User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 12:44:48 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The “processes” you mention are nothing more than the RCC’s thinly-veiled attempt to add required works to one’s salvation when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. What does it say about salvation? Jesus said “believe in the gospel and repent.” Mark 1:15. Paul repeatedly says that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, and he specifically railed against the Judaizers who attempted to add works to the requirements of being saved. E.g., Ephesians 2:8-9. Nowhere does it say that works are required to receive salvation through grace (because, as Paul recognized in Romans 11:6, if salvation was by works, it would no longer be grace). The RCC can couch the Sacraments in terms of receiving “grace” for each Sacrament a person participates in, but it’s just another way of adding works to the requirement for salvation. The problem is that the RCC seems to conflate the concepts of justification and sanctification by requiring works (in the form of Sacraments) to be justified when the Bible clearly teaches that we are justified by faith, not works. In this way, the Church interposes itself and its ordinances between man and God, when the Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between them: Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The irony of this is he seems to be alluding to the whole "repent and accept Christ as your Savior" or some version of the "Sinner's prayer" angle so popular in certain circles. And what is Catholic Last Rites (which consists of, yes, Confession and Eucharist) but repentance and accepting Christ? But the Church offers this because it sees as entrusted with preserving the Sacraments, as they are the means by which the Church can facilitate grace. The difference is whether one trusts in the grace accompanied by the practices established by the Church, or asserts one's own "I got this" theology. The latter smacks, to me, as wholly unbiblical and rooted in the hubris of original sin (or whatever one opts to calls it) - that man alone can and should be able to decide right from wrong. For the Church to suggest salvation is guaranteed without exercising those sacramental vehicles it has been entrusted with to ensure said grace, would be for the Church to reject its very mission. No Church nor man "guarantees" salvation, we can only continue to do as instructed, and as has been done for millennia, out of faith. There are just some absolutely comical twists and corruptions of basic Christian theology that have manifested within Protestantism over the years, much of it a result of outright ignorant semantic games that can be readily played against Churches who are literally older than all modern language or just a creative interpretations of history in order to advance a narrative. But this one? Repent and accept Christ? Yeah, that's like... always been there. The actual apostolic Churches have just more established processes to make sure it's done the best possible way. The “processes” you mention are nothing more than the RCC’s thinly-veiled attempt to add required works to one’s salvation when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. What does it say about salvation? Jesus said “believe in the gospel and repent.” Mark 1:15. Paul repeatedly says that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, and he specifically railed against the Judaizers who attempted to add works to the requirements of being saved. E.g., Ephesians 2:8-9. Nowhere does it say that works are required to receive salvation through grace (because, as Paul recognized in Romans 11:6, if salvation was by works, it would no longer be grace). The RCC can couch the Sacraments in terms of receiving “grace” for each Sacrament a person participates in, but it’s just another way of adding works to the requirement for salvation. The problem is that the RCC seems to conflate the concepts of justification and sanctification by requiring works (in the form of Sacraments) to be justified when the Bible clearly teaches that we are justified by faith, not works. In this way, the Church interposes itself and its ordinances between man and God, when the Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between them: Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5. Baptism is not needed for salvation? Is it a "work?" It's the first of the sacraments. ALso, consider the book of James: James 2:14-26 New King James Version Faith Without Works Is Dead 14 What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,” but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without [a]your works, and I will show you my faith by [b]my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is [c]dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made [d]perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was [e]accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 12:46:02 PM EST
[#2]
As a God fearing man who talks to God daily, I can’t stand any Church.
They are nothing but a place that “good people” get together to spend their time talking about everyone else behind their back. Nothing “Christian” about it IMO. As the saying goes..... A man sitting in a church thinking about fishing is religion. A man sitting in a boat talking to God, is a relationship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 12:50:44 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Baptism is not needed for salvation? Is it a "work?" It's the first of the sacraments. ALso, consider the book of James: The way to read James 2 in conjunction with Paul’s writings is thus: by grace through faith is how we are saved, and how we know that a claimed faith is active and genuine is through works. Thus, a claimed faith with no accompanying works is dead. The works themselves don’t save—an atheist can feed the poor, avoid sin, etc.—but only those who believe and trust in Christ will be justified. And a natural consequence flowing from that salvation will be good works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:01:43 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The way to read James 2 in conjunction with Paul’s writings is thus: by grace through faith is how we are saved, and how we know that a claimed faith is active and genuine is through works. Thus, a claimed faith with no accompanying works is dead. The works themselves don’t save—an atheist can feed the poor, avoid sin, etc.—but only those who believe and trust in Christ will be justified. And a natural consequence flowing from that salvation will be good works. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Baptism is not needed for salvation? Is it a "work?" It's the first of the sacraments. ALso, consider the book of James: The way to read James 2 in conjunction with Paul’s writings is thus: by grace through faith is how we are saved, and how we know that a claimed faith is active and genuine is through works. Thus, a claimed faith with no accompanying works is dead. The works themselves don’t save—an atheist can feed the poor, avoid sin, etc.—but only those who believe and trust in Christ will be justified. And a natural consequence flowing from that salvation will be good works. And that's different from the RCC how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:03:50 PM EST
[#5]
Does no one follow the rules any more?
