Why don't catholics carry statues of Paul?

[Orthodox Christian]

Ok General question, maybe off topic, but at least I see the link as vague as it might be. I often hear non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church did not exist until around 1052-1152 depending on the source, and I'm sure people even disagree with that. Anyway, I am for the purposes of this question going to assume that they are right the Catholic Church did not get created until at least sometime during or after the 11th century. If this is true then that means that the Early Ecumenical councils which set the canon were a cross section of all Christian believers, so when they adopted the Canon, most people recognize as the Catholic Bible, then why is it OK, to change that canon, and then divide ourselves further by creating denominations. If Christ is the Truth, and there is only one truth, then how can there be ligitamate denominations which disagree on basic issues, like is Baptism necessary for salvation. Sola Fide, Is it OK to have music in Worship, what about a Choir. These things divide us why is that OK?

Peace,
Ben

Great question, Ben. I make the observation that Protestants do not believe in a visible Body. To them, the Church is invisible, made up of the 'saved.' While we Orthodox and you Catholics agree that there is indeed an invisible Church, sometimes called the Church triumphant, ie those who have gone before us, we insist that the scriptures make plain that, just as Jesus truly came in the flesh, so He is still is, in His Church. I'm not sure how one "tells it to the Church" that's invisible.

The Reformers took this approach toward many other things, including the Eucharist. For the Swiss Reformers and Anabaptists, the Eucharist is a symbol. Again we run headlong into their crypto-Gnosticism. Yes, Gnostism, for they spiritualize God's physical invasion of this world.

From this prevailing view has come an abundance of rationalizations and justifications for division. I have heard this current division romanticized, as if the diversity and variety is God's flower garden.

 

[SputnikBoy]

By the way, Heidi and Sput, if you think us Catholics are pagans in need of salvation, Paul says "imitate me as I imitate Christ". Now I look through his writings and I don't see anywhere in the NT that Paul jests and mocks pagans. In fact in Athens in Acts 17 he uses what they believe to teach them about Christ. No mocking and belittling. And I certainly don't take your posts as a joke Heidi if that is what you claim. You won't fool anyone with that one.

Please, Thess ...I can't speak for Heidi but I don't doubt your Christianity at all. Christianity isn't a denomination but an individual thing. I might question the Catholic system (which I rarely do anyway) but I'm not in the least wise taking a shot at you. I question my own Christianity at times more so than anyone elses.

 

[thessalonian]

By the way, Heidi and Sput, if you think us Catholics are pagans in need of salvation, Paul says "imitate me as I imitate Christ". Now I look through his writings and I don't see anywhere in the NT that Paul jests and mocks pagans. In fact in Athens in Acts 17 he uses what they believe to teach them about Christ. No mocking and belittling. And I certainly don't take your posts as a joke Heidi if that is what you claim. You won't fool anyone with that one.

Please, Thess ...I can't speak for Heidi but I don't doubt your Christianity at all. Christianity isn't a denomination but an individual thing. I might question the Catholic system (which I rarely do anyway) but I'm not in the least wise taking a shot at you. I question my own Christianity at times more so than anyone elses.

Heidi yesterday essentially called me a pagan in another thread. I understand why she thinks that way. I have no problem with questions. And really I could care less about the ridicule or whether someone thinks I am a pagan.. We can even have a little fun on these boards. But ridiculing another religion, especially when the terms are not friendly is immature. We should not be so about having our sense of humor stroked that we forget there are many looking at these posts. Heidi thinks I am a wolf in sheeps clothing. Understood. If she wants to keep others from listening to me the way is not to ridiicule what they believe. She has shown her maturity level. You have raised your maturity level in my eyes by your sincere post. I was going to send you a PM this morning discussing your conviction to the cause of Christ as a higher calling than getting a good laugh, but that won't be neccessary. Peace and blessings

God bless

 

[Gary]

The difference you note in the devotion of Mary vs. the apostles comes down to an issue of dulia, hyperdulia, and latria.

dulia is the devotion to the Saints, thus the apostles are included in this
hyperdulia includes dulia, but is deeper this level is shown only to Mary because, of here special role in salvation
latria is the worship of God, and those things which are proper to God alone.

Cult of Hyperdulia

According to the teaching of the Roman Catholic church, “Mary, the Mother of God, is entitled to the Cult of Hyperdulia,†meaning that Mary may be venerated and honored on a level higher than another creature, angels, or saints. In other words, “In view of her dignity as the Mother of God and her fullness of grace, a special veneration is due to Mary.â€Â

Roman Catholic scholars tell us that this veneration due to Mary (hyperdulia) is substantially less than the cultus latriae (= adoration) which is due to God alone, but is higher than the cultus duliae (= veneration) due to angels and to the other saints. The special veneration thus given to Mary is called cultus hyperduliae. So God alone is worshiped in the sense of latria. Mary is venerated in the sense of hyperdulia, and saints and angels are honored with dulia.

