historian said:

---

According to Jesus Christ, if someone lusts after another in his heart he is guilty of the sexual sin even if it was never a physical act. Jesus specifically spoke about adultery but it can reasonably be applied to all sexual sins especially since He also declared hatred in one's heart to be the equivalent of murder. That's the most obvious possibility. There are probably others. And we are sinners.

---

I agree with 100% of that; and it applies without regard to sexual orientation. A celibate gay person is 100% subject to the above. So where are we disagreeing?

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

no sinner is unworthy of being in a community of Christians. As long as the person is open to the gospel, they should be welcome in the church.

If the person is unrepentant or unwilling to give up certain sins, then conversations should begin gentle loving admonishment one on one, then a small group again in a loving manner, then the whole of the church showing the love and care they have for the person, then and only then request them to leave the church if they maintain their unrepentance. At any point in time, the sinner can repent and stay in the church as long as their eyes are on God. Sin is the fruit of separation from God.

Our work is against sin and to sow seeds of the gospel to others so they may know Christ as well. Love is the basis of all our work

1 corinthians 13:4-7.
4 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant 5 or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;[a] 6 it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. 7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

You seem disingenuous here. The sin is not the condition of celibacy, but the heart of the man. Just as a man who never technically cheats on his wife but flirts around is guilty in his heart, so too a gay man who does not follow through with the act but holds the desire in his heart is in a condition of sin.

It may help to think of this not in legal terms, but medical. A cancer which has not metastasized is still a cancer, and the danger remains. The same with sin.

I mention this here not to focus on gay people, but on us all. Many people will go to church and pray, and enjoy the sense that they are forgiven and clean, but if they do not repent in their heart they did not really turn from their sin. We all need to search ourselves and see who is on our throne, The Lord or just our selves.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear has supported the stance of Pope Francis on gay couples and recognizing them in the Church. Like Francis, he believes that unrepentant gay couples should be affirmed and allowed into the church congregation.

---

This is incorrect.

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

You seem disingenuous here. The sin is not the condition of celibacy, but the heart of the man. Just as a man who never technically cheats on his wife but flirts around is guilty in his heart, so too a gay man who does not follow through with the act but holds the desire in his heart is in a condition of sin.

It may help to think of this not in legal terms, but medical. A cancer which has not metastasized is still a cancer, and the danger remains. The same with sin.

I mention this here not to focus on gay people, but on us all. Many people will go to church and pray, and enjoy the sense that they are forgiven and clean, but if they do not repent in their heart they did not really turn from their sin. We all need to search ourselves and see who is on our throne, The Lord or just our selves.

---

I'm not trying to play a gotcha game here. I am genuinely curious. So let's be direct, say we have two people: first, a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but remains celibate and a second person experiences the same exact attraction to a member of the opposite sex not their spouse and also remains celibate.

Do you view these two people differently?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

You seem disingenuous here. The sin is not the condition of celibacy, but the heart of the man. Just as a man who never technically cheats on his wife but flirts around is guilty in his heart, so too a gay man who does not follow through with the act but holds the desire in his heart is in a condition of sin.

It may help to think of this not in legal terms, but medical. A cancer which has not metastasized is still a cancer, and the danger remains. The same with sin.

I mention this here not to focus on gay people, but on us all. Many people will go to church and pray, and enjoy the sense that they are forgiven and clean, but if they do not repent in their heart they did not really turn from their sin. We all need to search ourselves and see who is on our throne, The Lord or just our selves.

---

I'm not trying to play a gotcha game here. I am genuinely curious. So let's be direct, say we have two people: first, a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but remains celibate and a second person experiences the same exact attraction to a member of the opposite sex not their spouse and also remains celibate.

Do you view these two people differently?

---

We'll need to define specifically what you mean by 'celibate'. Jesus was plain that if a man desires a woman and in his heart he imagines having sex with her, he is guilty even if in practice he remains 'celibate'. I'd say the same standard applies to homosexual lust. A passing desire resisted is no sin, but one embraced and kept is a sin.

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

You seem disingenuous here. The sin is not the condition of celibacy, but the heart of the man. Just as a man who never technically cheats on his wife but flirts around is guilty in his heart, so too a gay man who does not follow through with the act but holds the desire in his heart is in a condition of sin.

It may help to think of this not in legal terms, but medical. A cancer which has not metastasized is still a cancer, and the danger remains. The same with sin.

I mention this here not to focus on gay people, but on us all. Many people will go to church and pray, and enjoy the sense that they are forgiven and clean, but if they do not repent in their heart they did not really turn from their sin. We all need to search ourselves and see who is on our throne, The Lord or just our selves.

---

I'm not trying to play a gotcha game here. I am genuinely curious. So let's be direct, say we have two people: first, a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but remains celibate and a second person experiences the same exact attraction to a member of the opposite sex not their spouse and also remains celibate.

Do you view these two people differently?

---

We'll need to define specifically what you mean by 'celibate'. Jesus was plain that if a man desires a woman and in his heart he imagines having sex with her, he is guilty even if in practice he remains 'celibate'. I'd say the same standard applies to homosexual lust. A passing desire resisted is no sin, but one embraced and kept is a sin.

---

Define it however you wish, just apply it equally to the gay person and straight person. Same exact facts for both, other than the relative gender they are each attracted to.

Do you see these two people differently?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

Already answered. Please re-read my last.

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

What your saying is that the temptation is a sin and once tempted, you are guilty whether acted on or not. Doesn't that take away free will? According to you guys once tempted, you are guilty.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

---

Regarding the first part of your response - I'm just going to have to pass off your continued lack of understanding to that of being stuck on stupid, out of pride. Regarding your last point, it's not a need for validation that I say that, it's to communicate to you that no one's fooled by your BS escape tactic. It's so that you don't kid yourself that what you're doing is working. See how it steered you back to the relevant issue, and you tried to answer the question?

