The Conservative Cave
Interests => Religious Discussions => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on April 07, 2009, 09:30:50 PM
-
Tony Blair has challenged the “entrenched†attitudes of the Pope on homosexuality, and argued that it is time for him to “rethink†his views.
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
Asked about the Pope’s stance, Mr Blair blamed generational differences and said: “We need an attitude of mind where rethinking and the concept of evolving attitudes becomes part of the discipline with which you approach your religious faith.â€
The Pope, who is 82, remains firmly opposed to any relaxation of the Church’s traditional stance on homosexuality, contraception or any other area of human sexuality. He has described homosexuality as a “tendency†towards an “intrinsic moral evilâ€.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6055696.ece
Why in the world would you call yourself a Catholic if you disagree with Catholic doctrine? I've planned on calling myself a liberal: a pro-life, anti-gay marriage, pro-gun, low taxes, big military liberal but that's only so I could mess with real liberals.
I've been told that rulers hiding behind the guise of religion were the most heinous connivers to be found. What does this make Blair?
srsly
-
It's tradition and truth Tony (two unyielding principles)..... you just don't understand, do you?
-
It's tradition and truth Tony (two unyielding principles)..... you just don't understand, do you?
No, he does not.
-
"evolving attitudes"??? Ok Tony, explain to me how God's attitude has evolved.
-
Actually, the pope needs instruction, but I don't think he will listen. He is a false teacher, and that ain't gonna change soon.
-
Actually, the pope needs instruction, but I don't think he will listen. He is a false teacher, and that ain't gonna change soon.
Ya know...
...I'm not a Christian; I'm pretty loathsome on the morality scale and not much is going to change about that but I have read the Bible, more than once and can carry on a conversation with the best of them...sympathetically towards the Christian crowd no less.
I'm also quite familiar with Catholic doctrine and history. Much of it leaves me cold. I don't think I could ever come to a place to call myself Catholic (woudl that Tony Blair could be so honest).
BUT
I have read Catholic authors from Augustine to Aquinas to Pascal to Chesterton and Tolkien.
To claim as you have that Catholicism is moribund is breathtaking in its short-sighted...to put it kindly. If Catholicism were as bankrupt as you make it out to be it could not have produced the minds I noted above as well as many others I failed to mention.
You may not agree with their observances and liturgy--neither do I--but if I understand Christianity correctly your salvation is not contingent upon a theology exam. You will not find yourself in a room with St Peter instructing everyone to get out their No. 2 pencils.
I also have a good number of Catholic friends and if you insult the faith in their hearts and their love of God I may find myself disposed to offer you what-for. You've made overtures to me in the past. Your words mean little mto me--you're only human after all--it's your deeds that I'm watching.
-
Ya know...
...I'm not a Christian; I'm pretty loathsome on the morality scale and not much is going to change about that but I have read the Bible, more than once and can carry on a conversation with the best of them...sympathetically towards the Christian crowd no less.
I'm also quite familiar with Catholic doctrine and history. Much of it leaves me cold. I don't think I could ever come to a place to call myself Catholic (woudl that Tony Blair could be so honest).
BUT
I have read Catholic authors from Augustine to Aquinas to Pascal to Chesterton and Tolkien.
To claim as you have that Catholicism is moribund is breathtaking in its short-sighted...to put it kindly. If Catholicism were as bankrupt as you make it out to be it could not have produced the minds I noted above as well as many others I failed to mention.
You may not agree with their observances and liturgy--neither do I--but if I understand Christianity correctly your salvation is not contingent upon a theology exam. You will not find yourself in a room with St Peter instructing everyone to get out their No. 2 pencils.
I also have a good number of Catholic friends and if you insult the faith in their hearts and their love of God I may find myself disposed to offer you what-for. You've made overtures to me in the past. Your words mean little mto me--you're only human after all--it's your deeds that I'm watching.
Yes, I am only human. But so is the pope. Why then does he make such arrogant claims for himself? Why does he say that he is the vicar of Christ? The head of the church? An infallible teacher?
I also admire Augustine, Pascal, etc. And I know that some of these worthy men did not hesitate to disagree publicly with the pope, because he was wrong. Can I be allowed to do likewise? Please? Since the time of Augustine, and the time of Pascal, the popes of gotten worse, not better.