:o

There is absolutely nothing in the biblical text that supports the conclusions Roman Catholics draw from them, namely, that Mary should be venerated above all creatures but below God. The texts say nothing about veneration or prayers to Mary; they simply call Mary “blessed†of God, which she truly was. Contrary to Roman Catholic practice, however, Mary was not blessed above all women but simply was the most blessed among all women. Even the Roman Catholic New American Bible reads: “Most blessed are you among women†(Luke 1:42). This is not a distinction without a difference, for it is strange logic to argue that being the most blessed among women makes Mary worthy of more honor than all other women. Eve was the mother of all the living (Genesis 3:20), a distinctive honor held by no other person, including Mary, and yet she is not venerated by Roman Catholics in accord with her blessed status. Even great sinners who are forgiven are highly blessed but need not be most highly esteemed because of that blessing (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:9; 1 Timothy 1:15).

There is not a single instance in the New Testament where veneration was given to Mary. When the magi came to the manger to visit the Christ child, Matthew 2:11 declares that “they prostrated themselves and did him homage,†not Mary.

Source: Geisler, N. L., & MacKenzie, R. E. (1995). Roman Catholics and Evangelicals : Agreements and differences (Page 321).

.

 

[Imagican]

MY WORDS ARE BLUE

• "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema" (Council of Trent, Canons on Justification, Canon 9).

Rigtht as this canon points out, Justification by FAITH ALONE. This means that we do need to Co-operate in order to obatian God's Grace. Where does this mean we are not saved by Grace.

• "If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Again talking about Faith Alone, this canon does not deal with Grace

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

Right, because we must co-operate in our actions as well as our Fatih to recieve God's Grace as Christ comanded many many times.

"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA" (Sixth Session, Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

Again doesn't deal with Salvation by Grace, buy instead is still dealing with Justification and Faith.

For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).

What is your problem with this? Christ told us we must eat his Flesh and drink his Blood in order to enter the Kingdom of heaven. This happens at the Mass, so thus redemption is finished there.

"As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out" (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).
"... [Christ] also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).

Again I'm confused with what this is supposed to show in regards to how Catholics don't believe we are saved by Grace?

"From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people" (Vatican II, Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).

We are still saved by God's Grace.

". . Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that 'we too might walk in newness of life,'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 977).

Again doesn't show Catholics aren't saved by GRACE

"Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God's mercy," (CCC, par. 2020).

How do you think this applies to Grace?

"As a means of regaining grace and justice, penance was at all times necessary for those who had defiled their souls with any mortal sin. . . .

Why do penance? Because we NEED grace. and penance is a MEANS to regain that GRACE.

"Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as 'the second plank (of salvation) after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace,"


LOOK, the passage you quotes talks about regaining the Grace. It is obvious to anyone who reads this in context of the TRUE Catholic Teaching that these passages go to re-enforce that WE NEED GRACE to be saved.

Justification by Faith Alone, and Grace Alnoe are two different things which you have confused, or at least inadverta
ntly confusing.

Haven't we been through this before?
Is this enough for you Thess - am I a liar? :-?

I can't speak for Thess, however I respond,
1) If you have gone through this before, I would have expected better premises and arguments
2) Reardless of whether it's enough for Thess, I know it's not enough for me.

This is as far as I've gotten on the recent additions so pardon me if it's already been addressed. I just couldn't wait.


What kind of 'double think' is this? "We believe in 'Grace ALONE', ah, but, you know, there's more to it than 'just grace'". I can't believe you guys have the nerve to state something like this. Come on man? Do I need to define the word 'ALONE'?

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

You choose to evade my point. I don't need to quote cannon to prove my point. You can quote it yourself. I don't choose to even read it.

Here's the point once again. If your cannon teaches that I must follow IT in order to receive 'grace', then obviously it teaches that 'grace ALONE' isn't enough. It's really THAT simple. Isn't it?

No evaision at all:

I thought that about 1/2 of the Catholic 'canon' taught that anyone that accepted this idea was to be considered antithema. Maybe i misunderstand, but, I thought I had read that anyone that taught, 'by grace alone' was considered by Catholic doctrine to be an heretic. Guess I just don't understand what is meant by what I've read.

