Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

[dadof10]

You have submitted your own conscience to a sacerdotal dispensary who tells you what to believe and how to think which is only how 'they' think.

What you or anyone else thinks matters not one whit to them.

s

Well, it looks like you learned the word "sacerdotal". Congratulations. When will you learn how to respond to the OP or another poster without bigoted, ignorant remarks?

 

[Davies]

NO!

Hopefully after 30 pages this has been the answer (because I'm not reading through 30 pages).

That's funny. lol. Can't you feel the love from those who are in Adam?

James 4:11-12

New King James Version (NKJV)

Do Not Judge a Brother

11 Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law. But if you judge the law, you are not a doer of the law but a judge. 12 There is one Lawgiver,[a] who is able to save and to destroy. Who[b] are you to judge another?[c]

My conscience agrees with you Atonement. My answer is NO!

- Davies

 

[smaller]

Thank you for proving my point. I guess the answer to my question above is, not today.

Fact is you don't even know what your own sect teaches.

s

 

[dadof10]

Fact is you don't even know what your own sect teaches.

s

:toofunny

When have I mentioned to you or anyone else that "the Catholic Church teaches X"? I never do, unless someone specifically asks.

This is what you do when you can't respond to the point (which is often), you attack who you perceive to be the messenger. Why can't you simply respond to the OP or to what I WRITE instead of attacking my Church?

 

[savedbygrace57]

Can Obedience To God Earn Salvation?

Absolutely,for Christ's obedience to God earned for all whomHe died Life Eternal, they shall be made Righteous Rom 5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Free]

I am not sure why we have to continually remind users that this forum is not to be used for discussion of RCC doctrine.

Please familiarize yourselves with the policies of this forum:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=21502&p=290437&viewfull=1#post290437

 

[smaller]

I am not sure why we have to continually remind users that this forum is not to be used for discussion of RCC doctrine.

Please familiarize yourselves with the policies of this forum:

http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=21502&p=290437&viewfull=1#post290437

Sorry Free.

and fwiw, aren't many of the creeds of Protestantism taken from RCC/Orthodox positions?

s

 

[Davies]

Hi Free,

The reason why you have to remind users continually to NOT talk about Roman Catholicism is because there are several Roman Catholics on this site!

- Davies

 

[dadof10]

Hi Free,

The reason why you have to remind users continually to NOT talk about Roman Catholicism is because there are several Roman Catholics on this site!

- Davies

Davies, being one of the Catholics here, I find this site is very fair to "my kind". Whether you think they should be or not, they are, which is rare on Protestant boards. I have been booted off more than one forum for simply arguing from a Catholic perspective. Here, I find a lot of leeway is given, but there is a line, and realistically, there has to be. It seems that when we start arguing the "whore of Babylon", and topics in that vein, is where the mods step in, and rightfully so. I feel that as long as I'm arguing a relevant topic, I can express my Catholic faith fully. I try not to push the envelope, though, which is why I NEVER say anything like "the Catholic Church teaches X" unless I'm directly asked or there is a misconception about what the Church teaches. First, the people I'm debating don't take the Magisterium as an authority, and secondly, it only fuels any underlying anti-Catholic sentiment, which is counterproductive to debate. My two cents, anyway.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[Davies]

Davies, being one of the Catholics here, I find this site is very fair to "my kind". Whether you think they should be or not, they are, which is rare on Protestant boards. I have been booted off more than one forum for simply arguing from a Catholic perspective. Here, I find a lot of leeway is given, but there is a line, and realistically, there has to be. It seems that when we start arguing the "whore of Babylon", and topics in that vein, is where the mods step in, and rightfully so. I feel that as long as I'm arguing a relevant topic, I can express my Catholic faith fully. I try not to push the envelope, though, which is why I NEVER say anything like "the Catholic Church teaches X" unless I'm directly asked or there is a misconception about what the Church teaches. First, the people I'm debating don't take the Magisterium as an authority, and secondly, it only fuels any underlying anti-Catholic sentiment, which is counterproductive to debate. My two cents, anyway.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

dadof10,

I'd like to discuss this matter, but the equity you talk about prevents me from addressing it any further. Until the policy changes, this is the approach I will take on ChristianForums.net. When I see concealed Catholicism being preached, and not the transparent, 'This is what the Catholic Church teaches,' then I will respond, 'I'm prohibited to speak on the matter.' It's easy enough to discern who is trying understand justification by faith rather than one who is teaching people to work their way to heaven.

I can sympathize with people treating you poorly. It happens on this site all the time, and all I can say is what a poor witness to Jesus.

- Davies

 

[smaller]

dadof10,

I'd like to discuss this matter, but the equity you talk about prevents me from addressing it any further. Until the policy changes, this is the approach I will take on ChristianForums.net. When I see concealed Catholicism being preached, and not the transparent, 'This is what the Catholic Church teaches,' then I will respond, 'I'm prohibited to speak on the matter.' It's easy enough to discern who is trying understand justification by faith rather than one who is teaching people to work their way to heaven.

I can sympathize with people treating you poorly. It happens on this site all the time, and all I can say is what a poor witness to Jesus.

- Davies

I post on several sites. One, a larger site, when certain facts that are held within orthodoxy were 'allowed' to be revealed, the adherents STOPPED posting for the most part, other than from their disobedient ones.

Droves of them stopped dead in their tracks with a big oh oh and no no and stopped posting when they saw their own rules on these matters, knowing that they were in fact condemned for doing so by their own sects.

