pritybetta says "catholics are not christians...

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]I never appealed to tradition as an authority in itself, so there is nothing circular in my reasoning. You're the one who's (bizarrely) appealing to tradition. My answer to your question, if you remember, was, "yes, scripture is self-validating."

If you are not appealing to some tradition, then you still need to explain how you know that scriptu crees, you must explain why you recognise these books as "God-breathed" and not others.[/b]

Church councils only decreed that such and such books were "God-breathed" and that other books were not; they did not claim to give authority but to recognise that such books already had authority. Only you equivocate on this point. If you reject the authority of these decrees, you must explain why you recognise these books as "God-breathed" and not others.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. You admit that the RCC didn't give the inspired books their authority, and instead merely recognized their authority. I don't reject the decrees, what I reject is the notion that merely recognizing the authority of the inspired books somehow means the RCC "gave us the Bible". It didn't. Claiming as much would be a case of historical revisionism.

The RCC, after all, was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years after the apostles. The Christian church was under persecution and official church gatherings were risky business in the Roman Empire. Catholicism as an organization with a central figure located in Rome did not occur for quite some time.

It is one thing for the RCC to officially recognize the authority of the apostles' writings, handed down for several generations since Peter and Paul walked the earth. It is quite another thing for the RCC to begin sanctioning all manner of practices foreign to scripture and even in direct conflict with scripture.

For instance, the RCC teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured, yet 1 John 5:13 states that the letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the CERTAINTY of their salvation: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God." Or, another example, the RCC teaches that believers are saved by meritorious works and that salvation is maintained by good works, but the Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). And on, and on...

It may not be decreed by the RCC that "sacred tradition" has greater authority than scripture, but in practice it certainly does.

If the "sacred tradition" of the RCC gains its supposed authority from the tradition endorsed by the apostles, that still doesn't justify the sanctioning of new traditions thousands of years later - especially when those traditions are in direct conflict with scripture. The truth is, any so-called "sacred tradition" in conflict with the apostles original writings does not carry its own weight of authority - because it is the tradition of men, not God.

If the Bible is not used to verify and test "sacred tradition", then "sacred tradition" is functionally independent of the Word of God. Furthermore, "sacred tradition" is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, which in some cases it does.
__________

How do you justify giving tradition itself (i.e., the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs) authority in itself, since it has no basis after the apostles left the earth? I can understand adopting certain traditional practices in use during the time of the apostles, or developing new traditions substantiated by the writings of the apostles, but giving tradition authority in itself (upper-cased Tradition) can only give rise to unbiblical declarations as testaments to such an error of equivocation. For example, the Council of Trent took place in the 1500's, thousands of years after the apostles, and its decrees directly contradict scripture.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Church councils only decreed that such and such books were "God-breathed" and that other books were not; they did not claim to give authority but to recognise that such books already had authority. Only you equivocate on this point. If you reject the authority of these decrees, you must explain why you recognise these books as "God-breathed" an rs after the apostles, and its decrees directly contradict scripture.[/b]

what I reject is the notion that merely recognizing the authority of the inspired books somehow means the RCC "gave us the Bible". It didn't. Claiming as much would be a case of historical revisionism.

I disagree. But firstly, it is probably anachronistic to talk about the RCC so early in Christian history. Many Eastern churches were involved in the period when the bible developed and there was, largely, undivided communion.

I believe the early (pre-schism) church gave the bible. The current canon that we acknowledge today (although I suspect that your bible will have less books than mine) was not universally recognised in the early church. It was not until the late second century that we have evidence that someone took the four gospels as the authoritative records (as opposed to other gospels). Then there are the Antilegomena (such as Revelations) of which the authenticity has always been dubious and their inclusion in the code of books contentious. It was a selective process and it was not until the four century that there was a canon that even resembled the one we have now. The early church really did give us the bible; from an array of rival manuscripts, it eventually decided on a very controversial corpus of works.

The RCC, after all, was not really in effect as an organization in the first couple hundred years after the apostles.

