Because you refuse to bend from false caricatures.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness. Rigid prejudice and endless denials is offensive to anybody.
And the whole time I was thinking Catholicism was the tradition of men.
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Because you refuse to bend from false caricatures.
Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness. Rigid prejudice and endless denials is offensive to anybody.
Actually it's mainly your doctrine that says goods works of faith justify a person (MAKE one to born again) that annoys us. We understand how good works of faith SHOW one to be born again, the other definition of 'justified' in the scriptures.
You obviously don't know that the word 'justified' has different definitions. You're erroneously applying to James' discourse the definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in his discourse about justification in Romans 4. Which is a different definition than what James is using. It has to be different, or else you put James in direct contradiction with Paul.
But if you want to insist that James is using the same definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in Romans 4 (to be MADE righteous) then you have to explain to us how good works of faith make a person born again. James is explaining how good deeds SHOW a person to have the righteousness that comes from being born again, not how good deeds of faith MAKE you born again.
I am non-denominationalMaybe, but that's ok. I need to stay away from any appearance of Catholicism.
I get angry with some things, but Catholicism takes me to a rage.
If you're a Catholic just ignore me! You may become offended.
That's because it is. The worship of Mary, purgatory and indulgences are nowhere in the Bible. I'd like to see verses in the Bible which support this idea if it is fact Biblical. The only way any Catholic can adhere to such things is if they have been trained to not read the Bible and rather listen to the "infallible" interpreter of Scripture.And the whole time I was thinking Catholicism was the tradition of men.
That's what makes Catholicism a works gospel religion and why it is rejected by us non-Catholics.
"We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works."
Martin Luther
Is Luther really the originator of "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone"?
Who told you non-Catholics don't baptize?
We're the ones who do it as the outward sign and declaration of inward grace. You Catholics are the ones who do it to literally earn salvation.
If Peter meant baptism earns salvation then he would be in direct contradiction to Paul, in which case we can all just throw our Bibles away and go back to our sins and forget about the Christian faith. Catholic interpretation of scripture creates contradictions in scripture.
Justification (being made righteous) is what faith accomplishes all by itself without works.
That does not mean faith is without works:
"We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works."
Martin Luther
This is stretching it a bit. Don't ya think? A mental illness? I am not Catholic, nor do I endorse or support some of their doctrines. But I am far from being mentally ill because of it.Anti-Catholicism is a tradition of men and a mental illness.
Exactly. People take the verse in James to be the sole proof that salvation must come by faith AND works. Yet, if that is the absolute interpretation of it, then you have a contradiction in the Bible. Therefore, if that is what someone believes, then they believe in a errant Bible, one that does have flaws. If something in the Bible appears to say two different thing appearing to be opposing each other, then the two have to be reconciled. Since in Paul's letters, in a few places (Romans and Ephesians come to mind) it clearly says that faith is a gift: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-10).
So if someone is saying that James says salvation is by faith and works and that Paul says that "it is by grace you have been saved... not by works so that no one can boast". Then what is it? Do we have a contradiction in the Bible? The only reconciliation of the two verses is that when James means salvation is of faith and works he means (as he explains in his letter) that faith without works is a dead faith. The works come out of the faith so in essence salvation is of faith and works because without faith there will be no works (and vice versa, without works there is no faith since that kind of faith is dead).
But if he does mean that salvation is only given to one who does a certain amount of works first, then what reconciliation can be applied to Paul's statement? Paul clearly cuts out works from salvation (there can be no interpretive gymnastics when he says "..you have been saved, through faith--and it is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works..." I'm trying to come up with some incredible gymnastics myself but nothing is coming to me: let's see for a minute... So he really doesn't mean that it's not without "any" works; he really does mean some but he says "not" because he really just wants to make a definitive statement, stressing the faith and not works. Um, okay. Trying again here: Let's just say he's talking about the faith that comes out of works, like the works that get you to the faith--but then the works don't count. God just disqualifies the works and says they're imperfect so he gives the faith as a gift but he doesn't look at the works. I'm really trying here. Nothing is really making much sense. Anyone else want to give it a shot?). But James says "No, works need to be there first". So... I guess Paul's wrong? So then the Holy Spirit is wrong. So then God's word contains contradictions.
It would be nice to get an explanation from the salvation = faith + works side.
NO, you didn’t.The bottom line/ no salvation outside the church. I have shown you where they have contradicted themselves in saying they can be saved outside the church BUT.......................................
NO, you didn’t.
Face it – I caught you in a LIE.
First, you stated that the Church “changed” its position on the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus).
NOW, you’re back-pedaling by saying, “Well, they contradicted themselves!”
WRONG.
I proved to you that not only has the Church NEVER changed its position on this teaching – it has had to explain it so that even a 3-year-old could understand it in the Catechism – which I presented in my last post.
Next time – do your HOMEWORK before making these types of asinineclaims.
DEon't know. It is just a good rule of thumb to live by.
Pay attention –You obviously don't know that the word 'justified' has different definitions. You're erroneously applying to James' discourse the definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in his discourse about justification in Romans 4. Which is a different definition than what James is using.
It has to be different, or else you put James in direct contradiction with Paul.
But if you want to insist that James is using the same definition of 'justification' that Paul is using in Romans 4 (to be MADE righteous) then you have to explain to us how good works of faith make a person born again. James is explaining how good deeds SHOW a person to have the righteousness that comes from being born again, not how good deeds of faith MAKE you born again.
saint Cyril of Alexandria only 1400 or so years ago!