Regarding the middle part of your comment where you tried to answer it - Sam already answered what he thinks the link says in regard to the question. He already mentioned the "initial" and "ongoing" justification view. Obviously, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my response to this, that this answer takes us right back to the original problem. It doesn't answer the question at all, it just doubles down on the problem. Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith. So how can justification "initially" be through the performance of the sacrament of baptism, and then also contingent on the "ongoing" sanctification through the continual performance of other sacraments?

This is why giving links as answers is nothing but a cop out. Now that you are having to express your own understanding of the link, I can show by your own understanding of the article, that it doesn't even answer the problem with your view. Now I'm arguing against YOU, not the article. You have to own it. You've publicly expressed it as your belief.

---

Look, you're the one who is always prattling on about being rational and honest. Your deep insecurities make you afraid of being alone. You know that there are Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum that don't agree with you. Heck, I believe as soon as you think you have vanquished the Catholics you are going to launch an attack against the non-Catholics on this board. So the idea that you speak for the forum is patently ridiculous. You know this. Your need to invoke the forum which you clearly know you can't possibly speak for the entirety of is seeking public validation because of your insecurities. Do with that what you will, but I would infer that someone so compulsively obsessed with rational thought would want to be aware of his own irrational behavior. I'm just trying to help you.

Quote:

---

Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith.

---

This is the crux of the issue and here you playing possum or just obtuse (or perhaps just lazy and won't read a link that would at least give you a better understanding of your perceived enemies). Nobody has denied that Scripture says that. Sam has even agreed with you that justification comes by faith (the CCC also says the same). But Scripture also has James 2:22. What do you think James 2:22 means? To you, what is a faith without works?

---

Notice that through all your writing... the question/problem never got answered? The people of the forum did.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

---

Regarding the first part of your response - I'm just going to have to pass off your continued lack of understanding to that of being stuck on stupid, out of pride. Regarding your last point, it's not a need for validation that I say that, it's to communicate to you that no one's fooled by your BS escape tactic. It's so that you don't kid yourself that what you're doing is working. See how it steered you back to the relevant issue, and you tried to answer the question?

Regarding the middle part of your comment where you tried to answer it - Sam already answered what he thinks the link says in regard to the question. He already mentioned the "initial" and "ongoing" justification view. Obviously, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my response to this, that this answer takes us right back to the original problem. It doesn't answer the question at all, it just doubles down on the problem. Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith. So how can justification "initially" be through the performance of the sacrament of baptism, and then also contingent on the "ongoing" sanctification through the continual performance of other sacraments?

This is why giving links as answers is nothing but a cop out. Now that you are having to express your own understanding of the link, I can show by your own understanding of the article, that it doesn't even answer the problem with your view. Now I'm arguing against YOU, not the article. You have to own it. You've publicly expressed it as your belief.

---

Look, you're the one who is always prattling on about being rational and honest. Your deep insecurities make you afraid of being alone. You know that there are Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum that don't agree with you. Heck, I believe as soon as you think you have vanquished the Catholics you are going to launch an attack against the non-Catholics on this board. So the idea that you speak for the forum is patently ridiculous. You know this. Your need to invoke the forum which you clearly know you can't possibly speak for the entirety of is seeking public validation because of your insecurities. Do with that what you will, but I would infer that someone so compulsively obsessed with rational thought would want to be aware of his own irrational behavior. I'm just trying to help you.

Quote:

---

Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith.

---

This is the crux of the issue and here you playing possum or just obtuse (or perhaps just lazy and won't read a link that would at least give you a better understanding of your perceived enemies). Nobody has denied that Scripture says that. Sam has even agreed with you that justification comes by faith (the CCC also says the same). But Scripture also has James 2:22. What do you think James 2:22 means? To you, what is a faith without works?

---

Notice that through all your writing... the question/problem never got answered? The people of the forum did.

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

---

Regarding the first part of your response - I'm just going to have to pass off your continued lack of understanding to that of being stuck on stupid, out of pride. Regarding your last point, it's not a need for validation that I say that, it's to communicate to you that no one's fooled by your BS escape tactic. It's so that you don't kid yourself that what you're doing is working. See how it steered you back to the relevant issue, and you tried to answer the question?

Regarding the middle part of your comment where you tried to answer it - Sam already answered what he thinks the link says in regard to the question. He already mentioned the "initial" and "ongoing" justification view. Obviously, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my response to this, that this answer takes us right back to the original problem. It doesn't answer the question at all, it just doubles down on the problem. Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith. So how can justification "initially" be through the performance of the sacrament of baptism, and then also contingent on the "ongoing" sanctification through the continual performance of other sacraments?

This is why giving links as answers is nothing but a cop out. Now that you are having to express your own understanding of the link, I can show by your own understanding of the article, that it doesn't even answer the problem with your view. Now I'm arguing against YOU, not the article. You have to own it. You've publicly expressed it as your belief.

---

Look, you're the one who is always prattling on about being rational and honest. Your deep insecurities make you afraid of being alone. You know that there are Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum that don't agree with you. Heck, I believe as soon as you think you have vanquished the Catholics you are going to launch an attack against the non-Catholics on this board. So the idea that you speak for the forum is patently ridiculous. You know this. Your need to invoke the forum which you clearly know you can't possibly speak for the entirety of is seeking public validation because of your insecurities. Do with that what you will, but I would infer that someone so compulsively obsessed with rational thought would want to be aware of his own irrational behavior. I'm just trying to help you.

Quote:

---

Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith.

