Christianity & Catholicism

[Teckor]

I'm not quite buying what your saying about what you've said about Catholics not believing what I'd said. I have a grandmother who is a Catholic, she has kept a record of how many masses have been held for my dead grandfather. Why would they hold multiple masses for him unless it was to "somehow" get him out of purgatory.

Furthermore, earlier on in James, it talks about showing our faith with our works. Also, it doesn't say a thing about salvation through grace, so it probably isn't talking about being "saved" but rather how we know that the person has faith.

Also, I call paying tributes to get relatives out of "purgatory" quite heretical. The call to kill all Muslims in the Middle East during the crusades could be considered quite heretical. Torturing or killing people jsut b/c they disagreed with you or b/c they presented an idea which was opposite to the Churches, quite heretical.

Everyone should read the Bible, but they should communicate what or if they understand it or not. Otherwise they are blind, and the words have no meaning. What do you think part of the problem with the Catholic Church was! The people couldn't read the Bible, they couldn't make observations about certain things and discuss what it meant. It put all the power into a select few, who weren't necessarily led by God.

Also, I feel that you are bending our words so that it doesn't make sense. Here's an equation:
Sin = Death
Pretty simple right? Now then, how about this:
Christ = Life
Okay, Christ is like the card that trumps all. Now then, b/c we have Christ doesn't mean that we are free "to sin all we want", b/c then we wouldn't be following what Christ tells us. We'd be hypocrites. Furthermore, we wouldn't really have accepted Christ then. We'd be trying "to serve two tables", which you ultimately can't.

Yes, this is in reverse order, oh well.

[drowelves]

Wow, 18 pages of replies. I am at work, so I can't read all pages, but I throw in my two cents worth about the poll question.

Catholics who accept Christ as their personal Savior are Christains. Just as when you or I would call ourselves Christians if we have done so. That being said, I would have to agree with some of the opinion on pg1, that if the personal part hasn't happened, then you can call yourself a Christian all day long, but it doesn't make it so.

The same would hold true for Mother Theressa and the Pope. If they had not personaly given their lives to Christ before they passed on, then they are not going to Heaven. I believe that the Pope and Mother Theresa were both Christians, because on many public occasions they confessed as such. I have no reason to doubt them.

I will read more later, and comment appropriatley

[awaz]

teckor said:

Why would they hold multiple masses for him unless it was to "somehow" get him out of purgatory?

Maybe because they didn't know any better???

No offense or anything.

[heartofgold]

I'm not quite buying what your saying about what you've said about Catholics not believing what I'd said. I have a grandmother who is a Catholic, she has kept a record of how many masses have been held for my dead grandfather. Why would they hold multiple masses for him unless it was to "somehow" get him out of purgatory.

What your saying does happen. What it basically is is a big prayer fest. Everyone gets together and Prays for that person (or persons). Now, if there's a purgatory (which I know you haven't agreed on that point, but bear with me), then it follows logically that you should pray for that person, as they're still running the race. Note, though, that this isn't going to contribute to your salvation. Nobody believes going to these masses is absolutely essential to your well-being (but if its your dead relative, I'd be there if I were you).

Furthermore, earlier on in James, it talks about showing our faith with our works. Also, it doesn't say a thing about salvation through grace, so it probably isn't talking about being "saved" but rather how we know that the person has faith.

I'm in no way saying faith isn't necessary. You have to have faith. You're not going anywhere without faith. The fact that he doesn't mention salvation by grace proves what I'm saying. He's emphasizing works, but he's not saying that's all there is to it. Just like Paul liked to emphasize faith, but that's not all there is to it.

Everyone should read the Bible, but they should communicate what or if they understand it or not. Otherwise they are blind, and the words have no meaning. What do you think part of the problem with the Catholic Church was! The people couldn't read the Bible, they couldn't make observations about certain things and discuss what it meant. It put all the power into a select few, who weren't necessarily led by God.

Well first off, like I said. In 1 Corinthians Paul said "everyone believe the same thing," which isn't going to happen if everyone reads the bible how they want to read it.
Second, you can't just understand the bible. There are so many ways to "understand" the bible, everyone is going to come to a different conclusion.
Third, why can I read the bible, but they can't? Why am I allowed to be infallible but they aren't? Also, what makes you think they couldn't read the bible? I'll tell you, because they came to a different conclusion, which makes them wrong. But how do you know your not wrong? You have no proof that the way your reading is the right way. You have to have someone infallible. Now, we have three choices here. Jesus, the Pope, or yourself. Now, its not you. Because then you run into the problem Paul was talking about. It is Jesus, but he's speaking through the pope making him infallible. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church. Now, there was only one church than, so there's only one church he could have been talking about. So he did and does guide the people doing this.

Also, I feel that you are bending our words so that it doesn't make sense. Here's an equation:
Sin = Death
Pretty simple right? Now then, how about this:
Christ = Life
Okay, Christ is like the card that trumps all. Now then, b/c we have Christ doesn't mean that we are free "to sin all we want", b/c then we wouldn't be following what Christ tells us. We'd be hypocrites. Furthermore, we wouldn't really have accepted Christ then. We'd be trying "to serve two tables", which you ultimately can't.

Well, that's great. But since we're on the faith/works thing again, this is what I'm saying. The faith part is the acceptance that there is a god that takes care of sin. The Demons believe that. But they don't have the works part, which is embracing him and trying to be like him.

[falklands]

I couldn't explain the relationship between faith and works any better than this person, so I'm not going to paraphrase and do a quasi-plagiarism. Here you go:

" In Romans it says, "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20), and "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28), and "For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3), and "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1), and "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
In James it says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) and " . . . so also faith without works is dead," (James 2:26).
Which is it? Are we justified by faith or by works?

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith. Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting, by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him. "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). But, if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James seems to say? Do we have a contradiction? The answer is no.

Context is Everything

It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8- 13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.


For simplicity, I've summarized each verse and arranged the section in an outline style.

14 - What use is it if someone says he has faith but no works?
15 - If you see someone in need
16 - and you don't give him what he needs, but say, ‘Go in peace, be
warmed.' What use is that?
17 - therefore faith with no works is dead
18 - therefore, someone says "I will show you my faith by my
works."
19 - you believe in God? Good. The demons do too.
20 - faith without works is useless.
21 - Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac
22 - faith was working with his works.
23 - Scripture says, "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as
righteousness"
24 - you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
25 - Rahab, was justified by works
26 - faith without works is dead

Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).
This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James says this because the demons believe in God, that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence.

Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.

What is James Saying?

James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."
Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived."
Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.
Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.""

[falklands]

Well first off, like I said. In 1 Corinthians Paul said "everyone believe the same thing," which isn't going to happen if everyone reads the bible how they want to read it.

All Christians believe the same fundamentals. That Jesus is the Son of God, that "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life", and that only He is the "way, the truth, and the life".

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

What your saying does happen. What it basically is is a big prayer fest. Everyone gets together and Prays for that person (or persons). Now, if there's a purgatory (which I know you haven't agreed on that point, but bear with me), then it follows logically that you should pray for that person, as they're still running the race. Note, though, that this isn't going to contribute to your salvation. Nobody believes going to these masses is absolutely essential to your well-being (but if its your dead relative, I'd be there if I were you).

Unfortunately, I'm not Catholic. Also, how can you still be "running the race" if your dead and going to Heaven?

I'm in no way saying faith isn't necessary. You have to have faith. You're not going anywhere without faith. The fact that he doesn't mention salvation by grace proves what I'm saying. He's emphasizing works, but he's not saying that's all there is to it. Just like Paul liked to emphasize faith, but that's not all there is to it.

No, your misinterpretting me. I said that in that particular passage in James, James doesn't mention at all salvation through grace. He mentions earlier on that works enables people to show their faith through works.

Well first off, like I said. In 1 Corinthians Paul said "everyone believe the same thing," which isn't going to happen if everyone reads the bible how they want to read it.
Second, you can't just understand the bible. There are so many ways to "understand" the bible, everyone is going to come to a different conclusion.
Third, why can I read the bible, but they can't? Why am I allowed to be infallible but they aren't? Also, what makes you think they couldn't read the bible? I'll tell you, because they came to a different conclusion, which makes them wrong. But how do you know your not wrong? You have no proof that the way your reading is the right way. You have to have someone infallible. Now, we have three choices here. Jesus, the Pope, or yourself. Now, its not you. Because then you run into the problem Paul was talking about. It is Jesus, but he's speaking through the pope making him infallible. Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the church. Now, there was only one church than, so there's only one church he could have been talking about. So he did and does guide the people doing this.

Okay, firstly, your forgetting the fact that the Roman Catholic Church (and the Church of England, and even the Scientific Community) all said, "this is it, believe it or the highway". The major problem with this is that it isn't always right, and then we get something that I'd like to refer from now on to as "sheep syndrome", blindly following the crowd (or what we've been told simply because).

Yes, people will see things differently, but certain things cannot be seen differently (ie: what it means to be a Christian). Other things (such as whether drinking alcohol, in small quantities, is bad) are of a more debatable nature.

Well, that's great. But since we're on the faith/works thing again, this is what I'm saying. The faith part is the acceptance that there is a god that takes care of sin. The Demons believe that. But they don't have the works part, which is embracing him and trying to be like him.

The demons know but they don't accept it. Kinda like how someone might know "the truth" but might decide not to accept it (kinda like why some people are atheists, they know "the truth", but they just don't want to accept it).

[heartofgold]

I couldn't explain the relationship between faith and works any better than this person, so I'm not going to paraphrase and do a quasi-plagiarism. Here you go:

" In Romans it says, "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight . . . " (Rom. 3:20), and "for we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law," (Rom. 3:28), and "For what does the Scripture say? ‘And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness'" (Rom. 4:3), and "Therefore, having been justified by faith . . . " (Rom. 5:1), and "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
In James it says, "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone," (James 2:24) and " . . . so also faith without works is dead," (James 2:26).
Which is it? Are we justified by faith or by works?

Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

It is a fundamental Christian belief that we are justified by faith. Justification means that God declares a sinner to be righteous. He does this by crediting, by reckoning the righteousness of Jesus to the sinner. This is done by faith. That is, when the sinner puts his faith in the sacrifice of Jesus and trusts in Him and not himself for righteousness, then God justifies him. "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," (Rom. 4:3). But, if the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith, does it also teach we are justified by works as James seems to say? Do we have a contradiction? The answer is no.

Context is Everything

It is erroneous to take a verse, read it without its context, and then attempt to develop a doctrine from that verse alone. Therefore, let's take a look at the context of James 2:24 which says that a man is justified by works. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8- 13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.


For simplicity, I've summarized each verse and arranged the section in an outline style.

14 - What use is it if someone says he has faith but no works?
15 - If you see someone in need
16 - and you don't give him what he needs, but say, ‘Go in peace, be
warmed.' What use is that?
17 - therefore faith with no works is dead
18 - therefore, someone says "I will show you my faith by my
works."
19 - you believe in God? Good. The demons do too.
20 - faith without works is useless.
21 - Abraham was justified by works when he offered Isaac
22 - faith was working with his works.
23 - Scripture says, "And Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as
righteousness"
24 - you see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
25 - Rahab, was justified by works
26 - faith without works is dead

Notice that James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith, verses 14. He then immediately gives an example of what true and false faiths are. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17). Then he shows that that type of faith isn't much different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith by showing Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20).
This is why in the middle of his section on faith and works, he says in verse 19, "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James says this because the demons believe in God, that is, they have faith, but the faith they have is useless. It does not result in appropriate works. Their faith is only a mental acknowledgment of God's existence.

Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is.

What is James Saying?

James is simply saying that if you ‘say' you are a Christian, then there had better be some appropriate works manifested or your faith is false. This sentiment is echoed in 1 John 2:4 which says, "If you say you have come to know Him, yet you do not keep His commandments, then the truth is not in you and you are a liar."
Apparently, there were people who were saying they were Christians, but were not manifesting any of the fruit of Christianity. Can this faith justify? Can the dead ‘faith' that someone has which produces no change in a person and no good works before men and God be a faith that justifies? Absolutely not. It is not merely enough to say you believe in Jesus. You must actually believe and trust in Him. If you actually do, then you will demonstrate that faith by a changed and godly life. If not, then your profession is of no more value than the same profession of demons: "We believe Jesus lived."
Notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul uses to support the teaching of justification by faith in Rom. 4:3. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example.
Therefore, we are justified by faith. That is, we are made righteous in the eyes of God by faith as is amply demonstrated by Romans. However, that faith, if it is true, will result in deeds appropriate to salvation. After all, didn't God say in Eph. 2:8-10, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.""

