Protestant/Catholic Debate (Please Read OP)

gigino

[QUOTE=Donatello;72501886The Pope added that he had realized at an early age that “being Catholic meant belonging to Mary.”
[/QUOTE]
Is this the same Pope who also " realized at an early age ", when in the Nazi youth, that being Nazi meant belonging to Hitler ? ( also a fellow Catholic whom the RCC failed to excommunicate ).
To the early Christians being Christian meant being devoted to Jesus + God rather than Mary. Given how the RCC has changed over 2000 years, and given all the cover-ups and corruption, I know who I'd believe in.

Donatello

gigino wrote: »

Is this the same Pope who also " realized at an early age ", when in the Nazi youth, that being Nazi meant belonging to Hitler ? ( also a fellow Catholic whom the RCC failed to excommunicate ).
To the early Christians being Christian meant being devoted to Jesus + God rather than Mary. Given how the RCC has changed over 2000 years, and given all the cover-ups and corruption, I know who I'd believe in.

This thread is about Our Lady. Please take your vile accusations elsewhere.

Mods?

gigino

branie wrote: »

Anyone here devoted to her?

I reserve my devotion for Christ, the one who died for me.

As Jesus said " This do in rembrance of me".

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

You are arguing with Christ...

You aren't arguing in this post in order to be argued against.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

You aren't arguing in this post in order to be argued against.

For somebody who presumably self-identifies as a Fundamentalist Christian, you seem to opt out (wriggle out) of the literal meaning of every given Bible verse at every opportunity so as to avoid actually having to do anything.

Our justification is a work of God, it is by His grace alone. After that, we must persevere in faith, hope and love, otherwise we will not be saved.

A Catholic would say that we are saved by faith alone, if by faith you mean faith, hope, and charity.

It's interesting to note that your sinner's prayer was a work which you have assigned a date to. If you hadn't prayed the prayer and 'given your life to Christ', you presumably wouldn't have the salvation assurance you currently believe you have. Hence it can be said that you did something - you prayed, you opened yourself to God, at least by consenting to Him in your mind. Sounds like a lot of hard work to me.

keano_afc

I think this thread should be merged into the Protestant v Catholic thread, it seems like the appropriate place to discuss idol worship.

keano_afc

Quo Vadis wrote: »

That is my own opinion, and the bible is not a 'bunch or rhetoric', nor is the early church.

But its not your own opinion, as usual it somebody else's writings lifted from another site. Not sure why you would accuse me of referring to the bible as a bunch of rhetoric, I was quite obviously referring to your copy and paste job. Unlike you and your cohorts the Bible is MY ONLY reference point. It is the inerrant Word of God and requires no "tradition of men" to run alongside it.

homer911

Donatello wrote: »

A Catholic would say that we are saved by faith alone, if by faith you mean faith, hope, and charity.

sorry, but how on earth can one word mean itself and two other words??

Or are you trying to say that Catholics are not saved by faith alone?

keano_afc

homer911 wrote: »

sorry, but how on earth can one word mean itself and two other words??

Or are you trying to say that Catholics are not saved by faith alone?

Got there just before me. Saved by faith alone, but not be faith alone. By hope, baptism and works. Oh, and by keeping the commandments. But yeah, faith alone.

SonOfAdam

Donatello wrote:

Even though they continued to call themselves Christians, they formulated ideas and practices that completely missed the point about true Christianity.

The irony of this is lost on you Donatello.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

For somebody who presumably self-identifies as a Fundamentalist Christian, you seem to opt out (wriggle out) of the literal meaning of every given Bible verse at every opportunity so as to avoid actually having to do anything.

I'd have to admit a dislike of building my doctrine out of standalone verses. Whatever the subject happens to be.

Speaking of wriggling out of literal takes of bible verses, what was your exegetical basis for supposing the word 'death' to mean something other than death?

Our justification is a work of God, it is by His grace alone. After that, we must persevere in faith, hope and love, otherwise we will not be saved.

I couldn't give a rat's ass what part of the whole you think God provides and what part of the whole you think you provide. The issue is your providing towards the whole by works

Since that's been amply demonstrated by you, perhaps you could take up the discussion with lmaopml? She doesn't think you have to work towards your salvation.

A Catholic would say that we are saved by faith alone, if by faith you mean faith, hope, and charity.

Goodness gracious me. I'm assuming you mean this?

