| |
| Author |
Message |
| Anonymous Prodigy |
 Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:35 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 4197
Location: United States
|
sickofpalantirs wrote: wow...thats hilarious. this is off topic but I think that though catholics and protestants do have several differences, we do roughly belong to the same faith.
*gives SoP award for funniest post of the decade*
Three big differences: Mary, the Pope, and works-based salvation. |
| I had to put something here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| sickofpalantirs |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:41 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 7750
Location: somwhere, over the rainbow way up high. There's a land that I heard of once in a lullaby.
|
yeah yeah yeah wah me a river  |
 Sop's haves/ top wants
(mm)"SoP: you will always be the Official CC Spammer in my heart"
"DáinIronfoot"
Spammers really are amazing creatures. You can learn all there is to know about their ways in a month. And yet, after a hundred years, they can still surprise you.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AnxiousChieftain |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:58 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 3947
Location: Maryland
|
AD: No I’m not really offended, but AP probably couldn’t have worded it differently ("I killed them because I don’t agree with their beliefs").
And AP, after reading your PM I’m really convinced that Protestants and Catholics aren’t really that different in the whole faith and works salvation thing. You said:
"Catholics, like you, say that James says that faith and works is are both required for salvation. Protestants, on the other hand, take it to mean that if someone says that they are saved but then does not live the Christian life is not really saved (hence, faith without works is dead)."
So basically... it looks like you agree that if you have faith but no works then you can’t be saved. Which is the Catholic belief too.
Regarding the Pope and Mary, well, you guys definitely veered away there with your Reformation. Which is a real shame.
And yes SoP, Catholics and Protestants do have differences but I agree that we are all Christians.
- AC |
| MODS RULE. - lem0nhead |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AgentDrake |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 667
Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...
|
Foundational differences, to be sure, but we’re not talking Christian/Islam level foundational differences, here. The exact level of significance of each of these is at least somewhat debatable, given the similarities and foundations that they still share.
EDIT: Posted right after AC, apparently. Above, I’m referring to SoP’s posts. |
| Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Anonymous Prodigy |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 4197
Location: United States
|
AnxiousChieftain wrote: And AP, after reading your PM I’m really convinced that Protestants and Catholics aren’t really that different in the whole faith and works salvation thing. You said:
"Catholics, like you, say that James says that faith and works is are both required for salvation. Protestants, on the other hand, take it to mean that if someone says that they are saved but then does not live the Christian life is not really saved (hence, faith without works is dead)."
So basically... it looks like you agree that if you have faith but no works then you can’t be saved. Which is the Catholic belief too.
Not quite. I believe that works show evidence of faith (and salvation), but I do not believe that works are required to have salvation.
AnxiousChieftain wrote: Regarding the Pope and Mary, well, you guys definitely veered away there with your Reformation. Which is a real shame.
I don’t see anything in my Bible about the Pope being infallible, nor about the Roman Catholic church being the only way to heaven. |
| I had to put something here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| AgentDrake |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 4:02 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 667
Location: Halfway between eccentric and insane...
|
Okay, we are now officially entirely off topic.
A few points though:
The Catholic Bible has a few more books than the Protestant Bible, so keep that in mind when saying that something does/doesn’t have scriptural support (mind you, I have no idea what’s in those extra books....) because that may be debatable. Called the Deuterocanon, if I remember right. (That’s generally "Apocrypha" to us Protestants)
From what I understand, the Papal Authority is based off the passage where Jesus names Simon "Peter" (petra, meaning rock.) I can see how that could be interpreted to refer to Peter as the rock, not the statement that Peter made. I strongly disagree with this interpretation, but I can understand it. I would further argue that in the very early church, the Bishop of Rome AKA Pope was not considered final authority, and even at a few points stated that he was not final authority. Granted: I don’t have any direct sources for this; we’ve been going through Church History lessons at my church, and our Pastor pointed this out from his research. I don’t have the info sheet anymore, so I can’t find the references that’s taken from.
Roman Catholic Church being the only way to Heaven, well... let’s take the assumption that Church X has the complete and absolute truth. Church Y has a slightly distorted version of the truth, but it still contains enough of the truth to produce faith. Church X’s truth is the only way to Heaven, because it’s the only Truth, but Church Y’s doctrine contains enough Truth -- the same Truth as Church X’s -- to produce salvation.
So if one assumes that their doctrine is infallible, then it’s not an unreasonable claim that their Church is the only way to Heaven. A bit easily misinterpreted, but... (and I must admit that I have no idea if this is the belief of the Roman Catholics or what exactly is meant.)
...which is a long way of saying, "I’m not quite sure what you mean, but it might be perfectly agreeable to everyone if you’re trying to say this, otherwise, it’s probably not."
This whole "works required" thing seems almost like a moot point to me.
Saving faith is always accompanied by works. Nice n’ simple. If you have faith, works are a necessary result UNLESS that "faith" is a warped one along the lines of "I believe it’s true, but I don’t care; I’m going to go become a Satanist (or something like that)."
So, to my mind, we’re arguing which comes first, the feathers or the chicken.... It must have chicken-feathers to be a chicken (alright, so the metaphor only goes so far. Ignore stupid and obvious exceptions like a plucked chicken.... think stuff that doesn’t have chicken feathers at all, perhaps a turtle or a cat. If it doesn’t have chicken-feathers, it;s not a chicken) and it must be a chicken to have chicken-feathers (a turtle will never, ever, have chicken-feathers.)
Therefore a Saving Faith will, and must, have works. In this way, one could say that works are required for salvation, much as feathers are required for a chicken. But the feathers are not the cause of the chicken’s state of being a chicken; they are merely a necessary result.
On the other hand, I personally believe that AP is right; faith is the cause of the salvation, and that the necessary resulting works are the unavoidable, required proof of saving faith, as opposed to mere knowledge and subsequent rejection. (I could be wrong, of course, but if I thought that was the case, I wouldn’t believe as I do, no?)
How’s that for a please-all-please-none?
Now, if we want a really volatile argument, we can start arguing the nature of the Eucharist/Communion.... |
| Never kid about politicians. The more bizarre the joke, the more likely it is to come true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Felipe Musco |
| Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 2434
Location: Florianópolis, SC, Brasil
|
| Ok, one more faith-related post in The Assassin thread and I’ll start deleting posts. Consider yourselves warned. |
| I don't like YOU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are UTC - 4
|
|
Forum index » General Discussion » Members' Lounge