Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

[Thinkingstuff]

excuse me Dr. Walter but you don't really understand what you are talking about when it comes to the Catholic Faith. I was raised Catholic and had the benefit of a father trained at Jesuit University. Over the years since I left the Catholic church we have had many arguments and discussions regarding this topic. Never once when I was a Catholic had I been told that Faith was subject to works. You limit what the Catholic Church teaches by your understanding and years of propoganda starting during the refromation. Some true many things exagerated.

This is from the magisterium of the Catholic church.

When St. Peter confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, Jesus declared to him that this revelation did not come "from flesh and blood", but from "my Father who is in heaven".24 Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. "Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him;he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.'"

So in fact your knowledge on the Catholic church is limited. However, this next statment is what often confuses the protestants with regard to the catholic church

Believing is possible only by grace and the interior helps of the Holy Spirit. But it is no less true that believing is an authentically human act.

But it is no less true that Catholics believe.

In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: "Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace."27

 

[DHK]

Thinkingstuff,
I do know this and Lori can look it also in the Catechism.
In fact Lori dodged this question for weeks when I asked her.

What does the Catholic Church mean by "born again"? How is a person born again? Please explain.
The catechism explicitly states that by the new birth or being "born again" one is baptized. This is how they defend baptismal regeneration, one of the first heresies to enter into Christendom. Baptism has nothing to do with either salvation or the new birth (which is what salvation is all about). In fact baptismal regeneration is a heretical position, and it doesn't matter how many ECF authors one can quote to support heresy. It still remains heresy.
Baptism doesn't save. It gets you wet. There is hardly any difference between baptismal regeneration and the Hindu doctrine of baptism. They both believe that water saves. It is a pagan superstition.

This is the evidence that the Catholic Church does not believe that salvation is by faith. They don't. Baptism is a work. The RCC believe in salvation by works. Salvation by baptism is salvation by works. There is no way out of that belief.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Thinkingstuff,
I do know this and Lori can look it also in the Catechism.
In fact Lori dodged this question for weeks when I asked her.

What does the Catholic Church mean by "born again"? How is a person born again? Please explain.
The catechism explicitly states that by the new birth or being "born again" one is baptized. This is how they defend baptismal regeneration, one of the first heresies to enter into Christendom. Baptism has nothing to do with either salvation or the new birth (which is what salvation is all about). In fact baptismal regeneration is a heretical position, and it doesn't matter how many ECF authors one can quote to support heresy. It still remains heresy.
Baptism doesn't save. It gets you wet. There is hardly any difference between baptismal regeneration and the Hindu doctrine of baptism. They both believe that water saves. It is a pagan superstition.

This is the evidence that the Catholic Church does not believe that salvation is by faith. They don't. Baptism is a work. The RCC believe in salvation by works. Salvation by baptism is salvation by works. There is no way out of that belief.

Two different things must be brought up. 1) a Sacrament is not a work but belief in action so to speak. 2) Born Again/from above in the Catholic faith is a lot like citizenship. Born from Above shows that you are now a member of the kingdom of God which spans this life and the next. This is the entry into the kindom of God - Baptism which does as it represents.

So you must view Baptism as a belief in action not a work two different things

The proclamation of the Word of God enlightens the candidates and the assembly with the revealed truth and elicits the response of faith, which is inseparable from Baptism. Indeed Baptism is "the sacrament of faith" in a particular way, since it is the sacramental entry into the life of faith.

And so being born again relates to baptism

In his Passover Christ opened to all men the fountain of Baptism. He had already spoken of his Passion, which he was about to suffer in Jerusalem, as a "Baptism" with which he had to be baptized.22 The blood and water that flowed from the pierced side of the crucified Jesus are types of Baptism and the Eucharist, the sacraments of new life.23 From then on, it is possible "to be born of water and the Spirit"24 in order to enter the Kingdom of God.

 

[ReformedBaptist]

Here is the simple fact: The papacy is not now, nor has before, assented to or agree with, the Protestant doctrine of justification, or Sola Fide.

The papacy hates this teaching, condemns it, and teaches contrary to it.

If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone by which we are justified: let him be anathema [cursed].

If anyone shall say that by the said sacraments of the New Law, grace is not conferred from the work which has been worked [ex opere operato] but that ‘faith alone’ in the divine promise suffices to obtain grace: let him be anathema

I shall tell you that the Bible says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for CHrist's sake, AND that it is this confidence ALONE by which we are justified.

