Catholic vs. Protestant – why is there so much animosity?"

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Moreover, go find a Catholic who believes that "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed can refer to the universal church of the Lord Jesus versus the visible Catholic church uniquely being that one true church, and that "one baptism for the remission of sins" can be correctly interpreted as baptism being a matter of obedience versus normally being a requirement for regeneration and salvation.

Ask them, and see if they even answer.

I'll answer. Might give you a different answer tomorrow. Today, I'll tell you

Well, that is consistent, You just said that one should "go sit with the Quakers for awhile and talk directly to the Holy Spirit in silence, guided by the Quakers' simple but effective rules." Wonder why they don't concur with you.

that the Nicene Creed doesn't refer to just any old folks who call themselves Christian. It has to be Holy - meaning that it has to be set aside, sacred. Whether men can make things holy by setting them aside or it takes God setting something aside to make it holy is an open question. I side with the latter thought. God makes things holy, so for the church to be holy, God had to pick it and set it aside.

Catholic means universal. THE Catholic church is in all cultures and languages all across the world, and lacks the rigid linguistic and cultural assertiveness of various national churches. KJV-Only-ists, by their very belief in the holiness of the English language and the uniqueness of that particular English Bible are the diametric opposite of a catholic church.

Apostolic is the clincher. Your clergy have to have been made by clergy who were made by clergy, etc., all the way back to the apostles, who were made so by Jesus. It all has to come down through the literal, physical laying on of hands, and no other way. This is necessary because the Holy Spirit and its intendent authority has to be PHYSICALLY passed from one to the next, just as the Aaronic priesthood was reserved exclusively to passing by the blood. And also because doing it in this way gives the CURRENT apostolate the absolute control and veto over the new apostolate. It is not possible to become a member of the true apostolic clergy unless those who already passed the bar by himself having had his hands laid on him. This means that the current clergy can impose absolute control over the beliefs of those who would be clergy: if you do not conform in all things, it is IMPOSSIBLE to become a priest. There is no OTHER way. To truly be in the apostolic succession, you must convince somebody who is already a bishop to consecrate you and lay on his hands. And to be a bishop, you must convince the Pope to do it.

If you disagree with the teachings of the church, it is impossible to become a bishop unless you lie. For if you tell the truth, and you do not believe what the Pope believes, he will not lay his hands upon you and make you a bishop - and you cannot become a bishop in another way.

If you lie, you commit a deadly sin - so you throw yourself into the Lake of Fire at final judgment in order to become a clergyman in a church you don't believe in. How utterly pointless.

The apostolic succession means that command and control of the Church is retained within rigid lines that cannot be gotten around. Your wanting to be a bishop is irrelevant. If you don't believe as the Pope does, he will never make you one.

In this way the repository of faith is preserved.

That is why the Orthodox churches, both Oriental and Eastern, are Holy and Apostolic Churches: their bishops are legitimately made by patriarchs who were made by bishops etc., back to Jesus. They are holy because they were set apart by God and have maintained the true apostolic succession.

The Catholic Church is truly Catholic, because it covers the whole world and all cultures, while the Orthodox Churches are much stronger and are culturally specific. When the Orthodox Churches are in communion with the Catholic church, they are also Catholic.

Now, truth is the Orthodox Churches are BECOMING more and more Catholic, because in the later 20th and 21st Centuries, their membership is expanding in places around the globe that traditionally did not have any Orthodox. So, the Orthodox Churches are Holy and Apostolic, and are becoming more and more catholic, though they are not there yet. The Catholic Church is Holy, Apostolic and catholic...and wants reunion with the two Orthodoxies rather badly.

Now, you can tell people who are not part of the true Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, because they rail against One Worldism. The goal of Christianity is to unify the world under God. Catholicism IS universal one-worldism, under Jesus as King. So, those who call world religious unity an evil thing are not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic church. Indeed, they are an ENEMY of the true church, because they oppose its aspiration to catholicism. The Catholic Church is by far the most catholic, and is the strongest advocate of finding a way to religious unity, particularly with the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans and others.