Your telling us what our Catholic canon teaches, you quote the canon and I will explain it for you. What half of what canon. You have to show me what canon your are talking about. You have to support your accusations with quotes or admit your ignorance of the canons and yuo might not know what you are talking about with regard to Catholicism. Your arguement is a rather nonsensical one. Do you claim I have to follow the bible? Is the Bible Jesus? Mine doesn't have two legs and create universes last I checked. So I guess your telling me I have to follow something that is not God. Back up your statments with quotes and intelligence or get out of the conversation. I'll not waste my time with you if you act as if you know about Catholicism. You don't.

Thess,

Once again, YOU know what your cannon states. I have read your cannon. Grace ALONE, would be simply that. Your cannon requires MORE than grace alone, it's already been admitted, (in a rather round about way). By simply being commmanded that you follow cannon is an indication in itself that you don't believe that 'grace alone' is sufficient. Cooperation, what ever this means, is in ADDITION to grace alone. You may have had someone teach you this 'double think' just as they have taught you 'trinity' with the same concept, but you can't change the 'truth' no matter how you try to reword it.

 

[Imagican]

Ok General question, maybe off topic, but at least I see the link as vague as it might be. I often hear non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church did not exist until around 1052-1152 depending on the source, and I'm sure people even disagree with that. Anyway, I am for the purposes of this question going to assume that they are right the Catholic Church did not get created until at least sometime during or after the 11th century. If this is true then that means that the Early Ecumenical councils which set the canon were a cross section of all Christian believers, so when they adopted the Canon, most people recognize as the Catholic Bible, then why is it OK, to change that canon, and then divide ourselves further by creating denominations. If Christ is the Truth, and there is only one truth, then how can there be ligitamate denominations which disagree on basic issues, like is Baptism necessary for salvation. Sola Fide, Is it OK to have music in Worship, what about a Choir. These things divide us why is that OK?

Peace,
Ben

Great question, Ben. I make the observation that Protestants do not believe in a visible Body. To them, the Church is invisible, made up of the 'saved.' While we Orthodox and you Catholics agree that there is indeed an invisible Church, sometimes called the Church triumphant, ie those who have gone before us, we insist that the scriptures make plain that, just as Jesus truly came in the flesh, so He is still is, in His Church. I'm not sure how one "tells it to the Church" that's invisible.

The Reformers took this approach toward many other things, including the Eucharist. For the Swiss Reformers and Anabaptists, the Eucharist is a symbol. Again we run headlong into their crypto-Gnosticism. Yes, Gnostism, for they spiritualize God's physical invasion of this world.

From this prevailing view has come an abundance of rationalizations and justifications for division. I have heard this current division romanticized, as if the diversity and variety is God's flower garden.

Boy, you guys try hard, gotta give you credit for that.

Truthhunter, sure wish you had been with us as we debated some of these same issues in 'Trinity' Biblically sound or Catholic baggage'.

Your statement above 'sounds' good. But only if we are to assume that it is 'exactly' as you state it.

But, and this is a big BUT, I believe that we know better. All the cannon that was added and the councils that met and decided how Christianity 'would be run' were NOT necessarily headed and decided by people that didn't have other agenda or influence behind their decisions. Rome was a country predominantly pagan in their worship. How can we/you sincerely believe that this didn't have an influence on their 'turning' to Christianity? Look how difficult it was for Peter to 'give up' his previous beliefs and 'truly' follow Christ. And you don't believe that any of the previous pagan beliefs of the RC's washed over into 'their' Christianity? I mean isn't it obvious that the Catholics brought much from their previous beliefs into their 'new' form of Christianity? Changing days, adding idols, indulgences, confessionals, 'Fathers', trinity, etc,,,,,etc,,,,,,

And OC, your faith is just another addition to the 'flower garden' if you viewed it through my eyes.


And I know that this is a continuing of 'off subject', but you took us there to start with.

 

[TruthHunter]

Grace, and Faith are two different things. ALL things come from God's Grace, and olny through God's Grace, thus Catholics do not have a problem with Grace alone. It is Faith Alone which Catholics have a problem with, and it is on the confusion of these things which this debate takes place.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Ok General question, maybe off topic, but at least I see the link as vague as it might be. I often hear non-Catholics claim that the Catholic Church did not exist until around 1052-1152 depending on the source, and I'm sure people even disagree with that. Anyway, I am for the purposes of this question going to assume that they are right the Catholic Church did not get created until at least sometime during or after the 11th century. If this is true then that means that the Early Ecumenical councils which set the canon were a cross section of all Christian believers, so when they adopted the Canon, most people recognize as the Catholic Bible, then why is it OK, to change that canon, and then divide ourselves further by creating denominations. If Christ is the Truth, and there is only one truth, then how can there be ligitamate denominations which disagree on basic issues, like is Baptism necessary for salvation. Sola Fide, Is it OK to have music in Worship, what about a Choir. These things divide us why is that OK?