Conservatives tend to have a blind spot where the popes are concerned, because the popes support their political positions. For example, the popes are pro-life and against gay marriage. But the glory of God and the eternal salvation of souls easily trump our political agenda. I am sure lots of people like the pope, and even love him. Some of these people are friends of yours, I guess. But that does not alter the facts: He is a false teacher, and has led millions astray. I would hope you would thank me for pointing that out. And, you would be doing your friends a favor, if you told them to not follow the pope.
-
I don't know of any Catholic that places any pope ahead of God, nor am I aware of any statement by this Pope--or any other for a good thousand years or so--claiming precedence over God.
-
Sam, you keep asserting that the Pope is a false teacher, please back it up with some examples. Listening.
-
Sam, you keep asserting that the Pope is a false teacher, please back it up with some examples. Listening.
The pope claims to be infallible when speaking on faith or morals. But Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the Bible demonstrates that even Peter was fallible.
The pope claims to be the head of the Church. But the Bible says only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
The pope claims that when the priest utters the eucharistic words, "This is my body," the bread in the Mass becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the bread should be worshiped, because it is Christ. But the Bible says that the body of Christ is in Heaven, and will remain there, until Christ returns in glory to judge the world.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
-
Sam, you keep asserting that the Pope is a false teacher, please back it up with some examples. Listening.
I would assume the thrust of his protests lie with:
Why then does he make such arrogant claims for himself? Why does he say that he is the vicar of Christ? The head of the church? An infallible teacher?
Alas, it is with no small amount of irony that I note that the complaint of arrogance seems laden with unqualified amounts of self-satisfaction.
-
The pope claims to be infallible when speaking on faith or morals. But Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the Bible demonstrates that even Peter was fallible.
The pope claims to be the head of the Church. But the Bible says only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
The pope claims that when the priest utters the eucharistic words, "This is my body," the bread in the Mass becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the bread should be worshiped, because it is Christ. But the Bible says that the body of Christ is in Heaven, and will remain there, until Christ returns in glory to judge the world.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Someone puts too much faith in his Chick tracts.
-
The pope claims to be infallible when speaking on faith or morals. But Pope Honorius I was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and the Bible demonstrates that even Peter was fallible.
The pope claims to be the head of the Church. But the Bible says only Jesus Christ is the head of the Church.
The pope claims that when the priest utters the eucharistic words, "This is my body," the bread in the Mass becomes the literal body of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the bread should be worshiped, because it is Christ. But the Bible says that the body of Christ is in Heaven, and will remain there, until Christ returns in glory to judge the world.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
I do think that you are attributing the concept of infallibilty as being something one of the popes dreamt up or suddenly appearing in Church doctrine. In order to see things from a Catholic point of view, you need to accept the concept of a living and visible Church on earth, established by Christ. It was Christ's mandate to this Church to teach everything he taught and he promised the protection of the Holy Spirit in that endeavor.
-
Someone puts too much faith in his Chick tracts.
That is a little unfair. What I have done is to show you a few well-established Catholic dogmas and to critique them in the light of the Bible. I don't own any Chick tracts and I don't read them.
-
I do think that you are attributing the concept of infallibilty as being something one of the popes dreamt up or suddenly appearing in Church doctrine. In order to see things from a Catholic point of view, you need to accept the concept of a living and visible Church on earth, established by Christ. It was Christ's mandate to this Church to teach everything he taught and he promised the protection of the Holy Spirit in that endeavor.
The doctrine of the pope's infallibility was debated at the Vatican I Council in 1870. Seventy bishops voted against it, because they knew it was baloney. It passed on the next ballot. Then "the Old Catholics" left the Roman Catholic Church, because they also knew it was baloney.
I believe in the living and visible Church. I believe the Holy Spirit resides in the Church. I believe the Church has a responsibility to teach all that Christ taught. None of that requires an infallible pope.
-
I would assume the thrust of his protests lie with:
Alas, it is with no small amount of irony that I note that the complaint of arrogance seems laden with unqualified amounts of self-satisfaction.
You can do better than that.
-
Speaking to the gay magazine Attitude, the former Prime Minister, himself now a Roman Catholic, said that he wanted to urge religious figures everywhere to reinterpret their religious texts to see them as metaphorical, not literal, and suggested that in time this would make all religious groups accept gay people as equals.
In other words "Make it mean what I want it to mean!" :whatever:
-
You can do better than that.
No, that's pretty much it.
If you want to drag it out we can and I think you probably imagine yourself well enough equipped for such a discussion...which feeds into my contention that you are what you profess to condemn but I won't defend Catholic doctrine because I'm not interested in papal motes.
