The Catholic Church

[OldRegular]

You are making the same mistake Luther made except from the other extreme.

James DID NOT teach justification by works. What he taught was that justification by faith was not without works. What is the difference? A very big difference.

James is viewing justification pragmatically not theologically. James is dealing with a person not at the point of justification by faith but at the point of profession - "Though a man SAY" and from the point of a POST-regeneration/conversion pragmatic point of view.

Thus James is dealing with from the same point of view that Paul is in Romans 6-8 not Romans 3-5. In Romans 6 Paul denies that justification by faith occurs ALONE apart from REGENERATIVE life and its fruits just as he does in Ephesians 2:8-10 - "saved THROUGH FAITH and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a gift of God NOT OF WORKS.....created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works".

There is no such thing as a justified but unregnerated human being. Good works are the fruits of regeneration not justification but where there is justification there is also regeneration and thus there will be good works.

However, in regard to justification itself, it is "without works", meaning without OUR good works simply because it is the embracing by faith the good works of Jesus Christ as the complete and sufficient propitiation (satisfaction) of the righteous demands of God.

Now, I know you fella's don't like what I had to say and won't agree with it but you will not be able to overthrow it exegetically and that is really the bottom line isn't it?

Very well stated! Hope milby and Walter can read the above!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

You are making the same mistake Luther made except from the other extreme.

James DID NOT teach justification by works. What he taught was that justification by faith was not without works. What is the difference? A very big difference.

James is viewing justification pragmatically not theologically. James is dealing with a person not at the point of justification by faith but at the point of profession - "Though a man SAY" and from the point of a POST-regeneration/conversion pragmatic point of view.

Thus James is dealing with from the same point of view that Paul is in Romans 6-8 not Romans 3-5. In Romans 6 Paul denies that justification by faith occurs ALONE apart from REGENERATIVE life and its fruits just as he does in Ephesians 2:8-10 - "saved THROUGH FAITH and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is a gift of God NOT OF WORKS.....created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works".

There is no such thing as a justified but unregnerated human being. Good works are the fruits of regeneration not justification but where there is justification there is also regeneration and thus there will be good works.

However, in regard to justification itself, it is "without works", meaning without OUR good works simply because it is the embracing by faith the good works of Jesus Christ as the complete and sufficient propitiation (satisfaction) of the righteous demands of God.

Now, I know you fella's don't like what I had to say and won't agree with it but you will not be able to overthrow it exegetically and that is really the bottom line isn't it?

The bottom line is that I am taking James at face value and reading the clear sense of what he is saying, not trying to twist and contort his words to attempt to make them agree with Paul. I thought you liked to do the former and not the latter -- guess I was wrong.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

This kind of reasoning is shallow. We all can quote from Luther where he was wrong. We can all do the same with Calvin, and even with Spurgeon. It is easy to attack a person's life and doctrine. We disagree with all of the ECF, and can show where.
Luther was a Catholic priest coming into the Reformation, got saved because he realized what the doctrine of justification by faith was, and that it was taught in the Bible. When he left the RCC he took much of the baggage of the RCC with him. He had fought the RCC on many fronts in just a few short years. Had he lived longer he would have come to realize more of the truth concerning the canon of Scripture as well. If one takes into consideration how long he was a Christian: from his conversion during the Reformation to his death, it wasn't that long.
He was born 1483.
He nailed his 95 theses to the door in 1517 (saved not long before that).
He was excommunicated in 1521.
He died in 1546.

That means that he was a Christian for only about 30 years in his lifetime.
When he wrote about the book of James he was much younger than that.
If one compares Luther's ministry as a true believer in Christ to that of many full time Christians today who have come from Christian homes, there is a great difference. He had much more to contend with. (and no access to the internet )

Calling my reasoning shallow is an insult. I am taking James at his word. When I do that, I am called shallow, yet when literalists do the same concerning their pet issues, they are being faithful to the plain sense and meaning of scripture.

Quite telling!

 

[Michael Wrenn]

There is a big difference between error and heresy. You may believe that the Doctrine of Grace are wrong but calling the Doctrine of Grace heretical is simply stupid so it is naturally follows that you would be ignorant of Scripture!