It's interesting to note that your sinner's prayer was a work which you have assigned a date to. If you hadn't prayed the prayer and 'given your life to Christ', you presumably wouldn't have the salvation assurance you currently believe you have. Hence it can be said that you did something - you prayed, you opened yourself to God, at least by consenting to Him in your mind. Sounds like a lot of hard work to me.

Imagine a rubber duck lying on the road. Imagine a truck runs over the rubber duck and the duck squeaks. Who did the work? The truck or the duck?

Assuming you get the answer right, you'll know why I prayed the prayer I did.

lmaopml

I've been thinking about this, and trying to figure, where our paths actually merge, because I still believe that it's worth the effort to start off on a point we can somewhat understand eachothers theology.

I still think it goes back or forward or in between, whatever the case may be to when we actually are saved. A OSAS Christian must obviously believe this happens at conversion in this life. I think that can be 'sometimes' true for very many...sorry, I don't mean to upset anybody, I have no idea who is finally 'saved' redeemed justified and sanctified..

On the other hand, a Catholic is not free to judge himself as 'saved' as this in our theology would be replacing Gods ultimate judgement, we would say we are 'being' saved with confidence and 'joyful hope'. You have to remember that we do tend to take into account and try to balance Scripture and believe that we are on a journey of sanctification, as do very many of the older Christian faiths - but ultimately it's only by the Grace of God that we are saved, we can do nothing except through him.

So, I think it's down to timing.

Donatello

keano_afc wrote: »

But its not your own opinion, as usual it somebody else's writings lifted from another site. Not sure why you would accuse me of referring to the bible as a bunch of rhetoric, I was quite obviously referring to your copy and paste job. Unlike you and your cohorts the Bible is MY ONLY reference point. It is the inerrant Word of God and requires no "tradition of men" to run alongside it.

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

Read this: http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

Donatello

keano_afc wrote: »

Got there just before me. Saved by faith alone, but not be faith alone. By hope, baptism and works. Oh, and by keeping the commandments. But yeah, faith alone.

For a Catholic, it's like this: we are like a little lamb in a muddy puddle. There ain't nuffink we can do to get out of the puddle and get clean. God lifts us out of the puddle and cleans us off under running water (the Sacrament of Baptism). He then places us in the field (the Church) along with the other clean lambs and commands us to love and obey Him. He does not leave us alone - through the Church He nourishes us with His grace and sound doctrine. He offers us the Sacraments so that we can grow in holiness, particularly the Eucharist - to make us strong and healthy, and the Sacrament of Penance in case we fall into mortal sin by leaving the field of the Church and getting mucky again. In that case, through the Sacrament, He cleans us off under fresh running water, to restore us to His grace - to clean our soul and return us to the fresh pastures.

I think Antiskeptic gets fixated is on this whole idea of works. But from the Catholic perspective, we do no work in order to be justified. After that, we are offered all the grace and the mercy in the world so that we may be saved, that we may persevere, through God's grace, in our justified state. In reality, with this, the Holy Spirit really does all the 'work', if only we surrender to Him and be obedient and docile.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I've been thinking about this, and trying to figure, where our paths actually merge, because I still believe that it's worth the effort to start off on a point we can somewhat understand eachothers theology.

Fair enough

I still think it goes back or forward or in between, whatever the case may be to when we actually are saved. A OSAS Christian must obviously believe this happens at conversion in this life.

They do.

I think that can be 'sometimes' true for very many...sorry, I don't mean to upset anybody, I have no idea who is finally 'saved' redeemed justified and sanctified..

I'm not sure I follow.

The OSAS position says it's at a point in time. This particular OSAS-er considers that point in time not predestined to occur.

Other OSAS-ers (Calvinists like Wolfsbane) consider it predestined to occur. Which effectively means salvation occurred whenever God made that decision about the person. Sometime in 'eternity past' in other words.

On the other hand, a Catholic is not free to judge himself as 'saved' as this in our theology would be replacing Gods ultimate judgement, we would say we are 'being' saved with confidence and 'joyful hope'.
You have to remember that we do tend to take into account and try to balance Scripture and believe that we are on a journey of sanctification, as do very many of the older Christian faiths - but ultimately it's only by the Grace of God that we are saved, we can do nothing except through him.

So, I think it's down to timing.

It is indeed down to timing - this OSAS-er reckoning God's ultimate judgmement to have taken place approx 9 years ago, prior to my believing in God's existance and prior therefore to my being able to contribute to my salvation by means of work.