Peace,
Ben

Great question, Ben. I make the observation that Protestants do not believe in a visible Body. To them, the Church is invisible, made up of the 'saved.' While we Orthodox and you Catholics agree that there is indeed an invisible Church, sometimes called the Church triumphant, ie those who have gone before us, we insist that the scriptures make plain that, just as Jesus truly came in the flesh, so He is still is, in His Church. I'm not sure how one "tells it to the Church" that's invisible.

The Reformers took this approach toward many other things, including the Eucharist. For the Swiss Reformers and Anabaptists, the Eucharist is a symbol. Again we run headlong into their crypto-Gnosticism. Yes, Gnostism, for they spiritualize God's physical invasion of this world.

From this prevailing view has come an abundance of rationalizations and justifications for division. I have heard this current division romanticized, as if the diversity and variety is God's flower garden.

Boy, you guys try hard, gotta give you credit for that.

Truthhunter, sure wish you had been with us as we debated some of these same issues in 'Trinity' Biblically sound or Catholic baggage'.

Your statement above 'sounds' good. But only if we are to assume that it is 'exactly' as you state it.

But, and this is a big BUT, I believe that we know better. All the cannon that was added and the councils that met and decided how Christianity 'would be run' were NOT necessarily headed and decided by people that didn't have other agenda or influence behind their decisions. Rome was a country predominantly pagan in their worship. How can we/you sincerely believe that this didn't have an influence on their 'turning' to Christianity? Look how difficult it was for Peter to 'give up' his previous beliefs and 'truly' follow Christ. And you don't believe that any of the previous pagan beliefs of the RC's washed over into 'their' Christianity? I mean isn't it obvious that the Catholics brought much from their previous beliefs into their 'new' form of Christianity? Changing days, adding idols, indulgences, confessionals, 'Fathers', trinity, etc,,,,,etc,,,,,,

And OC, your faith is just another addition to the 'flower garden' if you viewed it through my eyes.


And I know that this is a continuing of 'off subject', but you took us there to start with.

And your non-Trinitarian faith is a weed in the garden, through my eyes, a tare. But God is the gardener, and He will allow such to grow until the end.

Trust me Imagican, we do not "try hard" as you so condescendingly state. I. in point of fact, avoided the thread you have mentioned for I knew that it would be filled with the same mindless and fallaciously ahistorical arguments. Rather than answer Ben's question, you set about the enterprise of 'attack the man.'- or rather, attack the strawman. The question is about unity, and you bring up ridiculous and demonstrably false assertions about 'changes.'

Put it this way: You disqualify yourself as any kind of student of history by describing the Church of the Councils as 'Roman Catholic' or even Catholic- for we both know that you do not mean universal.

Knowing not even such basic details, how can you expect to weigh in on matters of a more subtle and controversial nature?

 

[thessalonian]

Thess,

You choose to evade my point. I don't need to quote cannon to prove my point. You can quote it yourself. I don't choose to even read it.

Here's the point once again. If your cannon teaches that I must follow IT in order to receive 'grace', then obviously it teaches that 'grace ALONE' isn't enough. It's really THAT simple. Isn't it?

No evaision at all:

I thought that about 1/2 of the Catholic 'canon' taught that anyone that accepted this idea was to be considered antithema. Maybe i misunderstand, but, I thought I had read that anyone that taught, 'by grace alone' was considered by Catholic doctrine to be an heretic. Guess I just don't understand what is meant by what I've read.

Your telling us what our Catholic canon teaches, you quote the canon and I will explain it for you. What half of what canon. You have to show me what canon your are talking about. You have to support your accusations with quotes or admit your ignorance of the canons and yuo might not know what you are talking about with regard to Catholicism. Your arguement is a rather nonsensical one. Do you claim I have to follow the bible? Is the Bible Jesus? Mine doesn't have two legs and create universes last I checked. So I guess your telling me I have to follow something that is not God. Back up your statments with quotes and intelligence or get out of the conversation. I'll not waste my time with you if you act as if you know about Catholicism. You don't.

Thess,

Once again, YOU know what your cannon states. I have read your cannon. Grace ALONE, would be simply that. Your cannon requires MORE than grace alone, it's already been admitted, (in a rather round about way). By simply being commmanded that you follow cannon is an indication in itself that you don't believe that 'grace alone' is sufficient. Cooperation, what ever this means, is in ADDITION to grace alone. You may have had someone teach you this 'double think' just as they have taught you 'trinity' with the same concept, but you can't change the 'truth' no matter how you try to reword it.

