I don't have much time to continue this discussion and it's getting off-topic so this may be my last post on the topic in this thread.
Which is according to official profession, which in Scriptuire what one does and effects testifies to what they truly belive.
Faulty logic. That scripture applies to people, not the church.
Where do get this restriction from?! Do you really think God looked at what the leaders and people overall of Israel officially professed as being what they really believed? You certainly do not as regards Protestantism, but continue to bend over backwards to defend Catholicism.
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (Matthew 15:8)
" If someone in your congregation engaged in sodomy would that mean your congregation believed sodomy was acceptable? "
Faulty analogy, as you are avoiding the key aspect that the congregation continually affirms as members those engaged in sodomy and does not engage in any real discipline. If this was the case then most certainly it would warrant the conclusion that the congregation (or leadership) overall believed sodomy was acceptable, or at least they did not see it as warranting Biblical discipline.
All that shows is there are sinners in the RCC. It says absolutely nothing about the RCC.
What kind of nonsense is this? You seem bound to defend Rome as much as some of its members do. You mean that if a team fails to overall discipline players for continued disregards of rules and treats such as members in good standing, regardless of what official policy states, then it says absolutely nothing about them?!
I suggest you study what the RCC says about it's own teaching instead of relying on anti-catholics to tell you what they really believe. Would you consult with a Baptist to learn what Lutherans believe?
Dude, the text you seemingly object to a
word study, and what i described as Mary worship does not come from " anti-catholics," and is easily documented from RC ones. And i write as one who was a faithful weekly Mass-going RC, and altar boy, lector and CCd teacher before i prayerfully left the church of Rome for evangelicalism, with no personal hurt feelings against Rome, or other aberrant groups i
contend against, by God's grace, due to their own unScriptural major errors.
If that's so, it's because Catholics have more in common with the ancient Christian faith taught by scripture and the ECFs than most Protestant denominations.
Ratherr Catholics have
less in common critically with the ancient NT church Christian faith, as do Prot denoms that are most close to her.
Do you acknowledge that a person can have true faith and refuse to repent? If so, that means repentance and not faith alone is necessary.
A false dichotomy. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin, as one cannot have truly believed on the Lord Jesus without turning/changing from some other belief, and what you do manifest what you truly believe, at least at the moment.
But therefore a person who truly believes with Biblical saving faith, which James helps describe, will not refuse to repent, as that would be inconsistent with believing. Thus,
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
Do you acknowledge a person with true faith who has repented can later choose to repent of his decision to follow Christ and go back to living in sin and that person despite once being justified will not be saved? If so, that means works and not faith alone is necessary.
Indeed works as a fruit of faith (given opportunity) and not faith that is alone is necessary to be a true believer, though desire can be counted for the act.
superficial consideration and
I judge Catholicism and Protestantism based on teaching since neither is capable of doing any works (as only people, not churches, can do anything good or bad).
And just how does that refute my charges against what Catholicism "does and effectually teaches?" Do you really want to argue Catholicism can do nothing, or that its teaching is merely what is officially professed?
1. Many "evangelicals" I know don't care what classic "evangelicals" believed.
Nor you, for the point is that while your one-sided charges are based on your apparently very limited Prot acquaintances, both current surveys and history testify against you.
2. More importantly, the fruit described is completely ambiguous which means every "evangelical" can claim he has fruits.
What?! If you dared examine the context of passages being commented on as on Galatians 5:21 you could see that it is far from "completely ambiguous!" Do i need to posts even larger responses?
"...they that do such
works of the flesh as before enumerated; that is, that live in the commission of these things, whose whole lives are employed in such work, living and dying in such a state, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, shall never enjoy eternal life..." (Gill on Galatians 5:21)
I dare say you would not have charged this if it was a so-called "church father" doing the commenting, due to your antagonism against Protestantism.
If he commits adultery, cheats on his taxes, and tells lies but loves his family, donates to charity, and is kind to his friends he can say he has the fruits of true faith.
Which is simply not what those sources are teaching, but which you must read into it.
I actually avoid most Protestants and prefer to be friends with non-religious people instead because I've found non-religious people to be more loving, godly, and have better morals than most Protestants. .... To reiterate, my opinion on Protestantism is based on teaching, not the actions of individual Protestants.
What?! Your charges have been based on your experience with Protestants and have yet to quote one Protestant church teaching. And yet the very term "Protestant" is essentially meaningless without a substantial reference point, as for Catholics it can be so broad that a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 could fly thru thru it. You even call yourself a Protestant when all you have done is attack it and bent over backwards to defend Catholicism!
A common misconception and irrelevant anyway. What matters is what the RCC teaches, not what individuals who you think are Catholics believe.
That is absurd! The Lord Himself said "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," (Matthew 7:20) and it is easily substantiated that Rome treats even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death.
Ted Kennedy even wrote a hypocritical impenitent letter to the pope shortly before he died, and received a gracious reply, thanking this notorious impenitent evildoer for his prayers, with no manifest reproof. And gave him a church funeral with a nice eulogy, which sends a message to the rest of such.