And of course some forums are not too fond of losing posters, so the factual information and disclosures are never taken very well.

s

 

[dadof10]

dadof10,

I'd like to discuss this matter, but the equity you talk about prevents me from addressing it any further. Until the policy changes, this is the approach I will take on ChristianForums.net. When I see concealed Catholicism being preached, and not the transparent, 'This is what the Catholic Church teaches,' then I will respond, 'I'm prohibited to speak on the matter.'

LOL...Why? You are NOT prohibited from speaking on matters of DOCTRINE here. I do it all the time and I'm not "concealing" my Catholicism. If I were, my Avatar would be something else and posts would never mention the "C" word. C'mon, Davies. That's not fair.

It's easy enough to discern who is trying understand justification by faith rather than one who is teaching people to work their way to heaven.

Here is a perfect example of when I mention the "C" word. The Church doesn't teach that anyone can "work their way to heaven". I have never made this claim because it's not what I've ever been taught. You can say it and repeat the charge over and over, but it won't make it so. Obedience to God through GRACE is not "works", "works of the Law" is what Paul is talking about, and the word can NOT be stretched to mean everything done (but "accepting Jesus", of course).

Now, I would be willing to bet you dollars to donuts that this post doesn't get deleted. The reason I'm so sure is because I have posted these exact words HUNDREDS of times here and have yet to be censured. So, feel free to respond to the above paragraph, after all, it is actually the OP.

I can sympathize with people treating you poorly. It happens on this site all the time, and all I can say is what a poor witness to Jesus.

I think you misunderstand, I don't think I've been treated poorly here, with the exception of a couple of atheists a while back. Spirited debate and even a little bit of the "Woman rides the beast", is what I expect. I have thick skin and this 'aint my first rodeo. :p

 

[dadof10]

I post on several sites. One, a larger site, when certain facts that are held within orthodoxy were 'allowed' to be revealed, the adherents STOPPED posting for the most part, other than from their disobedient ones.

Droves of them stopped dead in their tracks with a big oh oh and no no and stopped posting when they saw their own rules on these matters, knowing that they were in fact condemned for doing so by their own sects.

And of course some forums are not too fond of losing posters, so the factual information and disclosures are never taken very well.

s

"The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops. When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, "de haereticis"). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics. But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority.Moreover, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially, or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth. Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some laymen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm

This is what applies to us laymen. We are not "condemned" for doing so. On the contrary, we are encouraged to do so, as long as we don't stray outside of Church teaching..

 

[smaller]

This is what applies to us laymen. We are not "condemned" for doing so. On the contrary, we are encouraged to do so, as long as we don't stray outside of Church teaching..

I would submit you have a hard time reading those statements. In order to become a public defender of the faith you have to have a license to do so.

For lay people this fact remains a fact:

"Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics."

But some obviously will neither heed nor obey.

s

 

[dadof10]

I would submit you have a hard time reading those statements. In order to become a public defender of the faith you have to have a license to do so.

I think you must be talking about a Licentiate, which is:

1 : a person who has a license granted especially by a university to practice a profession

2 : an academic degree ranking below that of doctor given by some European universities

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/licentiate

You are mistaken, Smaller, if you think that EVERYONE who "publicly defends the faith" is required to own this degree. Where do you get this idea? It's not in the definition you posted. Do you have anything from a Catholic source that says this?

For lay people this fact remains a fact:

"Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics."

But some obviously will neither heed nor obey.

The paragraph (the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH) I posted is from the Catholic Encyclopedia and says this:

"The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught)"

This is us, the laymen.

"When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church"

This is what is meant in the next sentence by "public discussions", i.e. "speaking in the name of God and the Church".

"Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics."

We, as untrained laymen, can't engage in "public discussions" "speaking in the name of God and the Church". This is pretty straight forward. If you disagree or think the wording could be better, the next few sentences should straighten out any honest misconceptions:

"But in their private capacity..."

This is what refers to me and others who come on Forums. There is a clear distinction being made here between "official teaching of religious doctrine" and..."they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority."

If you disagree, please tell me what this means. The article is referring to laymen in their "private capacity". That's me. I'm a professional truck driver, not a theologian, and I come on these forums in my private capacity, not as an official representative of the Church.

"Moreover, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially..."

Hummm...Laymen may be "APPOINTED to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially..." without a license??? Yes, as evidenced by the MILLIONS of Religious Education teachers APPOINTED by their respective diocese to give "more or less" official teaching to kids and even adults. Certainly there is some formal educating of these teachers, but nothing like a Licentiate, only a weekend course or two. I know because I am one.

"or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth."

These "appointed" laymen, may become "defenders of Catholic truth" to whom? To whom are they putting up this defense? This obviously refers to defending Catholic truth against heresy, correct? Again, it's licit and legal...even without a license.

"Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some laymen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority."

Did you catch that? "the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority."

You are misinterpreting the words of this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. No Catholic on any Forum is breaking Canon Law by engaging in debate with our Protestant brothers and sisters. You are just misinformed.

 

[smaller]

You are misinterpreting the words of this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia. No Catholic on any Forum is breaking Canon Law by engaging in debate with our Protestant brothers and sisters. You are just misinformed.

The statement is abundantly clear and direct on what laymen are NOT to do, as previously noted. There is no ambiguity in that matter.

And as stated, I would expect a few won't listen anyway, also as noted.

s

 

[reba]

Maybe this thread need some moderator review......Most likely it will reopen soon....