You haven't really addressed the fact of your work: religious observance/good deeds/law abiding. If these are necessary (in the sense that a 'failure to perform' threatens your final salvation) then you are not talking of a grace-only salvation.

homer911

I'd like to point out some apparent confusion in this and other threads between "Work" and "Works"

When the Bible talks about Work, I believe its talking about doing something for reward or with the desire for reward - a bit like paid employment

When the Bible talks about Works, I believe its referring to doing things other than for reward - a bit like volunteering in an unpaid role

The words seem to be used interchangeably on this forum, but I am convinced they are quite different things

Christians should be known by their Love and their Works

To consider things like Praying and accepting the Grace of God as Work or Works is completely as odds with these definitions - these are acts of Love.

Donatello

homer911 wrote: »

I'd like to point out some apparent confusion in this and other threads between "Work" and "Works"

When the Bible talks about Work, I believe its talking about doing something for reward or with the desire for reward - a bit like paid employment

When the Bible talks about Works, I believe its referring to doing things other than for reward - a bit like volunteering in an unpaid role

The words seem to be used interchangeably on this forum, but I am convinced they are quite different things

Christians should be known by their Love and their Works

To consider things like Praying and accepting the Grace of God as Work or Works is completely as odds with these definitions - these are acts of Love.

Indeed. Words are bandied around without mutual agreement on their meaning.

antiskeptic

edit: I see you've outlined the differences homer

lmaopml

Perhaps homer, this is the difference between works done in vain and works done under the impetus of the Spirit. I think the Catholic position is that works done in vain are useless, works under the impetus of the Spirit are pleasing to God, but he is the 'mover' not us iykwim. So ultimately when we are judged and laid bare, only those times when we work under the impetus of the Spirit by our own 'co-operation' are seen as sanctifying and pleasing.

Very difficult to explain..lol..

homer911

Donatello wrote: »

What Fundamentalists and Evangelicals often do, unfortunately, is see the word "tradition" in Matthew 15:3 or Colossians 2:8 or elsewhere and conclude that anything termed a "tradition" is to be rejected. They forget that the term is used in a different sense, as in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, to describe what should be believed. Jesus did not condemn all traditions; he condemned only erroneous traditions, whether doctrines or practices, that undermined Christian truths. The rest, as the apostles taught, were to be obeyed. Paul commanded the Thessalonians to adhere to all the traditions he had given them, whether oral or written.

Read this: http://www.catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp

But all traditions should stand up to scrutiny in the context of scripture, otherwise they are, to use your own term, "erroneous traditions"

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps homer, this is the difference between works done in vain and works done under the impetus of the Spirit. I think the Catholic position is that works done in vain are useless, works under the impetus of the Spirit are pleasing to God, but he is the 'mover' not us iykwim. So ultimately when we are judged and laid bare, only those times when we work under the impetus of the Spirit by our own 'co-operation' are seen as sanctifying and pleasing.

Very difficult to explain..lol..

Some of the works referred to involve the obeying of laws. If you know that committing adultery could very well result in your damnation then there can be times when you refrain from adultery not out of love for God but for fear of the consequences.

Even if you've avoided adultery only once from this motivation, you've contributed to your salvation by means of a work.

Donatello

homer911 wrote: »

But all traditions should stand up to scrutiny in the context of scripture, otherwise they are, to use your own term, "erroneous traditions"

None of the Sacred Tradition held by Catholics conflicts with Sacred Scripture, since God is the author of both.

lmaopml

Ok, consider how Jesus taught us to pray Antiskeptic. The Lord's prayer -

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be they name,
They kingdom come,
Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever..
Amen.


Even the Lord's prayer itself, when he was explaining to the 'Faithful' how to pray asks of us - to ask God to forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those....... This is a 'Faith' in 'motion' - it's not 'static' - the Lord requires our faith to be in motion...and not led into temptation. Yes, we joyfully await his coming, but from a Catholic perspective there are things yet to recognise on our journey that are not consistent with the Spirit that require us to, 'pray', 'ask forgiveness' and 'forgive' too....

This is all part of 'sanctification' or more fully reflecting the image of the Spirit who resides within.

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

Some of the works referred to involve the obeying of laws. If you know that committing adultery could very well result in your damnation then there can be times when you refrain from adultery not out of love for God but for fear of the consequences.

Even if you've avoided adultery only once from this motivation, you've contributed to your salvation by means of a work.