My canon states? What canon? Cooperation comes about through grace. Following Christ's Church can only come about by grace. There can be nothing good in us without God's grace. We can have no faith without grace. We can have no obedience without grace. We cannot care for the sick or the hungry without grace. We can not grow in wisdom and understanding without grace, we cannot avoid sin and will be enslaved by it without grace. No I am quite sure that the Catholic Church teaches grace alone. It is only your twisting that brings you to another conclusion as if you the expert on Catholic understanding. You decide what Catholicism is rather than have someone explain it to you.

You make up your own definition of grace and at a whim condemn mind. God's grace is his Holy Spirit working in and through us, bringing about the obedience that he requires for our salvation. Even our faith is prompted by his grace. It's quite Biblical. Eph 3:20 is the best verse for it though it is all over the place. By that definition Catholic theology is perfectly in harmony with grace alone. Since you can't see the trinity I doudt you will see it however. Your one man show theology is far wiser, at least in your mind. There is little I can do to open your mind so I pray for you.

 

[cj]

Aaaahhhhh,..... the refreshingness of a discussion concerning the matter of oneness, among the saints. So uplifting.

Oh Lord Jesus, come quickly.


In love,
cj

 

[TruthHunter]

I have two questions for you Imagican

Thess,

You choose to evade my point. I don't need to quote cannon to prove my point. You can quote it yourself. I don't choose to even read it.

I thought that about 1/2 of the Catholic 'canon' taught that anyone that accepted this idea was to be considered antithema. Maybe i misunderstand, but, I thought I had read that anyone that taught, 'by grace alone' was considered by Catholic doctrine to be an heretic. Guess I just don't understand what is meant by what I've read.

1)So have you read the Code of Canon Law or not?


2) From another reply you contributed confession, images of the Saints, indulgences, and the like to pagan Roman influence into the Early Christian Church. if this was the case then how was one branch of many branches able to infultrate the ENTIRE Church? Even the Orthodox keep these practices which you call pagan. Surely you are not the first Christian, not even the reformers we the first Christians who understood God's will enough to have posed a challenge to these early on. However in order for what you assert to be true would mean that within the first 500 years of Christianity, Christians didn't know Jesus, weren't guided by the Holy Spirit, and allowed their Rich faith to be polluted by Paganism. However these SAME people were able to write God inspired letters to each others, and then later meet and set a New Testament Canon which even you recognize. This looks like a better case of "double think" than what any Catholic has EVER come up with.

Peace,
Ben

 

[Klee shay]

God's grace is his Holy Spirit working in and through us, bringing about the obedience that he requires for our salvation.

Wasn't it God's grace to send Jesus to die for our sins and answer his prayer on the cross to forgive us?

After the resurrection of Jesus to the right-hand side of God, didn't it become Christ's grace (having been sacrificed for it) that saves?

 

[TruthHunter]

God's grace is his Holy Spirit working in and through us, bringing about the obedience that he requires for our salvation.

Wasn't it God's grace to send Jesus to die for our sins and answer his prayer on the cross to forgive us?

After the resurrection of Jesus to the right-hand side of God, didn't it become Christ's grace (having been sacrificed for it) that saves?

Christ is God, so yes

 

[Heidi]

Grace, and Faith are two different things. ALL things come from God's Grace, and olny through God's Grace, thus Catholics do not have a problem with Grace alone. It is Faith Alone which Catholics have a problem with, and it is on the confusion of these things which this debate takes place.

Where do catholics think the ability to do good works comes from? The superior intelligence and superior wisdom of Christians, or the Holy Spirit? If it comes from the Holy Spirit, then why do they worry that He is not stronger than the devil? That's why the bible says that Christ has victory over the devil...unless catholics don't believe that. Jesus tells us all the time to have no fear and do not worry. I simply know that "the one who is in me is greater than the one who is in the world." That's called faith and is all we need because as Phillipians tells us "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion." Faith is what gives us the thankfulness and love to do good works!

 

[Imagican]

OC,

I offer you the 'Godhead' as 'enough' definition of the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. I contend that if this is not enough, then the Bible ISN'T the inspired efforts of man to offer God's word or we simply weren't 'meant' to understand the EXACT nature of the relationship.

It's little different than if you were to offer the 'water' nature of God and try and shove 'this' down others throats. "You know, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are 'like water'. They are three different forms of the 'same' thing." I would choose the Word over this too, any day.

I HAVE NOT tried to change what is in the Word, just try to understand it without the 'need' of man to tell me what 'they' would have it mean. If God chooses to reveal His knowledge to ME, then so be it. If not, I guess I'll just have to remain a weed.

