How exactly am I a brother to Catholics?

Jesus prayed:
"I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me." John 17:23

The love between fellow Christians is how the world knows Jesus Christ.

 

Appropriate question, coming from your viewpoint.

John, remember, all of God's work with mankind falls into one of two categories -- Old Covenant or New Covenant. God deals with mankind through covenantal relationships.

The thief on his cross was a member of the Old Covenant family, the Jewish nation. He was circumcized and already a member of the covenantal family.

Baptism did not take place until after the death of Christ on the Cross. Until Jesus died, the New Covenant was not in effect. We see it coming into effect in the book of Acts and the people gathered there, Jews from all around the Roman empire, both believing and being baptized into the New Covenant

So for the thief, baptism was simply not an issue because he was still under the Old Covenant. His profession on the cross was him coming to repentance and restoration as one who already was a child of the kingdom. He was not becoming a member of the New Covenant -- a Christian, if you will -- because the New Covenant was not in force.

Hope that helps.

Brother Ed

 

Appropriate question, coming from your viewpoint.

John, remember, all of God's work with mankind falls into one of two categories -- Old Covenant or New Covenant. God deals with mankind through covenantal relationships.

The thief on his cross was a member of the Old Covenant family, the Jewish nation. He was circumcized and already a member of the covenantal family.

Baptism did not take place until after the death of Christ on the Cross. Until Jesus died, the New Covenant was not in effect. We see it coming into effect in the book of Acts and the people gathered there, Jews from all around the Roman empire, both believing and being baptized into the New Covenant

So for the thief, baptism was simply not an issue because he was still under the Old Covenant. His profession on the cross was him coming to repentance and restoration as one who already was a child of the kingdom. He was not becoming a member of the New Covenant -- a Christian, if you will -- because the New Covenant was not in force.

Hope that helps.

Brother Ed </font>[/QUOTE]Looks like my answer was wrong, but that's OK. Always love to read your writings about the Covenants, Brother Ed!

Those who died under the Old Covenant, must they be brought (in death) into the New Covenant to be saved? Wasn't that what was involved when Christ "descended into hell"? Or, to ask another way, how is anybody saved under the Old Covenant?

 

This particular thread is a breath of fresh air.

 

You keep on telling us how ignorant we are of our beliefs, David. You're doing a great job of showing TRUE ignorance in your posts.

Who is blind? I think it's the man that recommends Hislops books, or rather, HIS SLOP.

 

You ask: How exactly am I a brother to Catholics?

To be exact, it is by the grace of God. The life of Christ within us makes us brothers and sisters. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer and my Savior...My Lord and my God. His sacrifice on the cross makes us having eternal life with Him and us being brothers and sisters possible. And yes, the Catholic Jesus Christ is the one and only Jesus Christ...there is no other.

God Bless

 

Christ (we spell it with a capital C, just like you) of course needs nothing. However, He has chosen to create a Sacramental system within His Church. Just like He chose to mix His saliva with dirt to cure the blind man. He didn't need the "help" of the dirt there either.

 

Hi Daniel,

[Catholics] have the interpretation of the church upon the Scriptures, making the scriptures subject to the church.

Catholics also have their personal interpretation of the Scriptures - the vast majority of the Scriptures. The bishops have only declared a minute amount of official interpretations with regard to the Bible.

In any case, you place the Scriptures under your own interpretation, subjecting the Word of God to your own fallible decree. You're quick to condemn, but once you've destroyed any visible teaching authority protected from teaching error, you've simply left yourself with a completely fallible teacher (namely, yourself) subject to no one. With only fallible interpretations, all Christians could be in error on the most fundamental interpretations.

That's a scenario I doubt God left us with.

1. I am saved by faith alone in the sufficiency of Christ alone.

Nowhere in the Bible does God's Word say that man is saved by "faith alone" so why do you believe it? Are you adding "alone" to the Word of God? God's Word explicitly says that we are not justified by faith alone (James 2:24). Why are you introducing a teaching that nullifies the Word of God?

I cannot add to or take away from Christ's work.

And neither can a single Catholic. No Catholic here is saying that he/she adds to Christ's sufficient atonement. It is Catholic dogma that the single formal cause of justification is the justice of God. Not one drop of "good works" can save us. We cannot add one iota of anything from ourselves in the work of salvation. All is from God. All is grace.

That's what the Catholic Church teaches.

His righteousness is imputed to me (all of it immediately). I stand completely righteous before God because of Christ.

That's a weak justification, brother! Who wants a merely forensic sonship? I want to be transformed into a child of God. I want the whole enchilada - not some legal fiction whereby God fools himself. I want to be transformed into the image of the only Son of God.

To [Catholics], justification is something that happens over time.

Yes, that is true, but it's also says too little and thus is a misrepresentation of Catholic teaching. In Catholic teaching, justification is instantaneous. This is what we term "initial justification". This is when the pagan becomes a child of God. Then, one grows in sonship as he/she is conformed to Christ, and this entails a growth in justification if justification is seen as sonship. We actually become partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:5). In Protestant soteriology, there is little room for Peter's comment, for our partaking in Christ's sonship is legal fiction. It doesn't "really happen"; it's just a legal declaration.

But, that isn't what the Word of God does. When God speaks, his word is creative. See Isaiah 55:11. See Genesis 1. When God says, "Carson is just", I am made just. Anything less would be to take the credit away from God and to turn him into a fool who fools himself through legal hoopla. That, however, isn't in accord with Israelite thought, which is covenantal - which is familial, and which recognizes that covenants form sacred kinship bonds. Our justification is our sonship. To place our justification in the context of a Roman courtroom is to read Scripture as a Gentile, not as an Israelite.

