toldailytopic: What do you suppose God thinks of the Catholic Church?

[bucksplasher]

I see we'll probably never be able to come to a mutual understanding.

The "rapture" is as foreign to me as the Eucharist seems to be to you.

Good luck to both of us and God be with you.

tWINs

 

[serpentdove]

...The "rapture" is as foreign to me as the Eucharist seems to be to you.

Jude 11. :burnlib:

Jesus loves you (Jn 3:16). Jesus is willing to save you (2 Pe 3:9). Repent (Eze 18:30-32; Ac 17:30). Believe (Mk 9:23).

 

[Sheila B]

I was told this interpretation as a new Christain in a Baptist Church. It did not fit then, and it makes no sense now.
How could those 5 Virgins (a consecrated vow for life to the Bridegroom of purity) go and buy for themselves more Holy Spirit? Why did they even ask the other 5 give give them some of their oil?
Why would the 5 Wise Virgins tell them they might not have enough for all. . . indicating that the giving was a fine idea in theory, but not practical?
Where then did the Foolish Virgins go -leaving the presence of the waiting for the Bridegroom- leaving the door to be opened by the Bridegroom's arrival- to go and buy oil?

Buying works makes no sense, buying virtue makes no sense, and buying Holy Spirit is the worst answer of all. . .

I hope someone can answer this unusual parable.

 

[Sheila B]

Might not the "oil" be the good that people do before they fall asleep at night?

tWINs

"The night cometh when no man can work."

No chance to buy and sell when night comes. Only daylight brings commerce.
If daylight brought the opportunity to buy and sell, then it still does not answer why leaving the gate to the Bridegroom's return would be where oil may be purchased, does it?

 

[serpentdove]

"...uying Holy Spirit is the worst answer of all."

Why? :idunno: Your church sold indulgences. :sozo: Get your hotdogs, get your loved ones out of purgatory...linger: What is the cost of salvation? :Shimei: Isn't it on your price sheet? :greedy: Luke 16:14

Your priest can forgive you for sins committed again him. He cannot absolve you of sins committed against God. Christ redeemed us (Lev. 25:25–34; 27:2–13, 14–33; Ruth 4:3–10). He paid the price for our sins (Isa. 59:20, 1 Cor. 1:30).

See:

What are indulgences and plenary indulgences and is the concept biblical?

No Mediator

 

[serpentdove]

Already answered...

:yawn: Non causae ut causae (claiming victory despite defeat)

[Personal Pride Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "The prideful arrogance of self-righteousness and self-sufficiency is a great hindrance to recognizing the need for a Savior. Personal pride also blinds men from their sin. They think as long as they are better than most, God will grade them on a curve instead of by the cross. The growing popularity of the gospel of self-esteem is producing a foolish dependence on one's own righteousness. This counterfeit gospel appeals to man's ego and his desire to be master of his own destiny. Victims of another gospel do not know about the perfect righteousness that God's righteousness requires for entrance into heaven. Instead, they seek to establish their own righteousness (Rom. 10:3). This is why every ungodly religion teaches that man can gain a right standing before God by his own good works and religious rituals. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Catholic Church where Catholics rely on the sacraments, penance, the Mass and indulgences to merit the graces for eternal life. Ask Catholics how they hope to get to heaven and many will pull out their resume and talk about their good works. If they mention the name of Jesus, it is only because He made their salvation possible.

All religions, apart from Christianity, teach that salvation is dependent upon what man does for God instead of what God has done for man through His only begotten Son. This is why the Gospel is offensive to those who are offensive to God. It strips man of all his "good works" and his feeble efforts to gain salvation, while calling those works filthy rags in the sight of God (Isa. 64:6). Man deceives himself into believing he is good enough when he is not (Gal. 6:3; Rom. 3:23).

We must encourage others to humble themselves under the sovereign hand of almighty God because He hates pride and arrogance (Prov. 8:13). Every proud person must be brought down. "The proud look of man will be abased, and the loftiness of man will be humbled, and the Lord alone will be exalted in that day. For the Lord of hosts will have a day of reckoning against everyone who is proud and lofty" (Isaiah 2:11-12). God will not endure anyone "who has a haughty look and an arrogant heart" (Psalm 101:5)..." Full text: Personal Pride Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

"The arrogance of your heart has deceived you." (Obadiah 1:3) linger:

 

[Cruciform]

Non...