See, this is why I reject the use of the RCC and prefer to say "early church", as the historical process of choosing the books was a collaborative project shared between many communities.

It is one thing for the RCC to officially recognize the authority of the apostles' writings, handed down for several generations since Peter and Paul walked the earth. It is quite another thing for the RCC to begin sanctioning all manner of practices foreign to scripture and even in direct conflict with scripture.

Yes, but it is only by the early church that we would even think that the books of the bible should be written by the apostles. Most scriptural scholars do not believe that Luke met Paul on the journey to Antioch and from whom he was able to gather writings to write the gospels (the evidence is so implausible on the presumption that since Luke knew some medical terminology, he must have been the doctor who accompanied Paul.) Only by lending authority to tradition could you be entitled to thinking that Luke had connection to the Apostle Paul.

For instance, the RCC teaches that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured, yet ...

I will have to get back to you on that, both on this claim about RCC dogma and the (somewhat superficial -- no offence!) exegesis of John.


Or, another example, the RCC teaches that believers are saved by meritorious works and that salvation is maintained by good works, but the Bible states that Christians are saved by grace through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians 3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). And on, and on...

Not so simple as that. The Catholic Church does not teach salvation by works alone -- this resembles the heresy of Pelagianism which the Church explicitly condemns. As I understand, the standard Catholic response is that work and faith are a necessary whole: no one can achieve salvation without faith (which is a supernatural grace granted by God alone) and, as we are free to reject that grace, only by cooperation with the graces can such salvation be achieved (the work).

There are also many Catholics who regard the "work" and "faith" reading as an abnormal distinction that Protestants impose on the scripture and is not consistent with the body of Pauline writings. The Catholic Church has largely been silent on this issue and has not taken any dogmatic stance in response, preferring scholarship to win out in the end.

If the Bible is not used to verify and test "sacred tradition", then "sacred tradition" is functionally independent of the Word of God.

Yes, definitely. but unless you can find an alternative to tradition, you are unable to explain why you should recognise the authority of scripture, how it has historical veracity, how you know that it is the Word of God.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Church councils only decreed that such and such books were "God-breathed" and that other books were not; they did not claim to give authority but to recognise that such books already had authority. Only you equivocate on this point. If you reject the authority of these decrees, you must explain why you recognise these books as "God-breathed" an rs after the apostles, and its decrees directly contradict scripture.[/b]

How do you justify giving tradition itself (i.e., the handing down of information, beliefs, and customs) authority in itself, since it has no basis after the apostles left the earth? I can understand adopting certain traditional practices in use during the time of the apostles, or developing new traditions substantiated by the writings of the apostles, but giving tradition authority in itself (upper-cased Tradition) can only give rise to unbiblical declarations as testaments to such an error of equivocation. For example, the Council of Trent took place in the 1500's, thousands of years after the apostles, and its decrees directly contradict scripture.

I didn't see this part, so I will respond to that now. For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, there is the idea of apostolic succession (and there is biblical evidence to substantiate the idea that the apostle's could appoint apostle's to replace others, i.e. Acts and the election of Mattias.) The idea is that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church; it did not just abandon the Apostles after their deaths and leave the infant church to decide scripture and doctrinal matters alone. Over years, many heretical ideas (unsupported by tradition or scripture) challenged the prevailing ideas of the Church (such as Pelagianism, which I mentioned before) and the Apostolic successors (the bishops) have invoked their Apostolic powers to settle these matters. As these challenges continue to arise, the Church responds to them and the tradition grows.

And I doubt that Catholics would concede so lightly that the charge that the Council of Trent directly contradicted scritpure.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]what I reject is the notion that merely recognizing the authority of the inspired books somehow means the RCC "gave us the Bible". It didn't. Claiming as much would be a case of historical revisionism.

I disagree. But firstly, it is probably anachronistic to talk about the RCC so early in Christian history. Many Eastern churches were involved in cripture, how it has historical veracity, how you know that it is the Word of God.[/b]

As I understand, the standard Catholic response is that work and faith are a necessary whole: no one can achieve salvation without faith (which is a supernatural grace granted by God alone) and, as we are free to reject that grace, only by cooperation with the graces can such salvation be achieved (the work).