Hebrews 3:14
For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;


I also say that that by the said sacraments grace is NOT conferred. And I AFFIRM and freely confess that FAITH ALONE in the divine promises is wholly and completely and without doubt SUFFICENT to obtain grace.

2 Peter 1
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.


Soli Deo Gloria!

So, papal rome and all the magisterium. Speak ex cathedra all your condemnations against God's Word and those who hold confidence in it. Whether you speak today in anathemas or in subtlties, none who are born of the Living God are decieved by your Antichristian doctrines.

I welcome papal anathemas more than a man dying of thirst welcomes a drink of water.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You of course misrepresented Catholic view of justification it can be simply put

a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ

So in the view that this is how they believe justification is applied you can see that a simple "declaration" would be insufficient or not a "full" statement. "rights and responsibilites" are closer. But that is another topic.

 

[Dr. Walter]

My Catholic friend,

So are you saying that according to Rome, grace is not received through baptism and sanctifying faith is not a result of infused grace????????

"Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. 'Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him......By baptism the Christian participates in the grace of God.....It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism....For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after baptism....Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition

So are you saying then that infants are not baptized upon proxy faith of the parents as given by the Church but upon their own personal profession of faith BEFORE baptism????????

First I am not a Reformed Roman Catholic theologion (Protestant) but Anabaptist in origin and I repudiate Protestantism as much as you do.

I have had many converted Catholics in the churches I have pastored and presently do. Such were altar boys. I was baptized a Catholic as an infant. I know exactly what Rome believes. I simpy cut to the quick of the matter in my last post and did not use the twisted definitions and language of Rome.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

My Catholic friend,

So are you saying that according to Rome, grace is not received through baptism and sanctifying faith is not a result of infused grace????????

"Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. 'Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him......By baptism the Christian participates in the grace of God.....It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism....For all the baptized, children or adults, faith must grow after baptism....Baptism is the source of that new life in Christ...." - Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edition

So are you saying then that infants are not baptized upon proxy faith of the parents as given by the Church but upon their own personal profession of faith BEFORE baptism????????

First I am not a Reformed Roman Catholic theologion (Protestant) but Anabaptist in origin and I repudiate Protestantism as much as you do.

I have had many converted Catholics in the churches I have pastored and presently do. Such were altar boys. I was baptized a Catholic as an infant. I know exactly what Rome believes. I simpy cut to the quick of the matter in my last post and did not use the twisted definitions and language of Rome.

First I'm baptist. I was raised Catholic by an educated Catholic Family that is not the "run of the mill" (so to speak) Catholic family that is represented by people not understanding their faith much less studying it. Secondly, your "definition argument" is a poor one which lacks a certain amount of study by its nature. I don't accept their definition therefore I can add my own is a disingenuous case and can not be taken seriously.

AS for infant baptism this is how they view it. Pay attention to the bolded words and don't add a non webster definition to the words please.

Where infant Baptism has become the form in which this sacrament is usually celebrated, it has become a single act encapsulating the preparatory stages of Christian initiation in a very abridged way. By its very nature infant Baptism requires a post-baptismal catechumenate. Not only is there a need for instruction after Baptism, but also for the necessary flowering of baptismal grace in personal growth. The catechism has its proper place here.

Born with a fallen human nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in Baptism to be freed from the power of darkness and brought into the realm of the freedom of the children of God, to which all men are called.50 The sheer gratuitousness of the grace of salvation is particularly manifest in infant Baptism. The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer Baptism shortly after birth

The faith required for Baptism is not a perfect and mature faith, but a beginning that is called to develop. The catechumen or the godparent is asked: "What do you ask of God's Church?" The response is: "Faith!"

 

[Dr. Walter]

In Pauls treatise on justification by faith before God in Romans 4. He clearly and distinctly states that Abraham was in the state of justification BEFORE partaking of ordinances (Rom. 4:9-12). Neither is it described as a process but a completed action as Romans 5:2 uses the perfect tense of completed action that stands completed.

If you remember, apart from sacrifices, circumcision is the first ordinance introduced by God and it was introduced through Abraham. Circumcision was initiated at 8 days of age to the children of Israel. Circumcision is used by sacramentalists to defend infant baptism.