Post #459.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[serpentdove]

...Post #459...

linger: Your trust is misplaced and :listen: your arguments are self-refuting. :dizzy: Trust God's word (2 Tim. 2:15; Jas. 1:18). oly:

[Are "Infallible" Interpreters Trustworthy? Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "Roman Catholics claim that anyone who studies church history and the early church will lead them to the "one true church" of Rome. However, for anyone to rely on their own interpretation to come to any such conclusion goes against the very teaching of Roman Catholicism. According to Rome, we cannot trust our own ability to understand and interpret Matthew 16:18 and church history. So if this is true, how can anyone be sure that God's infallible interpreter is Roman Catholicism? In other words, how can a Catholic know his religion is infallible when he must rely on his fallible interpretation to arrive at that conclusion? Every "infallible interpreter" claims you cannot understand Scripture and church history without their help. Eastern Orthodox, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses all make the same claim. Therefore, if we were to choose one of the "infallible interpreters" over the others, how can we possibly know we have made the right choice? Furthermore, if we make the wrong choice, we risk eternal damnation for trusting an "infallible"interpreter rather than our own judgment of what the infallible Word of God says." Are "Infallible" Interpreters Trustworthy? Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

 

[Cruciform]

Your...

Post #467.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[serpentdove]

...Post #467...

God doesn't ask you to violate logic. :dizzy: He doesn't ask you to check your brains at the door (Isa 1:18). :freak: Love him with all your mind (Eph 1:17).

[Rome Forbids Private Interpretation Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries] "Some Catholics may argue that their religion does not forbid private interpretation of Scripture. However, when the truth of God's Word began setting thousands of people free from the bondage of religious deception, Rome tried to prevent access to the truth. The 16th Century Council of Trent gathered the Bishops of the Catholic Church together to counter the Reformation. The Bishops not only placed the Bible on the list of forbidden books, but also outlawed private interpretation of Scriptures. From the 4th Session of the Council we read, "In order to restrain petulant spirits, it decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall, in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures." The Second Vatican Council restated the dogma this way: "The task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church." The Council went on to pronounce: "The way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God" (Dei Verbum, II, 10 and III,12). Rome Forbids Private Interpretation Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

 

[serpentdove]

linger: They love the types and shadows; but they don't love what the types and shadows point to (Col 2:16). :reals:

See:

The Sabbath Day: Picking Grain pt 12a by Darrell Ferguson MP3 (right click, open)

 

[organiccornflake]

The hat distracts me from seeing the person of Jesus the Christ.

But its the hat. I refuse to believe that hat is anything other than perfect. Making your point void.

Stop hatin' on the hat.

 

[Idolater]

This thread, especially many of the posts by @IXOYE in it, was a big part of TOL's role in me converting to Catholicism. This, and some of @Cruciform 's links. Just for the record.

 

[annabenedetti]

This thread, especially many of the posts by @IXOYE in it, was a big part of TOL's role in me converting to Catholicism. This, and some of @Cruciform 's links. Just for the record.

I didn't know TOL was part of your conversion to Catholicism.

 

[Idolater]

I didn't know TOL was part of your conversion to Catholicism.

Oh yes! I can't tell from my records when I mentally converted to Catholicism, but I remember that this thread and especially @IXOYE 's content in it, played a role. He as far as I'm concerned, itt, just applied the same scrutiny Evangelicals apply, to Catholicism, and Catholicism came out of that scrutiny smelling like roses. It made an impact.

I didn't come to TOL originally, in 1999, 1998 at the earliest (I don't have a record of that either, this is from memory as well) to investigate Catholicism. I was an Evangelical (Clavinist at the time) who was getting into the internet when the internet was just burgeoning. I didn't know that then, but it's just an historical fact.

And I enjoyed the debating! I had come over from philosophy anonymous internet discussion forums, because often in those forums the topic of God would arise, and I found myself wanting to engage more powerfully in those threads, and so one day I searched for "theology" and "Theology Online" came up, and I joined, as @Nihilo , but not this Nihilo, I joined as a prior Nihilo, which existed in the era, from whenever TOL began, to about precisely 25 years ago, when the lights went out at TOL, and every last bit, that any TOL users ever published, along with their usernames, were wiped off the canvas.

We had to start all over in late August 2001. Many will note that 9/11 was just around the corner back then, and we endured and processed 9-11 on TOL, naturally. But it was right after our own catastrophe, where every last bit that any TOL user had ever published had been wiped off the face of the Earth. So we were still finding out feet. And then 9-11 happened. And the rest is history. I don't know without checking when you first signed in here but it was probably after me, but, maybe you had another account and you too first signed up in the end of August 2001, or the beginning of September 2001.

 

[annabenedetti]

Oh yes! I can't tell from my records when I mentally converted to Catholicism, but I remember that this thread and especially @IXOYE 's content in it, played a role. He as far as I'm concerned, itt, just applied the same scrutiny Evangelicals apply, to Catholicism, and Catholicism came out of that scrutiny smelling like roses. It made an impact.

I didn't come to TOL originally, in 1999, 1998 at the earliest (I don't have a record of that either, this is from memory as well) to investigate Catholicism. I was an Evangelical (Clavinist at the time) who was getting into the internet when the internet was just burgeoning. I didn't know that then, but it's just an historical fact.