Yes, there is a difference, and you show that you do not know what the original meaning of "heresy" was -- a minority opinion. But there's no problem because the "Doctrines of Grace", as you incorrectly term them, are both error and heretical. As I said -- and it is fact -- the "Doctrines of Grace" were not believed or taught in the early church, and this remained a minority opinion throughout church history, even after Calvin.

Calling someone stupid is a personal attack and insult. I expect an apology.

 

[Walter]

This kind of reasoning is shallow. We all can quote from Luther where he was wrong. We can all do the same with Calvin, and even with Spurgeon. It is easy to attack a person's life and doctrine. We disagree with all of the ECF, and can show where.
Luther was a Catholic priest coming into the Reformation, got saved because he realized what the doctrine of justification by faith was, and that it was taught in the Bible. When he left the RCC he took much of the baggage of the RCC with him. He had fought the RCC on many fronts in just a few short years. Had he lived longer he would have come to realize more of the truth concerning the canon of Scripture as well. If one takes into consideration how long he was a Christian: from his conversion during the Reformation to his death, it wasn't that long.
He was born 1483.
He nailed his 95 theses to the door in 1517 (saved not long before that).
He was excommunicated in 1521.
He died in 1546.

That means that he was a Christian for only about 30 years in his lifetime.
When he wrote about the book of James he was much younger than that.
If one compares Luther's ministry as a true believer in Christ to that of many full time Christians today who have come from Christian homes, there is a great difference. He had much more to contend with. (and no access to the internet )

"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration. I can't find any difference in the Lutheran view of baptism and the Catholic view of baptism. So, a person CAN believe in baptismal regeneration and be saved, right? You did say that Luther ' got saved because he realized what the doctrine of justification by faith was'. Luther never changed his mind about the nature of baptism. This is confusing to me.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration.

And he was wrong about that, as he was about infant baptism -- and justification by faith alone.

 

[Walter]

And he was wrong about that, as he was about infant baptism -- and justification by faith alone.

DHK said Martin Luther was saved because he realized what the doctrine justification was. However, I believe he held to the same belief in the nature of baptism as the Catholic Church and the Lutheran synods down through their history.

Milby asked the question earlier in this thread if it were possible to be wrong about the nature of baptism and still be saved. If I understand DHK's positon correctly, much of the basis for him believing Catholics are not Christians is their belief in baptismal regeneration-which many churches other than the CC hold to.

 

[DHK]

Calling my reasoning shallow is an insult. I am taking James at his word. When I do that, I am called shallow, yet when literalists do the same concerning their pet issues, they are being faithful to the plain sense and meaning of scripture.

Quite telling!

If you want to talk about the theology of James, and even if the canonicity of the book, then Luther is not the place to look. Why use him as a source, when Jerome in the Latin Vulgate included it, when the Peshitta and Syriac translations dating back to ca. 150-200 A.D. included them. There are far more reliable and more ancient sources than Luther.

As far as the theology of the book, the purpose of James was different than the purpose of Paul. Paul wrote a doctrinal dissertation on soteriology. It is the doctrine of salvation explained thoroughly. He deals with the very important aspects of justification by faith, with the imputation of righteousness, with the atonement, and all of these important doctrines and ties them all in together.

James has a completely different purpose. His book is a practical book. Its theme is on practical Christian living--completely different than that of Paul. He speaks of having patience through tribulation, of asking for wisdom, of being doers of the word and not hearers only, of demonstrating your faith by your works, of controlling the tongue, of not being conformed to this world, warns the rich of the abuse of riches, speaks of healing of the sick. These are practical matters, not theological ones. The book is on practical Christian daily living; how to live successfully in this world as a believer.

The key in chapter two is this one.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James makes the challenge. True faith results in works. He will show the person his faith by his works. He saved by faith and faith alone. But his faith is demonstrated by his works.

Works is not a requirement for salvation. It is a consequence or a result of our faith in Christ. One who is truly saved by the blood of Christ will live a life that shows evidence of it.

 

[milby]

One who is truly saved by the blood of Christ will live a life that shows evidence of it.