This, of course, sounds reasonable. But, "achieving" grace? I believe that's called an oxymoron. Consider the following:

"No one can MERIT the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can MERIT for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods," (Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), par. 2027).

The problem here is that the RCC is teaching us to "merit for ourselves and for others all the graces need to attain eternal life." But you cannot merit grace. By definition, grace is unmerited favor. Merit is, according to the CCC, par. 2006, "...the recompense owed by a community or a society for the action of one of its members, experienced either as beneficial or harmful, deserving reward or punishment..." CCC 2006. This means that merit is something owed. By contrast, grace is something not owed. Therefore, the RCC is teaching contrary to God's word regarding grace and justification.

The sad result is that in Roman Catholicism, justification before God is a process that is maintained by the effort and works of the Roman Catholic. Ironically, the burden of works-righteousness makes people less likely to live holy lives. When your slave-master is the law, people tend to want to reduce the law's demands upon themselves. Thus, you have Catholics (such as the majority of both sides of my family, and many of my friends and their Catholic families as well) who go to mass, go through the motions, and go right back to drinking alcohol in excess, engaging in sexual abuse, indulging in pornography, etc.. - all with a clear conscience, as if this were part of Jesus' plan.

How are people going to identify if they are indeed saved or not, if they rely upon the false security of works? The holy life Christ talks about is not simply 'doing more good than bad', rather it is a spirit of holiness. A dead faith is equally exhibited in the man who works for his righteousness as in the man who lives an ungodly life and merely 'believes' (both errors wrought by works-righteousness).

The truth is, that the faith which brings with it justification is a living faith which also simultaneously inspires a holy life (turning from sin, doing good works, obeying God's will, etc.). That type of justification by faith alone cannot be merited, and therefore cannot be lost.

__________

The Bible attests to this necessary reality:

"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly," (Gal. 2:21).

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law," (Rom. 3:28).

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness," (Rom. 4:3).

"But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness," (Rom. 4:5).

"Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ," (Rom. 5:1).

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]As I understand, the standard Catholic response is that work and faith are a necessary whole: no one can achieve salvation without faith (which is a supernatural grace granted by God alone) and, as we are free to reject that grace, only by cooperation with the graces can such salvation be achieved (the work).

This, of course, sounds reasonable. th; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God," (Eph. 2:8).[/b]

This, of course, sounds reasonable. But, "achieving" grace? I believe that's called an oxymoron.

To clarify: grace is a freely given gift from God; it is not something achieved. Perhaps we have different soteriological understandings of what "salvation" constitutes, but the provisional definition I will employ is that salvation is the redemption from sin and assurance of heaven -- that is something that I will contend can be achieved.

The problem here is that the RCC is teaching us to "merit for ourselves and for others all the graces need to attain eternal life." But you cannot merit grace.

Thankyou for referring to the catechism. Often when I try to discuss Catholic doctrine with other contributors on this forum, their utter disregard for the Catechism as a primer of the faith renders any exchange impossible; they wilfully maintain prejudiced notions of Catholic faith without interest in whether the Catechism substantiates it. So I congratule you for the intellectual integrity to explore the catechism prior to criticism of Catholic doctrine.

But I think you have misread this passage. The idea articulated in article 2027 is that God gives the initial grace of faith, which is a totally unmerited gift, and only when moved by the Holy Spirit does man merit more grace. Of course, the Catholic Church acknowledges that man never really merits anything because that would suggest a fundamental inequality between God and man, in which man could impose duties on God. As the Catechism explains,

(2007) "With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator."

Merit, however, is a feature of the divine nature which recognises justice: rewarding good and punishing evil. It would not make sense for a benevolent God to deprive good people of grace; nor would it be just to bestow the graces on people who reject them by evil actions -- just as it would be unjust to condemn the good to hell but pardon the evil in heaven. So when the Catholic Church teaches that man merits grace, it means that by His own love for justice, God rewards men with more grace when they cooperate with the initial grace given to them.

