Evidence for God from Science

Well, what would you call a Roman Catholics idea of salvation?

It would be similar... I should know. I went to Catholic schools most of my life. Works + faith = salvation.

Gman wrote:It would be similar... I should know. I went to Catholic schools most of my life. Works + faith = salvation.

Then how would you reconcile that with the late Pope John Paul II's statement in 1999 that salvation is only by faith, not works?

http://www.citizensoldier.org/Popesalvationbyfaith.html

It is either:

1. You weren't paying attention in school, or
2. Your teachers weren't well informed in the faith, or
3. The pope was mistaken

I don't see another possibility, do you? I would venture to say it is a combination of 1 and 2.

The famous works advocated by Catholicism are the works of charity and love, which are the outward signs of a good faith. They are not meritorious of salvation as it is the free gift of God's grace. They are, however, meritorious of heavenly rewards (very similar to what the Bema Seat Judgment will bring).

These types of works are light years apart from the works Paul was referring to when he said salvation is not by works. He was referring to the works of law or the mosaic laws that have no salvific value, whatsoever. There's ample scripture to support these ideas. It is either that, or we have ample contradictions in the bible and we all know that's not possible as it is the inspired, inerrant word of God, right?

God Bless,

Byblos.


[/url]

Or it could be number 4 too... How about I wasn't in Catholic schools in 1999 when this statement was made? I went to Catholic schools in the 70's and early 80's. But then again, the position of the Catholic church changes so often that no one really knows what their position is half the time...

It's interesting that this is an apology to the Luthern Church. The Catholic teachings on salvation was one of the major rifts between the Protestants and Catholics... Don't take my word for it, just look it up in any history book...

Catholics, by the way, have eight obligations (or duties) of faith:

1. baptism
2. love God and neighbor
3. obey God's commandments
4. receive the sacraments
5. pray
6. do good works
7. preserve God's friendship until death
8. have faith.

Catholics "obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ" (Catechism, 1821). Catholics are taught, "We can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life" (Catechism, 2027).

And then there are the sacraments... The sacraments of Catholicism involve particular spiritual activities/responsibilities partaken of by believers, such as penance and the holy Eucharist. The sacraments are presided over by a Catholic priest who acts as a mediator between God and man. These special activities are said to dispense God's "grace" (here, as a spiritual substance or power) and God's favor.

The sacraments are viewed as necessary to salvation—and that, therefore, Rome teaches a salvation based on both faith and works.

For a fuller understanding of the Catholic views, I would recommend this site:

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/archives-rc.htm

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/r ... 1101W2.htm

By the way, I still go to Catholic services. Mainly because I love the music and the atmosphere... I just differ on the teachings..

All the best,

G -

Gman wrote:Or it could be number 4 too... How about I wasn't in Catholic schools in 1999 when this statement was made? I went to Catholic schools in the 70's and early 80's. But then again, the position of the Catholic church changes so often that no one really knows what their position is half the time...

I went to catholic schools in the '60s and '70s and don't remember it that way. Are you really saying the pope with that statement, all of a sudden and without speaking ex cathedra, just changed 2,000 years of catholic doctrine? I don't think so. Read on ...

Gman wrote:It's interesting that this is an apology to the Luthern Church. The Catholic teachings on salvation was one of the major rifts between the Protestants and Catholics... Don't take my word for it, just look it up in any history book...

I am well aware of the history; and the apology was for the misunderstanding, not for the change in doctrine.

Gman wrote:Catholics, by the way, have eight obligations (or duties) of faith:

1. baptism
2. love God and neighbor
3. obey God's commandments
4. receive the sacraments
5. pray
6. do good works
7. preserve God's friendship until death
8. have faith.

Yes, and which one do you exactly object to as an expression and maintenance of your faith?

Gman wrote:Catholics "obtain the joy of heaven, as God's eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ" (Catechism, 1821).

Did you really read this or you just quoted it in the hopes that it will support what you're saying? Because it does not. These are good works accomplished with the grace of Christ, which means in the faith, not to obtain faith or salvation. Yes, there are rewards but no different than the rewards promised at the Bema Seat Judgment.

