The Gospel According to Catholic's

[Scrawly]

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

Well then it would be all the more reason to make it clear that the Bible teaches that God is a Trinity.

[Scrawly]

Then you could've just asked that.

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?

I think Jeremiah Burroughs summed up the Gospel better than I could when he stated:

"The gospel of Christ in general is this: It is the good tidings that God has revealed concerning Christ. More largely it is this: As all mankind was lost in Adam and became the children of wrath, put under the sentence of death, God, though He left His fallen angels and has reserved them in the chains of eternal darkness, yet He has thought upon the children of men and has provided a way of atonement to reconcile them to Himself again...Namely, the second person of the Trinity takes man's nature upon Himself, and becomes the Head of a second covenant, standing charged with sin. He answers for it by suffering what the law and divine justice required, and by making satisfaction by keeping the law perfectly, which satisfaction and righteousness He tenders up to the Father as a sweet savor of rest for the souls that are given to Him...And now this mediation of Christ is, by the appointment of the Father, preached to the children of men, of whatever nation or rank, freely offering this atonement unto sinners for atonement, requiring them to believe in Him and, upon believing, promising not only a discharge of all their former sins, but that they shall not enter into condemnation, that none of their sins or unworthiness shall ever hinder the peace of God with them, but that they shall through Him be received into the number of those who shall have the image of God again to be renewed unto them, and they shall be kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation."

I don't know if there is anything in that presentation of the gospel that a Catholic would disagree with, but if they do, I would like to understand the reasons why - the point of this thread.

[Maxentius]

No -- YOU are the one saying he vandalized and terrorized. John didn't say that at all, as you show when you quote.

"etc"?? You're adding your own words -- yes, it says he turned over tables ... where does it say he vandalized? He was God - it was His Temple.

If I went into a building and turned over tables while wielding a whip of cords, I think "vandalize" would be a fair characterization of my actions.

But I think you miss the point. The question was did Jesus lose his temper. The Bible is clear that he did.

So, does it say he HIT anybody? Or perhaps he popped the whip or hit the floor... I think you're reading things in that are simply not there.

Are you Jesus' prosecuting attorney?

I think you have a view of Jesus as someone who is always nice and patient--a sort of Oprahfied Jesus. I do not think the OT or NT support the idea that he never was angry or "lost his temper."

[Maxentius]

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

I think he is trying to get a succinct expression of RC beliefs as to what the Gospel is.

[Cow Poke]

I think you have a view of Jesus as someone who is always nice and patient--a sort of Oprahfied Jesus. I do not think the OT or NT support the idea that he never was angry or "lost his temper."

no

[One Bad Pig]

If I went into a building and turned over tables while wielding a whip of cords, I think "vandalize" would be a fair characterization of my actions.

But I think you miss the point. The question was did Jesus lose his temper. The Bible is clear that he did.



I think you have a view of Jesus as someone who is always nice and patient--a sort of Oprahfied Jesus. I do not think the OT or NT support the idea that he never was angry or "lost his temper."

Angry is not directly synonymous with "lost his temper". It is quite possible to be angry while keeping a firm grip on your temper.

[apostoli]

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.

Personally, I find the archaic term "grace" misleading, the Greek word "charis" would be better translated "loving (undeserved) kindness". Have a think on that each time you read "grace", it makes the Father so much more than a benefactor ie: makes him more of a father .

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

Catholicism is so much more than a belief system, it is a way of life - at least in my upbringing. I compare it to the Jewish social system where we are continually on a guilt (inadequacy) trip - at least with non-secular Jews/Catholics - there is always room for improvement.

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.

Have a think on Romans 2:14-15. Possibly because the Atheist "good work" doer works from the heart his/her works are more acceptable to God than vain glorious "faith" workers!

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.

Possibly. But how many of us have been tested? To say "I believe" is easy, to prove it under duress is something few of us in the western world will ever be confronted.

You do agree that God owes no one salvation, right?

Sure. Albeit, it was he who created us with free will! So if he is intentionally pre-scient (a pre-ordinationist) then he has to share the blame...

Do you believe that God would be perfectly just if He sent everyone to hell?

By "hell" do you mean the "lake of fire"? But note Daniel 12:2 = some gain life, others remain in the grave.
________________

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.

in principle, I agree!

[Maxentius]

Angry is not directly synonymous with "lost his temper". It is quite possible to be angry while keeping a firm grip on your temper.

While your distinction is fair, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that flipping over tables is "losing one's tempr" in colloquial speech.

Also, is flipping tables vandalism in your opinion?

[Maxentius]

no

Yes. It is pretty clear form your posts.