Fear is the beginning of wisdom. If fear of hell prevents a soul from committing a mortal sin, that is no small thing. Of course, it is infinitely better that a soul should avoid mortal sin from love of God. Still, it's a start.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

10:1 odds taken on your response to the following challenge involving one or more of the following: silence / Cathecism-argument / a link / bald assertion / isolated, contextless bible verses.

Why did you pick the definition of 'fear' utilsed in the above bible reference given the following options.

1. Fear

a. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.
b. A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in fear.

2. A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: a fear of looking foolish.
3. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
4. A reason for dread or apprehension: Being alone is my greatest fear.

If fear of hell prevents a soul from committing a mortal sin, that is no small thing. Of course, it is infinitely better that a soul should avoid mortal sin from love of God. Still, it's a start.

As I say, you might open dialogue with lmaopml on this. I'm satisfied you've admitted RC to be a works based religion.

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, consider how Jesus taught us to pray Antiskeptic. The Lord's prayer -

Our Father, who art in heaven,
Hallowed be they name,
They kingdom come,
Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread,
and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us,
and lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is kingdom, the power and the glory forever and ever..
Amen.


Even the Lord's prayer itself, when he was explaining to the 'Faithful' how to pray asks of us - to ask God to forgive our trespasses, as we forgive those....... This is a 'Faith' in 'motion' - it's not 'static' - the Lord requires our faith to be in motion...and not led into temptation. Yes, we joyfully await his coming, but from a Catholic perspective there are things yet to recognise on our journey that are not consistent with the Spirit that require us to, 'pray', 'ask forgiveness' and 'forgive' too....

This is all part of 'sanctification' or more fully reflecting the image of the Spirit who resides within.

With respect, arguing agsinst the idea that RC involves works isn't assisted by arguing the reasons why work needs to be done.

Could you comment on my example of work done above (avoiding adultery motivated by a desire to avoid hell)

santing

lmaopml wrote: »

- but ultimately it's only by the Grace of God that we are saved, we can do nothing except through him.

So, I think it's down to timing.

This discussion has created a lot of quotable quotes!

While reading the above quote, I was reminded of another portion from the RC Catechism:

2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.

Is this similar (or the same) when you say "by the Grace of God we are saved?" Is it ultimatily a decision by God of which outcome we have no idea while here on earth?

wolfsbane

lmaopml wrote: »

I think the Catholic position is that works done in vain are useless, works under the impetus of the Spirit are pleasing to God, but he is the 'mover' not us iykwim. So ultimately when we are judged and laid bare, only those times when we work under the impetus of the Spirit by our own 'co-operation' are seen as sanctifying and pleasing.

Very difficult to explain..lol..

Calvinists, and most Protestants I think, have no problem with that.

*******************************************************************************
Romans 14:23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin.

wolfsbane

Donatello wrote: »

In the Diary of St. Faustina (a private revelation enjoying the approval of Holy Mother Church), there are some accounts which are most pertinent, particularly this one, to a despairing soul.



God's grace accomplishes everything, but He needs our consent. That's right - God needs our consent! He loves us so much that He gives us free will with which to respond freely to His love and to love Him in return.

I give no credence to such private revelations, but this one does point up the part God/part Man nature of the non-Calvinist idea of salvation: Then the mercy of God begins to exert itself, and, without any co-operation from the soul, God grants it final grace. If this too is spurned, God will leave the soul in this self-chosen disposition for eternity. This grace emerges from the merciful Heart of Jesus and gives the soul a special light by means of which the soul begins to understand God’s effort; but conversion depends on its own will. The soul knows that this, for her, is final grace and, should it show even a flicker of good will, the mercy of God will accomplish the rest.

To that you add:

God's grace accomplishes everything, but He needs our consent. That's right - God needs our consent! He loves us so much that He gives us free will with which to respond freely to His love and to love Him in return.

Both of you are right in that God must give grace if belief is to occur, and that He needs our consent for us to be saved.

What you both miss is this: no amount of light will truly change our wicked hearts. No amount of understanding will cause it to love God. The Law of Moses and God's repeated mercy over many generations did not change wicked hearts. It frightened them for a time; embarrassed them by its goodness for a time; but ultimately they lived out who they were in heart.

