I believe what Catholics believe, but the issue becomes very blury as many Protestants will include Love into faith. In fact, I even managed to find a Catholic sermon where the priest said that salvation was by faith alone. I don't think the distinction is the Right one to be arguing about. We know that to be saved, we have to within Christ and we know that if we do not follow Christ, we are outside of Christ. The justification for being within Christ does not require action upon our part. Within Christ, however, there are surely times when we have to act as spoken by 1 John.
Grace by definition is unmerited favour. What they believe is that God is not graceful and has no mercy whatsoever. That is why they say that we need to "repent" and ask for forgiveness over and over and over again. That wasn't the Teaching. What Christ taught is that God is merciful and He has grace towards us. In other words - our actions are not as important as our motives. A person that becomes Christian will change their motives, because a Christian by definition can't have bad motives. But that doesn't mean that that person will never make a mistake again. So God forgives that person, because He has mercy towards that person. God doesn't love you because you do this or that. You can't buy the Love of God. He Loves you for who you are. He Loves you because you are His son. Wrong definition. Grace is the unmerited favour of God, which is definetely not the catholic thinking. Catholics think that you have to buy God's favour by canstantly asking Him to forgive you. They practically say that they are better then God and that God should forgive them because they submit themselves to God. That is quite immature and disrespectful towards Him. As for "one must act on their faith", you are talking about the application of faith, which is the opposite of the catholic thinking. Catholics believe that there is a recipe for all sin. If you make a sin, you go to the guy there, you confess, and then he will say that you are forgiven and that you should pray... I don't know... 3 ave marias and 4 blah blah blah... and so on. Protestants are the ones that believe that one must act on their beliefs, which is the very definition of faith. Again, that is contrary to protestant thinking. Protestants believe that they have to work on their beliefs. "Faith without works is nothing", says the protestant. I don't know. I don't know all the protestants. What I know is that their disagreements are in little things. And I don't think forgiveness is not a little issue.... You guys need heavy teaching, eh....? :bugeye:
@ MW I don't know of any documented evidence, I'm still searching. I did find an article on witchcraft however. I think by "pre-biblical civilizations" you mean before the time of Abraham (tell me what you mean in your reply) but I am quite confident that witchcraft didn't pop up before "biblical civilizations". There is also mention of evil in the Vedic texts but I don't know if that is "pre-biblical".
You shock me more and more. Now Protestants are blurring Christian dogma? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Salvation is a process and therefore incapable of being "due to" one action. Hence the scriptural exhortation to "work out" our "salvation with fear and trembling". Although in my reading of Ephesians earlier this morning I saw some very interesting points.. Tell me, do you believe one is capable of losing their salvation? And why? Scriptural authority is necessary in your argument, of course. Certainly, that is a heretical teaching that I must encourage you to cease promptly. I have a feeling you will be unable to, but please provide Biblical documentation for such a fallacious belief.
Grace isn't just unmerited favor, though it is unmerited. So it wasn't Christ who said "repent for the kingdom is at hand." How is repenting(ie., turning away from evil, admiting one's mistakes) buying God's love? No, I think Catholic belief is a bit more complicated as we content that it is God who loves us first. "Salvation by faith *alone*." Carried to its extreme is Calvinism where God elects beforehand who is saved.(Hence, actions would not matter.) Traditional understanding of faith is that it does not include action. No, both believe that faith without works is nothing, as is written in James. In fact, this is quoted by the Council against sola-fide. But Protestants claim true faith *always* produces works. If you're questioning what the majority Protestants believe, go look up Martin Luther's sermon and how he defines faith.
Most Protestants blur the distinction between faith and faith+charities. I don't say this is bad thing. Yes, Paul speaks of man who shipwrecked his faith.