How much evidence? A little bit? A lot of evidence? Some on sundays? circumstancial evidence? evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt?

 

[DHK]

"To put it most simply, the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of Baptism is to save. No one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, to 'be saved.' To be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil and to enter into the kingdom of Christ and live with him forever." -- Martin Luther (Quoted from The Large Catechism)

Martin Luther believed in baptismal regeneration. I can't find any difference in the Lutheran view of baptism and the Catholic view of baptism. So, a person CAN believe in baptismal regeneration and be saved, right? You did say that Luther ' got saved because he realized what the doctrine of justification by faith was'. Luther never changed his mind about the nature of baptism. This is confusing to me.

It is confusing to me too. He also brought a similar view of the mass with his view of constubstantiation as opposed to transubtantiation. It doesn't differ that much. Remember that he tried to reform the RCC from within before he was excommunicated. When he left he still had many of the beliefs of the RCC even though he had fought against much of its corruption and heresy.

Luther is not our guide. He is a fallible man who made many mistakes.
The Bible is our guide. It is not logical to say because one man believed in error therefore I can too. Why would a person conclude that?

 

[DHK]

How much evidence? A little bit? A lot of evidence? Some on sundays? circumstancial evidence? evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt?

The Bible says: "The Lord knows them that are his."
I am not God. God judges the heart.
The Bible also says: "You shall know them by their fruit."
In that passage he was talking about false prophets or teachers. The fruit does not refer to good works. It refers to doctrine, particularly false doctrine. One is required to be so grounded in the Word of God that they can spot false doctrine because of the truth that they do know after having studied God's Word.

I can spot the error of the RCC after having studied the Word of God. The same holds true of the J.W.'s, the Mormons, and many other cults. The Bible is my guide, my sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. It is not the catechism, but the Bible.

If a person is saved his life will be changed by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. That change will be evident. It will manifest itself in different ways.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If you want to talk about the theology of James, and even if the canonicity of the book, then Luther is not the place to look. Why use him as a source, when Jerome in the Latin Vulgate included it, when the Peshitta and Syriac translations dating back to ca. 150-200 A.D. included them. There are far more reliable and more ancient sources than Luther.

As far as the theology of the book, the purpose of James was different than the purpose of Paul. Paul wrote a doctrinal dissertation on soteriology. It is the doctrine of salvation explained thoroughly. He deals with the very important aspects of justification by faith, with the imputation of righteousness, with the atonement, and all of these important doctrines and ties them all in together.

James has a completely different purpose. His book is a practical book. Its theme is on practical Christian living--completely different than that of Paul. He speaks of having patience through tribulation, of asking for wisdom, of being doers of the word and not hearers only, of demonstrating your faith by your works, of controlling the tongue, of not being conformed to this world, warns the rich of the abuse of riches, speaks of healing of the sick. These are practical matters, not theological ones. The book is on practical Christian daily living; how to live successfully in this world as a believer.

The key in chapter two is this one.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

James makes the challenge. True faith results in works. He will show the person his faith by his works. He saved by faith and faith alone. But his faith is demonstrated by his works.

Works is not a requirement for salvation. It is a consequence or a result of our faith in Christ. One who is truly saved by the blood of Christ will live a life that shows evidence of it.

I agree with that, so what is your beef with my beliefs?

 

[milby]

I can spot the error of the RCC after having studied the Word of God. The same holds true of the J.W.'s, the Mormons, and many other cults. .

Are you saying that the RCC is in the same camp as J.W.'s and Mormons?

 

[DHK]

I agree with that, so what is your beef with my beliefs?

Oh, I don't know. Just giving you a hard time. :laugh:

 

[DHK]

Are you saying that the RCC is in the same camp as J.W.'s and Mormons?

Some do. I place them in the area of one of the larger false religions of the world outside of the realm of Christianity. Though there may be some Christians within the RCC, they are there in spite of the teaching of the RCC, and if they remain, they remain in disobedience and/or blindness to the truth of God's Word.