I believe that the apostles were commissioned to 'START' the Church. This was done hundreds of years before Christs' murderers decided to try and kill him again, and again, and again......................

The apostles and Christ Himself warned us that this would happen.

I DO understand enough of the paganism of the Catholic church to understand that it offers much in opposition to the Word. The Catholic church even indicates that the Bible is NOT infallible and therefore 'their' interpretation of God's will is to be regarded 'superior' to it. HUH?

NO idols, OC. Do you bow to idols? Do you pray to idols? And how do you think that Christ feels when He sees you bow to a 'man-made' image of Him that the 'carver and painter' of 'just guessed' what He looked like, (and got it wrong at that)? Who knows what Christ looked like in the flesh?

I didn't create your 'faith' guys. I haven't tried to force 'anyone' to follow ANYTHING. I offer that no one should follow anything other the Word. I have simply tried to offer those 'that don't know' the misdeeds and 'man-made' theology of the RC this information. Fortunately for those that would choose to follow Christ 'now' days, there is freedom from this organization that would lock their souls in this kind of 'prison'.

And to those 'Protestants' out there that would 'fault' the Catholic church, don't you realize and understand that MUCH of what you 'too' follow is the 'same baggage' that your forefathers were just incapable of 'seeing'? After hundreds and hundreds of years of fear, much of what they took with them in theology was nothing more than doctrinal 'baggage' that they had been forced to 'believe in' after 'being brainwashed' through fear of pain or death for HUNDREDS OF YEARS?

In reference, it only took the Russians less than twenty years to destroy 'almost' EVERY BIT OF RELIGION from among their people using the same methodology. KILL EVERYONE that disagrees with the state.

So, herein lies the 'truth': The Catholic church had HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of years to 'BEAT', 'TORCHERE' and 'MURDER' the 'truth' out of the CHURCH. And much of what 'would NOT' exist in Protestant Christianity WITHOUT the influence of the Catholic church, was simply carried over into the 'Protestant' faith/s for lack of the 'purity' that the apostles brought to us in the Word. This is what I have tried to offer in the term 'hijacking of Christianity'.

You know, there is another organization that defends it's teachings almost as rigorously as the Catholics. They try almost as hard to hide and deny their past in order to convince others that the 'truth' is something entirely different than history would dictate. The organization is called 'Scientology'. Their tactics to control and 'brainwash' are quite similar too. Unfortunately for L. Ron, he came about 1,000 years too late in order to be able to murder those that didn't accept what 'he' had to offer.

How much of the history of the Catholic church would they destroy if they were able OC? Why? Why would they have need to be ashamed of what they have done in the 'name of Christ'? And, what could possibly have allowed 'the true Saints' to commit the atrocious acts that they have in the past? If their teaching and cannon and theology were SO accurate, how did they veer so far from Christ as to murder those that 'may have been' true Saints, simply for speaking out against or denying this 'faith'?

And I may not know as much as you do of 'your' faith, this is of no surprise or consequence in rather or not it is 'true' or 'false' teaching. I know enough of it for it to scare the pants off me.

OC, since you are an 'expert' on Catholicism, you tell me, how many 'true' Christians did the Catholic church murder in it's thousand year reign of 'terror'? I am just an ignorant weed, but you tell us, how many? How many 'true' Saints were torchered and murdered in the name of the 'Catholic Christ'? And these are those that you would choose to defend and follow?

 

[Vic C.]

OC, since you are an 'expert' on Catholicism, you tell me, how many 'true' Christians did the Catholic church murder in it's thousand year reign of 'terror'?

:o Oh no, not this again. This is out of line and off topic. Start another thread if you want to discus this. Better yet, on second thought, please don't start another thread. We have enough bickering going on already. :-? This is one of those devisive topics and we all know the history anyway, so why dredge it up?

 

[Orthodox Christian]

OC,

I offer you the 'Godhead' as 'enough' definition of the relationship of Father, Son, and Spirit. I contend that if this is not enough, then the Bible ISN'T the inspired efforts of man to offer God's word or we simply weren't 'meant' to understand the EXACT nature of the relationship.

Nor do we suppose for one nanosecond that "Trinity" or "Hypostatic union" in any sense is an exhaustive or complete definition of He who is the source of all.

What you offer me as definition is YOUR understanding of what the scriptures say. What exactly does "Godhead" mean anyway? That's a rhetorical question. It's siimply a label, not even descriptive. You might as well tell me that your definition of an automobile is Mustang Fastback.

It's little different than if you were to offer the 'water' nature of God and try and shove 'this' down others throats. "You know, God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are 'like water'. They are three different forms of the 'same' thing." I would choose the Word over this too, any day.