However, Abraham is our model of justification by faith and justification preceded ordinances or as Rome falsely calls them "sacraments." Moreover, Abraham was a man of "faith" before circumcision which occurred 14 years after he was justified by faith.

Hence, neither grace or faith are infused through ordinances/sacraments according to Paul but both precede sacraments and in this case by 14 years. Another proof that justification "before God" is perverted by Rome.

Two different things must be brought up. 1) a Sacrament is not a work but belief in action so to speak. 2) Born Again/from above in the Catholic faith is a lot like citizenship. Born from Above shows that you are now a member of the kingdom of God which spans this life and the next. This is the entry into the kindom of God - Baptism which does as it represents.

So you must view Baptism as a belief in action not a work two different things

And so being born again relates to baptism

 

[Dr. Walter]

So, My Baptist Friend,

You may have not liked my wording but your Catholic wording said not one whit difference when it comes to the bottom line. Infants receive baptism on a proxy faith - period. Grace is infused in baptism. You have said nothing different than what I quoted from the Catholic Catechism or stated however so rudely in my first post.

Funny, just plain old Roman Catholic church members don't use all the twisted logic and defintions of the church either - they just tell you the bottom line - where there is no baptism, there is no salvation, where there is no church membership, there is no salvation, where there is no sacraments, there is no grace.

Yes, I realize Rome has made a qualification to the above in regard to pagans and Protestants who operate in good faith but are ignorant of Catholic instruction.

First I'm baptist. I was raised Catholic by an educated Catholic Family that is not the "run of the mill" (so to speak) Catholic family that is represented by people not understanding their faith much less studying it. Secondly, your "definition argument" is a poor one which lacks a certain amount of study by its nature. I don't accept their definition therefore I can add my own is a disingenuous case and can not be taken seriously.

AS for infant baptism this is how they view it. Pay attention to the bolded words and don't add a non webster definition to the words please.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Look, I realize because you have been raised in a home where the particulars of the Catholic explanation is stressed that you are somewhat offended by the common venacular used to cut to the chase of their doctrine, however, Biblical definition always trumps cultic definition and Rome is a cult by the truest definition of the term. Grace to the Catholic is nothing more or less than divine assistance to help save themselves through the use of the church and sacraments.

First I'm baptist. I was raised Catholic by an educated Catholic Family that is not the "run of the mill" (so to speak) Catholic family that is represented by people not understanding their faith much less studying it. Secondly, your "definition argument" is a poor one which lacks a certain amount of study by its nature. I don't accept their definition therefore I can add my own is a disingenuous case and can not be taken seriously.

AS for infant baptism this is how they view it. Pay attention to the bolded words and don't add a non webster definition to the words please.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Look, I realize because you have been raised in a home where the particulars of the Catholic explanation is stressed that you are somewhat offended by the common venacular used to cut to the chase of their doctrine, however, Biblical definition always trumps cultic definition and Rome is a cult by the truest definition of the term. Grace to the Catholic is nothing more or less than divine assistance to help save themselves through the use of the church and sacraments.

I am in no mood to defend Catholicism and am in short temper, so if I seem harsh its because I'm too tired to be anything else. However, There are valid reasons to have problems with the Catholic Church but very few of them are actually mentioned by people who have little understanding of that faith.

A couple of things I would like to make clear. The bible doesn't define words. That is a function of the dictionary. The only time I can recall the bible actually defining something is in the NT where in John 1:38 it says

Turning around, Jesus saw them following and asked, "What do you want?" They said, "Rabbi" (which means Teacher), "where are you staying?"

Meriam Webster did not write the bible. So to say a "Biblical definition" is rather nonsense. Justification, salvation, and many other common terms to both catholic and protestant are reviewed, sampled, partially explained, an alluded to in the bible. The bible doesn't define the terms. In fact in order to come to an understanding of these terms a person must accertain all the verses which mentions these terms in the context of the document it was writen on and infer from them a meaning.

Next you must define cult in order to make your point about Catholicism. I would prefer a dictionary but its your claim so I must understand what it is you mean. I find Haggart to be a cult leader though many mainstream christians hold him to be orthodox at which I laugh whole heartedly.

Next I find this statement with lack of actual thought.

Abraham was a man of "faith" before circumcision which occurred 14 years after he was justified by faith.