Oh, really? Then what is it then? What does that have to do with the catholic teaching of constant repentance and punishment? That has nothing to do with what I said. I said that constantly asking for forgiveness is buying God's Love, not repentance. I honestly doubt that. Catholics tend to glorify humans above God. It is not just all the titles, but also the clear arrogance transmitted by the message of an unloving God that needs to constantly be asked for forgiveness in order to Love. Does your teaching really say that He loved you first? Read James. Faith imply works. Faith without works is useless. There is no faith "alone". Read the Bible - it is all there. Which in fact is a true statement, altough you aimed at the wrong group of people. Catholicism came first, and this "traditional understanding of faith" belongs to catholics, not protestants. So... you say faith alone and at the same time faith with works. What is it then? Faith alone or faith with something? Don't you see that you are being incoherent? Which by mere chance I've never heard... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The kind of thing that you are saying, I've heard a lot from Catholics, Gnostics and pagans. I've never heard a single protestant teaching this. I would love to read it. Why don't you find me a link?
Give me a break, okinrus. You don't possibly think I'm that stupid? I don't consider myself "Protestant" but I can clearly tell when you are dogging them. Any person here with a brain can read the negative connotation when you say Protestants blur the line on what is basically, an essential doctrine of the Christian faith. I'd like a more specific quotation please. Unfortunately, you have a knack of taking things out of context.
@ TruthSeeker He is referring to the Institutes of the Christian Faith. This isn't it, but should prove very useful to either of you: http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/calvinPhilosophy.htm
I though 1 John was sufficient but Revelation's mention of luke warm is more explicit. Yes, in fact, there's a precise theological term for it but I've forgetton it. It's mentioned in John, however. I don't think faith necessarily implies works. No, I mean Paul said that out of love, hope and faith, that love was greatest. And so I think when Paul uses the word "faith" he mean something separate from love(ie., the definition given in Hebrews that faith is understanding something that is unseen.) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt
Ok, I think you misunderstand. I don't mean a "negative connotation." What most Protestants call "faith" is closer to what the Catholics would call faith along with the other virtues. This distinction was further blurred during the second awakening. I'm lack of better word for Protestant. I understand that it has a negative connotation of "protest" and that even the Church uses the word "separated brethen," so I'll just use "non-Catholic" from now one.
************* M*W: By pre-biblical civilizations I mean the Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, etc. Witchcraft in the true sense of the word is nothing more than environmental friendliness. It's followers worship nature, which I believe is quite honorable. The most fundamental rule of true Wicca is to "first, do ye no harm." The dark side of that is the black witchcraft which requires blood sacrifices, similar to Jesus' alleged crucifixion, as in the black mass. I'm trying to figure out if Lucifer's allegorical fall from grace was history's first claim to evil. The Egyptian empire of course was a pre-Biblical civilization and evil was known in those times, so my question is when exactly did Lucifer fall from grace? After all, Lucifer was called "the Morningstar" as was Jesus -- explain that! And Venus is also called the Morningstar. So is Lucifer Venus? Is Venus Lucifer? Is Jesus Lucifer? Is Lucifer Jesus? And what is the true meaning of the Beatle's song title, "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds?"
That would be logical. How can you know god exists, religion is about beliefs, where do people that dont believe in god fit in? Who decides what they know about god and what they dont know, surely it is only up to them to decide what can and cant be known so could they be defined as Evil?
Ultimately, it is God who must show himself. But this process might be gradual, and God's way of showing himself might be different for each person. It's debatable whether someone truly doesn't believe in God, for that person would have to disbelieve in everything that is from God. Hence, if someone accepts some of that which is from God without believing in the existence of God, they would have some kind of relationship. Yes, but that depends alot on their reason for not knowing.