So can you just give a short yes or now answer to my questions

do you believes that "one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" in the Nicene Creed can refer to the universal church of the Lord Jesus versus the visible Catholic church uniquely being that one true church, and that "one baptism for the remission of sins" can be correctly interpreted as baptism being a matter of obedience versus normally being a requirement for regeneration and salvation?

That should not take 775 words to answer!

if you do not conform in all things, it is IMPOSSIBLE to become a priest.

Nowhere does the only wholly inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed (Acts thru Revelation) - including how they understood the gospels - teach the Catholic priesthood, that of being priests as being a separate sacerdotal class of believers corresponding to the Old Testament priesthood, kohen, for which, in Greek, the distinctive Greek word " hiereus" is uniquely used by the Holy Spirit. But who never uses that word distinctively for NT church pastors, and instead the words "episkopos" (superintendent or overseer, referring to function), and "presbuteros" (senior, in age, implying maturity, and or position) were used, with both referring to the same person in the pastoral office. ((Titus 1:5,7; Acts 20:17,28)

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

However, since in Catholicism presbyters are considered a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers, with the unique function of offering the (unScriptural) Catholic Eucharist as a atoning, propitiatory Sacrifice for sins, then Catholicism translates the distinctive Greek word hiereus for their priests as a denoting a distinctive sacerdotal class, thereby losing the distinction the Holy Spirit provided by never distinctively using the term of hiereus for NT presbuteros, or describing as them as a distinctive sacerdotal class of believers.

Yet you will never see them described conducting the Lord's supper in the inspired record (Acts - Revelation) of what the church did and how they understood the gospels, or charged with this as being a unique and or primary function, nor preaching the Lord's supper as the means of regeneration, that of obtaining spiritual life.

Which is in contrast to presbuteros/episkopeos (same persons) being charged with preaching the word as their primary active function, (2Tim. 4:2) feeding the flock thereby. (Acts 20:28) with believing the gospel being the means of regeneration, of obtaining spiritual life (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9; Eph. 1:13) and being nourished (1Tim. 4:6) and built up (Acts 20:32) for the word, is what is called spiritual food, "milk" (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat." (Heb. 5:12-14

Now, you can tell people who are not part of the true Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church, because they rail against One Worldism. The goal of Christianity is to unify the world under God. Catholicism IS universal one-worldism, under Jesus as King. So, those who call world religious unity an evil thing are not part of the holy, catholic and apostolic church. Indeed, they are an ENEMY of the true church, because they oppose its aspiration to catholicism. The Catholic Church is by far the most catholic, and is the strongest advocate of finding a way to religious unity, particularly with the Orthodox, the Lutherans, the Anglicans and others.

Wrong, for Catholicism is universal an unholy amalgam of immoral liberals whom she manifestly treats as members in life and in death, to cultic devotees who reject parts of modern teaching and seem to long for the days and carnal means of the Inquisition in order to exterminate the heretics as commanded of RC rulers, and silence all who oppose her. And you cannot excommunicate them whom Rome manifestly does not.

But more importantly, as shown, Catholicism is not the NT church, in which Catholic distinctives are missing, and traditions of men added.

 

[Tutorman]

So its not hateful to call them hateful because they to oppose an elitist church which has damned all who will not submit to her, or at least (being subject to change) reduced them being a 3rd rate class whose churches are not even worthy of the proper name "church?"

But treats even proabortion prohomosexual pols as members in life and in death. There are your brethren, and who likewise call opposition "hateful."

Speak english man!

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Scripture does not expressly deny the assumption. But Scripture expressesly rejects justification by faith alone.
You lose.

You mean that teaching salvation by a faith which is alone is where Luther and Reformers erred? Or that ones own degree of holiness justifies a person and actually obtains him/her entrance into Heaven, which level may take a long time to achieve?