It fails to question and answer what is qualified as faith. Hebrews 11 says

By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

It is clear faith became faith when Abraham "Obeyed and Went". In fact, the whole chapter of hebrews is written that way which puts a krink in your baptism argument.
And if you really want to understand what Catholics believe you have to go beyond your really very simple statement

Grace to the Catholic is nothing more or less than divine assistance to help save themselves through the use of the church and sacraments

which any Catholic Theologian would laugh at and stop taking you seriously. And understand that faith they didn't obtain themselves got them into the kingdom. Once in the kingdom they are Justified - look at above definition - and express their rights and responsibilities as true heirs to the kingdom. And finally lets see if you get this one right; They participate (not earn) in a salvation given them. Kind of like a king who is given a kingdom they didn't work for who gets to be the king and all that pertains to it. That is the Catholic view. Sacraments aren't works but like Abraham faith enacted. You try to denegrate me by saying your saying it simply when in fact you change meanins all together to suit your simple understanding.

 

[Dr. Walter]

The bible does define terms many ways. It defines by contrast, by context, and by overall Biblical usage. That is what I mean by biblical definition.

What you find to possess little actual thought is lack of proper punctuation on my part. Here is the same statement but punctuated:

Abraham was a man of "faith" before circumcision, which occurred 14 years after he was justified by faith.

I could have worded it better and said "Abraham was a man of faith, justified by faith 14 years before he was circumcised."

Faith does not become faith. Faith is a gift of God intrinsic with the new heart given by God in regeneration. In other words, God gives a believing heart, not just a heart. The giving is regeneration, the expression of faith is conversion, which in turn is confessed by the mouth PRECEDING baptism. So, it does not put any "krink" in my baptism argument at all.

I will tell you what is laughable, is the idea that faith is received through the church as a medium between God and the individual - that is laughable and that is absolute unbiblical nonsense of the Catholic Theologion.

No one "participates" in biblical justification. To suggest such a idea is repudiation of Biblical justification "before God." Such an idea of "participation" in justification is clearly repudiated by Paul in Romans 3:17-21. Faith simply receives in regard to justification it does not participate. Like Rome you confuse justification "before God" with sanctification.

I am having a real hard time believing you are a Baptist according to historic Baptist doctrine as you do not sound like any Baptist I have ever run into. Your spewing the same nonsense of the Catholics but trying to sound sophisticated and upper crust.

I am in no mood to defend Catholicism and am in short temper, so if I seem harsh its because I'm too tired to be anything else. However, There are valid reasons to have problems with the Catholic Church but very few of them are actually mentioned by people who have little understanding of that faith.

A couple of things I would like to make clear. The bible doesn't define words. That is a function of the dictionary. The only time I can recall the bible actually defining something is in the NT where in John 1:38 it says Meriam Webster did not write the bible. So to say a "Biblical definition" is rather nonsense. Justification, salvation, and many other common terms to both catholic and protestant are reviewed, sampled, partially explained, an alluded to in the bible. The bible doesn't define the terms. In fact in order to come to an understanding of these terms a person must accertain all the verses which mentions these terms in the context of the document it was writen on and infer from them a meaning.

Next you must define cult in order to make your point about Catholicism. I would prefer a dictionary but its your claim so I must understand what it is you mean. I find Haggart to be a cult leader though many mainstream christians hold him to be orthodox at which I laugh whole heartedly.

Next I find this statement with lack of actual thought. It fails to question and answer what is qualified as faith. Hebrews 11 says It is clear faith became faith when Abraham "Obeyed and Went". In fact, the whole chapter of hebrews is written that way which puts a krink in your baptism argument.
And if you really want to understand what Catholics believe you have to go beyond your really very simple statement which any Catholic Theologian would laugh at and stop taking you seriously. And understand that faith they didn't obtain themselves got them into the kingdom. Once in the kingdom they are Justified - look at above definition - and express their rights and responsibilities as true heirs to the kingdom. And finally lets see if you get this one right; They participate (not earn) in a salvation given them. Kind of like a king who is given a kingdom they didn't work for who gets to be the king and all that pertains to it. That is the Catholic view. Sacraments aren't works but like Abraham faith enacted. You try to denegrate me by saying your saying it simply when in fact you change meanins all together to suit your simple understanding.