If Jesus founded the Catholic Church
Which is begging the question, and even if the problematic historical linkage Rome propagates was true, this does not make the church of Rome (or the EOs) that which the Lord founded, and what we seen in the NT,
which stands in clear substantial contrast to that church!
" and the Church teaches the truth should I reject it and refuse to join because some people who attend that church believe something immoral in opposition to the Church's teaching?"
Once again this is a false analogy, for what we are dealing with is not simply some people who attend that church believing something immoral in opposition to the Church's official teaching, but that of a near majority of such who testify that they do, and that Rome counts and treats such as members in life and in death, with no Biblical discipline, and too often commendation from her pastors.
Regarding those "Catholics" who hold moral views in opposition to Church teaching, Pope Leo XIII explained it well in his encyclical Satis Cognitum:
"The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium... if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic"
And upon such basis which many RCs reject modern popes, or teachings, yet according to another papal encyclical the "one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS) and who provide the interpretation of what is written.
And in so doing it is clearly manifest that she considers multitudes as members, even a majority, of those who recede from points of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Which itself is subject to interpretation by RCs.
For one, only 44% of Catholic affirmed that the pope and bishops have taken the place of Peter and the apostles.
(2008 poll of 1,007 self-identified adult Catholics by the Catholic "Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate" (CARA) at Georgetown University; http://cara.georgetown.edu/beliefattitude.pdf)
That's exactly what he was doing as he never objectively defined faith.
What nonsense is this? He did just that by defining faith as belief which effects obedience towards its Object. And for which Scripture is the standard for obedience, and which more preaching goes into (do you really think it does not or need i post even more material?). You may as well argue that Scripture provides no objective rule in that definition
There is no objective rule in that definition. Saying those who don't do good works are not true believers is a textbook example of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
So referring to works of faith and obedience and doing what i best for the welfare of others based on Scripture is not providing an objective rule? You might as well as charge the Lord Jesus with failing to do so in teaching "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," referring to good fruit and bad fruit.
In both cases additional reading provides details, but you are only looking for a way to deny the obvious.
If two believers have the same beliefs but one obeys and the other doesn't then Luther would say one is a true believer and the other isn't even though there isn't any difference in their beliefs.
Which is more absurdity in the light of what i posted, for Luther manifestly makes that distinction.
if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]
if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]
If you don't agree, explain how the faith of a person whose faith effects obedience is any different than the faith of the person whose faith does not effect obedience.
How? By the very evidence of what it effects! If you value the use of your PC then you will not click on some suspicious attachment, unless you believe that what it contains is worth the risk. And as far a what one's god is, a person who believes money will buy him happiness will order his life accordingly. A false god is that which is your ultimate source of security, the highest object of your spiritual affection, and of obedience, all of which will be shown by your choices.
Saying faith is not present when works don't follow is an unwarranted assumption without any evidence. Since works don't follow in many people with faith he has to resort to saying they don't have true faith which is a fallacy because he can't distinguish it from non-true faith.
That is insanity! We are speaking here of Biblical, saving faith, and which is obviously Luther's standard. Yet you assert "Saying faith is not present when works don't follow is an unwarranted assumption without any evidence"?! Ever hear of "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17)
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath
denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 1:16)
Of course, if Luther wrote the latter you would say he was being too ambiguous.
That's different because the RCC would admit they are believers and not claim "well they believe but they aren't true believers."
Wrong again, as neither Luther not me is saying "well they believe but they aren't true believers," but that based upon the objective standard of Scripture those whose faith does not effect characteristic obedience toward the Lord Jesus are not effectually believing, they do not have Biblical saving faith.
To avoid the no true Scotsman fallacy you have to define believer objectively without relying on actions.
Here's Wikipedia's example:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus (who is Scottish) likes sugar with his porridge."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Luther's statements are identical. Replace Scotsman with believer and "puts sugar on his porridge" with "fails to do good works" and you should see it:
Person A: "No believer fails to do good works."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus (who is a believer) fails to do good works."
Person A: "Ah yes, but no true believer fails to do good works."
NO, they are not identical except in your silly mind because in the case of Luther he is manifestly referring an objective standard for saving faith, and thus a true believer, and which (following your analogy) identifies a true Scotman as one who does not put sugar on his porridge, and in reality defines what good works which faith effects are!
Your absurd irrational contortionist attempts to make your case against Protestantism while excusing Catholicism marginalizes you as one unfit for attempts at meaningful and civil debate!
My own experience, as well as many others, proves faith doesn't always result in works.
And which is thus dead faith, meaning no saving faith. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?
Scripture does teach faith always characteristically results in love and good works. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Ths. 1:4-10)
No it doesn't. Heb 6:9-10 merely says the author of Hebrews was confident. I don't see anything in 1 Thess 1:4-10 that teaches it either.
And just how could the authors be confident that these were believers in the lighr of their characteristic love and good works unless faith always characteristically results in love and good works? Talk about basic logic!
No, as being rewarded for works testifies to effectual faith, which is rewarded. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)
Where is this ever taught in scripture?
How is that relevant?
Where and how? Because Hebrews 10:35 states that God rewards faith in recognition of its works, and as shown, works testify to effectual faith.
