Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
Mothra said:
Fre3dombear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Fre3dombear said:
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:
Realitybites said:
Harrison Bergeron said:
Anyway, curious everyone's thoughts ... realize much of worship since the Psalms is man-made and we all have opinions. Wish there was a way to keep the best of innovation and the best of the past.
Orthopraxy has entered the chat.
Innovation *is* the problem. There is no best of it. What you end up in is a perpeual cycle cultural compromise in which the faith once delivered to the saints is diluted to the point of becoming moralistic therapeutic deism.
Ask yourself, if Saint Paul was to walk into your service, would he recognize the worship portion of the service as a Christian? The communion service at all? Or would he think he was in some pagan temple on Mars Hill?
What would St. Paul think of the innovation of bowing to and kissing images, and praying to people other than God and Jesus?
What are examples of praying to people other than God or Jesus?
Quote:
Personally I generally think when we get our judgement God will say "I made it so easy and yet y'all complicated all of it"
I'd prefer to try to follow in the footsteps of those that walked with Jesus and founded the early church than guess at some "innovations" that were come up with 1000 or more years after Jesus walked the earth.
Now if innovation means how best to try to bring people to Christ, we'll, we all know Jesus himself was a huge innovator for his day as it is written.
If this is what you believe, then you most certainly should reject the teaching of icon veneration by the Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, among many others, like praying to Mary and the saints.
Why would praying to the mother of God be an issue or praying to a saint when you'd ask your lowly mortal beer buddy to pray for a sick relative? That's an odd take. Good luck.
I'll take a shot at this, as the answer is pretty simple.
We ask other believers and brothers in Christ to pray for us because they are 1) believers; and 2) alive. See James 5:16.
Praying to a long dead mortal is like praying to your long dead drinking buddy. It's worthless.
Well a whole ton of context on purgatory and many verses in revelation etc state otherwise
But at worst it's a waste of time and at best….
@mothra - if you have lost a parent or a grandparent etc, you've never prayed for them after their passing or asked them to pray for you or look out for you?
That'd be impressive to stick to one's guns if so. I did have a protestant buddy of mine tell me if someone hadn't been baptized they couldn't go to heaven. I said so what age do you baptize? He said of course when they feel called or generally around 8-12. I said God forbid your son is killed when he chases a ball into the street at the age of say 4. Where does he go?
His jaw dropped. Then I got no answer.
In the end many things we don't "know" definitively and of course so much deoends upon faith but it is interesting to see how the newer denominations reason things out vs the reasoning of the Catholic and orthodox faiths and makes for good discussion
No, there are no verses in Revelation or anywhere else in scripture that state otherwise. In discussions with my Catholic friends on their non-biblical practice of praying to dead relatives, they like you have referenced Revelation, and in particular 5:8 which talks about saints carrying incense, which are the prayers of man. But there are no verses in Revelation that state we should pray to the saints, or request that they take our prayers to God. It's an entirely man-made practice. And for the record, so is purgatory - made up by man. There is no mention of purgatory or anything like it in scripture.
No, I have never prayed to a dead parent, grandparent or any other relative. I have a personal relationship with Jesus, and I take my prayers directly to him, his father, or the Holy Spirit, although I do ask him to tell them "hi" from time to time.
Btw why do Protestants always talk of a "personal relationship with Jesus" like it's something they have that other Christian's don't? A phrase that came into existence in the 1900s.
How can one be a practicing Christian and not have a personal relationship with Jesus?
Catholicism has long held that it is through the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, that they can develop a personal relationship with Jesus. It is more a communal relationship experienced through performance based criteria. That phrase has a very different meaning for evangelicals, who don't believe any works are necessary for a personal relationship with God.
Yes I'd say the main fundamental differences which are huge in my opinion are the Eucharist, John 6:53 and the notion that no works are necessary. That would sure be nice.
I've got good news for you. Scripture is crystal clear that works are not required for salvation. In fact, our works are like filthy rags to God. Isaiah 64:6
A good summary of the Gospel can be found in Ephesians 2:8-9, which provides, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast". There are countless others, but this is the best summation of the Gospel. No Eucharist, no baptism, no sacraments, nothing. For as Paul said, if those things were required, it would not be by grace that man is saved.
As you have alluded to in your post, a Christian is known by his works, which are an outcropping of our faith in Christ, and evidence of our salvation. But Christ himself was clear that no work can save man. See John 3:16-18.
Indeed, the is the fundamental difference between Catholicism and many other protestant denominations. It's as if the Catholics are completely ignoring Paul, Peter, and the other NT's writers' words on this subject. The NT writers couldn't have been more clear on this subject.
BTW, the thief on the cross throws a monkey wrench in the whole works requirement.
I would really recommend studying this very very closely. Of course God can do anything but this isn't quite what is stayed and we've discussed several verses explicitly stating it. Probably for you it is not an issue but I fear for the people that lean in this. Maybe every Catholic going back to Christ is wrong but I doubt it especially given what is written to us.