 

[Goatee]

Well, I am so disappointed by the so called Christians on here who continually try to bash Catholics and their beliefs. These threads pop up all the time and the same people continue to bash Catholicism, all the time!

I for one think this thread should be closed now. It is just turning into a battle against all things Catholic.

 

[PeaceB]

You are correct on one and not on the other.

NOPE on the "faith alone" my friend.

James 2:24 does not argue against salvation by faith alone. Rather, it argues against a salvation that is alone, a salvation devoid of good works and obedience to God’s Word.

James’s point is that we demonstrate our faith by what we do. Regardless of the absence of the precise phrase “faith alone,” the New Testament definitely teaches that salvation is the product of God’s grace in response to our faith.

Friend, let's just put this "the point is that we demonstrate our faith by what we do" argument to rest, shall we?

1) First of all, the question that St. James sets out to answer is set forth right at the start of the passage, at verse 14:

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? (KJV)

He does not ask “How does a man, my brethren, demonstrate his faith? Can he demonstrate his faith without works?”

So you lose at the outset because the primary question that St. James seeks to address is one of whether faith can save a person, not how a man can demonstrate his faith.

2) In Genesis 22:1 it is God who tests Abraham. Then after Abraham passes the test, the angel says "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." This has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating to men that Abraham had faith. His faith was already demonstrated in Genesis 15 (which is what St. Paul quotes in Romans) and even much earlier than that Genesis 12 when he departed out of Haran at the age of 75. There were not even any people present to witness his attempt to sacrifice Isaac.

You lose twice.

3) Even though that by itself should be more than enough for you to understand that the position you have adopted is fallacious, you can even more easily understand your errors if you look at the Greek text itself.

"Go to the Scriptures".

For your interpretation to even be plausible, you would need to use one of the newer translations that reorders the words of the Greek to make the English sound more natural, and then blithely assume that the Greek text contains the same sentence structure as the translation. That is, you would need to use a text such as the newer ESV translation, for example:

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (ESV)​

For your interpretation to even be plausible, you need to assert that “by works and not by faith alone” modifies the words “You see” in the clause “You see that a person is justified”. That is, you need the text to be understood as “You see . . . by works and not by faith alone”.

But that simply is not how the Greek text is structured. Here is the actual Greek text:

James 2:24 Interlinear: Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.​

With the English equivalent of each Greek word, the text is as follows:

ὁρᾶτε (You see) ὅτι (that) ἐξ (by) ἔργων (works) δικαιοῦται (is justified) ἄνθρωπος (a man) καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐκ (by) πίστεως (faith) μόνον (alone).​

Thus, as you can see, the Greek text literally reads “You see that by works is justified a man and not by faith alone”. And this is almost exactly how the KJV translates the text:

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

In the Greek text “By works” does not modify “You see” in any way, shape or form. To the contrary, “By works” modifies only “is justified a man”. That is very clear from the text, and that throws your whole argument on it’s face. What “You see” is precisely that “by works is justified a man and not by faith alone”.

And you lose again.

4) Now, I suggest that you drop that nonsensical interpretation, and move on to one of the other numerous Protestant interpretations that tries to make the text mean the exact opposite of what it states.

Or perhaps you may go the route of Martin Luther. That is, attempt to throw the entire book of James out of the Bible because it refuted his and your novel theory of salvation by faith alone:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.


In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); though in Romans 4:2-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this epistle might be helped by an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended it its application to works (2:23) of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.


In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27, "You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it."

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" (1:25), though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter (in 5:20); Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8), and again (in 4:10), "Humble yourselves under he had of God" (1 Pet. 5:6) also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2) in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture?

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522 version) (Luther’s Works, Volume 35)​

There is no other requirement.

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

And should you be so inclined, please spare us the ridiculous argument that water refers to amniotic fluid. Don't go there. It is beneath you.

 

[PeaceB]

And you would be correct! How does it feel my friend to actually say something that is supported by the Scriptures or as in this case, NOT supported by the Scriptures.