I don't understand what you're saying. All I'm saying is:
True statement - "Love for God always results from faith"
False statement - "Faith always results in love for God"
When John 5:28 says all those who do good will rise to life, I believe all of them had faith and did good because of their faith. However, that does NOT mean everyone with faith will do good.
Wrong in the latter, for as said, one acts according what one truly believes, at least as the moment, and saving faith, which is the issue, is one that works the "obedience of faith."
The fact that the demons tremble because they believe God is real (Ja. 2:19) and will thus judge and punish them (Mt. 8:29) evidences that what one believes has effects, while one who has no faith in God at all will reflect that, but saving faith is that which effects characteristic obedience toward the Lord, including repentance when convicted of not doing so.
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and
therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)
But
when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ,
they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)
It sounds reasonable that anyone who truly believes that his sin will result in eternal damnation will always choose to repent if he truly believes this. However, this is false because the love of sin causes people to behave irrationally.
Again, the issue has been and is saving faith, which presumes rationality, while the one who does not repent in your case is acting consistent with his faith, in a lie.
Not ambiguous at all. Believers who are whoremongers and idolaters will not inherit the kingdom of God because their faith alone is not enough.
Wrong again, it was because they did not have the effectual faith which is counted for righteousness. No one was ever converted and obtained acceptance in the Beloved and were made to sit with Him in Heaven, etc. because they had enough works mixed with their faith, but he that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)
As said, they works justify one as being a believers, not a faith that is alone, which is not saving faith, but it dead.
The RCC still believes and teaches that.....Heretics are those who accepted the Catholic faith and later rejected it. The Reformers were heretics but not those who were raised Protestants because they never accepted the Catholic faith. Same with schismatics. Only former catholics who left the church are considered schismatics.
Your valid distinctions ignore the broad nature of this teaching which evidences it is meant to be inclusive of "those not living within the Catholic Church" "that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."
And this broad exclusion is seen in
similar historical RC teaching such "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church;" "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors, and like elitist heresy.
That's a 16th century man-made Protestant tradition.
Wrong: that is inline with
manifest 1st century belief.
In contradiction to this Vatican 2 teaching (despite its often ambiguity and competing influences) affirmed (properly) baptized Prots as being members of the body of Christ and (separated) brethren of Catholics:
None of those quotes from Vatican II contradict the earlier Catholic teaching you quoted.
Which multitudes of RCs disagree with, or interpret differently, while the pope high-fives and rejoices with evangelicals. Follow the leader they tell us.
This is false as scripture says Jesus created one visible church.
This is false as scripture do not say Jesus created one church that only consists of those visibly in one organic church, while showing that some who were part of the visible community were lost, (Jn. 6:70) or needed to be put out of it, (1Co. 5) and that visible churches ranged from those that were only commendable to those with fornicators, or fit to be spit out, (Rv. 2,3) but that the body of Christ is one and only consists of believers. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14
The Lord also affirmed such believers as are outside the apostolic company but who manifestly do ministry in His name, (Lk. 9:49.50) and baptizes souls who have no visible church to go to or pastor to lead them. (Acts 8:36-39)
Even Rome considers many of those without her church as belonging to the body of Christ. Meanwhile, nowhere is the church told or exhorted to look to, submit to, or pray for Peter as its one supreme head in Rome.
How do you define characteristic obedience to Christ? No one is perfect so how much obedience is necessary?
Does this go with your assertion that Luther's exhortation to Scriptural obedience lacks an objective standard? And characteristic means as a overall practice, and which for believers includes repentance.
Why is characteristic obedience in Scripture so ambiguous. First we do not lack an objective non-ambiguous standard. When John writes, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments" (1 John 5:2) he was not referring to an ambiguous standard, but to characteristic obedience to the righteousness of that body of Truth, and its further revelation which is said to be perfect, convert the soul, make wise the simple, rejoice the heart, enlighten the eyes, endure for ever, and more to be desired than much fine gold, being true and righteous altogether, (Psalms 19:7-10) and providing what is needed to make one complete, being preached by the church. (2Tim. 3:15-17)
When the Lord stated that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) He was quoting from an established body of Truth, to which more would be added, and which enables one to obey the will of God.
Thus we see 9 out the 10 commandments reiterated under the New Covenant (with covenantal distinctions made), and expansion of the righteousness of the law, which believers by the Spirit are enabled to work to fulfil: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
Which is not inclusive, while Gal. 5:19-23 adds to this and lists fruits of the Spirit.
And that body of Truth describes righteous men of faith as those whose lives were marked by characteristic obedience to God, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Job, Daniel, etc., and in the further revelation of the NT we see others such as the apostles. And whose failures are therefore characteristic, being set in contrast to their general life.
Rome effectually infers that even Ted Kennedy type Catholics will finally attain Heaven due to their baptism and the merits of Rome (and their own), then you have such Protestants being more Catholic than Rome effectually is.
I highly suggest you learn Catholicism from actual Catholic sources instead of relying on anti-catholics who love to slander the Church because they hate the truth.
I highly suggest you cease from resorting to such vain attempts to deny what Catholic sources themselves provide. Do you want me to provide more?