Galatians 2 and Romans 6 speak well to this. It's also important to note 1) we can't just earn our way into Heaven and 2) when reading the mention of "works" to clarify when the Apostles are speaking of Mosaic law vs doing good works
I have. I would suggest you study them closely. They are consistent with everything Paul and the apostles have said in scripture. No act of man can save man. There is simply no support for this position. While the current iteration of the Roman Catholic faith did not appear for centuries after Christ's death, indeed it's position on salvation has been wrong from the get-go, and is one of the main reasons why Protestants split from the Catholic church.
You are confusing no act can save a man with a man can do no acts (I assume you mean works) and get to Heaven. Of course it all starts with faith.
And where do you think the early church fathers got this from? Paul speaks of that as well in the many traditions etc we are called to lean upon which is written explicitly in the scripture for our sola scriptura friends to read.
It's actually an interesting position to take. And waters down the expectations. It speaks upon specifically we will be judged. I'd not want to go through life assuming the least common denominator and then find I'm wrong, for sure. I wish my faith allowed me the easier choice but the words and church fathers say different.
Just a couple for consideration Matthew 16:27, Romans 2:6
Read again. Ponder.
I certainly hope for my Protestant friends it's all as easy and simple as they say. For my Jewish friends it would seem there's no hope. Not sure how God sorts that one out (and my Hindu friends as well) As we know what all us Christians believe there.
So, even though Paul, Christ, and Christ's disciples say in your very own Catholic bible that it is by grace we have been saved, and that no physical act can save man, you believe that sacraments, including both communion and baptism, are necessary because 2,000 years ago, Paul supposedly told the church fathers something different than what Christ, Paul and Christ's disciples said in your Catholic bible? What is your evidence of this?
Honestly, surely even a died-in-the-wool Catholic sees the absurdity of such shoddy reasoning. I know how much you like to protest "sola scriptura," but that's merely code for holding beliefs that are contrary to God's Holy Scriptures. There simply is no evidence that Christ, Paul and Christ's disciples meant something other than what they said in the Holy Scriptures. Zero. If "tradition" does not line up with scripture, then it is faulty.
The only interesting position here is your own, and by interesting, I mean entirely inconsistent. Do you believe the Holy Scriptures contained in your Catholic bible are correct, or not? Have you truly pondered why your Catholic bible says something different than the "tradition" you claim to adhere to? Have you considered why the thief on the cross - who took no sacraments - was saved with Christ?
It is entirely inconsistent with the nature of Christ to condemn someone who has a changed and repentant heart merely because he didn't eat and drink bread or wine, or get sprinkled with water. That is a position that is contrary to God's love.
I handed you verses that immediately dispute your first paragraph. Care to comment on those? I know you love to say you're sola scriptura (also clearly disputed in the text of the Bible) and so I spoon fed it for you. Talk about shoddy nonsense
Surely a dyed in the wool Protestant would ponder that and not just fall back on their dogma and a different verse they want to choose and not look at the entirety of the text (posted for your convenience in my post) and I thought some Catholics were cafeteria sheesh.
This is about show your work. I won't change your mind. Not even trying to. I'd not be comfortable believing as you say you do given the words spoken by our Lord and his apostles because even if the Church is wrong in the words we all read in the Bible , what is the harm? As just one consideration. At the least it's as Pascal said.
Regardless. Show your work. I've shown mine. Why does that somehow support your other sola scriptura?
The thief in the cross was said to be in paradise and in that moment what of every other person who had died before the last supper. What kind of non sequitur logic is that? Surely that's not your best argument is it?
I know it's very difficult to 1500 years after the fact look at some words often even incorrectly translated and say from the distance of millennia we know better than what people have been doing for 1500 years.
Now that's some logic one can get behind. Not.
Most of this is nonsensical and hard to follow, but I will try to respond.
First, which points in paragraph 1 do you dispute? There were several.
As for verses that you alleged dispute the points in paragraph 1, the only verses you cited that I can see were Matthew 16:27, and Romans 2:6.
Matt 16:27 provides: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done." This is a reference to the Judgement Seat of Christ, where those who have believed in Jesus for eternal life will be rewarded accordingly for the kind of life lived. This is consistent with grace, not works, if you dispute that well-settled theological point. Rewards for a life lived in Christ, and salvation, are two very different things. Perhaps you are conflating the two, I have no idea, but this verse certainly doesn't support any point you've made.
As for Romans 2:6, it provides: God "will repay each person according to what they have done." Again, this verse is consistent with Matt 16:27 above - that will be rewarded for the life we have lived. It does not suggest, much less explicitly state, that works are necessary to attain salvation. Moreover, Paul goes on to reiterate that salvation can only be obtained by grace, and not by works, just a few chapters later in Romans 11: "And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work."
So again, I am not sure what you believe you have proven here. There are numerous verses consistent with Romans 11:6 above that reiterate that salvation is a free gift.
Again, you've put forth no cogent, evidentiary-based argument to support the idea that a repentant and changed believer in Christ is going to hell if he doesn't eat bread and wine or get sprinkled with water. Once again, this is a position that is inconsistent with the Love of God.
