The Gospel According to Catholic's

[ke7ejx]

Is fear of God's wrath the only valid reason to repent of one's sin?

I don't think so. We should repent our sins because we love God...unless....Scrawly is pulling the "it's all about being in the correct church" card...

[apostoli]

According to Jesus it was his Father's house (John 2:16 "make not my Father's house an house of merchandise"). Guess you aren't big on reading scripture

Are you here proposing that Jesus is not God?

Like all orthodox Christians I do not support Sabellianism=Oneness Pentecostalism (one individual, three modes of existence). Do you?

I hold to the creeds which require that as Jesus was begotten he is "God from God", not "God of himself" (which is a status exclusive to Jesus unbegotten Father) ie: I hold to Trinitarianism (three individuals, one mode of existence).

Why did he make a whip? Maybe he was in the mood for a spot of macrame (from your viewpoint).

You totally missed the point. It could well have been that he struck the animals, or the floor, or popped it in the air. Only John tells of this. You don't know. I don't know. The fact is that you ASSUME he struck people. I tend to give the benefit of the doubt.

Neither Mt, Mk or Lk implies Jesus had pre-existence before being born of Mary, only A.John gives us this detail. Do you accept his testimony? If so why do you question his account else where?

A.John says Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants from the temple (the implication he used the whip in an aggresive manner). We also learn that Jesus overturned their tables. Hardly on act of Pacifism or idle threat.

But scripture clearly states "he had made a scourge of small cords, [and] he drove them all out of the temple" ie: he used the whip to force people to leave the temple.

It does not say he struck anybody.

True, it does not have the precise words, but the implication is clear enough. But unless he did use the whip agressively , the merchants simply would have turned on him, taken the whip off him and given him a good floging.

I suspect you have never read what the scriptures actually say! Jhn 2:17 "And his disciples remembered that it was written, The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up"

and you interpret this "he lost his temper"?

Sure thing! Have you not read in the OT where YHWH is angered and people felt his wrath.

Are you Jesus' prosecuting attorney?

Nope! I aim to be his paraklētos.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid

one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom

You fail miserably as a paraklētos.

Are you proposing Jesus was not fully human?

[Cow Poke]

John says Jesus made a whip and drove out the merchants from the temple (the implication he used the whip in an aggresive manner). We also learn that Jesus over turned their tables. Hardly on act of Pacifism or idle threat.

Whatever you say, mister prosecutor. And I noticed you didn't respond to my allegation that You fail miserably as a paraklētos.

I shall leave you to your prosecution of Christ.

[apostoli]

Whatever you say, mister prosecutor. And I noticed you didn't respond to my allegation that You fail miserably as a paraklētos.

I shall leave you to your prosecution of Christ.

Actualy, I did answer your allegation, you appear to have been too distracted to have noticed. It seems you must have a need to deny Jesus' full humanity, else why have you avoided answering the question I presented.

you'd do well to pay attention to scripture..."But [this Gospel was] written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (Jn 20:31), there is no scriptural requirement for us to believe that Jesus is "God himself" as you seem to require. Of course John 1:1-3; Col 1:16; Heb 1:3 attributes all creation to the Son, so obviously being Son, he is what his Father is = having theotēs.

[Cow Poke]

Actualy, I did answer your allegation, you appear to have been too distracted to have noticed. It seems you must have a need to deny Jesus' full humanity, else why have you avoided answering the question I presented.

Absolutely false. Jesus was 100% human and 100% God. You seem to enjoy conclusion jumping.

you'd do well to pay attention to scripture...

I do -- I'm just not accustomed to adding to or taking away from it, as you seem to be, mister prosecutor. You're certainly a FAR CRY from a paraklētos.

[One Bad Pig]

I absolutely agree, but the drift of my post was not intended to critique evangelistic methodologies...

Why are you interested in a Catholic's approach to an admittedly bad evangelistic methodology? Are there not more useful questions to discuss?

[Scrawly]

It is more complicated than the typical superficial reading.

I really don't think it's a superficial reading, I think the pure Gospel of Grace is a deep and wonderous thing when we fully appreciate and comprehend it.