 

[JonC]

Some do. I place them in the area of one of the larger false religions of the world outside of the realm of Christianity. Though there may be some Christians within the RCC, they are there in spite of the teaching of the RCC, and if they remain, they remain in disobedience and/or blindness to the truth of God's Word.

:thumbs:

I've actually wrestled with the RCC as being a cult vs. cultic. The only thing positive is that someone may be saved in the RCC where I think of cults as so foregin to Christianity as to prevent salvation within their doctrine. The RCC itself, however, is foregin to NT Christianity (but this is evident within their "church," I don't think you'll find many RCC subjects who won't admit their departure from Scripture itself in favor of adherence to the doctrine of the RCC).

 

[OldRegular]

Are you saying that the RCC is in the same camp as J.W.'s and Mormons?

The RCC is correct on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. Beyond that they are so full of gross unscriptural error that were they not so large they would be considered a cult as are the JW and Mormons.

The JW reject the Triune nature of God. The RCC, with its adoration of Mary, is about as close to a doctrine of the holy quartet as they can get. To this heresy they have added:

1. Baptismal regeneration.
2. The false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
3. The false doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary.
4. The false doctrine of the seven sacraments with a role in salvation.
5. The false doctrine of purgatory.
6. The false doctrine of penance and absolution of sin by the priesthood..
7. The false doctrine that Peter is the first pope.
8. The false doctrine of the supremacy of the pope.
9. The false doctrine of the infallibility of the pope.
10. The false doctrine of the ascension of Mary.
11. The false doctrine of "super dooper earned merit" and sainthood.
12. The false doctrine of praying to the"Saints" and of course Mary.
13. The false doctrine that Mary is the mother of God rather than the mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ.
14. The false doctrine that outside the Roman Catholic Communion there is no Salvation. They avoid this teaching now but it is in the Canons of Trent and has never been disavowed.


I am tired!!!

I am going to repeat what I have said somewhere on this Board. I believe that God before the foundation of the world chose certain people to salvation in Jesus Christ, therefore, I have no doubt that there are many true believers in the RCC. They just need to obey Scripture and Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. [Revelation 18:4] However, sadly many are never exposed to Scripture and the truth! At one time possession of Scripture by the laity meant death.

 

[milby]

The RCC is correct on the doctrine of the Trinity and the Virgin Birth. Beyond that they are so full of gross unscriptural error that were they not so large they would be considered a cult as are the JW and Mormons.

The JW reject the Triune nature of God. The RCC, with its adoration of Mary, is about as close to a doctrine of the holy quartet as they can get. To this heresy they have added:

1. Baptismal regeneration.
2. The false doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary.
3. The false doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary.
4. The false doctrine of the seven sacraments with a role in salvation.
5. The false doctrine of purgatory.
6. The false doctrine of penance and absolution of sin by the priesthood..
7. The false doctrine that Peter is the first pope.
8. The false doctrine of the supremacy of the pope.
9. The false doctrine of the infallibility of the pope.
10. The false doctrine of the ascension of Mary.
11. The false doctrine of "super dooper earned merit" and sainthood.
12. The false doctrine of praying to the"Saints" and of course Mary.
13. The false doctrine that Mary is the mother of God rather than the mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ.
14. The false doctrine that outside the Roman Catholic Communion there is no Salvation. They avoid this teaching now but it is in the Canons of Trent .

Thats what I was always taught and believed too. But my dillema now is that the Catholic Church has an anwser with scripture usually to back up all of that.

We use scripture to back up what we believe too.

I believe I was saved when I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my personal saviour one night in a parking lot 12 years ago. If you knew me before you would definately be able to tell that I was "reborn". But now after studying the catholic faith, and becoming discouraged with church after protestant church and how they are becoming like the world in both worship and to reach the world, I have developed doubts that I am in the right christian camp.

Two weeks ago I was arguing with a Catholic friend trying to get him saved and now I am beginning to think maybe they are the ones that have it right.

I just want to know the truth. I have prayed and prayed about this. And for some reason I am being drawn to the Catholic church. Believe me it would be easier to just continue on like I have been but I need to know the truth.

Have you ever wondered why God didn't make it more clear on how to be saved and what he wanted us to do?