 

[DHK]

And if you really want to understand what Catholics believe you have to go beyond your really very simple statement which any Catholic Theologian would laugh at and stop taking you seriously. And understand that faith they didn't obtain themselves got them into the kingdom. Once in the kingdom they are Justified - look at above definition - and express their rights and responsibilities as true heirs to the kingdom. And finally lets see if you get this one right; They participate (not earn) in a salvation given them. Kind of like a king who is given a kingdom they didn't work for who gets to be the king and all that pertains to it. That is the Catholic view. Sacraments aren't works but like Abraham faith enacted. You try to denegrate me by saying your saying it simply when in fact you change meanins all together to suit your simple understanding.

I have discussed this before with others on this board.
Theology is a subject or even a science in itself. In other words it requires its own dictionary, not a simple Webster's dictionary. If you simply use a Webster's dictionary you will fail in your study of theology.
Likewise in your study of Biology, one cannot use a simple dictionary, he need a dictionary of biological terms. And thus it goes for each and every science. We are limited by the science in which we study. Theology has its own unique terms. They are not properly defined by the ordinary dictionary.

Often the Bible does define theological terms. However, even more often than naught, it is the context that defines the terms that we are using. Take away the context and the term is a like a ship without a rudder lost at sea--undefinable. That is one of the reasons the definitions of the RCC don't work. They have no context.

What is grace? The Biblical definition is "unmerited favor," specifically "God's unmerited favor to man." Jesus illustrated it when he told how God gives rain to both the just and the unjust alike, and likewise the sunshine to shine upon the just and unjust alike. We don't deserve it. We didn't do anything for it. We didn't work for it. God mercifully provided it for us. It was a demonstration of his grace. It was something he gave us though we didn't deserve.

By our sin nature, and our own sinful acts, we have condemned ourselves to hell--separation from God for all eternity. It is God's perfect right to send us all there. He would be perfectly just in doing so. But He loves us.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth (demonstrated) his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
--The great demonstration of God's love for us was the death of Christ in our place to take our punishment for our sins. He loved us so. That is grace. It is a great demonstration of his grace for us. It is God's grace; great grace. There is no cooperation in grace. It is freely bestowed--just like the rain--you do nothing to receive it.

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
--He freely gave us His Son.
--He freely gives us all things.
There is no work involved. There is no cooperation involved.
It is by grace that one is saved--God's grace alone.

One does not participate in salvation. He can only receive it by faith and faith alone. The work of salvation was already completed on the cross by Christ. It is His grace that provided it. It is by His Grace that we receive it by faith. Christ alone provides it.

 

[Dr. Walter]

DHK,

Thinkingstuff says he is a Baptist but he does not talk or argue like a Baptist. Indeed, it appears to me that he defends the Catholic doctrine as though at the very least he is straddling a fence if not leaning to Rome's side of the fense.
Your responses seem to infer he is advocating Catholic doctrine or at least defending it and attacking the historic Baptist position of justification by faith.
Am I reading both of you wrong?

I have discussed this before with others on this board.
Theology is a subject or even a science in itself. In other words it requires its own dictionary, not a simple Webster's dictionary. If you simply use a Webster's dictionary you will fail in your study of theology.
Likewise in your study of Biology, one cannot use a simple dictionary, he need a dictionary of biological terms. And thus it goes for each and every science. We are limited by the science in which we study. Theology has its own unique terms. They are not properly defined by the ordinary dictionary.

Often the Bible does define theological terms. However, even more often than naught, it is the context that defines the terms that we are using. Take away the context and the term is a like a ship without a rudder lost at sea--undefinable. That is one of the reasons the definitions of the RCC don't work. They have no context.

What is grace? The Biblical definition is "unmerited favor," specifically "God's unmerited favor to man." Jesus illustrated it when he told how God gives rain to both the just and the unjust alike, and likewise the sunshine to shine upon the just and unjust alike. We don't deserve it. We didn't do anything for it. We didn't work for it. God mercifully provided it for us. It was a demonstration of his grace. It was something he gave us though we didn't deserve.

By our sin nature, and our own sinful acts, we have condemned ourselves to hell--separation from God for all eternity. It is God's perfect right to send us all there. He would be perfectly just in doing so. But He loves us.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth (demonstrated) his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
--The great demonstration of God's love for us was the death of Christ in our place to take our punishment for our sins. He loved us so. That is grace. It is a great demonstration of his grace for us. It is God's grace; great grace. There is no cooperation in grace. It is freely bestowed--just like the rain--you do nothing to receive it.