Who's shoving what down whose throat? You will find that every last word of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, aka the Symbol of Faith, is biblical- save one: ομοούσιον
( homouision)The conflict regarding that word centered around, literally, one iota.

I HAVE NOT tried to change what is in the Word, just try to understand it without the 'need' of man to tell me what 'they' would have it mean. If God chooses to reveal His knowledge to ME, then so be it. If not, I guess I'll just have to remain a weed.

By all means, remain in your heresy. "For those who say there was a time when the Son was not, let them be anathema."

I believe that the apostles were commissioned to 'START' the Church. This was done hundreds of years before Christs' murderers decided to try and kill him again, and again, and again......................

Christ's murderers, as you say, never ceased murdering Him. Take for example the Arians, who murdered and exiled Trinitarian Christians in the years 327-379 AD.

The apostles and Christ Himself warned us that this would happen.

I DO understand enough of the paganism of the Catholic church to understand that it offers much in opposition to the Word. The Catholic church even indicates that the Bible is NOT infallible and therefore 'their' interpretation of God's will is to be regarded 'superior' to it. HUH?

Perhaps you'd like to ask that of a Catholic. :roll:

NO idols, OC. Do you bow to idols? Do you pray to idols? And how do you think that Christ feels when He sees you bow to a 'man-made' image of Him that the 'carver and painter' of 'just guessed' what He looked like, (and got it wrong at that)? Who knows what Christ looked like in the flesh?

Idols are what is found in the heart. A man may bow down to his own intellect, or strength, or PIETY.
I do not bow down to idols, though I'm certain that there have been many things that have taken the place of Christ's centrality in my heart and life- and none of these were pictures that replaced Him. No, the andeChristo, in the place of Christ, typically is much more subtle than all that.

It does not matter what Christ looked like. I know that He came in the flesh, and I know that we are made in His image and in His likeness. He has crowned us with glory- His glory. All of my worship and praise belongs to Him, and I intend to give both.

Here's a word to the wise, perhaps you will perceive it: What are letters, and words? They are images, symbols, like icons on your computer desktop, their appearance points to something else. You have a bible filled with such icons. The words there point to Christ, not vice versa. These scriptures are therefore HOLY IMAGES. The danger is that men will bow down to their version of these words, and not to the One who breathed them.

I didn't create your 'faith' guys. I haven't tried to force 'anyone' to follow ANYTHING. I offer that no one should follow anything other the Word. I have simply tried to offer those 'that don't know' the misdeeds and 'man-made' theology of the RC this information. Fortunately for those that would choose to follow Christ 'now' days, there is freedom from this organization that would lock their souls in this kind of 'prison'.

You argue with no less vigor than anyone else, and should therefore not claim that they are imposing themselves on you. Have you not read the statement of faith on this forum? Are you an informed consumer? Why are you at a Trintarian forum arguing with Trinitarians? Because you wish to influence- please don't be coy. You only have a right to complain if you feel that you are being personally attacked.
Frankly, I haven't seen that happen to you. If you feel that my blunt words are personal attacks, I apologize, and ask you to look at them more carefully, and see that they are not attacks on your person.

And to those 'Protestants' out there that would 'fault' the Catholic church, don't you realize and understand that MUCH of what you 'too' follow is the 'same baggage' that your forefathers were just incapable of 'seeing'? After hundreds and hundreds of years of fear, much of what they took with them in theology was nothing more than doctrinal 'baggage' that they had been forced to 'believe in' after 'being brainwashed' through fear of pain or death for HUNDREDS OF YEARS?

These are very strong charges. You are essentially telling the other Protestants that you are illumined, and they in bondage. Perhaps they will rebut.

In reference, it only took the Russians less than twenty years to destroy 'almost' EVERY BIT OF RELIGION from among their people using the same methodology. KILL EVERYONE that disagrees with the state.

The Russians of whom you speak were and are primarily Eastern Orthodox. How well read are you on what happened there? Do you know that we had 78 of 80 bishops deposed, imprisoned, and martyred? Do you know that the Church continued in the Gulags? Google 'Father Arseny" to read about miracles and faith in the very mouth of hell.
Do you know that we had millions die of starvation in the Ukraine?
The Church was NOT destroyed. It continued in exile, and underground. Now the elements of the Church there who were adulterous with the Communists are still striving to hold the handles of power. They will be excised in due time, and the ridiculous sacralism occuring will fade.