---

This is the crux of the issue and here you playing possum or just obtuse (or perhaps just lazy and won't read a link that would at least give you a better understanding of your perceived enemies). Nobody has denied that Scripture says that. Sam has even agreed with you that justification comes by faith (the CCC also says the same). But Scripture also has James 2:22. What do you think James 2:22 means? To you, what is a faith without works?

---

Notice that through all your writing... the question/problem never got answered? The people of the forum did.

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630I'm not dodging your questions. I'm just exhausted. Last word is yours, so have at it. said:

---

Quote:

---

Exhausted? You've been repeatedly responding to my posts. In any of your responses, you could have answered me in good faith. And if anyone should be exhausted, it should be me, in having to constantly hold you guys down and pull teeth just to get honest engagement.

---

Give it a rest, you don't determine good faith, you not liking an answer doesn't disqualify it.

You really need to get some help with your hatred and obsession with the Catholic Church. Please get help.

---

Of course I can determine what is and what isn't good faith. I'm a honest thinking person. Being asked if you believe we are justified by faith AND works, and answering by only giving a link to a website is certainly NOT answering in good faith. You aren't very honest or intelligent if you think that it is.

And it continues to be obvious to the forum that the Roman Catholics here will spend post after post trying to skirt the issue. Perhaps one of you will be better than Sam and can answer the question for him? He seems to be tongue-tied.

---

Is it okay to recite the Nicene Creed even though it was authored by others?

Is it okay to recite a prayer authored by any one other than Jesus?

Are reciting those in bad faith because they were authored by others?

It would have been much easier and much more efficient for you to simply read the link and deal with the substance of the argument rather than dying on some procedural hill. You would have been an example of grace and good faith. You might even get to exchange ideas and get closer to discovering truth (your purported goals in many of your posts). Instead, you choose procedural combat and then take offense when people compare you to a certain sect from the time of Jesus. Even then, you are wrong on procedure. Incorporation by reference is a perfectly acceptable way to efficiently convey ideas.

I can't decide if you are just a troll or if you really are straight out of the DSM. You were the child who took his ball and went home the instant it wasn't working out exactly the way you wanted it to go. Your pathological need to control others and their agency combined with your constant need for public validation betrays deep, deep insecurities and immaturity.

---

Think about what you just argued. You're taking about actually reciting a creed, not merely providing a link to it. Maybe when it's time for you to recite your creeds in church, you can just give the priest or the congregation a link to nicene-creed.com so you don't have to say it. It'd be a lot easier, wouldn't it?

Stop being too stubborn and dishonest to actually understand the nature of the issue here.

---

Ah yes, this is the part where you pretend not to understand English and just make stuff up.

First off, I didn't argue anything. I asked exploratory questions. Learn the difference between an argument and an inquiry. Stop rephrasing things and just honestly address what is presented. This is very representative of your bad faith. I thought Obama was the world's worst arsonist who built fields of straw men just to light them on fire, but you are giving him a run for his money.

Second, you said to Sam the following:

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

So, I'm asking you: is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? If not, please differentiate using a creed authored by others from incorporating by reference the words of theologian. Please consider including into your discourse the relative differences between a worship service and an online message board.

I understand the nature of the issue perfectly. Sam gave you an answer drafted by an apologist. An answer that takes less than ten minutes to read. The post makes a thought-provoking argument that you could actually address on the merits. All of this within the context that you ask every single Catholic to answer for every last comma and period in Catholic theology for thousands of years, yet the moment you are given a reference to an apologist of the Catholic Church this is beyond the pale for you….

Yet instead you want to argue a procedural basis. I know what someone seeking a better understanding of God's truth would do; especially someone who claims to want to disciple others into God's kingdom. I also know what a gaslighter would do. And just in case you truly lack self-understanding, you are not in the former category.

---

Again- Sam recited nothing. He only gave a link. At least with a recitation, there is evidence that you know what was said, and perhaps the meaning of which had even passed through your brain.

So no, you don't understand the issue. But it IS funny that you think that giving your church a link to the Nicene Creed instead of reciting it yourself suffices.

---

You're shifting the goal posts. So, to isolate the questions:

In rejecting Sam's use of a link, you said to Sam the following:

Quote:

---

"If you can't express this for yourself but instead have to have someone or something else answer it for you, then I don't think you really believe it, you just know what you're supposed to believe. That's just a sign that you are a tribalist, not a true Christian at heart."

---

SO, the questions are:

Is reciting of the Nicene Creed, something drafted by someone else, or any other prayer not authored by the Lord, a sign of tribalism? Are we all to put it into our own words the ideas conveyed by the Nicene Creed and take ownership of it as an expression of what is in each individual's heart? Is recitation of the Nicene Creed a sign of tribalism?

---

Reciting the Nicene Creed, without understanding what it means, or knowing that it is indeed what you believe, is tribalism, yes.

However, at least a personal recitation of a belief, even if gotten from a link, is better than just merely giving the link. That'd be like defending your faith by directing people to bible.com. By personally reciting, there's at least a chance that the person actually thought about what he was reciting, and whether it actually conforms to what he truly believes, or whether it even makes sense to him at all.

No goal post shifting here. Just you whiffing on the kick.

---

Contra your earlier statements, you now seem to be suggesting that using the work product of others (in this case, the Council of Nicaea) is acceptable if one believes and understands that work product. I am inferring that from your first sentence, but if my inference is wrong, please correct me.

How precisely, from the record available, do you know that there is no chance that Sam actually thought about what the apologist had to say and whether it conforms to what Sam truly believes or whether it makes sense to Sam at all?

Finally, "better" is on a spectrum, while you initially made this a binary issue in using the work product of others. If you don't understand how going from binary to relative is shifting the goal posts, well, I can't understand it for you.