Romans 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
--He freely gave us His Son.
--He freely gives us all things.
There is no work involved. There is no cooperation involved.
It is by grace that one is saved--God's grace alone.

One does not participate in salvation. He can only receive it by faith and faith alone. The work of salvation was already completed on the cross by Christ. It is His grace that provided it. It is by His Grace that we receive it by faith. Christ alone provides it.

 

[lori4dogs]

Not the first time 'Thinkingstuff' has been suspected of being a 'closet Catholic'.

He said: excuse me Dr. Walter but you don't really understand what you are talking about when it comes to the Catholic Faith. I was raised Catholic and had the benefit of a father trained at Jesuit University. Over the years since I left the Catholic church we have had many arguments and discussions regarding this topic. Never once when I was a Catholic had I been told that Faith was subject to works. You limit what the Catholic Church teaches by your understanding and years of propoganda starting during the refromation.

Of course as a Baptist I was taught the same dribble about Catholicism that I hear out of Dr. Walter, DHK, and others on this board. However, not once since becoming a Catholic Christian have I ever been taught 'that faith was subject to works'.

 

[DHK]

DHK,

Thinkingstuff says he is a Baptist but he does not talk or argue like a Baptist. Indeed, it appears to me that he defends the Catholic doctrine as though at the very least he is straddling a fence if not leaning to Rome's side of the fense.
Your responses seem to infer he is advocating Catholic doctrine or at least defending it and attacking the historic Baptist position of justification by faith.
Am I reading both of you wrong?

As he said, he comes from a Catholic family that is well educated in their own faith. He is asking on behalf of them, or seeking answers to give them. Therefore he asks or poses as a Catholic trying to get the right answer for his relatives. This is how I understand Thinkingstuff. He can correct me if I am wrong.

 

[DHK]

Not the first time 'Thinkingstuff' has been suspected of being a 'closet Catholic'.

He said: excuse me Dr. Walter but you don't really understand what you are talking about when it comes to the Catholic Faith. I was raised Catholic and had the benefit of a father trained at Jesuit University. Over the years since I left the Catholic church we have had many arguments and discussions regarding this topic. Never once when I was a Catholic had I been told that Faith was subject to works. You limit what the Catholic Church teaches by your understanding and years of propoganda starting during the refromation.

Of course as a Baptist I was taught the same dribble about Catholicism that I hear out of Dr. Walter, DHK, and others on this board. However, not once since becoming a Catholic Christian have I ever been taught 'that faith was subject to works'.

Most of your posts, Lori, show that you neither completely understand the Baptist faith, nor completely understand the Catholic faith. One thing stands out for sure: You seem to have had a bad experience in a Baptist Church that you attended somewhere along the line.

 

[lori4dogs]

Most of your posts, Lori, show that you neither completely understand the Baptist faith, nor completely understand the Catholic faith. One thing stands out for sure: You seem to have had a bad experience in a Baptist Church that you attended somewhere along the line.

Actually, I did have a bad experience in one particular Baptist church along the line. I became active in a different Baptist church and still remain close to the people there.

The fact is, DHK, I don't have YOUR understanding of the Catholic faith which is full of errors and misrepresentations. What has become obvious over the years of following this board is that you are not teachable or humble enough to admit when you are in error.

 

[Dr. Walter]

As he said, he comes from a Catholic family that is well educated in their own faith. He is asking on behalf of them, or seeking answers to give them. Therefore he asks or poses as a Catholic trying to get the right answer for his relatives. This is how I understand Thinkingstuff. He can correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks, that gives me a different perspective.

 

[DHK]

Actually, I did have a bad experience in one particular Baptist church along the line. I became active in a different Baptist church and still remain close to the people there.

The fact is, DHK, I don't have YOUR understanding of the Catholic faith which is full of errors and misrepresentations. What has become obvious over the years of following this board is that you are not teachable or humble enough to admit when you are in error.

There are times when I have been in error concerning extra-biblical things, perhaps history, etc. But as far as your understanding of Scripture (or even the RCC) vs. mine, I have not been wrong. I know what the Bible teaches.