I think I would sorda kinda agree with you. I still think it comes out as, "you have to have works" no matter how you word it. But actually this is basically what I'm saying. You can't, as a good Christian, tell the old lady to buzz off. I still think all the arguments come out to the same thing. You have to have both of them. But you have to remember that the definition of faith is just the acceptance that there is a God, the works are living for him (but you pointed this out already).
Also, I think the "works of the law" stuff was mostly directed at the Pharisees.

All Christians believe the same fundamentals. That Jesus is the Son of God, that "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life", and that only He is the "way, the truth, and the life".

But apparently this isn't enough. We all split up anyway. All Catholics believe this, but the church split up, which Paul warned against. All Protestants believed this, but they've split up a lot. There has to be more core beliefs than just that for the church to stay together, as pr oven by history.

Unfortunately, I'm not Catholic. Also, how can you still be "running the race" if your dead and going to Heaven?

You're not. But I'm talking about Purgatory.
But I still don't see why all this is enough to send Catholics to hell. Purgatory isn't an totally un-biblical concept. All I'm saying is there's a purification process, as mentioned in the bible, and that its not over when we're dead, which seems pretty obvious. That's not total heresy against the bible.

No, your misinterpretting me. I said that in that particular passage in James, James doesn't mention at all salvation through grace. He mentions earlier on that works enables people to show their faith through works.

I'm missing your point. Great, he doesn't mention it. And works are a way to show you faith as he says its nonexistent without them.

Okay, firstly, your forgetting the fact that the Roman Catholic Church (and the Church of England, and even the Scientific Community) all said, "this is it, believe it or the highway". The major problem with this is that it isn't always right, and then we get something that I'd like to refer from now on to as "sheep syndrome", blindly following the crowd (or what we've been told simply because).

This all relies the the basic belief that God is guiding the Church like he promised. If he's not, that means that he lied, in which case I'm going to go become an atheist. He might not be guiding the people, and the group might do some not-so-good things (look at Israel), but he's still there guiding it. He's not going to let total heresy go ahead.
So, if he is guiding the church, yea, believe it. Now, no matter what anyone else may say, the Catholic Church was not some symbol of evil for 1500 years. They didn't just go around killing anyone who had the wrong idea. They might excommunicate them, which makes sense, if you don't believe it, leave, but up 'till the Inquisition (which was wrong, but don't forget Protestants weren't exactly innocent bystanders), nobody was just brutally murdered for what they believed.

Yes, people will see things differently, but certain things cannot be seen differently (ie: what it means to be a Christian). Other things (such as whether drinking alcohol, in small quantities, is bad) are of a more debatable nature.

If your talking about Communion, Christ drank wine. Not grape juice.

The demons know but they don't accept it. Kinda like how someone might know "the truth" but might decide not to accept it (kinda like why some people are atheists, they know "the truth", but they just don't want to accept it).

That's what I'm saying. The accepting it part is the works. Once you accept him and try to be like him, your going to have to work at it.

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

But apparently this isn't enough. We all split up anyway. All Catholics believe this, but the church split up, which Paul warned against. All Protestants believed this, but they've split up a lot. There has to be more core beliefs than just that for the church to stay together, as pr oven by history.

Probably not as many as u think.

You're not. But I'm talking about Purgatory.
But I still don't see why all this is enough to send Catholics to hell. Purgatory isn't an totally un-biblical concept. All I'm saying is there's a purification process, as mentioned in the bible, and that its not over when we're dead, which seems pretty obvious. That's not total heresy against the bible.

Sure, it isn't totally unbiblical, but it raises tough and challenging questions as to why Jesus died (for our sins if we're going to sit in purgatory for a mellenia or 2), and those mentioned earlier.
LOL, well obviously it ain't obvious enough. Kinda like how it's "obvious" that evolutionists are right (Hint: sarcasim).

I'm missing your point. Great, he doesn't mention it. And works are a way to show you faith as he says its nonexistent without them.

Apparently so. He mentions that faith leads to works and that a good/decent indicator of faith is in works. Not that "works are required" but that works show our faith to others. This however, doesn't mean that if a person doesn't show works then he's not saved.

This all relies the the basic belief that God is guiding the Church like he promised. If he's not, that means that he lied, in which case I'm going to go become an atheist. He might not be guiding the people, and the group might do some not-so-good things (look at Israel), but he's still there guiding it. He's not going to let total heresy go ahead.
So, if he is guiding the church, yea, believe it. Now, no matter what anyone else may say, the Catholic Church was not some symbol of evil for 1500 years. They didn't just go around killing anyone who had the wrong idea. They might excommunicate them, which makes sense, if you don't believe it, leave, but up 'till the Inquisition (which was wrong, but don't forget Protestants weren't exactly innocent bystanders), nobody was just brutally murdered for what they believed.

LOL, who ever said "the Catholic Church was being led by God"? Probably the first "bishops" or "pope" of the Church (who mind you were nothing more than ceasars or other rulers that had converted to Christianity. But people are fickle).
William Tyndale, burned at the stake for wanting to print English Bibles. Many Czech's were slaughtered (including "good King Wensceslas") when they refused to give up a "renegade priest". The Catholic Church has many problems that still persist till today. As a matter of fact, things such as why Christmas is on th 25th or Easter for that matter, are quite heretical, if you know some basic theology about "dead" religions.

If your talking about Communion, Christ drank wine. Not grape juice.

So, why would Jesus (the Son of God) give people the possibility of being drunk. Furthermore, doesn't Paul talk about not drinking "wine" that bubbles (or something similar)?

That's what I'm saying. The accepting it part is the works. Once you accept him and try to be like him, your going to have to work at it.

Work at being like him, yes. But it's not the works that save you. It's the acceptance of Christ's gift, otherwise Titus was dead wrong, and hence the Bible contradictory (not to mention the other times that indicate salvation throught grace, without mentioning works).

As a matter of fact, find a verse(s) for me, that has both salvation through grace and works. Then I'll take it a little bit more seriously.

[heartofgold]

Work at being like him, yes. But it's not the works that save you. It's the acceptance of Christ's gift, otherwise Titus was dead wrong, and hence the Bible contradictory (not to mention the other times that indicate salvation throught grace, without mentioning works).

But see, once again your taking faith and works and bundling it up into a package called faith. Faith, according to dictionary.com ;D, is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Now, Demons have this. They are 100 percent convinced of Christ's gift. But its the acceptance that's the works. Trying to be like him is what saves you. Not just the acceptance of his gift. Then, like I said, I could say, "I accept your gift of taking all my sins. Now, I'm going to go kill someone." Using your logic, I'd be saved. I actively accepted his gift. But no, you have to try and be like him. You can lose Salvation.