Gman wrote:Catholics are taught, "We can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life" (Catechism, 2027).

It's funny you didn't quote the first part of that paragraph. For the sake of clarity, it is as follows:

Catechism 2027 wrote: No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.

What does the highlighted mean? It means initial grace is unmerited. It is the maintenance of grace that requires works so we can stay in the path of Jesus (unless you do not believe you need to repent or you are an antinomianist).

Also, here's another quote from the link I provided which states that the pope's statement is not something new for catholics:

John Paul's historic pronouncement has been slow in filtering down to the faithful in both the Catholic and Protestant world. Surprisingly, it is not really a new doctrine for Catholics. Paragraph 161 of the Catholic Catechism states:

Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent Him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation. 'Since without faith it is impossible to please [God]' and to attain to the fellowship of his son, therefore without faith no one has ever attained justification, now will anyone obtain eternal life 'but he who endures to the end'

Note that the above includes a direct quote of the catholic catechism paragraph 161. I guess this means you and your school should have known about it long before 1999, even in the '70s and '80s.

Gman wrote:And then there are the sacraments... The sacraments of Catholicism involve particular spiritual activities/responsibilities partaken of by believers, such as penance and the holy Eucharist. The sacraments are presided over by a Catholic priest who acts as a mediator between God and man. These special activities are said to dispense God's "grace" (here, as a spiritual substance or power) and God's favor.

The sacraments are viewed as necessary to salvation—and that, therefore, Rome teaches a salvation based on both faith and works.

No, the sacrements are viewed as necessary to maintain salvation, not to earn it, as clearly stated above in 2027. You just need to read the fine print. Unfortunately the catholic church has not done a good enough job in educating the masses. But the blame cannot squarely fall on the church alone. We, as believers, have been complacent as well. But instead of learning more about our own faith, we either neglect it or blame the church and leave it. It's easier than actually doing some homework on our own.

Gman wrote:By the way, I still go to Catholic services. Mainly because I love the music and the atmosphere... I just differ on the teachings.

.

Just a word of advice, don't receive the eucharist unless you're still in full commune with the catholic church. It's not good for you.

In Christ,

Byblos.

The famous works advocated by Catholicism are the works of charity and love, which are the outward signs of a good faith. They are not meritorious of salvation as it is the free gift of God's grace. They are, however, meritorious of heavenly rewards (very similar to what the Bema Seat Judgment will bring)

Go ahead, Byblos!

No, the sacrements are viewed as necessary to maintain salvation, not to earn it, as clearly stated above in 2027. You just need to read the fine print.

First, how do you maintain a gift? Are you saying God gives a gift then takes it away if we don't uphold the sacrements? A conditional God? Huh?

Yes, and which one do you exactly object to as an expression and maintenance of your faith?

Actually none, but if it's conditional then I would have a problem with it.... Those things are done out of love not because God would send us to hell if we didn't. That's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying if you don't obey or follow the sacrements then the trigger will get squeezed.

Note that the above includes a direct quote of the catholic catechism paragraph 161. I guess this means you and your school should have known about it long before 1999, even in the '70s and '80s.

But you, (and the Church I assume) have stated that it has to be maintained, therefore it is conditional...

Just a word of advice, don't receive the eucharist unless you're still in full commune with the catholic church. It's not good for you.

I really wouldn't want to... Nor would I call someone Father because of Matt: 23:9. Remember we are to be servants of God. Not drive around in expensive cars and sit on thrones... If anyone had it right is was probably Mother Teresa.

I am well aware of the history; and the apology was for the misunderstanding, not for the change in doctrine.

Who's misunderstanding? His or Luther's? Once again, the doctrine changes so fast who knows what was really said... Obviously Luther had a problem with it otherwise he wouldn't have split.

I went to catholic schools in the '60s and '70s and don't remember it that way. Are you really saying the pope with that statement, all of a sudden and without speaking ex cathedra, just changed 2,000 years of catholic doctrine? I don't think so. Read on ...