---

....

We DON'T know that Sam actually thought about the article from his own link. We DON'T know if it makes sense to him or whether he believes it at all. That's been the whole point (SMH). Answering with links tells us NONE of this.

I still think it's funny, though, that you think it's appropriate to give a link to nicene-creed.com during church service in lieu of reciting, understanding, and internalizing it.

Now, how about answering the question, since your comrade was unable to? Do not think for a second that all this pointless pedantry you're engaging in has successfully distracted the forum from the salient issue at hand. People are well aware of this game. So, can YOU explain how that link answers the question?

---

A person of good will would assume that a poster sending a link approves of the message in the link. If you are unwilling to give that simple and straight forward benefit of the doubt, then it is understandable why someone would conclude you are acting in bad faith.

Please provide the quote where I said it was okay to link to a the creed during a church service. (This is the part where you delude yourself into arguing against something others have not said; many crazy people, especially on the street, do laugh at the false reality they have built for themselves in their own minds. Just something for you to consider).

Yes, I can explain how the link answers the question (something you seem capable of understanding if you would just read it instead of standing on procedural grounds wasting your time). The author in the link in a respectful manner attempts to explore what Protestants and Catholics seem to disagree on when it comes to faith and works. The author is clearly trying to be respectful on the topic. The author primarily uses definitional points to try in good faith to examine what Protestants believe and Catholics believe on this specific topic. He finds English translations around the word "justification" to be imperfect (and he claims that both Protestant and Catholic scholars agree on that imperfection) and he believes that much of the perceived friction (but not all) is driven by the imperfection of the English language. To borrow from Sam, the author in the link differentiates between "initial" justification and "ongoing" sanctification (works coming into play with the latter), but notes that both categories, at least in English, are covered as "justification." He also explores what the Council of Trent had to say on the topic. It is a thoughtful piece of writing that you should consider reading if only to better understand those you seem so convinced are your enemies.

P.S. Every time you say something like "the forum [awaits/is not distracted]..." you are exhibiting a classic, textbook sign of deep insecurity. The need for public validation is not a good look. Do with that information as you please.

---

Regarding the first part of your response - I'm just going to have to pass off your continued lack of understanding to that of being stuck on stupid, out of pride. Regarding your last point, it's not a need for validation that I say that, it's to communicate to you that no one's fooled by your BS escape tactic. It's so that you don't kid yourself that what you're doing is working. See how it steered you back to the relevant issue, and you tried to answer the question?

Regarding the middle part of your comment where you tried to answer it - Sam already answered what he thinks the link says in regard to the question. He already mentioned the "initial" and "ongoing" justification view. Obviously, you either didn't read or didn't comprehend my response to this, that this answer takes us right back to the original problem. It doesn't answer the question at all, it just doubles down on the problem. Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith. So how can justification "initially" be through the performance of the sacrament of baptism, and then also contingent on the "ongoing" sanctification through the continual performance of other sacraments?

This is why giving links as answers is nothing but a cop out. Now that you are having to express your own understanding of the link, I can show by your own understanding of the article, that it doesn't even answer the problem with your view. Now I'm arguing against YOU, not the article. You have to own it. You've publicly expressed it as your belief.

---

Look, you're the one who is always prattling on about being rational and honest. Your deep insecurities make you afraid of being alone. You know that there are Catholics and non-Catholics on this forum that don't agree with you. Heck, I believe as soon as you think you have vanquished the Catholics you are going to launch an attack against the non-Catholics on this board. So the idea that you speak for the forum is patently ridiculous. You know this. Your need to invoke the forum which you clearly know you can't possibly speak for the entirety of is seeking public validation because of your insecurities. Do with that what you will, but I would infer that someone so compulsively obsessed with rational thought would want to be aware of his own irrational behavior. I'm just trying to help you.

Quote:

---

Scripture still says justification comes with the heart, through belief, i.e. faith.

---

This is the crux of the issue and here you playing possum or just obtuse (or perhaps just lazy and won't read a link that would at least give you a better understanding of your perceived enemies). Nobody has denied that Scripture says that. Sam has even agreed with you that justification comes by faith (the CCC also says the same). But Scripture also has James 2:22. What do you think James 2:22 means? To you, what is a faith without works?

---

Notice that through all your writing... the question/problem never got answered? The people of the forum did.

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

FLBear5630 said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

What your saying is that the temptation is a sin and once tempted, you are guilty whether acted on or not. Doesn't that take away free will? According to you guys once tempted, you are guilty.

---

temptation is going to happen, response to temptation is going to be varied. I see attractive ladies all the time, i purposely look away unless I must speak with them. Because of my past, I forcefully resist temptation but all of us will be guilty of sin at some point(the sin of unforgiveness is way higher than lust)

repentance from sin should be the desired outcome by all who love Christ.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

According to Jesus Christ, if someone lusts after another in his heart he is guilty of the sexual sin even if it was never a physical act. Jesus specifically spoke about adultery but it can reasonably be applied to all sexual sins especially since He also declared hatred in one's heart to be the equivalent of murder. That's the most obvious possibility. There are probably others. And we are sinners.

---

I agree with 100% of that; and it applies without regard to sexual orientation. A celibate gay person is 100% subject to the above. So where are we disagreeing?

---

It seems like we agree. I thought your question was about clarification and I responded accordingly.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

what is in the heart is the sin.. Jesus described this when he talked about adultery. You can covet something without actually attaining it.

---

Of course, but that is applicable to everybody without regard to sexual orientation. So what sin is the celibate person committing?

---

the act of celibacy doesn't make them a sinner or sinless

---

I never suggested celibacy makes one sinless or a sinner. I I am asking what sin is a celibate person committing that suggests that person is unworthy of being in church.