As a matter of fact, find a verse(s) for me, that has both salvation through grace and works. Then I'll take it a little bit more seriously.

There isn't one. The bible isn't the most clear book ever written. But I, for one, am not going to just ignore James. Even Luther didn't do that, he tried to have it kicked out. No, there is no verse mentioning faith and works together. Instead, you have to read between the lines a little. Paul says, "you are judged by faith and not by works of the law." Too true. Though you have to realize he was mostly talking to the Pharisees, who thought all they had to do was follow the law. James says, "you are not saved by faith alone, you have to have works." Too true. While without faith, your "works of the law" are nothing, without your works, you faith is nothing. They go hand in hand. No, there isn't a very clear verse saying this and only this. But if you just look for those in the bible, your in for a rough time.

[falklands]

I think I would sorda kinda agree with you. I still think it comes out as, "you have to have works" no matter how you word it. But actually this is basically what I'm saying. You can't, as a good Christian, tell the old lady to buzz off. I still think all the arguments come out to the same thing. You have to have both of them. But you have to remember that the definition of faith is just the acceptance that there is a God, the works are living for him (but you pointed this out already).
Also, I think the "works of the law" stuff was mostly directed at the Pharisees.

Here I go, quoting it again:

"Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is. "

The whole point of that first exegesis of Jame 2 is not to say that you shouldn't do works, or that works are meaningless, but that it is not a part of salvation! You should do works, but if you use "faith alone saves you" as an excuse for not doing them, then that means you only have Ascentia faith. True faith, Fiducia, leads to good works. If you don't do them, you must not have true faith. If you use it as an excuse for not doing works, you must not have true faith! If you have true faith, you are going to do good works! But it is not a part of salvation!!! It all depends on the heart. And don't go quoting James 2:24 at me ;D

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

But see, once again your taking faith and works and bundling it up into a package called faith. Faith, according to dictionary.com ;D, is "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." Now, Demons have this. They are 100 percent convinced of Christ's gift. But its the acceptance that's the works. Trying to be like him is what saves you. Not just the acceptance of his gift. Then, like I said, I could say, "I accept your gift of taking all my sins. Now, I'm going to go kill someone." Using your logic, I'd be saved. I actively accepted his gift. But no, you have to try and be like him. You can lose Salvation.

Yes, you could go kill someone, but chances are, you wouldn't feel like it. Demons haven't "trusted in Jesus as their personal saviour". Yes, they "know the truth", but they aren't going to accept his gift.

There isn't one. The bible isn't the most clear book ever written. But I, for one, am not going to just ignore James. Even Luther didn't do that, he tried to have it kicked out. No, there is no verse mentioning faith and works together. Instead, you have to read between the lines a little. Paul says, "you are judged by faith and not by works of the law." Too true. Though you have to realize he was mostly talking to the Pharisees, who thought all they had to do was follow the law. James says, "you are not saved by faith alone, you have to have works." Too true. While without faith, your "works of the law" are nothing, without your works, you faith is nothing. They go hand in hand. No, there isn't a very clear verse saying this and only this. But if you just look for those in the bible, your in for a rough time.

But then how do you know that what your saying fits the Bible? Furthermore, your forgetting (as I've mentioned earlier) that earlier in that same chapter, James talks about that works shows your faith. Not that works and faith are required for salvation. Works aren't required but it would be pleasing to God, not to mention following God's commandments.


Argh, finally corrected my previous post so that the quotes would work

[gynovia]

wow, this is up to 18 pages.

[falklands]

Furthermore, your forgetting (as I've mentioned earlier) that earlier in that same chapter, James talks about that works shows your faith. Not that works and faith are required for salvation. Works aren't required but it would be pleasing to God, not to mention following God's commandments.

Oh, and heartofgold, don't go quoting James 2:24 out of context at him again ;D

[steelsheen]

From what I understand, works flow from faith. If you have true faith, you will have works.

Call me simplistic if you like. I don't care. But I must say that to sit and argue about trivialities is somewhat counterproductive.

I mean, if you love God, believe in His Son and his Spirit, and His word's truth, and do your best to obey his Spirit and His word, isn't that what really matters? Not what we call ourselves, be that protestant or catholic, baptist or pentecostal. Does being of another denomination that believe Saturday is the 'day of rest', or believing that women should wear headcoverings in church make someone else any less my brother or sister in Christ?

[heartofgold]

Probably not as many as u think.

Well I don't know. Catholics have the same core beliefs as Protestants, yet you think most of them aren't Christians.

Sure, it isn't totally unbiblical, but it raises tough and challenging questions as to why Jesus died (for our sins if we're going to sit in purgatory for a mellenia or 2), and those mentioned earlier.

There is a purification process. Fairly obvious I think. We're not sinless, we're trying to be.

LOL, well obviously it ain't obvious enough. Kinda like how it's "obvious" that evolutionists are right (Hint: sarcasim).

When you die, will you claim to be sinless?

Apparently so. He mentions that faith leads to works and that a good/decent indicator of faith is in works. Not that "works are required" but that works show our faith to others. This however, doesn't mean that if a person doesn't show works then he's not saved.

Then why does James say we are justified by our works (I'm sorry Falklands, I really am )? In or out of context there are only so many ways to interpret it. In context it still makes sense. He talks about how we are justified by our works. Granted, I'll take the point that they do show our faith, but he also says without them, our faith is dead.

LOL, who ever said "the Catholic Church was being led by God"? Probably the first "bishops" or "pope" of the Church (who mind you were nothing more than ceasars or other rulers that had converted to Christianity. But people are fickle).

Um, God. He said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide my church." Now, by church he meant the Christians. Catholics were the only Christians. That leaves them.

William Tyndale, burned at the stake for wanting to print English Bibles. Many Czech's were slaughtered (including "good King Wensceslas") when they refused to give up a "renegade priest".

Sir Thomas More, murder for not admitting that the King of England wasn't head of the Church.
John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, same reason.
John Slade, murdered for "treason."

If you want a list of Catholic martyrs I can give you some. I guess God wasn't leading either group.

The Catholic Church has many problems that still persist till today. As a matter of fact, things such as why Christmas is on th 25th or Easter for that matter, are quite heretical, if you know some basic theology about "dead" religions.

I've heard this argument. Christmas is on a dead religion's pagan holiday, so? They took over a pagan holiday and made it Christian. Whats wrong with that? Is it so terrible that they kicked out pagan holidays and put Christian ones in their place? I don't think so.