Well, to be honest with you, they never really did tell me about the Catholic faith while I was there. There was never a course on it, (maybe not for me because I was one of those pagen dudes, I don't know really why).... It wasn't until later after I dropped out that I became curious about the teachings. I do remember having evolution as being taught as a fact though, (which crippled my faith in God for many years). I also do remember being called a pagen everytime I went to mass even though I didn't take the Eucharist. As for the pope, he seemed to be more concerned with what people were wearing at his funeral than with God...

I do however have to thank the Catholic church for my education... They actually take it seriously...

G -

Gman wrote:

No, the sacrements are viewed as necessary to maintain[/b}salvation, not to earn it, as clearly stated above in 2027. You just need to read the fine print.

First, how do you maintain a gift? Are you saying God gives a gift then takes it away if we don't uphold the sacrements? A conditional God? Huh?

Ah! Now we're getting somewhere. IMO, the point you bring up here is more indicative of the serious rift between catholicism and the reformation , and that is the question of whether or not one can lose his salvation, aka Once Saved Always Saved, or not. And even at that, I can tell you the 2 schools of thought are not very far apart unless you are on the extreme side of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism. We can have this discussion in detail if you wish but here I think we've hijacked this thread enough as the original subject was about Islam. In any case, please look at the salvation thread where this discussion took place not long ago. Here's the link:

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... php?t=2025

Gman wrote:

Yes, and which one do you exactly object to as an expression and maintenance of your faith?

Actually none, but if it's conditional then I would have a problem with it.... Those things are done out of love not because God would send us to hell if we didn't. That's like putting a gun to someone's head and saying if you don't obey or follow the sacrements then the trigger will get squeezed.

I agree.

Gman wrote:

Just a word of advice, don't receive the eucharist unless you're still in full commune with the catholic church. It's not good for you.

I really wouldn't want to... Nor would I call someone Father because of Matt: 23:9. Remember we are to be servants of God. Not drive around in expensive cars and sit on thrones... If anyone had it right is was probably Mother Teresa.

You know this 'father' business makes me chuckle every time someone mentions it. Gman, please go to your archives and fish out every application you've ever filled out and check what you wrote for the question 'Father's name'. If you put anything other than 'GOD' then you are a hypocrite. Come on now, let's be serious. Catholics do not call a priest 'father' the same way we call God, Father. The same way we have a biological father on earth we also have a spiritual father here on earth. A non-catholic wouldn't know any better but a former one ought to.

Gman wrote:

I am well aware of the history; and the apology was for the misunderstanding, not for the change in doctrine.

Who's misunderstanding? His or Luther's? Once again, the doctrine changes so fast who knows what was really said... Obviously Luther had a problem with it otherwise he wouldn't have split.

The misunderstanding that there should not have been a misunderstanding to begin with. We both agree and in a sense always have on the issue of salvation by faith, as clearly stated in the catholic catechism, not just the pope's 1999 statement and agreement with the Lutheran church.

Gman wrote:

I went to catholic schools in the '60s and '70s and don't remember it that way. Are you really saying the pope with that statement, all of a sudden and without speaking ex cathedra, just changed 2,000 years of catholic doctrine? I don't think so. Read on ...

Well, to be honest with you, they never really did tell me about the Catholic faith while I was there. There was never a course on it, (maybe not for me because I was one of those pagen dudes, I don't know really why).... It wasn't until later after I dropped out that I became curious about the teachings. I do remember having evolution as being taught as a fact though, (which crippled my faith in God for many years). I also do remember being called a pagan every time I went to mass even though I didn't take the Eucharist. As for the pope, he seemed to be more concerned with what people were wearing at his funeral than with God...

Funny you should say that. I was just talking to a friend and I said essentially the same thing, that school and yes, even church, are the worst possible places to learn religion. As for evolution, I have to tell you some of the best reformist minds are not against evolution in principle. This very website was founded on just that idea (of an old earth being very biblical). As for you being called a pagan because you didn't receive communion, I am very sorry you had to go through that. No church or school I know of or have been associated with would ever do anything like that. I would never presume to know you or know anything about your experiences but it does sound like you were turned away from catholicism due to the actions of a few. Please do not project that onto all of us.