So, herein lies the 'truth': The Catholic church had HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS of years to 'BEAT', 'TORCHERE' and 'MURDER' the 'truth' out of the CHURCH. And much of what 'would NOT' exist in Protestant Christianity WITHOUT the influence of the Catholic church, was simply carried over into the 'Protestant' faith/s for lack of the 'purity' that the apostles brought to us in the Word. This is what I have tried to offer in the term 'hijacking of Christianity'.

You are speaking of events that occured many centuries after 'orthodoxy' had been settled. If you wish to debate the origins of the Church, let's say the events of the late 4th and early fifth century specifically, then please start a separate thread. I must warn you that I have researched this period of history for about 10 years now, and the debate will not go your way...but please, proceed.

You know, there is another organization that defends it's teachings almost as rigorously as the Catholics. They try almost as hard to hide and deny their past in order to convince others that the 'truth' is something entirely different than history would dictate. The organization is called 'Scientology'. Their tactics to control and 'brainwash' are quite similar too. Unfortunately for L. Ron, he came about 1,000 years too late in order to be able to murder those that didn't accept what 'he' had to offer.

L Ron Hubbard started the whole thing as a middle finger to the Establishment, especially Christianity. It was his followers who got a bit Sicilian.

How much of the history of the Catholic church would they destroy if they were able OC? Why? Why would they have need to be ashamed of what they have done in the 'name of Christ'? And, what could possibly have allowed 'the true Saints' to commit the atrocious acts that they have in the past? If their teaching and cannon and theology were SO accurate, how did they veer so far from Christ as to murder those that 'may have been' true Saints, simply for speaking out against or denying this 'faith'?

I'm not interested in destroying the history of the Church you mistakingly call the "Catholic Church." I'm quite interested in discussing all of the nuances of the history of the Church, from Pentecost to today.

And I may not know as much as you do of 'your' faith, this is of no surprise or consequence in rather or not it is 'true' or 'false' teaching. I know enough of it for it to scare the pants off me.

OC, since you are an 'expert' on Catholicism, you tell me, how many 'true' Christians did the Catholic church murder in it's thousand year reign of 'terror'? I am just an ignorant weed, but you tell us, how many? How many 'true' Saints were torchered and murdered in the name of the 'Catholic Christ'? And these are those that you would choose to defend and follow?

I'm not an expert on the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is the Western portion of the Apostolic Church; we Orthodox are the Eastern portion. We share many things in terms of doctrine, and we have some important differences. Our histories parted ways between the period 900 AD-1200 AD, roughly. The West is much more logical deductive and rationalistic in their approach to theology, where we are deeply mystical. Our history includes 500 years of Ottoman Muslim enslavement, followed by 75 years of Communist persecution. We know plenty about being murdered and tortured. Our people today are persecuted in Egypt and throughout the Arab world- even in Jerusalem, our home and mother.

I'm not an "expert" on the Orthodox Church or our history either. I am well informed, but an expert is, in my understanding, a scholar.I have not as yet earned that distinction, not by a long ways.

BTW:I did not say that you were a weed- I said your faith- or more specifically, your view- is a weed. I am quite certain that to God you are a priceless rose, cultivated by the Master's Hand.

Please do not personalize this discussion.
Thanks
James

 

[TruthHunter]

Grace, and Faith are two different things. ALL things come from God's Grace, and olny through God's Grace, thus Catholics do not have a problem with Grace alone. It is Faith Alone which Catholics have a problem with, and it is on the confusion of these things which this debate takes place.

Where do catholics think the ability to do good works comes from? The superior intelligence and superior wisdom of Christians, or the Holy Spirit? If it comes from the Holy Spirit, then why do they worry that He is not stronger than the devil? That's why the bible says that Christ has victory over the devil...unless catholics don't believe that. Jesus tells us all the time to have no fear and do not worry. I simply know that "the one who is in me is greater than the one who is in the world." That's called faith and is all we need because as Phillipians tells us "He who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion." Faith is what gives us the thankfulness and love to do good works!

Heidi I must admit your post is confusing to me. Where did you get the idea the Catholics aren't sure if God is stronger than Satan? Anyway let me assure you GOD, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are indeed stronger than Satan and all of his demon legions put together.

As for the idea of where the power to do good works comes from. The ABILITY to do good works has been granted to every human, from the dawn of creation, by God through something we know as Free Will. That is the Ability. To turn our Good works into true devotion, and Worship of Christ, to make it a part of our Faith. That power come from the Grace of God.

Peace,
Ben

 

[Klee shay]

Christ is God, so yes

Christ is Christ and God is God; unified they are one. Why is it written then that Christ ascended to the right-hand side of God? If he was God then why wasn't it written that he ascended as God?

If we don't go through Jesus - seeking his will and instruction then we can foget reaching the Father, for the new covernant is between Jesus and God not mankind and God.