So, why would Jesus (the Son of God) give people the possibility of being drunk. Furthermore, doesn't Paul talk about not drinking "wine" that bubbles (or something similar)?

I don't know, you can ask him why he drank it when you get there. The fact remains he did. I want it to be like it was then.
Great, I won't drink bubbly wine .

Here I go, quoting it again:

"Ascentia and Fiducia

Two words are worth introducing here: ascentia and fiducia. Ascentia is the mental ascent, the mental acknowledgment of something's existence. The demons acknowledge and believe that God exists. Fiducia is more than mental acknowledgment. It involves a trust in something, a giving over to it, a complete believing and acceptance of something. This is the kind of faith that a Christian has in Christ. A Christian, therefore, has fiducia; that is, he has real faith and trust in Christ, not simply an acknowledgment that He lived on earth at one time. Another way to put this is that there are many people in the world who believed that Jesus lived: ascentia. But they do not believe that He is their savior, the one to be looked to and trusted for the forgiveness of their sins.
Ascentia does not lead to works. Fiducia does. Ascentia is not of the heart. Fiducia is. "

The whole point of that first exegesis of Jame 2 is not to say that you shouldn't do works, or that works are meaningless, but that it is not a part of salvation! You should do works, but if you use "faith alone saves you" as an excuse for not doing them, then that means you only have Ascentia faith. True faith, Fiducia, leads to good works. If you don't do them, you must not have true faith. If you use it as an excuse for not doing works, you must not have true faith! If you have true faith, you are going to do good works! But it is not a part of salvation!!! It all depends on the heart. And don't go quoting James 2:24 at me ;D

OK, I am going to try to sum up what you are saying. Corecct me if I'm wrong. Basicly, if you have faith, you'd better have some works to show for it, right? Now, once again correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that come out to the same thing? Either you need works, or you need works to show your faith. Either way you need works.

Yes, you could go kill someone, but chances are, you wouldn't feel like it. Demons haven't "trusted in Jesus as their personal saviour". Yes, they "know the truth", but they aren't going to accept his gift.

Um, how many times a day do you have the urge to sin? You "feel like it." But what your saying is I could sin all I want with no consequences, but I won't feel like it if I'm a Christian? Well, I don't know about you, but I certainly feel like sinning a lot. Even the most righteous fall seven times a day, and you don't sin unless you feel like it. Sinning isn't an accident

[falklands]

OK, I am going to try to sum up what you are saying. Corecct me if I'm wrong. Basicly, if you have faith, you'd better have some works to show for it, right? Now, once again correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that come out to the same thing? Either you need works, or you need works to show your faith. Either way you need works.

Um, I'm correcting you. Either you have dead faith or living faith. Living faith results in works and the desire to do works. If you give "faith alone saves you" as an excuse not to do works, then you must have dead faith. Dead faith does not result in works. You do not need works in order to save you, you need living faith which always should result in works. Hence Ascentia and Fiducia.

[gynovia]

Um, I'm correcting you. Either you have dead faith or living faith. Living faith results in works and the desire to do works. If you give "faith alone saves you" as an excuse not to do works, then you must have dead faith. Dead faith does not result in works. You do not need works in order to save you, you need living faith which always should result in works. Hence Ascentia and Fiducia.

I agree.

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

Well I don't know. Catholics have the same core beliefs as Protestants, yet you think most of them aren't Christians.

I think your not looking at them closely enough. Anything can look similar from a certain point of view, but that doesn't mean that they are. There is at least one pretty big difference, the Catholic Church tends to encourage the idea that going to Church and communion and also following what the Church says is necessary to going to Heaven. Protestant's don't necessarily believe that.

There is a purification process. Fairly obvious I think. We're not sinless, we're trying to be.

As before, that's why Jesus died. To purify us, otherwise, I'd like you to explain why he said the things he did and why he came to die.

When you die, will you claim to be sinless?

No one can "claim" that unless they didn't commit any sins. However, Jesus died for my sins, and I've accepted him as my personal saviour who will speak on my behalf.

Then why does James say we are justified by our works (I'm sorry Falklands, I really am )? In or out of context there are only so many ways to interpret it. In context it still makes sense. He talks about how we are justified by our works. Granted, I'll take the point that they do show our faith, but he also says without them, our faith is dead.

But to who are we justified by our works, certainly not God. When he says our faith is dead, he could be refering to the fact that our faith is useless then, because were not making anything of it.

Um, God. He said, "I will send the Holy Spirit to guide my church." Now, by church he meant the Christians. Catholics were the only Christians. That leaves them.

LOL. If you do recall, the first Christians were those led directly by Christ, the Catholic Church didn't come until much later and besides that, dont you know who started the "Roman Catholic Church"? A cesaur.

Just to confuse things though, cesaurs generally made themselves like gods to the common people. Now then, which ruler (in his right mind) would really like to just give up power, none.

Sir Thomas More, murder for not admitting that the King of England wasn't head of the Church.
John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, same reason.
John Slade, murdered for "treason."

If you want a list of Catholic martyrs I can give you some. I guess God wasn't leading either group.

As before, I've admitted that the Church of England wasn't much better (although, I guess it should be typical seeing as what it's based after). But you know what though, there has always been someone that knows the truth, whether in the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or anywhere, someone knew. That someone however, wouldn't just keep quite. He would tell others who would either go "wantever" or they would seriously consider it.

I've heard this argument. Christmas is on a dead religion's pagan holiday, so? They took over a pagan holiday and made it Christian. Whats wrong with that? Is it so terrible that they kicked out pagan holidays and put Christian ones in their place? I don't think so.

So? Tell me, seeing as that the Catholic Church seems to have a bad habit of "taking over" pagan holidays, doesn't it make you wonder why? Not b/c all the other dates were taken, not b/c that was the date, but most likely b/c that date was already engrained into people so "new" people would feel much more comfortable.

I don't know, you can ask him why he drank it when you get there. The fact remains he did. I want it to be like it was then.
Great, I won't drink bubbly wine .

I'm going to nail this to you. How do you know that the wine he drank was alcoholic?

Also, for your information "alcoholic" beverages bubble b/c they are alcoholic. Furthermore, if you want to believe that Jesus was crooked, that he drank and encouraged the drinking of bad grape juice, that he would "tempt" people to be drunk, then fine, that's what you believe.