Gman, I would love to continue this discussion with you in a separate thread as, like I said before, this thread was to discuss Islam, not catholicism. If you're in agreement then I would ask one of the mods to split it into a different one.

Otherwise,

Always in Christ,

Byblos.

Gman, I would love to continue this discussion with you in a separate thread as, like I said before, this thread was to discuss Islam, not catholicism.

Agreed... In fact I was going to say that too, but then I thought it would show that I was waffleing. I'm also sorry if I attacked your faith by saying that Islam and Catholicism were the same... That would probably get me upset too... Perhaps I should also take a closer look at what really the Catholic faith says as well. Maybe in a different discussion as you said and less dogmatic...

I'm also sorry for saying those nasty things about those higher up. My girlfriend is a Catholic, and if she found out what I was writing here, I'm sure she would give me the boot.

As I've said before, I love the music of the Catholic church... I love the sadness in the music that I find missing in the protestant churches, (where Jesus is turned into disco tech). I'm sure that there are many Catholics that would make it to heaven before I do...

Cheers,
G -

Gman wrote:

Gman, I would love to continue this discussion with you in a separate thread as, like I said before, this thread was to discuss Islam, not catholicism.

Agreed... In fact I was going to say that too, but then I thought it would show that I was waffleing.

I guess then that would make me the first waffler.

Gman wrote: I'm also sorry if I attacked your faith by saying that Islam and Catholicism were the same... That would probably get me upset too...

Not to worry. I've been called a whole lot worse than that and for some reason, it always seems to fuel my desire to dig deeper and learn more about my faith (of which, I will confess, I still know very little).

Gman wrote:Perhaps I should also take a closer look at what really the Catholic faith says as well. Maybe in a different discussion as you said and less dogmatic...

That's the ticket my friend. You want to reject catholicism that's of course your right and your prerogative (and it seems that you did just that). But wouldn't it be nice to really check why? The only way to do that is to learn about it, and not by going to church either, but by reading the catholic catechism and comparing it and contrasting it with scripture (written, of course; you can forget about oral Traditions for now).

I like this site because they quote a lot of supporting scripture but then again, take some of what it says with a grain of salt, particularly in reference to salvation and works (evidently they haven't yet received the pope's memo of 1999 ). Seriously though, all references to works are the works of love and charity, performed in the process of walking in Jesus' path AFTER receiving the unmerited initial grace through the washing by water and the spirit (i.e. baptism).

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

I also like this site. They have a ton of articles on virtually anything catholic.

http://www.newadvent.com/

Gman wrote:I'm also sorry for saying those nasty things about those higher up. My girlfriend is a Catholic, and if she found out what I was writing here, I'm sure she would give me the boot.

I don't know what it is but I seem to be blessed with many non-catholic friends whose girlfriends are Catholic. It would complete the symmetry very nicely if my wife were non-catholic but, alas (lucky me, I guess), she's the very definition of (the Irish kind). If I may ask, do you and your girlfriend discuss religion?

Gman wrote:As I've said before, I love the music of the Catholic church... I love the sadness in the music that I find missing in the protestant churches, (where Jesus is turned into disco tech). I'm sure that there are many Catholics that would make it to heaven before I do...

All we can do is put Christ in our hearts and let God sort the rest out. Who makes it to heaven and who doesn't is his decision and no one else's.

In Christ,

Byblos.

Gman wrote:Or it could be number 4 too... How about I wasn't in Catholic schools in 1999 when this statement was made? I went to Catholic schools in the 70's and early 80's. But then again, the position of the Catholic church changes so often that no one really knows what their position is half the time...

You're dead right there. Byblos is aware of current teaching, not historical teaching. In recent years RCC has made all kinds of concessions and reintepretations of its own allegedly 'infallible' statements in order to try and appeal to a wider market (Vatican II is considered by many Catholics to be the point at which this reformation commenced).

The result is that what you were taught then, is not what is taught now.