Pics of wife with snakes not loading. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:05:08 PM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that's different from the RCC how? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Baptism is not needed for salvation? Is it a "work?" It's the first of the sacraments. ALso, consider the book of James: The way to read James 2 in conjunction with Paul’s writings is thus: by grace through faith is how we are saved, and how we know that a claimed faith is active and genuine is through works. Thus, a claimed faith with no accompanying works is dead. The works themselves don’t save—an atheist can feed the poor, avoid sin, etc.—but only those who believe and trust in Christ will be justified. And a natural consequence flowing from that salvation will be good works. And that's different from the RCC how? It isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:08:00 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "I am of the belief that as long as you love and believe in Jesus Christ, it doesn't matter what the denomination is." That is not the Catholic position. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:10:53 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And that's different from the RCC how? Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It’s analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:11:25 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Catholic Church is the only church ever authorized by Christ and is meant to be the only church. Christ said that? Was it at the sermon on the mound, or the last supper? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:11:50 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with Catholicism (I was raised Catholic btw) is it does NOT represent the teachings of Christ. At one time in history it may have but it has gone so far off the rails its shocking. #1- You shall make no graven images, yet the church has statues of "saints, angels and the Holy Mother" #2- Christ said you only have ONE father in Heaven, yet priests demand to be called Father #3- You shall worship no GOD but your Father in Heaven yet Catholicism has people praying to Mary, Michael the Archangel, the Pope, etc. #4- Christ said you should not use long repetitive prayers...this one is self explanatory if you have ever been to a mass. These are just off the top of my head. The more I really studied the Bible, the further I got from Catholicism If that's true, whoever was charged to raise you in the Faith failed you. Or it's just bullshit people like to say to give their attacks an air of legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:12:28 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It’s analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And that's different from the RCC how? Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It’s analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? Except that's not true. Baptism is one of the sacraments, do you think that is essential for salvation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:13:13 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's why I said earlier, the OP doesn't really know what he is. This thread will definitely help though. If anything, the discussions here will demonstrate that the differences between these denominations go beyond mere aesthetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:15:30 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except that's not true. Baptism is one of the sacraments, do you think that is essential for salvation? No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:17:45 PM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If anything, the discussions here will demonstrate that the differences between these denominations go beyond mere aesthetics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:18:12 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It’s analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: And that's different from the RCC how? Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It’s analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? Sacraments instituted by Christ. "Works" through faith, that you just eluded to. I'm not sure where you're getting something different between your two posts about the RCC and works? Are you saying the RCC just has work requirements that aren't based in faith in our Lord and Savior? If a Catholic is going through the motions of the sacraments with no basis in faith, then he or she is going to have a problem, and the Church teaches this. We discussed this already in the Baptism thread in the religion forum. No we don't, but it isn't that black and white. See above, sort-of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:18:53 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except that's not true. Baptism is one of the sacraments, do you think that is essential for salvation? No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). So you disagree with Christ when he said, "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:22:57 PM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We solved a similar issue by not going and saying our kids can decide when they're older.  Kharn My wife and I both grew up in Catholic churches. I found a different path, and my wife couldn't accept it, so we don't go. I guess we worship in our own ways. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:23:59 PM EST
[#18]
Assuming they follow the teachings they believe and die...
