statement, out of very many, that I have seen you post thus far. NOWHERE in the Bible does it say anything even remotely like this! This is merely your personal conviction. I share the conviction that the Bible is the “final authority,” but I am honest enough with myself and others to admit that it is my personal conviction. Our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church have a different personal conviction, largely because they are much more knowledgeable of early extrabiblical writings and traditions than most of the people who do not share their conviction.

And just because you and I do not share their conviction is certainly not a reason to claim that we do not have the necessary common ground for dialogue, for we have the common ground of Jesus Christ as our Lord and our Savior. The other issues are what we are dialoging about! And anyone who denies that we have this common ground of Jesus Christ as our Lord and our Savior and writes that the Bible says so is guilty of grossly misrepresenting the word of God and deliberately causing strife and divisions in the body of Christ, a most serious offense!

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Well, I was going to refute Pastor Larry, but Craig beat me to the punch! Thanks! (^:

Also, Pastor Larry's false dichtomy is yet another logical fallicy. Pastor Larry reaches his conclusions based on his convictions (as Craig pointed out) and an interpretation of scripture, one I do not hold. So, we come back to the interpretation discussion, which is not worth anyone's time. Furthermore Pastor Larry, this thread was started to ask if Catholics need to be evangelized. If you believe so (which you do, your original post is what attracted me to the thread), then you should expect opposition, and be prepared to back up your thoughts. You know where our differences lie, and if you leave it up to "we will never see eye to eye" and just leave, without any qualification, then that is not really being intellectually honest.

That being said, I respect your decision to not post here, and I am not one to bait an argument. I just think in the future, it would be good to note that it is not prudent to state your mind and not be prepared to foresee the difficulties of opposing thought.


Grace,

No, I am not Stephen Wood. There has been quite an influx of Catholic converts in the last several years. I think many in America are ready for something different, and the more liturgical life offers that for some. Fr. Peter Guilliquist, one of the original members of Campus Crusades for Christ, was one of these. Though he converted to Easter Orthodoxy, he was searching for the same things many who come to the RCC are. His book is called "Becoming Orthodox," and I think it is a good read for any Christian.

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Littledrummerboy]

Brother James,

You must be kidding. Subjective, unsubstantiated, personal experience does not add up to historical proof, nor does it validate your claims about the church SIXTEEN HUNDRED YEARS AGO! This is quite telling of the strength of your original position however...

Pax Christi,

Stephen

 

[Bro. James]

Subjective, personal experience...

My point was: The Lord saved my soul and pointed me to the only Rule of Faith and Practice--the Word of God--the words and traditions of men are not on the same level as the Holy Writ. Man's ways are not God's ways.

"Ye do err not knowing the Scripture and the power of God."

Study the first five chapters in the Book of Romans in the Douay-Confraternity version. Let the Holy Spirit bear witness to the Word.

Then compare what you read to the latest Catechism.

I am not interested in winning a debate. I love to see people come out of bondage into the glorious light of the true gospel. "ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free." "Sanctify them in Thy Truth, Thy Word is Truth."

Remember: "It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light." The Holy Writ is the only place to find the real redeemer of the soul.
"Faith cometh by hearing, hearing by the Word of God."

This is about "sola scriptura"

Selah,

Bro. James

p.s. How do we translate: nihil ex nihil fit?

[ December 15, 2004, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Bro. James ]