Ironically, the burden of works-righteousness makes people less likely to live holy lives. When your slave-master is the law, people tend to want to reduce the law's demands upon themselves. Thus, you have Catholics ... who go to mass, go through the motions, and go right back to drinking alcohol in excess, engaging in sexual abuse, indulging in pornography, etc.. - all with a clear conscience, as if this were part of Jesus' plan.

I have no objection to this. Neither I nor the Catechism have articulated the theological position that a Christian can achieve righteousness by work alone. As I explained in a previous post, this is the heresy of Pelagianism which holds that man can achieve righteousness by his own will and without the graces; that he can overcome the effects of original sin, namely concupiscence (such as the temptations, which you allude to, of pornography and alcohol), by his disciplined will. The Catholic Church categorically condemned this a millennium ago.

As the Catholic Church has taught since, work is insufficient alone to achieve salvation. God's sanctifying grace forms an essential component in the salvation of each person; however, only through cooperation with that grace, can that salvation be achieved. We cooperate with grace in one way: a moral life. Under the Thomistic formulation, a moral life is a life which does good and avoids evil; in the contemporary language, we say a moral life commits actions of virtue and avoids mortal sins. But as the condemnation of Pelagianism shows, a moral life would in itself be insufficient to achieve salvation (for much the same reasons as you give); it is only by grace and a moral life is salvation properly achieved. You cannot have one without the other.

A dead faith is equally exhibited in the man who works for his righteousness as in the man who lives an ungodly life and merely 'believes' (both errors wrought by works-righteousness).

And as I said, the Catholic Church condemns the view that an ungodly life can remain righteous by works; this is the heresy of Pelagianism. In the Protestant-Catholic argy-bargy, the focus of debate has never been a false dichotomy between faith and work; the focus has been whether faith alone or faith and works. The latter is the position that Catholic adopted while the former is the typical Protestant notion.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]This, of course, sounds reasonable. But, "achieving" grace? I believe that's called an oxymoron.

To clarify: grace is a freely given gift from God; it is not something achieved. Perhaps we have different soteriological understandings of what "salvation" constitutes, but the provisional definition I will employ is that salvation is the redemptio ...[text shortened]... position that Catholic adopted while the former is the typical Protestant notion.[/b]

So, we're saying the exact same thing two different ways?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So, we're saying the exact same thing two different ways?

Yes, unless you want to contend the typical Protestant stance that it is faith alone which gains salvation.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So, we're saying the exact same thing two different ways?

I am all for the Faith + Works theory.
Im not sure where you stand now Epi but I know that there are many that think that 'once saved always saved'. That means Faith is the only requirement. Works is optional.

I also think that Christ prefers more works than faith ... meaning ... someone who does good works but does not know the gospel is preferable to someone who demonstrates faith only (if thats possible) in the sense of outward demonstration of faith without works. I dont necessarily think that non-christians are doomed as many believe.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Yes, unless you want to contend the typical Protestant stance that it is faith alone which gains salvation.

God's sanctifying grace forms an essential component in the salvation of each person; however, only through cooperation with that grace, can that salvation be achieved.

You're still talking about 'meriting' salvation, though. You call it 'cooperating with the graces'. This, my friend, is the language of works-righteousness: "only through cooperation with that grace, can that salvation be achieved." Do you realize that by saying, "only through cooperation... can salvation be achieved," you are talking about meriting grace? How much cooperation is sufficient? At what point do you achieve salvation through such cooperation? You see, there is nothing substantially different between this language and the language of works-righteousness: how many works are sufficient? At what point do you achieve salvation through works? A person's trust ends up not resting in what Christ accomplished on the cross, but in how well he or she can "cooperate" with "the graces". The Catholic Church is adding works to salvation here, pure and simple.