-
The doctrine of the pope's infallibility was debated at the Vatican I Council in 1870. Seventy bishops voted against it, because they knew it was baloney. It passed on the next ballot. Then "the Old Catholics" left the Roman Catholic Church, because they also knew it was baloney.
I believe in the living and visible Church. I believe the Holy Spirit resides in the Church. I believe the Church has a responsibility to teach all that Christ taught. None of that requires an infallible pope.
The Pope is human as you point out. However, the idea (whether you agree or not) is to provide a human leader to the church to keep things in line so to speak. Jesus called Peter the rock, and said that upon him he'd build his church. He promised us a church, not a book. (And yes, I do read the bible and believe in it). Anyway, the bible says he gave Peter the "keys to the kingdom".
The Pope is going by 2,000 years of church doctrine. Vatican itself has to be the one to make new rules, not particularly a Pope. A Pope having an opinion isn't really enough to change the rules of the church. For example, Pope John Paul II took a stand against the death penalty. Many Catholics thought they needed to be against it because of it. This was flawed thinking. This was not based on 2,000 year doctrine or necessarily other bishops' words.
I'm not sure if I've explained this well.
-
Regarding the OP, I realize it's hard to understand why one who doesn't completely agree with Catholicism would convert. I do think it's possible for the church to reconsider some things after a while because they have changed their minds on some things before. For example, they decided to stop declaring that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus after the holocaust. The second Vatican involves a heck of a lot of changes to the church. It is possible. However, I respect the idea of their not changing because a liberal (or a conservative for that matter depending on the subject) wants them to.
-
Well now, Mr. Adams, sir, I would be somewhat hesitant about being negative towards what is the oldest, longest-lasting, still-extant formal social-political-religious organization in the world, going back nearly 2000 years.
If something lasts for a long time, that usually means it's of some benefit to humanity.
Things that aren't any good, usually evaporate after a while.
Something tells me that long after franksolich and Sam Adams are dust, and our dust is dust, such an institution will still be very much alive, flourishing and prospering.
This isn't to argue the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity, because neither of us are theologians.
It's just to point out that things exist for a Purpose, and if they last for a very long time, it's obvious their Purpose and works are of some benefit to humanity.
-
No, that's pretty much it.
If you want to drag it out we can and I think you probably imagine yourself well enough equipped for such a discussion...which feeds into my contention that you are what you profess to condemn but I won't defend Catholic doctrine because I'm not interested in papal motes.
I stand corrected.
-
Well now, Mr. Adams, sir, I would be somewhat hesitant about being negative towards what is the oldest, longest-lasting, still-extant formal social-political-religious organization in the world, going back nearly 2000 years.
If something lasts for a long time, that usually means it's of some benefit to humanity.
Things that aren't any good, usually evaporate after a while.
Something tells me that long after franksolich and Sam Adams are dust, and our dust is dust, such an institution will still be very much alive, flourishing and prospering.
This isn't to argue the differences between Roman Catholicism and Protestant Christianity, because neither of us are theologians.
It's just to point out that things exist for a Purpose, and if they last for a very long time, it's obvious their Purpose and works are of some benefit to humanity.
Actually, I AM a theologian. But that does not make what I am saying true or valid.
The Church of Rome has changed radically over the past 2,000 years. In fact, the changes have been so radical that it would be a mistake to affirm it is the same church. The first bishops of Rome would have been ridiculed for suggesting that they were infallible teachers, for example. And they would have deserved that ridicule. The best analogy I can think of is to say that President Obama is as unlike President Washington as Pope Benedict XVI is unlike Pope Leo I. But even that is understating the case. To say that the Church of Rome has lasted almost 2,000 years is to repeat a widely held, but misleading, assertion.
A thing can last a very long time without being beneficial. Islam is a great plague on mankind, yet it has lasted a long time. I suppose one could argue that a few people have somehow benefited from it, but the world would be better off without that grand delusion. The same is true for much of what the Church of Rome is and does.
-
Ah, but Mr. Adams, everything changes over time.
The only Constant is God, Eternal and Unchanging.
The Church of Rome right this minute is evolving in new directions. The Church of Rome moves with the speed of a glacier, but at the same time, the Church of Rome has always been ahead of everybody else.