A new heart is required. An intervention by God that not only shines light on a dark heart, but changes that heart, makes it willing. Makes it glad to consent. That is the nature of God's salvation - so clearly revealed in the terms of the New Covenant. God gives the new heart, without anything from us. THEN we respond. God works in us so that we not only may but certainly shall do His will. He gives repentance and faith to the wicked heart, turning it into a heart that loves Him.

*****************************************************************************
Jeremiah 31: 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

Donatello

wolfsbane wrote: »

I give no credence to such private revelations, but this one does point up the part God/part Man nature of the non-Calvinist idea of salvation: Then the mercy of God begins to exert itself, and, without any co-operation from the soul, God grants it final grace. If this too is spurned, God will leave the soul in this self-chosen disposition for eternity. This grace emerges from the merciful Heart of Jesus and gives the soul a special light by means of which the soul begins to understand God’s effort; but conversion depends on its own will. The soul knows that this, for her, is final grace and, should it show even a flicker of good will, the mercy of God will accomplish the rest.

To that you add:

Both of you are right in that God must give grace if belief is to occur, and that He needs our consent for us to be saved.

What you both miss is this: no amount of light will truly change our wicked hearts. No amount of understanding will cause it to love God. The Law of Moses and God's repeated mercy over many generations did not change wicked hearts. It frightened them for a time; embarrassed them by its goodness for a time; but ultimately they lived out who they were in heart.

A new heart is required. An intervention by God that not only shines light on a dark heart, but changes that heart, makes it willing. Makes it glad to consent. That is the nature of God's salvation - so clearly revealed in the terms of the New Covenant. God gives the new heart, without anything from us. THEN we respond. God works in us so that we not only may but certainly shall do His will. He gives repentance and faith to the wicked heart, turning it into a heart that loves Him.

*****************************************************************************
Jeremiah 31: 33 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.

Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.

I agree in large part with your new heart comments. But even a new heart can grow cold if it is not properly nurtured through the Sacraments and through prayer. Sin is also a killer of the life of grace, for obvious reasons.

God respects our free will at every stage of the proceedings. That's why our consent is required. God proposes, He does not impose. Since God respects our free will, we can reject Him at any time until our last breath.

lmaopml

Donatello wrote: »

Fear is the beginning of wisdom. If fear of hell prevents a soul from committing a mortal sin, that is no small thing. Of course, it is infinitely better that a soul should avoid mortal sin from love of God. Still, it's a start.

I'd certainly agree that fear is the beginning of wisdom. It's there, it's all over the Scriptures too...., it's wise to look at it and put it in perspective - but what does it mean?

For my part, and my understanding of this, I would tie in 'Fear' as being a great motivator towards a healthy respect of the complete insignificance of us in relation to the total awesomeness of God. I'd say fear is a great 'motivator' -

Fear leads to a healthy 'Respect' and 'Honour' - it motivates us towards wisdom and understanding, and with wisdom comes 'love' and fear is quelled but respect remains...and love is increased, and everything we do, we do for love of God, for his Glory and honour, not for our own.

I love looking at the depth of Scripture, and how it interprets itself, it's really beautiful if you can get guidance in parts too - there was a thread here, but it vanished and it was in relation to exploring and talking friendly about Scripture....It's gone down the pages though..:(

Quo Vadis

keano_afc wrote: »

I think this thread should be merged into the Protestant v Catholic thread, it seems like the appropriate place to discuss idol worship.

Nothing to do with idol worship. Your attempt to misrepresent the beliefs of Catholics is just one massive fail. If you want to discuss doctrine fine, but no self respecting Protestant uses the old and well discredited "idol worship" lies any more.

Fanny Cradock

I propose that there are two options for this thread.

1) A non-critical discussion about MM (sort of like an appreciation thread)

or

2) A critical discussion which would entail merging this with the P&C mega thread.

The next few posts should determine the option

Donatello

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I propose that there are two options for this thread.

1) A non-critical discussion about MM (sort of like an appreciation thread)

or

2) A critical discussion which would entail merging this with the P&C mega thread.

The next few posts should determine the option

It's good, but it's not right.

A better approach, in my mind, is active moderation so that the OP's intention for this thread is respected. The thread should not be co-opted by those with another agenda. This is the sort of thing we Catholics are upset about. We can't discuss our faith without being attacked, our threads degenerating into an anti-Catholic rant or constant mention of sex abuse, or constantly having to defend our beliefs. We can't discuss things amongst ourselves in peace.

georgieporgy

branie wrote: »

Anyone here devoted to her?