My understanding of scripture is that faith and a holy life are synonymous. The sort of faith which justifies a man is exactly the same sort of faith which leads him into a holy life. Nothing less. And that holy life is the evidence of his salvation. This is a far cry from what Catholicism purports to be the case, that salvation must be merited. The Bible teaches something different, that a holy life is the evidence of salvation, not something one undertakes as a requirement for salvation, e.g., "...only through cooperation with that grace, can that salvation be achieved." Can you see the difference?

How do we know that we are saved? The Catholic church says we cannot know we are saved, yet the Bible is quite clear about how we can know that we are saved. It's all contained in the fist letter of John. In First John as a whole the tests that Christians are taught to use on themselves, by which to examine their faith and life, are such things as true belief in Christ as the Son of God and Savior, an active resting of one's life and salvation upon him, a spirit of penitence that leads to the confession of sins to God, a true love for God and for his people - all of which is what the Holy Spirit produces in those who are saved, i.e., a life of obedience to God's commandments, a love of God's law and way and will.

This, John says, is how you know! It isn't right doctrine or right living that saves you. Christ's death and righteousness in your place, the Holy Spirit at work within - these are what save you. But the evidence of those things in your life - that is what we are after, and John says you find that evidence in faith, in penitence, in love, and in obedience.

Now this is very interesting, because when John sets out to answer the question how may I know that I am truly saved ("I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life" 5:13) he does not say anything about ecclesiastical rites or participation in them, he says nothing about baptism, or acts of penance, or the Mass, or anything else that figures so largely in the average Catholic's peace of mind. Nor does he place the emphasis on any particular kind of spiritual experience.

His emphasis falls instead on the testing of attitudes and commitments by the fruit they produce in one's character and life. When God comes into a life, he comes to produce certain results; the presence of those results, e.g., faith, hope, love, obedience and all in Christ - that is the main proof, the most reliable demonstration of the presence of God's salvation.

__________


I hope you are able to see the substantial difference between what the Bible teaches and what Catholic tradition teaches about salvation.

Originally posted by Jigtie
The very bible is a catholic concoction, isn't it? As is trinity?

Most Christians today doesn't seem to realise that there were many
other scriptures that the Catholic church decided not to include in
the bible, and that trinity is really only defined in the catholic doctrine,
not the bible itself.

I think she'll find it hard to sustain th ...[text shortened]... rough their doctrine.

Yeah, Christianity is just one big mess when you start digging. 🙄

Actual Christainty becomes more clear the more you dig. The book itself took roughly 1,600 years to put together, and was created by 40 different authors. Yet still scripture will back up scripture. I dare you to find any book that takes I'll say 100 years to make from only 5 diffenert author who don't know each other, and see if there writing backs up what the other is saying. The Bible sates the the letter killth, but the spirit giveth life. Meaning that without the Holy Spirit when reading the Bible you won't understand it's true meaning. Basically it's dead to you. That's why it's also called the Living Word of God. So unless your alive the Word is dead to you.

Now if it is dead to you, ask God to for give you of all sins(Do that if it's dead or alive to you) Second, read His word with the thought that it is holy, Job loved the Word of God more than his food.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
i am curious to see what she comes up with.

Also many church are aware that there are 7 more books not found within the Bible. The King James version stops at Micah. Catholics thou are not Christains. Man does not have the power to forgive sin. Confessing my sins to a priest does what, nothing. When Jesus died the Jewish temple split in two along with the curtain to the inner chamber. Once that curtain opened up man gained a communication way straight to God (No mother Mary) but God. Jesus did that and when He rose He over came death becoming a living God. When He died our sins died with Him, no priest no mother Mary.

Originally posted by realeyez
Man does not have the power to forgive sin.

So Jesus was lying when He told His Disciples whatever is bound on earth is bound in heaven?

Nemesio

Originally posted by realeyez
Also many church are aware that there are 7 more books not found within the Bible. The King James version stops at Micah.

You have it backwards. For 1200 years, there were seven more books in the Bible than Protestants
kept when they published the King James version in the 17th century. The Roman Church retains
the original books that were ratified along with the NT canon.

Nemesio