---

You seem disingenuous here. The sin is not the condition of celibacy, but the heart of the man. Just as a man who never technically cheats on his wife but flirts around is guilty in his heart, so too a gay man who does not follow through with the act but holds the desire in his heart is in a condition of sin.

It may help to think of this not in legal terms, but medical. A cancer which has not metastasized is still a cancer, and the danger remains. The same with sin.

I mention this here not to focus on gay people, but on us all. Many people will go to church and pray, and enjoy the sense that they are forgiven and clean, but if they do not repent in their heart they did not really turn from their sin. We all need to search ourselves and see who is on our throne, The Lord or just our selves.

---

I'm not trying to play a gotcha game here. I am genuinely curious. So let's be direct, say we have two people: first, a person is attracted to a person of the same sex but remains celibate and a second person experiences the same exact attraction to a member of the opposite sex not their spouse and also remains celibate.

Do you view these two people differently?

---

It's sinful to lust after another person ("be sexually attracted to"). It's not about the actions. As stated above, it's about what is in a person's heart. And God knows each of us better than we know ourselves.

Temptation does not equal sin and it's possible to resist temptation and avoid sin. It depends on how one responds. God provides a way out from temptation (I Corinthians 10:13). Regarding sexual sin, Paul wrote about it in the same letter: we are to flee from it (I Corinthians 6:18). In the final analysis, it requires effort and self discipline. It's something we all struggle with.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

Now regarding your particular view, which is seemingly that justification is an ongoing process that only begins intially at faith but must be developed or maintained, and which can also be lost by our sin - is this correct? This is the central difference between the RC and biblical Christianity view of "justification" - RC views it as involving BOTH initial justification and sanctification, while biblical Christianity sees those two as separate things.

James 2 is NOT saying that our works are the mechanism by which we are justified to righteousness and thus saved, because that would be directly contradicting the clear teaching of Paul, who says it is by faith alone. James 2 is maybe the most misunderstood and misapplied verse. James is merely saying this: our faith alone justifies us to righteousness and salvation, but our works justifies our faith as a true, saving faith. So we are "justified" by BOTH our faith and works, but in different senses. Paul was dealing with "justification" only in the sense of what makes one righteous and thus saved. James was dealing with "justification" in that sense as well, but also how one's faith is proven, i.e. "justified" (evidenced) as being a true, saving faith.

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism.

---

It's not different in the least. It's through baptism that we receive the grace of forgiveness.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

Quote:

---

Now regarding your particular view, which is seemingly that justification is an ongoing process that only begins intially at faith but must be developed or maintained, and which can also be lost by our sin - is this correct? This is the central difference between the RC and biblical Christianity view of "justification" - RC views it as involving BOTH initial justification and sanctification, while biblical Christianity sees those two as separate things.

James 2 is NOT saying that our works are the mechanism by which we are justified to righteousness and thus saved, because that would be directly contradicting the clear teaching of Paul, who says it is by faith alone. James 2 is maybe the most misunderstood and misapplied verse. James is merely saying this: our faith alone justifies us to righteousness and salvation, but our works justifies our faith as a true, saving faith. So we are "justified" by BOTH our faith and works, but in different senses. Paul was dealing with "justification" only in the sense of what makes one righteous and thus saved. James was dealing with "justification" in that sense as well, but also how one's faith is proven, i.e. "justified" (evidenced) as being a true, saving faith.

---

Your first paragraph is generally correct for this conversation. I would do what you do in the second paragraph and say that justification is used in different senses. Initial faith and sanctification process through cooperation with God's will.

You don't say on the bolded and italicized part, huh? I mean it has only taken us 3 pages to get to the precise point Sam's link was making. Amazing. The only real disagreement is about what James means. Obviously we disagree on what it means. You can't recognize what it really means because once saved, always saved completely falls apart on any other interpretation of James 2:24 (also why Martin Luther seemed to be so antagonistic about the Epistle of James). If justification can never be lost then to me your reading of James 2:24 is superfluous. There is no need to evidence (prove) something as being true if could never be not true in the first place.

PS: Please go back to posting without the personal attacks. Much more respectful and easier to get to substantive issues. A rational thinker should be able to comprehend that.

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism.

---

It's not different in the least. It's through baptism that we receive the grace of forgiveness.

---

Either you're dishonest or your comprehension is suspect. Your claim was that justification happens initially at water baptism. That's vastly different from saying justification comes via faith alone. You're even confusing "justification" with "forgiveness". They are not the same thing. Not to mention that it isn't through water baptism that we receive forgiveness, either.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

---

Then, you have just circled back to the original problem with Sam's, and now your, view - Scripture clearly says that "with the heart we believe, and are justified". You're now saying that no, justification does NOT come with the heart through faith, but rather through the performance of sacraments since (and this is the wild, incoherent part) -you don't have faith until it is "conferred" upon you through the performance of those sacraments.

That is a very incomprehensible, incoherent view that puts the cart in front of the horse. I've never witnessed a Roman Catholic make this nonsense claim before. Obviously, you have to have faith before performing any sacrament. You don't obtain the faith you need for salvation from the sacraments. You're now in contradiction even with your own Church in addition to Paul in Romans.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Now regarding your particular view, which is seemingly that justification is an ongoing process that only begins intially at faith but must be developed or maintained, and which can also be lost by our sin - is this correct? This is the central difference between the RC and biblical Christianity view of "justification" - RC views it as involving BOTH initial justification and sanctification, while biblical Christianity sees those two as separate things.