Jesus was devoted (and obedient) to his mother. I try to immitate Jesus as much as possible because he asked us to do just that.

Fanny Cradock

Donatello wrote: »

It's good, but it's not right.

A better approach, in my mind, is active moderation so that the OP's intention for this thread is respected. The thread should not be co-opted by those with another agenda. This is the sort of thing we Catholics are upset about. We can't discuss our faith without being attacked, our threads degenerating into an anti-Catholic rant or constant mention of sex abuse, or constantly having to defend our beliefs. We can't discuss things amongst ourselves in peace.

Good Lord! People expressing other views about MM isn't automatically an attack, nor does it always constitute an anti-Catholic rant. You cause so much discord here.

Onesimus

The way I see it is the Op's post should be respected and not be merged with the protestant debate thread. But should protestants wish to discuss their views upon Mother Mary they should do it in the thread provided for such debates. They already know thats what they should be doing. they are not idiots, they are regular posters on this forum who should understand that there is a thread provided for that type of discussion and should be directed there. The same goes for Catholics who respond to it within a thread that is devoted to a non-debate and is rather a topic about devotion to the Blessed Virgin. It is not a topic Fanny discussing ''your views upon the Blessed Virgin'' but ''are you devoted to her?''

Fanny Cradock

Onesimus wrote: »

It is not a topic Fanny discussing ''your views upon the Blessed Virgin'' but ''are you devoted to her?''

To which the answer might be "no". Generally a question implies the possibility of receiving a variety of answers.

I'm stepping in here to try to steer this thread in a definite direction and all I'm hearing is you and Donatello complain about this.

OK, decision made.

Onesimus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

To which the answer might be "no". Generally a question implies the possibility of receiving a variety of answers.

I'm stepping in here to try to steer this thread in a definite direction and all I'm hearing is you and Donatello complain about this.

OK, decision made.

Yeah but the ''variety of answers'' must expand on the topic and question put forward. Not spin off into what the question was not which is ''what are you views upon the Blessed Virgin Mary?''.

Anyway I see you have dealt with it.

keano_afc

Quo Vadis wrote: »

Nothing to do with idol worship. Your attempt to misrepresent the beliefs of Catholics is just one massive fail. If you want to discuss doctrine fine, but no self respecting Protestant uses the old and well discredited "idol worship" lies any more.

I'll deal with this in the Mary thread.

Just for the record, I'm not a Protestant. I'm a bible believing Christian.

JimiTime

i came across an interesting article here. Its about the offerings of Cain and Abel. I thought it was a very interesting insight that may be of interest to some of you here.

One night, in family devotions, I was reading to my kids from a Bible storybook about Cain and Abel. In this author’s rendition of the story, Cain’s offering was rejected because it was not his best, while Abel’s offering was the best he had to give and therefore acceptable to God. It suddenly hit me like a ton of bricks…this writer missed the entire point of the Biblical story! In fact, I believe the reality is quite the opposite. Cain was a “tiller of the ground”. His days consisted of backbreaking manual labor and he earned every morsel with the “sweat of his brow”. When asked to bring a sacrifice to God, he must have surely thought that his offering would be the best in God’s sight. Cain’s offering was the hard earned fruit of his labor, the work of his own blistered hands. But, in spite of all Cain’s striving, God rejected his offering. The Bible says, “Cain was exceedingly angry and his countenance fell” (Gen 4:5). Cain was so frustrated and angry because he had indeed brought his best to God…and yet his best was not good enough.

God said, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” “Do well?” Cain must have thought. “I’ve done the best I can do.” Perhaps Cain knew in his heart that he had worked longer and harder than Able ever did. Through sweat, tears and hard manual labor Cain had worked the thorny soil to bring this offering to the Lord. Yet God was pleased with Abel’s gift and not his own. Cain could not understand and soon his frustration boiled over into murderous rage.

Why was Abel’s offering acceptable to God? Was it a better offering? Had Abel worked more or harder or better? On the contrary…Abel brought the blood of an innocent other. The real sacrifice was not his at all…it was really the sheep who had paid the dearest price. Abel was NOT relying on the work of his hands and the fruit of his labor. Somehow he understood that it was the blood that satisfied God.

“Without the shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb 9:22). Cain is a type of all those who come to God with the work of their own hands. Even if we do our best and strive with all our might to please God, we will always come up short, no matter how well-intentioned we may be. Whenever you swipe the credit card of your own righteousness into God’s ATM it will ALWAYS be declined. All our righteousness is like filthy rags.