Well there you have it. I didn't mean to get so personal here, but that's where I'm at.

 

[Walter]

Thats what I was always taught and believed too. But my dillema now is that the Catholic Church has an anwser with scripture usually to back up all of that.

We use scripture to back up what we believe too.

I believe I was saved when I repented of my sins and accepted Jesus as my personal saviour one night in a parking lot 12 years ago. If you knew me before you would definately be able to tell that I was "reborn". But now after studying the catholic faith, and becoming discouraged with church after protestant church and how they are becoming like the world in both worship and to reach the world, I have developed doubts that I am in the right christian camp.

Two weeks ago I was arguing with a Catholic friend trying to get him saved and now I am beginning to think maybe they are the ones that have it right.

I just want to know the truth. I have prayed and prayed about this. And for some reason I am being drawn to the Catholic church. Believe me it would be easier to just continue on like I have been but I need to know the truth.

Have you ever wondered why God didn't make it more clear on how to be saved and what he wanted us to do?

Well there you have it. I didn't mean to get so personal here, but that's where I'm at.

My aunt, who was a Baptist for many years invited me to her confirmation a couple of years ago. Not long after that a cousin who was a Baptist missionary also became a Catholic. I had always thought I understood the doctrines of the Catholic Church much in the same way that 'Old Regular' does. My aunt gave me three books that presented the Catholic answers to those objectionable doctrines. As you said, they were scriptural answers. There are those on this board who will do there best to discourage you from reading what they call 'Catholic propaganda' or 'Catholic lies!'. I found it is obvious that the Eucharist is pre-figured in the Old Testament and that other teachings and doctrines are clearly found in scripture if you take the time to read 'that propaganda!' You know, when someone objects so vehemently about learning what the other side really believes and teaches I have to wonder why. The Jehovah's Witnesses forbid their members to read any religious material written about the Watchtower Society that isn't published by that organization. They use the 'why give Satan a foothold' too, just like
what I'm reading about Catholic publications on this board.

 

[DHK]

My aunt, who was a Baptist for many years invited me to her confirmation a couple of years ago. Not long after that a cousin who was a Baptist missionary also became a Catholic.

If she had become a J.W. then what would you have said?
I come to the same conclusion.

I had always thought I understood the doctrines of the Catholic Church much in the same way that 'Old Regular' does. My aunt gave me three books that presented the Catholic answers to those objectionable doctrines. As you said, they were scriptural answers.

Old Regular was right. They are not scriptural answers. Both Islam and the RCC has done much in the way of apologetics in recent years. They have become computer savvy. They are alarmed at the evangelical thrust more than they were before. The sleepy giant has woken up.
Islam published an article, Why Islam treats women better than any other religion of the World." How much credibility do you think it has? Perhaps none? Why? Because we know their track record on how they treat women--even to the extent of using them as human shields in war.

We also look to the past for the credibility of the RCC. How have they treated the Bible--they burned it, they kept it from the people, the Dark Ages ensued because of their actions. The various Inquisitions against Christians were gruesome and horrible. The Crusades, supposedly in the name of Christ, killing even other Christians does not speak of a track record of a Godly institution that I would put my trust in.

There are those on this board who will do there best to discourage you from reading what they call 'Catholic propaganda' or 'Catholic lies!'.

Are you talking about the Catholic doctrine that Peter calls "damnable heresies," that in the end sends people to hell if believed in because it so contrary to the Word of God.

I found it is obvious that the Eucharist is pre-figured in the Old Testament and that other teachings and doctrines are clearly found in scripture if you take the time to read 'that propaganda!'

There is no Eucharist in the Bible. It is non-existent. There is no mass.

You know, when someone objects so vehemently about learning what the other side really believes and teaches I have to wonder why. The Jehovah's Witnesses forbid their members to read any religious material written about the Watchtower Society that isn't published by that organization. They use the 'why give Satan a foothold' too, just like
like what I've read about reading Catholic publications on this board.

And we don't allow the publications of the J.W.'s for the same reason they don't allow ours. This is a Baptist Board, Walter. It is not here for the propagation of RCC material. If you can't figure that out, your time here will be short.