James 2 is NOT saying that our works are the mechanism by which we are justified to righteousness and thus saved, because that would be directly contradicting the clear teaching of Paul, who says it is by faith alone.James 2 is maybe the most misunderstood and misapplied verse. James is merely saying this: our faith alone justifies us to righteousness and salvation, but our works justifies our faith as a true, saving faith. So we are "justified" by BOTH our faith and works, but in different senses. Paul was dealing with "justification" only in the sense of what makes one righteous and thus saved. James was dealing with "justification" in that sense as well, but also how one's faith is proven, i.e. "justified" (evidenced) as being a true, saving faith.

---

Your first paragraph is generally correct for this conversation. I would do what you do in the second paragraph and say that justification is used in different senses. Initial faith and sanctification process through cooperation with God's will.

You don't say on the bolded and italicized part, huh? I mean it has only taken us 3 pages to get to the precise point Sam's link was making. Amazing. The only real disagreement is about what James means. Obviously we disagree on what it means. You can't recognize what it really means because once saved, always saved completely falls apart on any other interpretation of James 2:24 (also why Martin Luther seemed to be so antagonistic about the Epistle of James). If justification can never be lost then to me your reading of James 2:24 is superfluous. There is no need to evidence (prove) something as being true if could never be not true in the first place.

---

So, hold on... you're saying that Sam's, yours, and the article's view is that the "justification" from the sacraments is NOT the justification required for salvation, but rather a "justification" in the sense that it is evidence that one's faith is real? If this is the case, then this whole debate just got a lot easier.

Once saved, always saved is supported by Scripture. James 2:2 does NOT in any way invalidate it. I would say that it is your misunderstanding of James that leads you to reject biblical justification as well as "once saved always saved". James is in no way saying that if you don't perform works, you lose the justification that you once had. Rather, he is saying that if you don't produce works, your faith was never real to begin with, and thus you'd never been justified to begin with. I just don't see how this is so hard to understand for many of you.

You: "There is no need to evidence (prove) something as being true if could never be not true in the first place."

James isn't saying that the one with true faith needs to prove anything. He's saying, rather, that having no works is proof that one's faith isn't true.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

Quote:

---

Now regarding your particular view, which is seemingly that justification is an ongoing process that only begins intially at faith but must be developed or maintained, and which can also be lost by our sin - is this correct? This is the central difference between the RC and biblical Christianity view of "justification" - RC views it as involving BOTH initial justification and sanctification, while biblical Christianity sees those two as separate things.

James 2 is NOT saying that our works are the mechanism by which we are justified to righteousness and thus saved, because that would be directly contradicting the clear teaching of Paul, who says it is by faith alone. James 2 is maybe the most misunderstood and misapplied verse. James is merely saying this: our faith alone justifies us to righteousness and salvation, but our works justifies our faith as a true, saving faith. So we are "justified" by BOTH our faith and works, but in different senses. Paul was dealing with "justification" only in the sense of what makes one righteous and thus saved. James was dealing with "justification" in that sense as well, but also how one's faith is proven, i.e. "justified" (evidenced) as being a true, saving faith.

---

PS: Please go back to posting without the personal attacks. Much more respectful and easier to get to substantive issues. A rational thinker should be able to comprehend that.

---

P.S. First of all, you are a total hypocrite.

Secondly, there comes a point when someone is repeatedly being dishonest or failing to understand basic logic and reason, where you just have to call it out for what it is.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

---

Then, you have just circled back to the original problem with Sam's, and now your, view - Scripture clearly says that "with the heart we believe, and are justified". You're now saying that no, justification does NOT come with the heart through faith, but rather through the performance of sacraments since (and this is the wild, incoherent part) -you don't have faith until it is "conferred" upon you through the performance of those sacraments.

That is a very incomprehensible, incoherent view that puts the cart in front of the horse. I've never witnessed a Roman Catholic make this nonsense claim before. Obviously, you have to have faith before performing any sacrament. You don't obtain the faith you need for salvation from the sacraments. You're now in contradiction even with your own Church in addition to Paul in Romans.

---

You guys don't get it. This will never end, "Scripture" has many contradictory verses, this guy is just continually picking verses and scraps of verses to continue his argument. He places NO value or standing in the Church's Catechism or traditions, so those answers will never be enough. This does not end and the clown on the other side, Busy, is just that. This is a just busy work. There is no answer for him and he is not looking for one.

John 3:5 Jesus says, "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit"

Acts 22:16 "Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name"

Acts 10:47 - Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?"

Scripture clearly calls for water baptism. You are playing minutia games again. There will always be a reason to start another rabbit hole. There is NO GOOD FAITH on your part. What makes it more pathetic is he thinks he is clever.

FLBear5630 said:

---

J.R. said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

not advocating for the catholic church but John 21:

15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." 16 He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." 17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

He asked Peter to shepard his church.

In my mind, This is a better passage to stand on vs the peter the rock passage if I were catholic(which I am not)

---

In general, this verse is taken as a restoration of Peter's apostleship after his denial of Christ, not the appointing of Peter as a Pope.

---

This Christian nick picking is , IMO just nuts. Instead of nitpicking small stuff. Can't we Christians, just be Christians , love one another, respect on another. Seems we are all on the same team. I also believe that lots of us gonna be surprised in said after life. Call me simple.

---

I agree with you. It may be a narrow gate, but there are many paths to it. This nitpicking denominations of believers is ridiculous. I shake my head when we even get into it with Judaism and Islam. All three believe in the same God. So we are of the same DNA. Seems counterproductive to me. We are all different and different paths would appeal to different people, seems to me God knows that and provided enough paths to him. Just my opinion, besides Paul being a dick...

---

on of the end times signs is a great awakening in the Jewish community.


Islam is a false religon. Read the intial accounts of muhammeds encounters with the "angel" in the cave. Judge it against the encounters of those in the bible. In the Koran, it says a false prophet will die exactly as muhammed died.