I am proud of YOU!

Oh. I say many things that are supported by the Scriptures, such as "by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." So why don't you tell me, is that true or isn't it?

 

[PeaceB]

You mean that teaching salvation by a faith which is alone is where Luther and Reformers erred? Or that ones own degree of holiness justifies a person and actually obtains him/her entrance into Heaven, which level may take a long time to achieve?

I thought we had agreed that we were going to stop conversing.

 

[HarleyR]

Sadly, this is a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. They teach, rather, that works are a part of faith. In other words, if you don't have works, you don't have faith, just as James says.

 

[FireDragon76]

Assent to the Nicene Creed does not even mean one holds to Scripture as uniquely wholly inspired of God versus something like the Book of Mormon.

The Nicene Creed is the standard for orthodox Christian faith on this forum.

And comparing it to the Book of Mormon, quite frankly, is profoundly disrespectful of traditional Christian faith. My church recognizes this creed as one of our symbols of the faith, as do many others. We acknowledge everything it teaches as biblical.

 

[HarleyR]

Sadly, this is a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. They teach, rather, that works are a part of faith. In other words, if you don't have works, you don't have faith, just as James says.

Unfortunately this is NOT what scripture tells us and if this is what the Catholic Church is teaching then they are wrong. Please read the following:

Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
​

We are created in Christ to DO good works. We don't do good works as part of our faith. Good works are a byproduct of our faith. A very important distinction. James tells us that if there is no evidence of this byproduct, then we should examine whether we are in the faith.

 

[redleghunter]

Can God be bathed in sin?

I've heard that argument, however it was not a concern for the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). That would have been the Council to settle the matter of Mary's sinlessness but apparently did not factor into the argument of Mary being Theotokos (God-Bearer).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Well, I am so disappointed by the so called Christians on here who continually try to bash Catholics and their beliefs. These threads pop up all the time and the same people continue to bash Catholicism, all the time!

I for one think this thread should be closed now. It is just turning into a battle against all things Catholic.

Why not then disregard (don't comment on) anything that is contrary to Jesus or opposed to Scripture ?
Just focus on everything that is from Jesus and in line with all Scripture ? (the positive life giving directions of YHWH ?
Everyone seeking YHWH'S Kingdom can do this, right ?

 

[Vicomte13]

Where do we find the Jesus was bathed in sin?

If Mary was not sinless, if she had original sin on her at least and other sins, then she was this sinner you believe her to be.

Jesus was conceived of her egg, and dwelt inside her womb, encased in her sinful flesh, dependent upon it, his blood nourished by her sinful blood.

And at his birth, he was utterly covered with her sinful blood.

The Holy Spirit MATED WITH a sinful woman, by your belief.

If Mary was a sinner from conception - as she must be unless spared original sin by a special grace - then God was encased in sin and drenched in it for at least 9 months.

 

[redleghunter]

I'd hope your obstinacy is purposed at least, it certainly isn't particularly rational. Tell me the difference between:
I am pretty because I think that I am, and I want to be so I am.
Scripture is the Word of God; I want it to be so it is.
Tradition is the Word of God; I want it to be so it is.
The Catholic Church teaches the Word of God accurately; I want it to be so it is.
Are any of these provable? Can you prove that Scripture is the Word of God, for example?

Another false premise.

The Scriptures are the word of God because He spoke them or Inspired their writing.. Not because someone assured me they were.

If the conversation is currently at whether souls can determine the Divine authority and qualities of Sacred Scriptures, then perhaps we should be having a different discussion.

For example, who told you when you were manifestly born again/from above? Or as Paul teaches "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will.." (Ephesians 1:4-5).

 

[redleghunter]

At the time Paul instructed Timothy, what was considered scriptures? Paul was referring to the tanakh

I said that.

 

[Vicomte13]

I've heard that argument, however it was not a concern for the Council of Ephesus (431 AD). That would have been the Council to settle the matter of Mary's sinlessness but apparently did not factor into the argument of Mary being Theotokos (God-Bearer).