 

Daniel --

I understand your post and must say that once upon a time I believed exactly the same thing you do regarding the Catholic Faith.

Since this thread is way down on the list, I am going to cut-n-paste this for you to re-read if you did not read it already:

What do you not understand about such clear statements of our complete inability to save ourselves?

Brother Ed

 

So according to you the vast majority of people who claim to be Christians are NOT saved, correct? After all, so many differ on what is "right" doctrine. So tell me, my friend, why is YOUR doctrine correct? How did you arrive at that point? Just curious since you seem to have a lock on THE truth.

In Christ,
Neal

P.S. As to this whole point of justification, I just looked into it some recently. I have pretty much come to the conclusion that I can no longer hold to justification by faith alone. It is just not taught in Scripture. Faith IS absolutely essential, but true saving faith always has works accompanying it that serves as a proof, or justification, if you will. So justification, as far as I can gather, is not a moment in time, but a process. These works that accompany true faith that justifies a person do not happen at one point in time, but over time. Just some thoughts. A word of advice, though, Daniel. Practive charity. You may disagree with Catholic teachings, and they may be your enemies. But Christ commanded you to love your enemies. You can confront others without being so rude and mean-spirited. Trust me, it is something that I personally have had to work on. God bless you.

 

Herein lies a quote from one of the greatest heretics that ever lived. "He fixes a certain particular gaze of preference on a number that is known to Him..." Augustine practiced an extreme form of "Calvinism" before Calvin was even around. This is where Calvin got his ideas from. Basically Augustine is teaching that God has predestined a certain number of elect to Heaven, and a certain number of others to Hell. Man has no choice in the matter to believe. His choice is taken away to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ." He is already predestined either to Hell or Heaven. What heresy!!!
DHK

 

Daniel -- Ignoring the fact that they would have burned you at the stake for that opening post if it had been written in the dark ages - you are their brother.

As Dr Carroll of EWTN said - they would have burned Billy Graham at the stake in the dark ages for the crime of teaching the Bible as he has taught it to 1000's of Christians in his lifetime.

It would have been a "Short life" for their "brother" Graham had he only lived at a time when they were in control of the dark ages.

But - I agree - brothers still.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi DHK,

Augustine taught double predestination? That's news to me.

Or, perhaps, do you think you just might be speaking out of ignorance?

"Augustine does not deny the freedom of the human will ... In fact, he resisted the notion of double predestination, which argues that God not only decides to elect some to eternal life but also actively predestines others to eternal destruction" (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995]).

Augustine also rejected perseverance of the saints and imputed justification.

If you would like to educate yourself:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02091a.htm

 

It is evident even from the above post, Carson. "God has a preference for a certain number." There is a preference on the part of God. Some are elect and some are not. What part do you not understand?
DHK

 

Hi DHK,

Apparently, you would rather just throw out another blind response before educating yourself. Before you respond to this post, I encourage you to follow the link I provided in my response above and read up a bit on Augustine.

[Double predestination] is evident even from the above post, Carson.

No, it is not. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

"God has a preference for a certain number." There is a preference on the part of God. Some are elect and some are not.

Augustinian predestination presents no new difficulty if one has understood the function of this Divine knowledge in the choice of graces.

The problem is reduced to this: Does God in his creative decree and, before any act of human liberty, determine by an immutable choice the elect and the reprobate? Must the elect during eternity thank God only for having rewarded their merits, or must they also thank Him for having, prior to any merit on their part, chosen them to the meriting of this reward?

One system, that of the Semipelagians, decides in favour of man: God predestines to salvation all alike, and gives to all an equal measure of grace; human liberty alone decides whether one is lost or saved; from which we must logically conclude (and they really insinuated it) that the number of the elect is not fixed or certain.

The opposite system, that of the Predestinationists (the Semipelagians falsely ascribed this view to Augustine), affirms not only a privileged choice of the elect by God, but at the same time (a) the predestination of the reprobate to hell and (b) the absolute powerlessness of one or the other to escape from the irresistible impulse which drags them either to good or to evil. This is the system of Calvin.

Between these two extreme opinions Augustine formulated (not invented) the Catholic dogma, which affirms these two truths at the same time:

(1) The eternal choice of the elect by God is very real, very gratuitous, and constitutes the grace of graces

(2) But this decree does not destroy the Divine will to save all men, which, moreover, is not realized except by the human liberty that leaves to the elect full power to fall and to the non-elect full power to rise.

Beyond this explanation, the detailed account of Augustine is far too extensive to post here. That is why I gave you a link. So you can brush up on your study of this complex issue in order to avoid a simplistic response that not only misrepresents those whom you intend to represent but also unveils your lack of education in this matter. And, if you're uneducated in this matter, you have little reason to be offering your opinion.

What part do you not understand?

No part.

 

Daniel David
The good news is I do not perceive you as a brother in the Church or in christ or whatever.
Don't worry I do not feel the urge to refer to you as brother Daniel David at all.

The bad news is I'm a IFB and not a Catholic (Roman or otherwise).

 

Mioque is one of those "always post in defense of Catholicism no matter how extreme or remote their case" people that "claims" a non-Catholic view of history - while ignoring all historic evidence (even from CATHOLIC sources) exposing the truth about the historic RCC.

Almost makes you want to believe in those old Jesuit-in-a-drawer stories.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Bob
You do understand that you, having revealed my secret must die.
Tonight Dominican monks will come to lift you from your bed, smuggle you to Rome and feed you to the lions under the watchfull eyes of the pope, the curia, the heads of both the jesuit order and Opus dei and myself.
Thank you, for your coöperation.


WHAT?