John XXIII (1958-1963) was the last "European" pope; Paul VI (1963-1978) intuitively sensed a change, and looked to Asia. And then John Paul II (1978-2005) widened that vision, expanding into Africa and the long-neglected Latin America. Benedict XVI (2005-) has recognized the Islamic world (although probably for confrontation, not cultivation, confrontation in this sense being necessary).
lt's been a very long time since any pope has paid attention to the western world (i.e., Roman Catholics of European derivation), other than in the token sense, a few visits here and there. It's probably because some Wisdom granted visionaries prompted them to see the old fruit was getting rotten, and it was time to cultivate this new, richer, fruit.
Everything changes over time.
Only God is the Same, yesterday, today, tomorrow.
-
Ah, but Mr. Adams, everything changes over time.
The only Constant is God, Eternal and Unchanging.
The Church of Rome right this minute is evolving in new directions. The Church of Rome moves with the speed of a glacier, but at the same time, the Church of Rome has always been ahead of everybody else.
John XXIII (1958-1963) was the last "European" pope; Paul VI (1963-1978) intuitively sensed a change, and looked to Asia. And then John Paul II (1978-2005) widened that vision, expanding into Africa and the long-neglected Latin America. Benedict XVI (2005-) has recognized the Islamic world (although probably for confrontation, not cultivation, confrontation in this sense being necessary).
lt's been a very long time since any pope has paid attention to the western world (i.e., Roman Catholics of European derivation), other than in the token sense, a few visits here and there. It's probably because some Wisdom granted visionaries prompted them to see the old fruit was getting rotten, and it was time to cultivate this new, richer, fruit.
Everything changes over time.
Only God is the Same, yesterday, today, tomorrow.
I agree to some extent. God alone does not change.
And I also agree that the Church of Rome has changed. That was really the point I made in one or two of my previous posts.
However, I hope you will notice two things. First, many of the apologists for the Roman Catholic Church deny any significant changes. They say, in effect, "the Church has always taught this." For example, no one before 1100 AD taught that there are seven sacraments. Yet, we hear, "the Church has always taught this." The infallibility of the popes was very much in doubt before the First Vatican Council in 1870, especially since some have been notorious heretics. Yet, "the Church always taught this."
Second, change can be for the better, or it can be for the worse. I contend that most of the significant changes that have taken place in the Church of Rome in the last thousand years have been for the worse. In fact, most of them have made the Church of Rome much worse. (That's the reason the Protestant Reformation was necessary.) But to truly and finally settle such questions, we must judge the Church of Rome by some standard. The only standard that should matter to Christians is the Bible, because it alone is the infallible word of God. Yet, submitting to the judgment of the word of God is precisely what most adherents to the Roman Catholic Church are unwilling to do.
-
Oh now, Mr. Adams.
The essential basic fundamental elementary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are:
(a) that God is the "First Cause" of all things, the "spark" that ignites;
(b) that the most important commandment is that one love God; loving one's neighbor is only the second, despite what the primitives might think; and
(c) that the Life and Death of Jesus Christ provide mortal humans the means to Eternal Salvation, and in fact the only means.
And so I am confused.
Where does this contradict Protestant theology?
It seems to me all things other than (a), (b), and (c) are simply disagreement over trifles.
-
Oh now, Mr. Adams.
The essential basic fundamental elementary teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are:
(a) that God is the "First Cause" of all things, the "spark" that ignites;
(b) that the most important commandment is that one love God; loving one's neighbor is only the second, despite what the primitives might think; and
(c) that the Life and Death of Jesus Christ provide mortal humans the means to Eternal Salvation, and in fact the only means.
And so I am confused.
Where does this contradict Protestant theology?
It seems to me all things other than (a), (b), and (c) are simply disagreement over trifles.
(a), (b), and (c) do not contradict Protestant Theology.
However, I do not think all other things are trifles. In fact, some of these other things are very important.
A typicial Protestant would say that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. A typical Roman Catholic would deny this. To say that the life and death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible is true, as far as it goes. But such a statement does not tell us what we need to know, namely, what must we do to be saved?
Another important difference: What is the final authority for the Christian? Protestants say the Bible is the infallible, authoritative, final and sufficient word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says that, while the Bible is inspired, we should have an implicit faith in the official Church of which the pope is the head and teacher.
-
A typicial Protestant would say that sinners are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. A typical Roman Catholic would deny this. To say that the life and death of Jesus Christ makes salvation possible is true, as far as it goes. But such a statement does not tell us what we need to know, namely, what must we do to be saved?