So? I'm Catholic, not Orthodox. I am not limited in my understanding to what some men thought in a few meetings sixteen centuries ago. My point is valid, whether they discussed it or not.

It's the same issue with Gehenna. Gehenna is Jewish Purgatory. Ask a Jew. Go read a primer on Judaism. Even Catholic scholars say Purgatory is not in the Bible. They're ignorant: it is.

Facts are facts. And the Church's understanding grows as facts of which it was ignorant are brought to its attention. God gave us reason and discernment and the capacity for science for us to use it, not to bury it under a rock and pretend that the ancients already figured out everything that needed to be known.

God didn't stop speaking in 96 AD either. Which is way all revelation is not contained in the Bible. There has been more since, and it all needs to be taken into consideration. What happened before 96 AD or 323 AD, does not override in reality or truth that which happened in 1415 or 1835 or whenever.

I understand that it is an article of faith of Protestants that the Bible DOES override later things that contradict it, and of the Eastern Orthodox that the Seven Ecumenical Councils contain everything that needs to be known about the faith.

There's a reason I'm a Catholic and not a Protestant or an EO. I think both of those beliefs are silly and could never believe them. God did not give me a brain and a memory and a reasoning faculty in order to bury it in the ground and pretend that everything we can know about God was known by the ancients. That isn't true, and I know it isn't true.

The Holy Spirit lives in the Church RIGHT NOW, and breathes in the Church RIGHT NOW, and has continuously revealed new things through the Church through all of the ages, and will continue to do so until Jesus returns.

Did man evolve from primates, or was he created "poof"? Is Genesis 1 an allegorical poem, or a detailed historical text. I can look at it both ways and shrug - it makes no difference to ME either way, because I'm a Catholic, and both truths work. I see by the anguished posts against modern science that many men are trapped by the beliefs of the eighteenth century BC, that faith itself depends on disregarding Einstein and Hubble in favor of Moses.

I don't ridicule people who believe that - I understand that they feel they must. I could never believe any religion that told me that I MUST believe something I thought was nonsense.

This, then, freed me to study what the science does say, and then to read Genesis with a gentle eye to see how it might yet be true, if read a certain way, with the original language and culture in mind.

There's a reason that the Catholic Church teaches evolution in its school as scientific truth. Because at the current state of science, that's what it is. Science is subject to change, by new discovery. And as the Bible shows, religion is also subject to change, based on new revelations from God. And God did not stop revealing things in either the first century, with the closing of the Canon of the Bible, nor circa 700, with some ecumenical council. God still dwells in the Church, and reveals new things from time to time.

He's not far away. He's right here. We can talk with him sometimes. He performs major miracles, today, for people who do not believe in him in a tradition, orthodox or even Christian way. I know this directly, so any religious construct that says otherwise is false. This I know empirically.

Religion is a vast sprawling thing. I need freedom of scientific inquiry and the ability to question the old, while always respecting it. That's modern Catholicism. Not medieval: the Church has learned from its errors of the past, and the Holy Spirit has brought forth new fruits.

 

[Vicomte13]

Once again.....Hooray for Luther!

I gather you're not a Baptist/Anabaptist.

 

[Vicomte13]

as hard as any atheists I have seen to disprove the Bible as God's authority. WHY?

Because I am sick of all of the endless idolatry. I see the Bible turned into God here. I see that God, who made the point of always identifying himself in the Bible, is disregarded and reduced by those who say, Look! These words were spoken by someone other than God in the Bible, and therefore they are of equal authority to the words of God in the Bible, because it's all from God and all of equal authority.

Pure idolatry. Mindless. And it leads to craziness, such as the notion that you're not going to judged by what you DO, despite Jesus having said at least 16 times that that is PRECISELY the basis on which you will be judged.

That's why. The idolatry is intolerable, and I'm not having any of it.