And I enjoyed the debating! I had come over from philosophy anonymous internet discussion forums, because often in those forums the topic of God would arise, and I found myself wanting to engage more powerfully in those threads, and so one day I searched for "theology" and "Theology Online" came up, and I joined, as @Nihilo , but not this Nihilo, I joined as a prior Nihilo, which existed in the era, from whenever TOL began, to about precisely 25 years ago, when the lights went out at TOL, and every last bit, that any TOL users ever published, along with their usernames, were wiped off the canvas.

We had to start all over in late August 2001. Many will note that 9/11 was just around the corner back then, and we endured and processed 9-11 on TOL, naturally. But it was right after our own catastrophe, where every last bit that any TOL user had ever published had been wiped off the face of the Earth. So we were still finding out feet. And then 9-11 happened. And the rest is history. I don't know without checking when you first signed in here but it was probably after me, but, maybe you had another account and you too first signed up in the end of August 2001, or the beginning of September 2001.

Interesting history, thanks. You have to be one of the earliest members.

I don't recall reading about your conversion, do you have any threads from that time? I may have read them, but I just don't remember.

I came here in Jan. 2009, mostly to talk religion. I ended up talking mostly about politics. I'd spent the previous years, since right after 9/11, at a different forum, very hard right. Quite the bubble. Found TOL and never went back to the other forum. Interesting that TOL played a role in your leaving evangelicalism, and TOL played a role in my leaving conservatism.

I have a couple other forums I visit regularly still, but I never went back to that hard right forum.

 

[Clete]

Bible: Salvation is a gift of grace from God. Being good, doing good works, or fulfilling the sacraments will not save you from eternity in hell. Only by faith will you be saved. Follow the Bible which is God's Word and not the teachings of man. Good works come after you are saved as a showing of Christ's love in us..." Full text: Works vs Faith

I understand that serpentdove has been banned but I want to respond to the short essay he linked to in the above excerpt from his post, which tries to argue that James 2 isn't talking about actual belief but only stated (i.e. pretend) belief. I won't post the full text of the essay here. The link above does work and it's not too long so feel free to read it before reading my response to it...


The essay does not accurately handle James 2. Its central argument is that James is merely distinguishing between someone who says he has faith and someone who actually has genuine faith, with works simply serving as evidence that the faith was real all along. But James goes considerably further than that.

James 2:17 says, “Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.” James does not say that the man never really had faith. He calls it faith and says that faith is dead because it lacks works. Verse 19 makes the same point even more clearly: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe, and tremble!” The demons are not merely claiming to believe. They actually believe. James’s point is that belief by itself is insufficient.

The contrast becomes even sharper when James and Paul both appeal to Abraham.

Paul writes:

Romans 4:5 To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.​

James writes:

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.​

Those are opposite propositions concerning the relationship of faith, works, and justification. Both men even appeal to the same statement from Genesis: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Paul uses Abraham to demonstrate justification apart from works. James uses Abraham to demonstrate that faith must be accompanied by works and concludes explicitly that justification is “by works, and not by faith only.”

All of this is not to say that the author is intentionally misleading his audience. I have no doubt that he thinks he's put forward a valid teaching. Indeed, it is a very typical teaching across several Christian denominations that stretch all the way from Catholic to Baptist teaching. It is born out of a felt need to make Paul and James teach the same thing. People intuitively feel a need to reconcile the two teachings because they think they contradict each other. They do not!

The tension between the two teachings isn't about what the two biblical authors have written but with the context within which they wrote what they wrote. If you start with the assumption that Paul and James must be describing the same theological arrangement and then force James into Paul’s theology then you are forced to make one or the other of them mean the opposite of what they actually say. But, James should be allowed to say what he actually says, and Paul should be allowed to say what he actually says.

James is writing to people for whom faith without the required works is dead. Paul, by contrast, teaches justification under grace through faith in the finished work of Christ, expressly stating that God justifies “him who does not work but believes.” James was writing to Jews, saved under the dispensation of law where performance was an integral part of the salvation message and process. Paul, on the other hand, is writing to people saved under "his (i.e. Paul's) gospel", the gospel of grace, where people are saved through faith in one Man's righteous act.

The essay’s problem, therefore, is not that it fails to explain James clearly. It is that it explains James away. It turns “faith without works is dead” into “there was never really faith in the first place,” which is simply not what James says.

 

[Nick M]

The contrast becomes even sharper when James and Paul both appeal to Abraham.

Paul writes:

Romans 4:5 To him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.
James writes:

James 2:24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

I'm starting to think they talked about writing it that way on purpose to draw the distinction. Like after Acts 15. And regardless, the Holy Spirit had James write that they must keep the law of Moses. Because doing good works and loving your neighbor is the law of Moses.