Um, how many times a day do you have the urge to sin? You "feel like it." But what your saying is I could sin all I want with no consequences, but I won't feel like it if I'm a Christian? Well, I don't know about you, but I certainly feel like sinning a lot. Even the most righteous fall seven times a day, and you don't sin unless you feel like it. Sinning isn't an accident

The Holy Ghost. It (or is supposed to) help lead us, comfort us, guide us. That is what makes the difference. Yes we all sin, even the "most righteous", but that doesn't mean that we're not less likely to fall than others, or to not fall b/c of the same reason more than once.

I'm getting tired of this, I'm telling you now. I won't continue if you don't, but I'm putting forward my points and my ideas because you are asking for them.

[falklands]

I think your not looking at them closely enough. Anything can look similar from a certain point of view, but that doesn't mean that they are. There is at least one pretty big difference, the Catholic Church tends to encourage the idea that going to Church and communion and also following what the Church says is necessary to going to Heaven. Protestant's don't necessarily believe that.

Teckor, what really matters is whether you have faith or not. He might believe you have to have works along with faith to be saved, but so long as he believes in having to have faith to be saved, he's okay.

I don't know, you can ask him why he drank it when you get there. The fact remains he did. I want it to be like it was then.
Great, I won't drink bubbly wine .

www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didjesus.htm

"Jesus did not drink or make alcoholic wine. Here are ten proofs from Scripture.

THE FIRST REASON IS BECAUSE OF HIS HOLY NATURE. In Heb. 7:26, we read that the Lord Jesus is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." No doubt, the Saviour, being God in the flesh, had an air of holiness about Himself that could be seen by even the most casual observer. For instance, the profane soldiers, who were sent to arrest Him, gave as their reason for returning without Him, that "never a man spake like this man." (John 7:46) The words of Jesus were different; He, no doubt, had a very holy appearance, character, and speech.

Why is this so important? Consider this illustration. The word "cider" may mean an alcoholic beverage, or plain apple juice. Suppose we lived during the 1920s, prohibition days, and were approached by two people offering us a drink of cider. One of the persons, we knew to be one of the holiest men in town, faithful to the house of God, separated from the world, diligent in prayers, always witnessing to others; the other was a known liquor dealer. If each one offered us a drink of "his very own cider," we would assume that the holy person's was no more than apple juice, but there would be no doubt about our opinion regarding the liquor dealer's cider! Obviously, the character of a person influences what that one does.

Since the Lord Jesus Christ was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners," we may safely assume that He would not make that which is called in Scripture a mocker and deceiver of man, causing untold misery.

A SECOND REASON: HE WOULD NOT CONTRADICT SCRIPTURE. In Mt. 5:17-18, Christ made this clear, saying, "Think not that I am come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Therefore, Christ could not have contradicted Hab. 2:15, "Woe unto him that giveth his neighbor drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!"

Certainly, Jesus knew that this verse was in the Bible; He was well-acquainted with Scripture, since it is His Word and was written about Him. He did not come to violate Scripture, but to fulfill it. He could not have done so, if He had made alcoholic wine and had given it to his neighbor.

Some people object to the use of this verse by saying that it would apply only to one who would give his neighbor drink for the purpose of looking on his nakedness. But we must remember: when one gives his neighbor something which will make him drunk, he is putting himself in the very class of those who do so in order to look on their nakedness. And since the Scripture commands us to "abstain from all appearance of evil" (1 Th. 5:22), we can be sure that the Lord Jesus would not have done something that would have been associated with such an evil practice as that described in Hab. 2:15. For the same reason, no Christian should be engaged in the selling of alcoholic beverage.

THE THIRD REASON IS THAT LEV. 10:9-11 COMMANDS THE PRIEST OF GOD, "DO NOT DRINK WINE NOR STRONG DRINK ... That Ye May Put Difference Between Holy And Unholy, And Between Unclean And Clean; and that ye may teach the children of Israel all the statues which the Lord hath spoken..." Now, since Heb. 2:17 calls Christ "a merciful and faithful high priest," we would expect Him to obey all Scriptures pertaining to that office. If He had made or drunk alcoholic wine, He would have disobeyed these verses and would have been disqualified from teaching the children of Israel the statues of the Lord.

THE FOURTH REASON IS FOUND IN A PASSAGE WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED: PR. 31:4-5 PROHIBITS KINGS AND PRINCES FROM DRINKING ALCOHOLIC WINE OR ANY OTHER STRONG DRINK. IF THEY HAD DONE SO, THEIR JUDGMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN PERVERTED. It was necessary for Christ to obey these verses also, since He was Prince of Peace (Is. 9:6) and King of Kings (Rev. 19:16). In Mt. 27:11, He admitted to being the King of the Jews. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt, to fulfill Zec. 9:9, which prophesied that Israel's king would enter the city in just that way. Undoubtedly, He was king, and as such, would have had to obey Pr. 31:4-5.

REASON FIVE: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO MOCK OR DECEIVE PEOPLE, yet Pr. 20:1 says that wine does both. Rather than coming to mock or deceive he came to save!

REASON SIX: HE DID NOT COME TO SEND PEOPLE TO HELL. We have already seen that Is. 5:11-14 teaches that Hell had to be enlarged because of the drinking of alcoholic beverage. Christ did not come to send people to Hell; listen to Jn. 3:17: "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved."

REASON SEVEN: CHRIST DID NOT COME TO CAST A STUMBLINGBLOCK BEFORE ANYONE; yet, Rom. 14:21 teaches that a person who gives another alcoholic wine does just that. "It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak." Everyone who has studied the problem of alcoholism has learned that some people cannot handle any amount of alcohol, while others may drink one or two "social" drinks and stop. Experts do not know why this is true; various theories have been propounded, but nothing has been proved to be true regarding every person. Some say it is chemical; others insist that it must be psychological. The fact is, we do not know for certain. In any given group of people, there would be several potential alcoholics. What a shame it would be for a person, who is a potential slave to it, to get his first taste at the Lord's table in church, then proceed down the road of misery to an alcoholic's grave!

I certainly would not want my children to get their first taste of alcohol at the family meal; nor would I want them to get it at church. One or more of them could well be potential alcoholics. As evidence that this is possible, we should consider that some denominations which serve alcoholic wine in their religious services also operate homes for alcoholic priests!

But we can be absolutely sure that Christ did not come to cause others to stumble!

THE EIGHTH REASON: JOHN 2, THE MIRACLE OF TURNING WATER INTO WINE, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT IT BE ALCOHOLIC. Many insist that it was, on the basis of verse 10, which says, "Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now." They would say that, in those days, it was common to serve the best alcoholic wine at first, saving the worst until later, when men's tastes have been dulled by much drinking. But the point is just the opposite here! These people could definitely recognize that the wine which Jesus made was much better than what they had been served at first. This could not have been possible if they were already well on their way to becoming intoxicated! The fact is, neither the wine which they had at first, nor that which Christ made, was alcoholic.