The word A.Paul used which is usually translated "confess" at Rom 10:9 is "homologeō", amoung its range of meanings is "to declare openly, speak out freely", the implication in A.Paul's comments being "even if doing so you might incur detriment to yourself" (cp. Rom 9:10-11). The word A.Paul used in the verse which is usually translated "believe" is "pisteuō" , amoung its range of meanings is "to have conviction" which A.Paul's reference to the "believe in our heart" under scores. In a.Paul's context it is having the conviction (not merely some populous notion) that Jesus' Father did in fact raise him from the dead because of his obedience (cp Phil 2:8-10). Likewise, if we are obedient to God's will we too will be raised from the dead.

I am definitely seeing eye-to-eye with you here.

True, but remember that even Jesus lost his temper...so we should be careful about judging others. I've known atheists that would put the average Christian to shame, but their (the Athiests) good works spring from simple humanism...

Oh yeah, I readily admit that there are many Atheists that are much better people than I in many ways. However, I don't think the problem is so much that their good works are springing forth from humanism, but rather from a sinful nature, thereby making their good works as filthy rags in the eyes of God in terms of meriting salvation.

Titus 1:1-4 calls both the Father and son our saviour. After all the Father did send the Son to accomplish the salvation plan, and Jesus in John's Gospel clearly states that he didn't come of his own volition but was sent. However, because Jesus was obedient to his Father even until death, his atonement sacrifice on our behalf is acceptable to the Father as full recompense for our failings. Thus our salvation is by faith alone that no other recompense is acceptable to Jesus' Father, and only Jesus' offering provides mediation between God and man.

Amen, so in the courtroom of God, we are declared 'not guilty' on the basis of our faith in Christ and His finished work on the cross.

Guilty of what? All sin (miss the mark) and fall short...Was A.Paul "saved", he admits in Romans 7 "For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me".

You do agree that God owes no one salvation, right? Do you believe that God would be perfectly just if He sent everyone to hell?
________________

I presume you are heading towards advocating that "works" have no role in the salvation plan. On face value I and most Catholics I know would agree with you, but given James' teaching that "faith without works is dead" and Jesus telling us to endure in our obedience to his commandments, it seems "works" are essential in securing our participation in the salvation promise. Was Jesus obedience a work or a matter of faith? I would say his faith inspired his obedience (works).

Right, it seems like we are going back to the same issue of genuine faith versus not, and I think the passage in James highlights just that. I would absolutely say that Jesus' obedience was a result of His faith, and the same goes for us. I submit that we are saved by faith alone and sanctified by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone, because genuine faith produces much good.

[Catholicity]

Why are you interested in a Catholic's approach to an admittedly bad evangelistic methodology? Are there not more useful questions to discuss?

Hey just cause we don't go after people with funky cartoon tracts demanding to know if they are saved.......

[Scrawly]

Is fear of God's wrath the only valid reason to repent of one's sin?

No. I think comming to terms with our sinful nature and seeing Christ as the only solution is the main reason for repenting.

[Scrawly]

I don't think so. We should repent our sins because we love God...unless....Scrawly is pulling the "it's all about being in the correct church" card...

I don't think its about being in the correct Church (I am non-denominational myself), rather, I think it is about being part of the redeemed/bride of Christ.

[Scrawly]

Why are you interested in a Catholic's approach to an admittedly bad evangelistic methodology? Are there not more useful questions to discuss?

I am interested in the Catholic's presentation of the Gospel. It seems that on the one hand they understand the pure gospel of grace, but on the other it seems that they contradict it by holding to certain teachings. I just want to get a better idea and clearer understanding of why this is.

[ke7ejx]

I don't think its about being in the correct Church (I am non-denominational myself), rather, I think it is about being part of the redeemed/bride of Christ.

So there should be no problem with me then.

[Scrawly]

So there should be no problem with me then.

Haha, well can you define who God is, according to you? Is He the triune God of the Bible?

[Thersites]

Haha, well can you define who God is, according to you? Is He the triune God of the Bible?

The Trinity isn't quite so clear in the Bible as you make it out to be.

[One Bad Pig]

I am interested in the Catholic's presentation of the Gospel.

Then you could've just asked that.

It seems that on the one hand they understand the pure gospel of grace, but on the other it seems that they contradict it by holding to certain teachings. I just want to get a better idea and clearer understanding of why this is.

Perhaps this would be a better topic to discuss in detail in a new thread. What, in your understanding, is the "pure gospel of grace", and what certain Catholic teachings seem to contradict that?