Are Catholics going to Hell? Orthodox or Eastern? Are Protestants going to Hell? Are Methodists in and Baptists out? Is speaking in tongues devil worship? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:24:22 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So you disagree with Christ when he said, "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Being born of water means repentance, not water baptism. Again, the thief on the cross comes to mind. The thief expressed repentance and his belief in Christ, and thus he was saved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:25:24 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What Makes a Person a Christian? Accepting Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. Amen It's all about what Christ did, He paid the price In Full. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:25:51 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being born of water means repentance, not water baptism. Again, the thief on the cross comes to mind. The thief expressed repentance and his belief in Christ, and thus he was saved. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: So you disagree with Christ when he said, "“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." Being born of water means repentance, not water baptism. Again, the thief on the cross comes to mind. The thief expressed repentance and his belief in Christ, and thus he was saved. Is an act of repentance not a work? I kinda see here a guy that kinda makes up his own interpretations to fit his notions--which is really what everyone is doing after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:28:10 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Except that's not true. Baptism is one of the sacraments, do you think that is essential for salvation? No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-good-thief-and-salvation-by-faith-alone "First, a rather large assumption is being made concerning the thief’s sacramental record. How do we know he wasn’t baptized? The Bible doesn’t say he was—but it doesn’t say he wasn’t. We certainly would not want to argue a positive case from silence, but neither should those who assume the thief was not baptized (the Bible doesn’t report the apostles’ baptisms either!). It is also noteworthy that the good thief seems to have been catechized to some level. He knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that Jesus was Lord, and that Jesus was going to his kingdom after he died (something Jesus made clear only to his disciples—see Matthew 13:10-11). It is possible, then, that the thief on the cross was a fallen-away disciple (cf. Matt. 27:44) who repented on the cross. If so, it’s likely that he would have been baptized. The second and much bigger problem is that even if the good thief had never been baptized, the analogy between his life and most other people’s is insufficient to support sola fide. One issue is that the thief lived and died under the Old Covenant. The sacraments, such as Christian baptism and the Eucharist, are part of the New Covenant, which was not fully in place until Jesus died (Heb. 9:15-18, Acts 19:1-6)." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:29:53 PM EST
[#23]
GD thread
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:36:55 PM EST
[#24]
Catholics are Christian. You should have said "Catholic vs Protestant" |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:37:12 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is an act of repentance not a work? I kinda see here a guy that kinda makes up his own interpretations to fit his notions--which is really what everyone is doing after all. What I’m doing is evaluating a text within the context of the rest of Scripture—something theologians have been doing for thousands of years. ETA: Repentance is an aspect of faith, not a work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:38:00 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The “processes” you mention are nothing more than the RCC’s thinly-veiled attempt to add required works to one’s salvation when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise. What does it say about salvation? Jesus said “believe in the gospel and repent.” Mark 1:15. Paul repeatedly says that we are not saved by works, but by grace through faith, and he specifically railed against the Judaizers who attempted to add works to the requirements of being saved. E.g., Ephesians 2:8-9. Nowhere does it say that works are required to receive salvation through grace (because, as Paul recognized in Romans 11:6, if salvation was by works, it would no longer be grace). The RCC can couch the Sacraments in terms of receiving “grace” for each Sacrament a person participates in, but it’s just another way of adding works to the requirement for salvation. The problem is that the RCC seems to conflate the concepts of justification and sanctification by requiring works (in the form of Sacraments) to be justified when the Bible clearly teaches that we are justified by faith, not works. In this way, the Church interposes itself and its ordinances between man and God, when the Bible teaches that there is only one mediator between them: Jesus Christ. 1 Timothy 2:5. Well said. Whenever I hear the modern day churches spouting these things, it is so reminiscent of how the pharisees kept telling everyone how they had to abide by rules, thus setting God on a shelf, only to be ignored for the greater following of the 'rules'. The 'rules' tend to replace God in these instances and don't have the desired result of obedience due to sacrifice Jesus completed, but having obedience being out of fear of if you don't do works. Works should flow from your heart because of what He did for us all, not in spite of. All one has to do is see how Jesus constantly chastised the Pharisees for their works based faith to understand that works should flow from the heart. The pharisees crucified Jesus and certain sects still have him hanging on the cross. Speaks volumes that the cross is still populated and not vacant, knowing that Jesus conqured death and the cross as well as the tomb is empty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:38:14 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What I’m doing is evaluating a text within the context of the rest of Scripture—something theologians have been doing for thousands of years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Is an act of repentance not a work? I kinda see here a guy that