REASON NINE IS FOUND IN THE SAME PASSAGE: THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN GLORY FROM MAKING DRUNK PEOPLE DRUNKER. Verse 11 is most important when it states that, by this miracle, Jesus "manifested forth his glory." Verse 10 indicates that the people had drunk quite a bit of whatever kind of wine they were drinking. If it had been alcoholic, they would have been intoxicated, or nearly so. Had Christ made alcoholic wine, He would have made drunk people drunker, or almost-drunk people completely drunk! Such a deed would certainly not have manifested any glory to Him!

This chapter also gives us the tenth reason: making drunk people drunker would not have caused his disciples to believe more strongly on him, yet verse 11 says that, as a result of what He did in turning the water into wine, "his disciples believed on him." Jn. 1:41 shows that they had already believed on Him as Messiah; this was a deepening of their faith and a proof that they had not been wrong. Would making drunk people drunker inspire such faith? The opposite would be likely! They were not looking for a Messiah who would pass out free booze! Thus, because of the description of this miracle and its result, we can not conclude otherwise than that this wine was non-alcoholic."

[heartofgold]

Um, I'm correcting you. Either you have dead faith or living faith. Living faith results in works and the desire to do works. If you give "faith alone saves you" as an excuse not to do works, then you must have dead faith. Dead faith does not result in works. You do not need works in order to save you, you need living faith which always should result in works. Hence Ascentia and Fiducia.

Ahhh. So your saying if you have living faith, your works will follow, but they aren't necessary, right? Your not justified by your works is what your saying... *cough cough JAMES 2:24 cough cough, my, my allergies are bad.*

I think your not looking at them closely enough. Anything can look similar from a certain point of view, but that doesn't mean that they are. There is at least one pretty big difference, the Catholic Church tends to encourage the idea that going to Church and communion and also following what the Church says is necessary to going to Heaven. Protestant's don't necessarily believe that.

No, it doesn't. Going to mass is very important, but its not what saves you. Communion is also very important, but its not what saves you. Yes, you should do what the church says, for reason stated above.

No one can "claim" that unless they didn't commit any sins. However, Jesus died for my sins, and I've accepted him as my personal saviour who will speak on my behalf.

Exactly. So I think its fairly obvious that the purification process isn't over at death.

But to who are we justified by our works, certainly not God. When he says our faith is dead, he could be refering to the fact that our faith is useless then, because were not making anything of it.

So you do need works, otherwise your not making anything of your faith. No matter how you look at it, James said, "faith without works is dead."

LOL. If you do recall, the first Christians were those led directly by Christ, the Catholic Church didn't come until much later and besides that, dont you know who started the "Roman Catholic Church"? A cesaur.

No. The Early Christians and the Catholics are one and the same. You can go back to when the Christian's were still being persecuted by Rome, they were calling themselves Catholics.

As before, I've admitted that the Church of England wasn't much better (although, I guess it should be typical seeing as what it's based after). But you know what though, there has always been someone that knows the truth, whether in the Catholic Church, the Church of England, or anywhere, someone knew. That someone however, wouldn't just keep quite. He would tell others who would either go "wantever" or they would seriously consider it.

Where is he? Basically, with this knowledge, you have to assume that God just abandoned his Church after promising not too. This person kept quiet an awful long time.

So? Tell me, seeing as that the Catholic Church seems to have a bad habit of "taking over" pagan holidays, doesn't it make you wonder why? Not b/c all the other dates were taken, not b/c that was the date, but most likely b/c that date was already engrained into people so "new" people would feel much more comfortable.

Would it have been better if they had left the holiday going? Instead of kicking out a pagan one and putting a Christian one in its place they should have just let the pagan one go and set up the Christian one on another date? Isn't it better to also kick out the pagan holiday?

The Holy Ghost. It (or is supposed to) help lead us, comfort us, guide us. That is what makes the difference. Yes we all sin, even the "most righteous", but that doesn't mean that we're not less likely to fall than others, or to not fall b/c of the same reason more than once.

The point is though, we do feel like sinning a lot of the time. But your saying its OK? I could kill all the people I want with no consequences? We do feel like it. But we can't do it. You can lose salvation.

And about this whole wine at communion issue. First off, I don't think alcohol is the symbol of evil you think it is. Heck, its good for you in small quantities. But this isn't really an issue I want to debate right now, nor is it an extremely important one (most of the wine I drink at communion tastes like cool-aid anyway ).

[falklands]

Ahhh. So your saying if you have living faith, your works will follow, but they aren't necessary, right? Your not justified by your works is what your saying... *cough cough JAMES 2:24 cough cough, my, my allergies are bad.*

What was the point of the whole passage of James 2? Take it in context. Faith without works is dead: the kind of faith that does not produce works is dead. We are justified by the kind of faith that produces works, the works demonstrate our faith. Saying that works are a part of salvation DOES contradict the rest of the Bible, because Paul doesn't simply "emphasize" faith, he says that works do NOT save you.

[Teckor]

heartofgold said:

No, it doesn't. Going to mass is very important, but its not what saves you. Communion is also very important, but its not what saves you. Yes, you should do what the church says, for reason stated above.

Then what's with communion and why is it that Catholics take it to an unexplainable degree of belief (ie: litterally believing that the bread and wine transforms into Jesus's body and blood)

Exactly. So I think its fairly obvious that the purification process isn't over at death.

One word for you, "whatever".
Furthermore, just b/c I felt like arguing uselessly with some1 (bad habit, you'll have to forgive me for that), you still haven't proven that there's a purification "process" that involves extensive amount of time in some place that isn't Hell, or Heaven.
Also, why isn't Jesus's blood enough to cleanse us of all our sins? It doesn't make one shred of sense to me, why God's own death would not be enough to cleanse us.

So you do need works, otherwise your not making anything of your faith. No matter how you look at it, James said, "faith without works is dead."

There is a big difference. Without faith, you go to Hell. With it you go to Heaven. However, faith isn't meant to be kept to oneself, it's meant to be shared.

No. The Early Christians and the Catholics are one and the same. You can go back to when the Christian's were still being persecuted by Rome, they were calling themselves Catholics.

Prove it. Also, why would they be called "Catholics" and not "Christians" seeing as that "Christian" means "follower of Christ". As a matter of fact, why the hell did the "Catholic Church" ever call itself that? Why didn't it call itself the "Christian Church"?