The bible states any gospel given after this one that teaches anything besides this is a false gospel. The bible says satan likes to masquerade as an angel of light.

Jesus states that I am the truth, the way, and the life and nobody comes to the Father except through me.

One true God. One savior in Christ Jesus. One path to eternal life.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

You normally have so much more to say, but you went straight to your need for public validation here.

What does James 2:22 mean to you?

Alternatively, can you please quote the part of the CCC that makes you take issue with Catholic teaching justification?

---

I'm going to be rather curt, because so much words seems to be wasted when someone is trying to dodge the issue. I'm just gonna go right to the point - you're still dodging. I'll ask again - how can justification come from baptism and the other sacraments, if Romans 10:10 says that with the heart we are justified, by our belief? Are you saying that James is saying that Paul is wrong?

---

Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone. But the life of a Christian is a journey (oftentimes) with ups and downs. The Simon who follows Jesus at that beach is flying spectacularly high in his life following the Messiah. Then renamed Peter denies Jesus three times in the eve of the crucifixion marking a horrible low in his Christian life and eventually Peter's faith is so strong he died a martyr for the Gospel.

Peter's willful participation in God's plan (the "works", if you will), is the more "perfection" of his faith and sanctification of his spirit. The Simon who meets Jesus on the beach is not ready to die for the Lord. Certainly the Peter who denied Jesus is not ready. But by the end, Peter is ready. That is what the RCC is getting at in its teachings on works and justification. That, as part of a lifelong spiritual journey, works are cooperation with God's will to maintain and increase justification in, for example, the way they can be seen in Peter's life. What happens to Peter if he disregards God's will and retreats to his life as a fishermen after the crucifixion?

Can you cite the paragraph of Catholic teaching on works and justification that has you so fired up?

What does James 2:24 mean to you?

---

You: "Nobody is interpreting James as saying Paul is wrong. Can you provide a quote or a Catholic teaching from where you are getting this?

This is getting really frustrating. You really do have comprehension problems. Read what I said again

You: "Initial justification comes via faith (grace) alone"

This is vastly different from what was originally claimed by your colleague, who said that initial justification came with the sacrament of water baptism. So thank you for helping me show him he's wrong. Also, thanks for showing that the article he gave was wrong too, since he said that article expresses his view. Do you finally see why giving links as answers to questions about one's beliefs isn't valid? It turns out that YOU don't believe what that link says, even after you defended it. This demonstrates what I was talking about perfectly.

---

Not so fast. I do not disagree with Sam. You are once again reading more than what was actually said into the words of others. You of all people should never throw the "reading comprehension" accusation at others. A person of good will would recognize that you simply couldn't reconcile your reading of what I am saying with the practice of infant baptism which you know I believe in. A person of good will would stop an ask, "hmm, how does this work?" That seems too much to ask of you.

As the Catholic Church teaches, justification comes from faith (grace) alone. But how is faith conferred by God to His people? In a sacramental church, the obvious answer is through the sacraments. Hence, the Catechism refers to Baptism as the "Sacrament of Faith". How do people continue to perfect that justification? Through their willful cooperating with God's will. Nothing I have said is inconsistent with Sam.

---

Then, you have just circled back to the original problem with Sam's, and now your, view - Scripture clearly says that "with the heart we believe, and are justified". You're now saying that no, justification does NOT come with the heart through faith, but rather through the performance of sacraments since (and this is the wild, incoherent part) -you don't have faith until it is "conferred" upon you through the performance of those sacraments.

That is a very incomprehensible, incoherent view that puts the cart in front of the horse. I've never witnessed a Roman Catholic make this nonsense claim before. Obviously, you have to have faith before performing any sacrament. You don't obtain the faith you need for salvation from the sacraments. You're now in contradiction even with your own Church in addition to Paul in Romans.

---

No. You've never denied it, so I am presuming you are some type of Calvinist. My understanding is that most Calvinists recognize that faith is a gift from God, rather than something personally achieved. Please correct me if I am wrong there. You wouldn't say that since faith is necessarily a gift from God that it contradicts Scripture because it is the performance of God's gift that precedes the faith in the heart. What the Church is teaching and Sam and I are saying in slightly different ways is that sanctifying grace (inclusive of the washing away of sin) is God's gift received through the water Baptism. The Church teaches that once Baptized, the Catholic member now has the seed of faith. The resulting seed of faith is one that is now justified, but not necessarily forever. This is a key reason why the Catholic Church recognizes the validity of 99.999% of all non-Catholic baptisms. Substantively, though not procedurally, you and the Catholic Church are much more aligned up to the moment of completed Baptism then you seem to realize. How I understand your disagreement with mine on the point of James goes something like this. God gives us a seed of faith in the form of an orange tree seed. The Church would say something like: if the orange tree fails to produce oranges, then it was a dead orange tree. I *understand* your position to be something more like if the orange tree fails to produce oranges, then it was never really an orange tree.

If this point seems incoherent to you, then you cannot possibly reconcile your understanding of infant baptism in the Catholic Church. Slightly different for adults, but the general gist is that adult catechumens have the beginning of the seed of faith, but the seed is perfected and sanctifying grace is received through baptism. If you're ever around someone who has been involved with initiating adults into the Catholic Church, they can all relate a variation of the following story. Adult Catholic initiation takes about 10 months, culminating with Baptism during the Easter season (typically the Saturday night before Easter). As catechumens reach the understanding of the above paragraph early in the process, they always inevitably ask to speed up the baptism.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

Quote:

---

Now regarding your particular view, which is seemingly that justification is an ongoing process that only begins intially at faith but must be developed or maintained, and which can also be lost by our sin - is this correct? This is the central difference between the RC and biblical Christianity view of "justification" - RC views it as involving BOTH initial justification and sanctification, while biblical Christianity sees those two as separate things.