kinda makes up his own interpretations to fit his notions--which is really what everyone is doing after all. What I’m doing is evaluating a text within the context of the rest of Scripture—something theologians have been doing for thousands of years. If you say so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:39:45 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread has gone from suck to blow. I wonder if there's a set of "Ridiculous Roman Catholic Claims" trading cards in the bookstores next to the Chick Tracts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:44:29 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). What "proof" is there the thief was never baptized? There is none. That "fact" as you call it is nothing more then your opinion. The Bible never says the thief was saved. The word "paradise" is translated from a word that has several meanings. Often it is just assumed by many to mean heaven, but Christ apparently didn't go to heaven right after his death. As he told Mary on the 3rd day after his death: "I have not yet ascended to my father". So where did Christ and the thief go if it wasn't to heaven? In 1 Peter we read that Christ went and taught the spirits in prison. (19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;) The original wording that "paradise" is translated from can also mean garden, or place of spirits. Just because a spirit goes there does not mean they are saved, thus why Christ still is teaching spirits after one dies. So trying to claim one does not need to be baptized to be saved using that example, is really stretching, and making huge assumptions that the Bible never claims. Jesus himself speaks very clearly on this subject. In Mark we read "16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:44:41 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I met a 14 year old yesterday with 100 surgeries under his belt. You're wasting bandwidth. I'm not suggesting folks don't have the ability to pray directly to the top, that's above my pay grade. I'm more concerned about the mockery (which I had never encountered prior to moving south) of praying to Mary and the saints. Again, it's a matter of humility. Born agains tend to think they have the big guy on speed dial. I don't see a reason to talk to the manager when the receptionist has the answer. Pretty sure the boss is handling the big picture items of the day. I made a comment one time that I was praying for an answer but I was pretty sure I didn't rate a burning bush. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:47:10 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We do have a direct line to the big guy. Jesus invites us to pray directly to the Father. I have so much more than a mere direct line to my Abba Father (AKA My Daddy). No need to have him on Speed Dial, We are together constantly, and he watches over me while I sleep. I wake up thinking about my Lord and fall asleep thinking and talking with him about... well everything. It's pointless to put anyone or anything in the way of my talking to my Father who loves me. Would I go to my Grandmother or my Sibling instead of just going to my Dad to talk with him? My most often prayer is Simply "Thank You"... Followed closely by "Help"  |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:48:27 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think I've fought with them at all. Usually I don't, but it hasn't taken me very long to notice that this threads always invite unsolicited hostility from protestants, and I really don't understand why their guns are always loaded to yell at catholics on the internet. They certainly aren't like that in real life, at least none that I have known, which confounds me even more. Probably because some of the catholics claim they are the only 'true' Christians?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 1:52:39 PM EST
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Catholic Church is the only church ever authorized by Christ and is meant to be the only church. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:00:12 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: --Snip-- Born agains tend to think they have the big guy on speed dial. I don't see a reason to talk to the manager when the receptionist has the answer. Pretty sure the boss is handling the big picture items of the day. God is not the Manager, Nor the Boss, who is too busy to talk to every one of us. God is our Father, Dad, and our Daddy. He Loves us as a Father loves his children. Fathers love hearing the voice of their children whether in need or in praise? I absolutely love it when my daughter calls me whether it's to simply say that she loves me or to ask me to come over and help her with something. Truth is I would feel deeply hurt if she never talked directly to me and just went to others instead of coming directly to me. I would tend to believe it would be Likewise for my heavenly Father. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:02:09 PM EST
[#35]
What was the first miracle performed by Jesus? Why did He perform it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:02:17 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you post book, chapter and verse of the bible that you read that little tidbit in? Thank you in advance. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Catholic Church is the only church ever authorized by Christ and is meant to be the only church. No offense to Bigreb but could have been worded better. Christ founded a universal (catholic means universal) Christian Church, that Church later became known as the Catholic Church, out of which the Bible was compiled and produced. There were schisms through the years, East/West split, protestant reformation to name a couple. "The earliest document we have in which “Catholic” is used to label the Church is a letter from Ignatius of Antioch, who wrote around A.D. 107, while being taken to Rome for execution. For all we know, the term was used well before that time—which is to say, in the time of the apostles." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:03:18 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's interesting though. I am exploring my own faith currently. I was raised catholic but sort of became the prodigal sheep after about 5th grade or probably more accurately never really believed. It took a long journey through what some may even consider heathen beliefs to have the "universe" lead me back to God. A little while back we did a craft show at a lutheran church and that sort of rekindled my desire to take part in some formal practice. Reading a little bit about Lutheranism, the concept appealed to me in some ways. I always found it odd to focus so highly on Mary and a lot of the appearance of Catholicism seemed to be making a spectacle of worship... I ended up going to weekday catholic masses and praying the rosary because there simply were convenient times for me to go and not have to disclose or share my interest with anyone outside of the church. At some point I also went to a lutheran mass and while what I had read about it lead me to believe it would be less ostentatious. I came away from the experience with the totally opposite impression. Now this could of course come down to the specific congregation and or my upbringing the Catholic church just felt more humble and correct. In reality the basic structures of the masses were similar enough that it barely warranted an argument. I liked that the lutheran church distributed the blood of Christ for communion, far more people welcomed and spoke with me, and the prayers used the exact wording I remember from my youth. I was not a fan of comfy theatre seating, video screen for readings hymns etc, the service took entirely too long of a detour to focus on the song "People get ready" and it's message and importance to the civil rights movement. Granted it was black history month but the one black person in the seats slept through that part grand piano, focus on a peanut butter drive including a military helmut for the pastor to be the peanut butter general... Meanwhile the catholic church has a priest of Kenyan origin who hasn't spoken a word on race (this isn't really that important but sort of helps paint the picture). Anyway one felt right and I was just sort of lead to and the other did not. I hope that was a particularly long winded useless anecdote which does nothing but further confuse you and lead you and your wife to explore and discuss your faith. It's cool - you're allowed to feel how you feel. The only thing I would recommend is to look at the differences between Catholicism and Protestantism (Lutheranism in your case specifically) and try to reconcile those differences for yourself. Maybe you decide that they don't warrant changing anything, or maybe something will be really important to you after you look at it in detail. The only other thing I will say is that I am doubtful of you theological foundation in Catholicism based on your " I always found it odd to focus so highly on Mary and a lot of the appearance of Catholicism seemed to be making a spectacle of worship" comment. It sounds like what an antagonistic Protestant might say about Catholicism without understanding the details. That's why I said that it's so important to actually do a deep dive into why Christian faiths believe what they do. Good luck and I encourage you to continue your faith journey. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:05:19 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The way to read James 2 in conjunction with Paul's writings is thus: by grace through faith is how we are saved, and how we know that a claimed faith is active and genuine is through works. Thus, a claimed faith with no accompanying works is dead. The works themselves don't save an atheist can feed the poor, avoid sin, etc. but only those who believe and trust in Christ will be justified. And a natural consequence flowing from that salvation will be good works. Welcome to the Catholic faith.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:07:39 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because the RCC teaches that salvation comes through faith AND participation in the Sacraments. Participation in the Sacraments are just works added as an additional requirement to faith for salvation. It's analogous to the Judaizers requiring circumcision and observation of Jewish law to be saved. What happens if someone skips Mass or confession or taking the Eucharist? Do they lose their salvation? No, it does not. Skipping mass or not going to confession is a sin, but it is not "required for salvation" insofar as we all sin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:08:46 PM EST
[#40]
Mt father was Catholic. My mother was Baptist. When they got married, they met in the middle, and both became Methodist.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:11:11 PM EST
[#41]
Meh. I see where this whole thread is going. It's devolving into people arguing amongst themselves and nothing more. I'm pretty sure, any non-Christian reading this thread is going to come out with a worse opinion about Christianity after this is all said and done with. I'm out and sincerely hope that the OP finds a good solution for him and his wife.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:17:34 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-good-thief-and-salvation-by-faith-alone "First, a rather large assumption is being made concerning the thief’s sacramental record. How do we know he wasn’t baptized? The Bible doesn’t say he was—but it doesn’t say he wasn’t. We certainly would not want to argue a positive case from silence, but neither should those who assume the thief was not baptized (the Bible doesn’t report the apostles’ baptisms either!). It is also noteworthy that the good thief seems to have been catechized to some level. He knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that Jesus was Lord, and that Jesus was going to his kingdom after he died (something Jesus made clear only to his disciples—see Matthew 13:10-11). It is possible, then, that the thief on the cross was a fallen-away disciple (cf. Matt. 27:44) who repented on the cross. If so, it’s likely that he would have been baptized. The second and much bigger problem is that even if the good thief had never been baptized, the analogy between his life and most other people’s is insufficient to support sola fide. One issue is that the thief lived and died under the Old Covenant. The sacraments, such as Christian baptism and the Eucharist, are part of the New Covenant, which was not fully in place until Jesus died (Heb. 9:15-18, Acts 19:1-6)." Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Except that's not true. Baptism is one of the sacraments, do you think that is essential for salvation? No. It’s something that all believers should do as a public expression of faith, but it’s not like whoever believes but isn’t baptized isn’t going to be saved (such as the thief on the cross who we know for a fact was not baptized but was saved). https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-good-thief-and-salvation-by-faith-alone "First, a rather large assumption is being made concerning the thief’s sacramental record. How do we know he wasn’t baptized? The Bible doesn’t say he was—but it doesn’t say he wasn’t. We certainly would not want to argue a positive case from silence, but neither should those who assume the thief was not baptized (the Bible doesn’t report the apostles’ baptisms either!). It is also noteworthy that the good thief seems to have been catechized to some level. He knew Jesus had done nothing wrong, that Jesus was Lord, and that Jesus was going to his kingdom after he died (something Jesus made clear only to his disciples—see Matthew 13:10-11). It is possible, then, that the thief on the cross was a fallen-away disciple (cf. Matt. 27:44) who repented on the cross. If so, it’s likely that he would have been baptized. The second and much bigger problem is that even if the good thief had never been baptized, the analogy between his life and most other people’s is insufficient to support sola fide. One issue is that the thief lived and died under the Old Covenant. The sacraments, such as Christian baptism and the Eucharist, are part of the New Covenant, which was not fully in place until Jesus died (Heb. 9:15-18, Acts 19:1-6)." The Church teaches baptism because Christ taught and instructed the Church to baptize. It's really that simple. That's the same with the other sacraments. Nothing about the existence of the Church or the sacraments it maintains precludes, or imparts any limitations on, grace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:23:29 PM EST
[#43]
OP,
I would suggest that you and your wife find a good Non-Denomination church that teaches the entire Bible verse by verse. (That will help to remove any denominational issues you may have.) I have found the 'Calvary Chapels' Churches to be spot on in their teaching. (I am a very long-time believer and have studied the Bible for years). I'm personally not into religion but I sure Love my Lord. Find a place that teaches Jesus and not traditions and you will find Life! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:25:27 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The prayers to Mary (and Saints) always made sense to me. If I wanted someone to put in a good word for me with the CEO, I'd invite a VP to golf first. The vocal Protestants I've known over the years seem to think they've got a fiber optic line to the big guy. Catholics tend to use cups on a string and hope for the best, with a degree of humility. So that whole " no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" was just malarkey? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:32:47 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So that whole " no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" was just malarkey? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The prayers to Mary (and Saints) always made sense to me. If I wanted someone to put in a good word for me with the CEO, I'd invite a VP to golf first. The vocal Protestants I've known over the years seem to think they've got a fiber optic line to the big guy. Catholics tend to use cups on a string and hope for the best, with a degree of humility. So that whole " no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" was just malarkey? The idea that this is contradictory, is indeed "malarkey." Why is Mary significant? Why are the Saints? They all point to Christ. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately try not to understand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:35:53 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The idea that this is contradictory, is indeed "malarkey." Why is Mary significant? Why are the Saints? They all point to Christ. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately try not to understand. Why would you Pray to Mary and not to the Father God? Same with praying to Saints (All Christians are Saints) Why do it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:41:50 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why would you Pray to Mary and not to the Father God? Same with praying to Saints (All Christians are Saints) Why do it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The idea that this is contradictory, is indeed "malarkey." Why is Mary significant? Why are the Saints? They all point to Christ. To suggest otherwise is to deliberately try not to understand. Why would you Pray to Mary and not to the Father God? Same with praying to Saints (All Christians are Saints) Why do it? Why would you talk with a parent? A teacher? A trusted confidant? Why, especially why, not seek out a known glorified Christian? People find inspiration in certain people and stories. Mary is particularly admirable. The real question here is, why create a theology that effectively demonizes a practice and understanding that dates back to the earliest Church, and why use semantic trickery to do so? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:45:21 PM EST
[#48]
If I were to declare myself Christian, Catholic would be slightly lower than declaring myself Satanic.
Seriously, how any reasonable person, especially a "Christian," could ever align themselves with the Catholic church is beyond me. 2k years of lies, murder, theft, rape, gluttony, fornication, and on and on, all up to and including the very highest levels of the Church. An absolute cesspool of human degeneracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:47:41 PM EST
[#49]
OP, no one is “born Catholic”. And you didn’t need to be baptized as a baby since baptism is for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and babies have no sin. All your life you’ve been doing what you were told. Pick up a KJV and read it for yourself. Start with the New Testament and specifically the book of Acts which describes how people living in the first century actually became Christians and what church the Lord added them too (Acts 2:47)(you don’t “join” a church). You will not find Catholicism anywhere in the Bible. Put down your man-written creed books and “catechisms” (Gal 1:8-9) and read only the Bible. God is not the author of confusion. Enough is enough. It’s your soul.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2023 2:48:32 PM EST
[#50]
Real churches follow the BIBLE!
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