Where is he? Basically, with this knowledge, you have to assume that God just abandoned his Church after promising not too. This person kept quiet an awful long time.

Do you listen at all? He didn't leave His Church. It's always been there, even when the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" was "the only Christian Church". There were those who knew, who probably never got caught, or were teaching the truth, but being very close to being a Catholic.

Would it have been better if they had left the holiday going? Instead of kicking out a pagan one and putting a Christian one in its place they should have just let the pagan one go and set up the Christian one on another date? Isn't it better to also kick out the pagan holiday?

Maybe they should have "kicked it out" and not replaced it, otherwise, you really have to question their motives for "replacing it".

The point is though, we do feel like sinning a lot of the time. But your saying its OK? I could kill all the people I want with no consequences? We do feel like it. But we can't do it. You can lose salvation.

Prove that we can lose salvation. Besides, as before, do you listen? Sinning is bad, but we'll do it anyways, b/c of the fact that we're not perfect. We can't through our own means ever attain perfection without the blood of Jesus.

Also, just to spice things up, even with a "purification process", we'd still be able to do whatever the heck we wanted to b/c we'd simply have to wait in purgatory for a couple thousand years more or so.

We can do some pretty horrible things, the "Catholics" (if the generic is truly Christian) have proven that many times. Also, what sort of a sin, would classify as being enough to break our bond with God?

And about this whole wine at communion issue. First off, I don't think alcohol is the symbol of evil you think it is. Heck, its good for you in small quantities. But this isn't really an issue I want to debate right now, nor is it an extremely important one (most of the wine I drink at communion tastes like cool-aid anyway ).

Yes, and so is cocaine, marijuana and just about everything else "evil" or "corrupted" in the world. Does that mean we should? No.
Your right, it may not be "extremely important, but it does hold significance.

Now then, Heartofgold, feel free to make as many stupid and repetative comments as you like, and I will answer them till I have to quote myself to do so.

[falklands]

teckor said:

As a matter of fact, why the hell did the "Catholic Church" ever call itself that?

Kindly abstain from all forms of profanity in this forum.

We can do some pretty horrible things, the "Catholics" (if the generic is truly Christian) have proven that many times. Also, what sort of a sin, would classify as being enough to break our bond with God?

Rejection of God.

[heartofgold]

Then what's with communion and why is it that Catholics take it to an unexplainable degree of belief (ie: litterally believing that the bread and wine transforms into Jesus's body and blood)

Well, verses like 1 Cor. 10:16–17, 11:23–29 and John 6:32–71.

One word for you, "whatever".
Furthermore, just b/c I felt like arguing uselessly with some1 (bad habit, you'll have to forgive me for that), you still haven't proven that there's a purification "process" that involves extensive amount of time in some place that isn't Hell, or Heaven.
Also, why isn't Jesus's blood enough to cleanse us of all our sins? It doesn't make one shred of sense to me, why God's own death would not be enough to cleanse us.

As before, that's why Jesus died. To purify us, otherwise, I'd like you to explain why he said the things he did and why he came to die.

Well, now I'm not sure which one to argue. All I'm saying is we're not sinless, we're trying to be. Boom, instant purification process.

There is a big difference. Without faith, you go to Hell. With it you go to Heaven. However, faith isn't meant to be kept to oneself, it's meant to be shared.

Great, so would you agree that faith without works is dead (like James said)? You have to share faith (which comes out to the works I'm talking about) in order to have living faith.

Prove it. Also, why would they be called "Catholics" and not "Christians" seeing as that "Christian" means "follower of Christ". As a matter of fact, why the hell did the "Catholic Church" ever call itself that? Why didn't it call itself the "Christian Church"?

Catholic just means universal. This was the universal church.
Well, where did the "true" church go? How did the Catholic Church manage to hoodwink about 85% of Christians into believing that they were the only church for all that time? And if God promised to guide his true church, why did he let it get stamped out so quickly? Frankly, church history isn't exactly crystal clear until about 400 A.D. There stood the Catholic Church, where did the true one go?

Do you listen at all? He didn't leave His Church. It's always been there, even when the "Holy Roman Catholic Church" was "the only Christian Church". There were those who knew, who probably never got caught, or were teaching the truth, but being very close to being a Catholic.

I wonder what denomination they were...
Its possible. But I think when God said he'd guide his church, he didn't mean the three people who knew the "truth." Where did the rest of them go? I assume Paul and the Disciples and all them would have been part of it, and they were busy adding 5000 to the church every couple of days. Where did this enlightened bunch go? How did it dwindle to so few people by 400?

Maybe they should have "kicked it out" and not replaced it, otherwise, you really have to question their motives for "replacing it".

Well first off, it was Constantine who actually did that.
But honestly, if you were trying to stamp out pagan religions, you wouldn't just say, "you can't celebrate this any more," and expect them to stop. You have to say, "that is pagan, this is the truth," and give them a holiday.

Prove that we can lose salvation. Besides, as before, do you listen? Sinning is bad, but we'll do it anyways, b/c of the fact that we're not perfect. We can't through our own means ever attain perfection without the blood of Jesus.

Well, I think we already had this debate, but I guess we'll do it again.
First off, the New Testament spends a lot of time telling us we can lose it, all the verses are in the "once saved always saved?" thread. But it doesn't make sense the other way. Good people do bad things and reject God all the time. Were they saved when they were good? Or was it just an illusion? If it is, then none of us know weather or not we're saved. We all could become suicide bombers eventually.

Also, just to spice things up, even with a "purification process", we'd still be able to do whatever the heck we wanted to b/c we'd simply have to wait in purgatory for a couple thousand years more or so.

No. You have to try. There's a difference between being redeemed, and having salvation. Christ redeemed the world, but not everyone is saved. You have to do something for that to happen. But there's two places you're generally going to go. If your good, you're going to purgatory to continue being good 'till "you've paid the last coin" (Luke). If you're bad, you're gong to hell. End of story.

We can do some pretty horrible things, the "Catholics" (if the generic is truly Christian) have proven that many times. Also, what sort of a sin, would classify as being enough to break our bond with God?

Rejecting God (I think Falklands said this already). God's going to forgive your sins if you repent. Truly repent, however. If you're just saying, "God I'm sorry. Oh, and so I don't have to do it again, I'm sorry for next week too when I'm going to do it again," that isn't gonna cut it. You have to be truly sorry and really try to not do it again.

The harder you try, the dumber you look.

Amen to that one too.