I suspect this confusion stems from that for whatever reasons long ago lost in history, the Roman Catholic Church tended to stress "good works" over acceptance of Christ, perhaps making it seem being a "good" person could by itself earn one Eternal Salvation.
It wasn't the government building all of those hospitals, colleges, orphanages, hospices, &c., &c., &c., during the Dark and Middle Ages, and clear into circa the middle of the 19th century.
And so it may have been easy to construe Catholic theology as stressing charity over faith, when it comes to Eternal Salvation.
But the real deal is, going "good works" is meant to enrich one in this time and place, this life, while acceptance of Jesus Christ is meant to earn one Eternal Salvation.
Another important difference: What is the final authority for the Christian? Protestants say the Bible is the infallible, authoritative, final and sufficient word of God. The Roman Catholic Church says that, while the Bible is inspired, we should have an implicit faith in the official Church of which the pope is the head and teacher.
The Bible of course is the final authority.
The Bible however is a very complex thing, and most humans (and all primitives) have not the intellectual and spiritual means to understand it fully, even if one does nothing all his life but read and attempt to interpret the Bible.
For Roman Catholics, the role of the Church is as "teacher" of the Bible.
One should not think too lightly of Popes and Cardinals; even during the most depraved days of Roman Catholicism, these tended to be guys well educated, with extensive knowledge of human languages live and extinct, with ample access to voluminous material. These were, and are, not ordinary people.
This is the same thing as when I was 15 years old, learning how to drive, and the parents instructed "don't drink and drive," advice which I, happily, followed. The parents knew, and understood, a great many things I didn't, and so it was just best to take their word.
-
I suspect this confusion stems from that for whatever reasons long ago lost in history, the Roman Catholic Church tended to stress "good works" over acceptance of Christ, perhaps making it seem being a "good" person could by itself earn one Eternal Salvation.
But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.
Protestants and Roman Catholics have made their respective positions abundantly clear. These positions are documented in hundreds of well-considered confessions, creeds, and theological writings. It's not like some sort of great miscommunication has taken place. Protestantism and Romanism are two completely different systems. I sense you may be trying to minimize those differences. I respectfully suggest that this is a mistake.
It wasn't the government building all of those hospitals, colleges, orphanages, hospices, &c., &c., &c., during the Dark and Middle Ages, and clear into circa the middle of the 19th century.
True enough.
And so it may have been easy to construe Catholic theology as stressing charity over faith, when it comes to Eternal Salvation.
But the real deal is, going "good works" is meant to enrich one in this time and place, this life, while acceptance of Jesus Christ is meant to earn one Eternal Salvation.
Actually, no one earns eternal salvation. Salvation is not something one works for, or merits. It is a free gift. And good works flow from a life that has been changed by that grace. And good works will be rewarded in the next life.
The Bible of course is the final authority.
Most Roman Catholic theologians would strenuously disagree with you. The authority of the Roman Catholic Church depends on the notion that the Church, not the Bible, is the final authority.
One should not think too lightly of Popes and Cardinals; even during the most depraved days of Roman Catholicism, these tended to be guys well educated, with extensive knowledge of human languages live and extinct, with ample access to voluminous material. These were, and are, not ordinary people.
In some cases, this is certainly true. But in other cases, the popes were very ordinary people, and some were worse than ordinary. Pope Alexander VI and Pope Julius II were terrible people, for example.
-
But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.
Here I think you are mistaken. The teachings of Jesus were to do for your fellow man.
Acceptance of Jesus as "proof" of an after-life, in a sense, is easy. Giving up material things to help others, even to your own possible detriment, is a bit harder, especially in the times of Jesus, IE: rich man through the eye of a needle.
-
But only faith in Christ saves. The Roman Catholic stress on good works, over faith, has the effect of misleading souls. Millions of people have gone to eternal damnation, because they trusted in good works, instead of Christ. That's a serious problem.
I think that's an over-simplification that should be beneath someone of your professed credentials. I'm sure even run-of-the-mill Catholics would leap to offer the defense that no amount of faithless works can save a soul. So if faithless works are impotent works cannot possibly be claimed to hold ascendancy over faith thus discounting your assertion.
Conversely, how about lazy protestants who have no work to show for their presumed faith? The epistle of James would take umbrage with that sort but it would be a stretch to claim James put works over faith.