I'm not trying to prove the Catholic religion right. Plenty of Catholics on here have been, subtly or not-so-subtly, saying "Whoa, dude, that's a bit extreme. Cool your jets! Where is THAT in the catechism? Hadn't you better check that with x or y or z?

If I were trying to prove Catholicism, I would be very careful to stick within the lines of the coloring book.

What I am doing, instead, is using reason, logic, the tools God gave me, and pointing out the absolutely ridiculous arguments that are made. Nobody can tell me that the Bible is the highest authority, then open the Bible, SEE God speaking IN the Bible saying "I am God", and then pretend that it makes no difference when God explicitly identifies himself in the Bible or its some other words in there, because "it's all God's". Who said THAT? Paul. Paul said that. Who is HE? A murderer of Christians who was grabbed by Jesus, who converted, and who became frenetic with activity. That's great. But PAUL would have been horrified that anybody would pretend that words he wrote in letters to a few people were equal in authority to what Jesus Christ, the Son of God, preached to the multitudes. It is utterly insulting to the intelligence, and to God, to pretend that this is so, yet that is precisely what I see.

It is a deadly error too, because practitioners of that error then pretend, endlessly, that what you do doesn't matter. And this despite the fact that the Son of God said SIXTEEN TIMES that he is going to judge you based on what you DO.

So, one badly misinterpreted sentence of Paul overrides the Son of God, because it's all "Bible". If that is how the Bible is used, then it is a worthless idol that needs to be burnt!

Of course it isn't, used properly. The Bible is PROPERLY used by respected what it says WITHIN it. If this book really IS inspired by God, then when God makes the POINT of emerging from the text and saying "THIS IS ME SPEAKING HERE", people who really believed in this Bible and in God would RESPECT THAT, and form their theology around what GOD said in the Bible.

Instead, they pretend that the fact some men picked and chose texts and stitched them together makes every word in that book from God, disregarding God himself IN the book when he says "I'm talking here" - and he does that every time.

THAT is why I aim at this use of the Bible. It is frank idolatry, and it offends me very greatly to see God treated with such contempt in favor of the graven image into which God's words have been inserted.

If people weren't treating the Bible as an idol, I would not be offended. But they do, I am, and I am no more silent about Bibliolatry than the people who hate seeing the adoration of Mary are silent in their strong objections.

But my objections are better grounded.

 

[redleghunter]

Friend, let's just put this "the point is that we demonstrate our faith by what we do" argument to rest, shall we?

1) First of all, the question that St. James sets out to answer is set forth right at the start of the passage, at verse 14:

What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? Can faith save him? (KJV)

He does not ask “How does a man, my brethren, demonstrate his faith? Can he demonstrate his works by faith”?

So you lose at the outset because the primary question that St. James seeks to address is one of whether faith can save a person, not how a man can demonstrate his faith.

2) In Genesis 22:1 it is God who tests Abraham. Then after Abraham passes the test, the angel says "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." This has absolutely nothing to do with demonstrating to men that Abraham had faith. His faith was already demonstrated in Genesis 15 (which is what St. Paul quotes in Romans) and even much earlier than that Genesis 12 when he departed out of Haran at the age of 75. There were not even any people present to witness his attempt to sacrifice Isaac.

You lose twice.

3) Even though that by itself should be more than enough for you to understand that the position you have adopted is fallacious, you can even more easily understand your errors if you look at the Greek text itself.

"Go to the Scriptures".

For your interpretation to even be plausible, you would need to use one of the newer translations that reorders the words of the Greek to make the English sound more natural, and then blithely assume that the Greek text contains the same sentence structure as the translation. That is, you would need to use a text such as the newer ESV translation, for example:

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. (ESV)​

For your interpretation to even be plausible, you need to assert that “by works and not by faith alone” modifies the words “You see” in the clause “You see that a person is justified”. That is, you need the text to be understood as “You see . . . by works and not by faith alone”.