I found this interesting information from the encyclopaedia which might be useful to the discussion: When did ethics begin and how did it originate? If we are referring to ethics proper—i.e., the systematic study of what we ought to do—it is clear that ethics can only have come into existence when human beings started to reflect on the best way to live. This reflective stage emerged long after human societies had developed some kind of morality, usually in the form of customary standards of right and wrong conduct. The process of reflection tended to arise from such customs, even if in the endit may have found them wanting. Accordingly, ethics began with the introduction of the first moral codes. Virtually every human society has some form of myth to explain the origin of morality. In the Louvre in Paris there is a black Babylonian column with a relief showing the sun god Shamash presenting the code of laws to Hammurabi. The Old Testament account of God giving the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai might be considered another example. In Plato's Protagoras there is an avowedly mythical account of how Zeus took pity on the hapless humans, who, living in small groups and with inadequate teeth, weak claws, and lack of speed, were no match for the other beasts. To make up for these deficiencies, Zeus gave humans a moral sense and the capacity for law and justice, so that they could live in larger communities and cooperate with one another. That morality should be invested with all the mystery and power of divine origin is not surprising. Nothing else could provide such strong reasons for accepting the moral law. By attributing a divine origin to morality, the priesthood became its interpreter and guardian, and thereby secured for itself a power that it would not readily relinquish. This link between morality and religion has been so firmly forged that it is still sometimes asserted that there can be no morality without religion. According to this view, ethics ceases to be an independent field of study. It becomes, instead, moral theology. -------------------- On the 'Morningstar' issue: We are currently aware of the Scripture in 2 Corinth. 11:14 14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. -- Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! --- Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[ 22:16 The Greek is plural.] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." --- The first discrepancy here is that Jesus calls Himself the "bright Morning Star", while Isaiah refers to Satan as the "fallen... morning star". From this comparison, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown Commentary concludes: Lucifer--"day star." A title truly belonging to Christ (Revelation 22:16), "the bright and morning star," and therefore hereafter to be assumed by Antichrist. This conclusion is derived from the rest of the text in Isaiah, which describes Satan as having been cast down AFTER "laying low the nations". This is in contrast to having been sacked out of heaven in the Beginning. After the preaching of the 70 disciples, during which devils were subjected to them, Jesus saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven (Luke 10:18). According to the visions in the Book of Revelation, when the risen Christ returns from heaven to reign on earth, Satan will be bound with a great chain for a thousand years, then be released, but almost immediately face final defeat and be cast into eternal punishment. I'm also guessing we see Venus in the morning, but then I don't listen to the Beatles, they're not native to my geography. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As for witchcraft and the like, you had better think that again. Voodoo originated in the land where I am from and therefore I would think twice before calling it "good". Especially if you saw that special on TV, the documentary on voodoo. I felt a pang of belonging to those people practicing lawlessness and yet felt thankful to be saved from such damnation. Some people think voodoo is rubbish and impotent but..
Wow, you really do enjoy taking verses out of context don't you? I advice you read this excerpt from Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: The antithesis to "hot," literally, "boiling" ("fervent," Acts 18:25, Romans 12:11; compare Solomon 8:6, Luke 24:32), requires that "cold" should here mean more than negatively cold; it is rather, positively icy cold: having never yet been warmed. The Laodiceans were in spiritual things cold comparatively, but not cold as the world outside, and as those who had never belonged to the Church. The lukewarm state, if it be the transitional stage to a warmer, is a desirable state (for a little religion, if real, is better than none); but most fatal when, as here, an abiding condition, for it is mistaken for a safe state (Revelation 3:17). This accounts for Christ's desiring that they were cold rather than lukewarm. For then there would not be the same "danger of mixed motive and disregarded principle" [ALFORD]. Also, there is more hope of the "cold," that is, those who are of the world, and not yet warmed by the Gospel call; for, when called, they may become hot and fervent Christians: such did the once-cold publicans, Zaccheus and Matthew, become. But the lukewarm has been brought within reach of the holy fire, without being heated by it into fervor: having religion enough to lull the conscience in false security, but not religion enough to save the soul: as Demas, 2 Timothy 4:10. Such were the halters between two opinions in Israel (1 Kings 18:21; compare 2 Kings 17:41, Matthew 6:24). I hope you see that you did indeed take the verse out of context. Your statements are also in violation of this: Romans 10:17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. So much for action not being on our part. How else will they hear? Do not forget Romans 10:8-10. Romans 10 8But what does it say? "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,"[1] that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Excuses excuses. You are only looking for a reason to pursue demoninationalism. That's right, I didn't spell it wrongly. If you can't even love them enough to call them brother or Christian, but must dissociate with them by a different name then what love is in you?
Yeah Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! *sigh*. I think they are the result of severe lack of education more than anything else.