Fortigurn wrote:

Gman wrote:Or it could be number 4 too... How about I wasn't in Catholic schools in 1999 when this statement was made? I went to Catholic schools in the 70's and early 80's. But then again, the position of the Catholic church changes so often that no one really knows what their position is half the time...

You're dead right there. Byblos is aware of current teaching, not historical teaching. In recent years RCC has made all kinds of concessions and reintepretations of its own allegedly 'infallible' statements in order to try and appeal to a wider market (Vatican II is considered by many Catholics to be the point at which this reformation commenced).

The result is that what you were taught then, is not what is taught now.

( posted a reply and it disappeared)

Thank you Fortigurn for presuming what I am and am not aware of.

Vatican II opened in 1962 and was closed in 1965; well before Gman went to school in the '70s and '80s. He already stated that he didn't really learn religion in school but if he did, it would have been well within the guidelines of Vatican II. I did and I was in catholic school from 1966 to 1978.

On another note, Vatican II did not introduce any new doctrines nor did it change or invalidate any existing ones. It merely restated in clearer terms what the doctrine should have stated all along. This is exactly what the claim of infallibility means: that the church, in its totality and history, is capable of self-correction under the constant guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. But then again, I wouldn't expect you to comprehend that since you do not believe in the Holy Spirit as God.

It merely restated in clearer terms what the doctrine should have stated all along.

Hi Byblos, but if it was so clear why did Luther break off from the church? Who was misunderstood about the teaching?

Luther became convinced that the Church had misunderstood several of the central truths of Christianity—the most important being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith alone.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther

If I may ask, do you and your girlfriend discuss religion?

Not too much... My Girlfriend (from the Phillipians) thinks Protestants and Catholics are the same.

G -

Gman wrote:

It merely restated in clearer terms what the doctrine should have stated all along.

Hi Byblos, but if it was so clear why did Luther break off from the church? Who was misunderstood about the teaching?

It wasn't clear and without a doubt Luther had the right idea. It's just that the catholic church's understanding wasn't really that far off, but they weren't about to concede that to a 'renegade drunk who'll change his position as soon as he sobers up', right?. No one likes to admit they're wrong. Thank God that the claim of infallibility as guided by the Holy Spirit is given to the church and not to individuals. Besides, many of the disagreements hinged on the use of certain words that were not understood in the same context on both sides, which deepened the rift even further.

Gman wrote:Luther became convinced that the Church had misunderstood several of the central truths of Christianity—the most important being the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Luther began to teach that salvation is completely a gift of God's grace through Christ received by faith alone.

It's all here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_luther

First, I wouldn't totally trust Wikipedia for solid, reliable information but in this case, what is recited is a matter of history. Yes, there were considerable misunderstandings and deep differences, not the least of which is the doctrine of justification. But it wasn't as simple as saying the catholic church disagreed with Luther on that point. The 2 positions weren't exactly polar opposites (as evidenced by current teachings). There was ambiguity as to how the doctrine of justification was taught by the church but it wasn't such that it could not have been brought in line with Luther's position, had the two sides decided to play grown-ups instead. The ambiguity has since been corrected (thank you HS). There were, however, many, many other issues that contributed to the split that had nothing to do with justification, such as the whole salvific process (OSAS vs. perseverance), which I think is also a misunderstanding of positions as the 2 are much closer than you think, unless as I said before you are on one extreme of legalism or the other extreme of antinomianism). Interestingly enough, even though Luther did not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, he still firmly believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ through the eucharist. He just called it something else. Whatever happened to that belief and why was it dropped as a Lutheran doctrine? The point is, none of us (catholics, protestants, etc.) will ever attain absolute truth in this life. But we're much closer to one another than we'd like to think or care to admit.

Gman wrote:

If I may ask, do you and your girlfriend discuss religion?

Not too much... My Girlfriend (from the Phillipians) thinks Protestants and Catholics are the same.

Exactly my point; she's got the right idea. Maybe you should talk to her more.

God Bless,

Byblos.

Interestingly enough, even though Luther did not agree with the doctrine of transubstantiation, he still firmly believed in the real presence of Jesus Christ through the eucharist. He just called it something else.

Consubstantiation.