Abel is a type of all those who come to God with the blood of that innocent other; the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world. It is the blood of Jesus that has cleansed us from all sin (I John 1:7). It is the blood of Jesus that has purged our conscience from dead works (Heb 9:14). It is the blood of Jesus that has reconciled us unto God (Eph 2:13). It is the blood of Jesus that has redeemed us (1 Pet 1:18). Abel came not on the basis of his works, but in faith, and like Abraham, “It was counted to him as righteousness.” By faith we carry God’s own credit card, without a capital limit, backed by the collateral of heaven’s endless supply, and billed to Calvary’s address. Hallelujah!

lmaopml

A credit card? That's the entire message of Scripture?

I understand the analogy and it makes a lovely sermon too...full of passion. I think that Abel's offering reflects the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross - but I wouldn't balance that part of Scripture with a limitless credit card that is chargeable without some kind of fear of whether I actually was carrying the correct credit card in my pocket in the first place, and treating it with 'respect' or taking it for granted that my 'credit' to hold the 'credit card' was a foregone conclusion, just cause I said it was yesterday or lastweek.

'Yikes', but this ties into so many things...

PDN

lmaopml wrote: »

A credit card? That's the entire message of Scripture?

I don't think anyone said it was the entire message of Scripture. Jimi's link said it was the entire point of the story of Cain and Abel.

The idea of credit being given to you is, of course, very biblical. In Romans 4:3 we read “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”

The word translated 'credited' is ελογισθη (elogisthe, a form of logizomai) and in New Testament times it was used in the commercial world when a merchant had an expense charged to his account.

The idea, then, is that, by faith, God's unlimited righteousness is credited to your account. So the credit card analogy is quite fitting.

Slav

Does not Catholicism has its own corporate credit card called the Treasury of Merit? Which actually might give a clue in understanding the place of works in Catholic soteriology..

antiskeptic

lmaopml wrote: »

I'd certainly agree that fear is the beginning of wisdom. It's there, it's all over the Scriptures too...., it's wise to look at it and put it in perspective - but what does it mean?

For my part, and my understanding of this, I would tie in 'Fear' as being a great motivator towards a healthy respect of the complete insignificance of us in relation to the total awesomeness of God. I'd say fear is a great 'motivator' -

Fear leads to a healthy 'Respect' and 'Honour' - it motivates us towards wisdom and understanding, and with wisdom comes 'love' and fear is quelled but respect remains...and love is increased, and everything we do, we do for love of God, for his Glory and honour, not for our own.

I love looking at the depth of Scripture, and how it interprets itself,

As predicted, Donatello went to ground on being asked how it was he figured "fear (of God's live and dangerous threat to cast the unworthy into Hell) is the beginning of wisdom" to mean a craven, terrified kind of fear.

I mean, the word fear can also mean an awe and wonderment in which no craven fear is meant or implied.

You seem to share Donatello's view and you say scripture interprets scripture. So where do you get the idea that the fear in question is a craven type of fear?

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

As predicted, Donatello went to ground on being asked how it was he figured "fear (of God's live and dangerous threat to cast the unworthy into Hell) is the beginning of wisdom" to mean a craven, terrified kind of fear.

They are basically the same, are they not?

Fear of hell can be a good start if it leads to repentance of sin. That would be salutary fear.

antiskeptic

Donatello wrote: »

They are basically the same, are they not?

They would be were it that the verse itself contained the words you read into it (which I took the liberty of paraphrasing).

Alas, the verse itself merely says 'fear of God' without clarifying whether that fear is craven or whether it's cravenly fearless awe.

Going..

Donatello

antiskeptic wrote: »

They would be were it that the verse itself contained the words you read into it (which I took the liberty of paraphrasing).

Alas, the verse itself merely says 'fear of God' without clarifying whether that fear is craven or whether it's cravenly fearless awe.

Going..

Sure what does it matter if it works? One can lead on to the other. Let not the perfect be the enemy of the good.

lmaopml

I think it is tied in with 'awe' antiskeptic...among other things all mixed in together, God knows, he put it there for a reason anyways...fear means fear and hope means hope to me....but I get the nuances.

Actually, it would be a good thread outside of the mega merge to discuss what those passages mean to everybody in our own individual ways, or maybe not I don't know whether it would work...? or descend...:(

georgieporgy

Surely fear of God should be understood as 'filial' fear.