James 2 is NOT saying that our works are the mechanism by which we are justified to righteousness and thus saved, because that would be directly contradicting the clear teaching of Paul, who says it is by faith alone.James 2 is maybe the most misunderstood and misapplied verse. James is merely saying this: our faith alone justifies us to righteousness and salvation, but our works justifies our faith as a true, saving faith. So we are "justified" by BOTH our faith and works, but in different senses. Paul was dealing with "justification" only in the sense of what makes one righteous and thus saved. James was dealing with "justification" in that sense as well, but also how one's faith is proven, i.e. "justified" (evidenced) as being a true, saving faith.

---

Your first paragraph is generally correct for this conversation. I would do what you do in the second paragraph and say that justification is used in different senses. Initial faith and sanctification process through cooperation with God's will.

You don't say on the bolded and italicized part, huh? I mean it has only taken us 3 pages to get to the precise point Sam's link was making. Amazing. The only real disagreement is about what James means. Obviously we disagree on what it means. You can't recognize what it really means because once saved, always saved completely falls apart on any other interpretation of James 2:24 (also why Martin Luther seemed to be so antagonistic about the Epistle of James). If justification can never be lost then to me your reading of James 2:24 is superfluous. There is no need to evidence (prove) something as being true if could never be not true in the first place.

---

So, hold on... you're saying that Sam's, yours, and the article's view is that the "justification" from the sacraments is NOT the justification required for salvation, but rather a "justification" in the sense that it is evidence that one's faith is real? If this is the case, then this whole debate just got a lot easier.

---

Not quite. Not evidence that one's faith is real, but more in the sense that Christian life is a journey with ups and downs (see Simon Peter) and that the latter sense of justification is cooperating with God's will to reconcile us more closely to God. From the link:

The way typical American Evangelicals use the term, when God justifies someone, he declares that person's sins forgiven and proclaims the person righteous. This is occurs at the beginning of the Christian life, when a person first turns to God.

As far as it goes, this description is accurate. Catholic theology would say that there is more to justification than that, but it is true that at the beginning of the Christian life God forgives a person's sins and declares him righteous.

...

The reason the Church refers to this growth in righteousness as a form of justification is a little unclear in English. This is because the English vocabulary draws on both German and Latin roots. As a result, the same underlying concept can appear under more than one English term.

That's the case with righteousness and justice. They are two different words in English, but they both represent the same underlying term in Latin, Greek, Hebrew, etc. As a result, you sometimes see Catholic works in English translated so that they speak of God giving us the gift of "justice" (i.e., righteousness), of us growing in justice, and thus of us being further justified.

This sounds unusual in English, and both Protestant and Catholic scholars have lamented that we don't have the vocabulary to say things like "God gives us the gift of righteousness, we grow in righteousness, and thus we are further righteoused."

As a result, we have to keep in mind the way that righteousness and justification are related.

The works, which is conforming one to God's will as deeply as one can, is the latter sense of furthering one's sanctification (justification).

Quote:

---

Once saved, always saved is supported by Scripture. James 2:2 does NOT in any way invalidate it. I would say that it is your misunderstanding of James that leads you to reject biblical justification as well as "once saved always saved". James is in no way saying that if you don't perform works, you lose the justification that you once had. Rather, he is saying that if you don't produce works, your faith was never real to begin with, and thus you'd never been justified to begin with. I just don't see how this is so hard to understand for many of you.

You: "There is no need to evidence (prove) something as being true if could never be not true in the first place."

---

James doesn't invalidate once saved always saved, if you interpret the Epistle the way you are interpreting it. If interpreted differently, then James 2 collapses once saved always saved. There is a whole host of reasons why many believe your interpretation of James 2 is incorrect, but those have been rehashed for hundreds of years with little movement on the topic. No need to redebate it here.

Quote:

---

James isn't saying that the one with true faith needs to prove anything. He's saying, rather, that having no works is proof that one's faith isn't true.

---

Proof to whom?

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

---

Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins in Proverbs

Sam Lowry said:

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

---

To extend your food analogy, heterosexuality is like eating lunch. Fornication is like gluttony. Homosexuality is like cannibalism. One is normal. The other is contextually abnormal. The third is intrinsically disordered and every aspect of it is irredeemable.

Heterosexual attraction is not a sin. Heterosexual lust is. Homosexual attraction and lust are both sinful.

historian said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

historian said:

---

The two are mutually exclusive. One must repent (turn away from) sin to be a Christian. One cannot embrace sin and still legitimately claim to be a Christian. A Christian follows Christ, makes Christ the Lord of his or her life. One who defines themselves (their "identity") by their sin is worshipping themselves in pride, essentially trying to be a god. That's delusional and following the example of Satan.

---

What is the sin being committed by a celibate person?

---

It is the homosexual identity, inclination, and acts that are all sinful in an absolute sense. There is no context that can redeem that, and celibacy is only a solution for one of those three things.

On the other hand, heterosexual identity and inclination is not sinful or disordered, and heterosexual acts are only sinful in a contextual sense.

Heterosexuality is normal. Homosexuality is abnormal, and as the Roman Catholic Catechism states, "intrinsically disordered."

---

Excessive eating and drinking are only sinful in a contextual sense, but the Church still teaches that they are disordered.

Attraction and lust are not the same. As Historian said, temptation is not a sin.

---

Gluttony is one of the 7 deadly sins in Proverbs

---

No, the 7 deadly sins originated from Pope Gregory. Not Proverbs.

Proverbs lists out 7 different things hated by God. Although gluttony is mentioned in Proverbs, it's not in that list.