But that simply is not how the Greek text is structured. Here is the actual Greek text:

James 2:24 Interlinear: Ye see, then, that out of works is man declared righteous, and not out of faith only;

ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον.​

With the English equivalent of each Greek word, the text is as follows:

ὁρᾶτε (You see) ὅτι (that) ἐξ (by) ἔργων (works) δικαιοῦται (is justified) ἄνθρωπος (a man) καὶ (and) οὐκ (not) ἐκ (by) πίστεως (faith) μόνον (alone).​

Thus, as you can see, the Greek text literally reads “You see that by works is justified a man and not by faith alone”. And this is almost exactly how the KJV translates the text:

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

In the Greek text “By works” does not modify “You see” in any way, shape or form. To the contrary, “By works” modifies only “is justified a man”. That is very clear from the text, and that throws your whole argument on it’s face. What “You see” is precisely that “by works is justified a man and not by faith alone”.

And you lose again.

4) Now, I suggest that you drop that nonsensical interpretation, and move on to one of the other numerous Protestant interpretations that tries to make the text mean the exact opposite of what it states.

Or perhaps you may go the route of Martin Luther. That is, attempt to throw the entire book of James out of the Bible because it refuted his and your novel theory of salvation by faith alone:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.


In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); though in Romans 4:2-22 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Now although this epistle might be helped by an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended it its application to works (2:23) of Moses’ statement in Genesis 15:6. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham’s faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.


In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15:27, "You shall bear witness to me.” All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3:21; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2:2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it."

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" (1:25), though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter (in 5:20); Love covers a multitude of sins" (1 Pet. 4:8), and again (in 4:10), "Humble yourselves under he had of God" (1 Pet. 5:6) also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5:17, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod (Acts 12:2) in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture?

Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522 version) (Luther’s Works, Volume 35)​

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.​

And should you be so inclined, please spare us the ridiculous argument that water refers to amniotic fluid. Don't go there. It is beneath you.

Did you ever find the church father who opined on James 2 or any of his epistle. I searched several Catholic and Eastern Orthodox sources and came up empty. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

 

[Blood Bought 1953]

I gather you're not a Baptist/Anabaptist.

I am a Jesus man.....a free man in Christ.."?.Luther went off the rails in the end.....all I know is that I enjoy his commentaries on Romans and Galations

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Talking about scriptural support....I'm still looking im the text of the Bible for the table of contents of the Bible. After all, how do we know what books belong in the Bible if the Bible doesn't tell us. No protestant can show me. Maybe ill start a thread "protestants cant answer this question" @Tree of Life

Why is that a stumper. Does your necessary strawman of SS mean only what is explicitly and formally taught constitute Scriptural teaching, versus what is soundly deduced upon the collective weight of indirect conflative teaching and principle, and without actual contradiction, and or materially provided for accordingly?

Do we see common souls correctly ascertaining both men and writings as being of God, and thus the formation of a body of inspired writings (i.e. a canon) called Scripture, from which the NT provided Scriptural substantiation for its Truth claims?

And if this establishment of an authoritative if incomplete canon occurred before there was a church of Rome which presumed her novel perpetually infallible (conditionally) magisterial office was essential for this, then must that further establishment be excluded from occuring as consistent with the supreme status of Scripture?

You must be aware that also Catholicism fallaciously asserts that one cannot assuredly ascertain what is of God except by reliance upon and faith in "The Church."

Therefore in attempting to persuade souls to converts while avoiding circular reasoning, Scripture is appealed to as a merely accurate historical document as it is allowed that while souls can recognize "The Church" therein, yet they cannot ascertain what Scripture consists of and means apart from faith in her.

I get a kick out of people who always ask "where is that in the Bible". These people say "well the Bible is the supreme source of truth", not because God told us (cause this assertion is not biblical), but because pastor Billy Bob or Henry VIII said so. Talk about following the follies of men.

You are only attacking yourself, since that hardly represents what Bible Christians say, but is essentially the position of Catholics.

For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.

Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

Maybe ill start a thread "Catholics can't (or won't) answer this question"