[Scrawly]

Personally, I find the archaic term "grace" misleading, the Greek word "charis" would be better translated "loving (undeserved) kindness". Have a think on that each time you read "grace", it makes the Father so much more than a benefactor ie: makes him more of a father .

Sure, but grace in the context of salvation is defined as undeserved, unmerited favor - that's why it's called grace - we can't do anything to earn or deserve it.

Catholicism is so much more than a belief system, it is a way of life - at least in my upbringing. I compare it to the Jewish social system where we are continually on a guilt (inadequacy) trip - at least with non-secular Jews/Catholics - there is always room for improvement.

Religion has always been outside-in: "if I behave out here in all these ways, then I will have God's blessing and love inside." But the gospel is inside-out: "if I know the blessing and grace of God inside, then I can behave out here in all these ways." Pushing for morality, righteousness, etc. before lifting up Christ is religion. We are perfect because of Christ and Christ alone, we are now called to live out what we positionally are in Jesus.

Have a think on Romans 2:14-15. Possibly because the Atheist "good work" doer works from the heart his/her works are more acceptable to God than vain glorious "faith" workers!

Can the good works of an atheist save him?

Possibly. But how many of us have been tested? To say "I believe" is easy, to prove it under duress is something few of us in the western world will ever be confronted.

Sure. Albeit, it was he who created us with free will! So if he is intentionally pre-scient (a pre-ordinationist) then he has to share the blame...

Absolutely, the Bible teaches us that if we say we believe, then our lives will reflect that (most of the time). There is also a shift in our desires, goals, etc. that are more 'Christ-ward'.

By "hell" do you mean the "lake of fire"? But note Daniel 12:2 = some gain life, others remain in the grave.
________________

in principle, I agree!

By "hell" I mean eternal seperation from God for eternity. Also, how do you read that some people will remain in the grave from daniel 12:2?

[Sparko]

If Jesus vandalized other people and their property, then he would have sinned. Are you claiming that Jesus was a sinner, Max? Apostoli?

[RBerman]

Back to the original point of this thread, I was reading this interesting Lutheran (Missouri Synod) analysis of the problems with the "Joint Declaration on Justification" put out by liberal elements of other Lutheran churches and certain elements of the Roman Church. Essentially, only by waffling on terminology can we conclude that Protestants and Roman Catholics teach the same gospel.

[Cow Poke]

If Jesus vandalized other people and their property, then he would have sinned. Are you claiming that Jesus was a sinner, Max? Apostoli?

I wonder if Apostoli knows how much he agrees with OC and Jeff (the MORMONS!!!! [gasp]) on this.

[One Bad Pig]

While your distinction is fair, I do not think it is too much of a stretch to say that flipping over tables is "losing one's tempr" in colloquial speech.

If that stretch means that Jesus lost his self-control, and thus was sinning, that is indeed stretching things too much.

Oh, and in first-century ANE culture, it would be commonplace for people to display anger without losing their temper. In challenge-riposte, if you lose your temper, you've lost the challenge.

Also, is flipping tables vandalism in your opinion?

No, it doesn't rise to the level of vandalism. Even if it did, it would be akin to policemen breaking up a meth lab in a police station. Would that be considered vandalism?

[Xru]

Back to the original point of this thread, I was reading this interesting Lutheran (Missouri Synod) analysis of the problems with the "Joint Declaration on Justification" put out by liberal elements of other Lutheran churches and certain elements of the Roman Church. Essentially, only by waffling on terminology can we conclude that Protestants and Roman Catholics teach the same gospel.

First and foremost . . . I love my Catholic Brothers and Sisters of the Faith.

So when I talk about the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) I am not talking about them as individuals. When I take on the guise of Protestant of the Four Square persuasion which is the Denomination I attend, I don't automatically take on every declaration in this Denominations Creed. Nor do I take on the beliefs and attitudes of the Pastor of my Congregation. That whole idea I find absurd.

To the extent that the Four Square Denomination declares a Creed, I must come to terms with that Creed . . . no one is going to be 100% comfortable with a set Dogma.

I suppose I'm a closet Anarchist when it comes to Religion. Distrusting institutions the way I do, I rather think "close enough" and then look to the NT and Jesus to find my way.

I expect that many RC's are the same way. I am not comfortable with many of the things that the Dogma of the RCC states. Nor am I sympathetic to the claim that they are the heirs to Paul as an authority (not sure I have stated this correctly), nor do I concede that they are the only proper authority in all matter Christianity.

So I could never place myself within the framework of the RCC. At the same time I don't know what each and every member of the RCC has in their hearts or minds. That is for them to reconcile.