And if works hold such a distant second as you seem to imply perhaps your savior would have been better served by simply having faith in his crucifixion rather than actually enduring the "work" thereof.
-
Actually, no one earns eternal salvation. Salvation is not something one works for, or merits. It is a free gift. And good works flow from a life that has been changed by that grace. And good works will be rewarded in the next life.
You're right on this, sir; it was a quickness of writing that led me to use "earn" rather than "receive [as a gift]". It is a gift.
-
I think that's an over-simplification that should be beneath someone of your professed credentials. I'm sure even run-of-the-mill Catholics would leap to offer the defense that no amount of faithless works can save a soul. So if faithless works are impotent works cannot possibly be claimed to hold ascendancy over faith thus discounting your assertion.
Conversely, how about lazy protestants who have no work to show for their presumed faith? The epistle of James would take umbrage with that sort but it would be a stretch to claim James put works over faith.
And if works hold such a distant second as you seem to imply perhaps your savior would have been better served by simply having faith in his crucifixion rather than actually enduring the "work" thereof.
Your earlier posts indicated a lack of seriousness and a tendency to engage in personal attacks, so I decline to respond.
-
Your earlier posts indicated a lack of seriousness and a tendency to engage in personal attacks, so I decline to respond.
I only respond in kind. Your dismissive insults earned you your keep. Fact is you owe big apologies to a lot of people for your demonstrably false claim (see post, above); people I consider friends.
If you want to be taken seriously you should act seriously...not indignant and insulting.
PS - nice witness you got going on there. Should I be like you?
-
I only respond in kind. Your dismissive insults earned you your keep. Fact is you owe big apologies to a lot of people for your demonstrably false claim (see post, above); people I consider friends.
If you want to be taken seriously you should act seriously...not indignant and insulting.
PS - nice witness you got going on there. Should I be like you?
This may be just a crazy idea from an ignorant Catholic, but I do believe that Satan is as evil as God is benevolent. Whenever Christians attack each other, I know that this cannot be something that pleases the Lord. I do think Satan chuckles while Christians eat their own and destroy Christ's church by their own hands ...
-
This may be just a crazy idea from an ignorant Catholic, but I do believe that Satan is as evil as God is benevolent. Whenever Christians attack each other, I know that this cannot be something that pleases the Lord. I do think Satan chuckles while Christians eat their own and destroy Christ's church by their own hands ...
That's not crazy. Good observation. H5
-
That's not carzy. Good observation. H5
An interesting face-saving gesture.
You'd make a good politician.
-
Here I think you are mistaken. The teachings of Jesus were to do for your fellow man.
Acceptance of Jesus as "proof" of an after-life, in a sense, is easy. Giving up material things to help others, even to your own possible detriment, is a bit harder, especially in the times of Jesus, IE: rich man through the eye of a needle.
I agree that good works are important. What I reject is the idea that good works can contribute to our justification, or earn forgiveness from God. Jeremiah said, "All our righteous acts are as filthy rags."
Good works follow justification and forgiveness. They do not cause either. The Christian life is the life of a sinner who has been saved by God's grace, through faith alone in Christ alone, and then does good works in response to God's grace. Christians are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone--saving faith (as opposed to a dead, worthless faith) is always accompanied by good works.
-
I agree that good works are important. What I reject is the idea that good works can contribute to our justification, or earn forgiveness from God. Jeremiah said, "All our righteous acts are as filthy rags."
Good works follow justification and forgiveness. They do not cause either. The Christian life is the life of a sinner who has been saved by God's grace, through faith alone in Christ alone, and then does good works in response to God's grace. Christians are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone--saving faith (as opposed to a dead, worthless faith) is always accompanied by good works.
I would be very surprised if you found any Christian of any denomination, provided that he had at least basic spiritual understanding, who would disagree with that.
This entire thread is reminding me of some Religion classes I had in college, people aren't really disagreeing, but the way that they are expressing themselves is making it seem like a disagreement.
-
I would be very surprised if you found any Christian of any denomination, provided that he had at least basic spiritual understanding, who would disagree with that.
This entire thread is reminding me of some Religion classes I had in college, people aren't really disagreeing, but the way that they are expressing themselves is making it seem like a disagreement.
Roman Catholics disagree with the doctrine that salvation is by faith alone. And most protestants do not agree that the pope is infallible, or that Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus, or that the bread and the wine in the Mass are transubstantiated into the physical body of Christ.
Yeah, sometimes there's a miscommunication going on. But not always.