| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Avelino |
Posted - 01/22/2010 : 10:31:42 AM
Romans 13:8-10 states "Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not bear false witness,” “You shall not covet,” and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law."
What I understand from this passage is the following:
1) We owe love to our neighbors (2nd commandment).
2) To owe means to be under obligation.
3) Meeting this obligation fulfills the law.
4) One can also infer from this passage that we are required to fulfill the law. Therefore, there must be a differentiation from this law and the law the Paul states we are not under elsewhere in Romans.
If we are saved by faith alone then how can we have this obligation to follow this commandment and fulfill the law?
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/07/2010 : 6:46:05 PM
Thank you for trying to pin it down, Tim. 
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/07/2010 : 5:30:06 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tim Buley[/i]
[br]quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
{My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote this is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind.
I think this was in reference to St Augustine
20. " Because my heart was delighted " (ver. 21). He is saying with what things he is tempted : " because my heart was delighted," he saith, " my reins also were changed." When those temporal things delighted me, my reins were changed. It may also be understood thus : " because my heart was delighted " in God, " my reins also were changed, that is, my lusts were changed, and I became wholly chaste. " My reins were changed." And hear how. " And I was brought unto nothing, and I knew not" (ver. 22).
After looking I have not found what I thought attributed the two, it having been some time since I had looked at the quote. Perhaps it was a comparison of psalm 73 interpretations and I'm remembering wrong, so as I try and figure it out I apologize. I will try and respond to the many posts that continue to pile up as time permits, with a young family my week off seems to be nearly as full as my week at work.
God Bless
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 9:18:34 PM
Tim the Augsburg Confession (AC) is the private opinion of heretics and schismatics trying to ape the creed of the Church. it is full of inconsistencies and serious theological innovations.
My complaint with you is that you quoted Luther saying that everything man does is a sin. Then you quote the AC where is says the opposite. This is the type of contradiction i run into all the time with Protestant controversialists. When it serves them they make outlandish claims but then when they are called on the carpet, they back pedal. Which is it? Do you agree with Luther in The Bondage of the Will or Melancthon in the AC?
A few complaints about the AC. You quoted the following from Article II (Of Original Sin):
quote:
1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin...
NO! Original Sin is NEITHER the inheritance of actual sin nor the imputation of an actual sin. And concupiscence is NOT sin either. these were innovative heresies of Luther's that the Church condemned and which had no foundation in the Bible, Tradition, the Early Church Fathers, The Ecumenical Councils, or the Doctors of the Church.
Furthermore, Article IV (Of Justification) says this:
quote:
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.
Please note that there is no mention of baptismal at all in this article. It is all to do with faith by itself. It furthermore speaks of imputation and not of our being made righteous (Rom 5:19; 2Cor 5:21). The failure to refer to Romans 6 at this point is critical, most especially in light of Rom 6:22.
Finally, your religion has no validly ordained ministers. There is therefore no one among you who is empowered to preach the gospel or administer the sacraments. Neither do you have the power of "binding and loosing" Christians with regard to their sins.
The Augsburg Confession represents the private opinions of SOME lay heretics and schismatics from the 16th Century and does not reflect the practice in many so called 'Lutherian' sects today. The section on the Mass is very irenic, but it clearly excludes the biblical teaching that the Mass is a sacrifice and of the benefit for the living and he dead of participating in it.
A Catholic must condemn the AC as unacceptable and in discontinuity with true Christianity and sound doctrine.
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 5:46:10 PM
Okay, I'll check it out later. Got to make some Shrimp Gumbo for dinner first. Sorry for the sidetrack, but just don't want you to think you're being ignored. :)
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 5:07:16 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Thank you for explaining; it wasn't clear that you were connecting the dots, so to speak. But Art pointed out that the 23 quotes supplied really didn't address his assertion about Luther's take on man's will being not in line with Christian teaching, especially St. Augustine's use of the term beast as supplied in the quotes.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
Sorry I had not checked my link, I had read the connection a few years back when I had come across the quote in my reading of the book.
When I made the search I used the key word to narrow it down to find psalm 73 then when I clicked into the specific section I guess Google Books didn't change the address bar ? I did not intend to leave 23 links.
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 4:17:06 PM
Thank you for explaining; it wasn't clear that you were connecting the dots, so to speak. But Art pointed out that the 23 quotes supplied really didn't address his assertion about Luther's take on man's will being not in line with Christian teaching, especially St. Augustine's use of the term beast as supplied in the quotes.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 3:48:18 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]Thanks for the reply but just putting up some actual quotes from St. Augustine that prove your position would be more helping in trying to prove it. I would caution about being careful to remember about context and also that St. Augustine's opinions on free will and grace were still in a developing form through most of his lifetime.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
I brought Augustine up and followed with his quote. The Luther quote I then tried to put in context. It is not my intention to force church fathers (developing opinions and all) to be what they were not, where they are right they are right and wrong they are wrong. I do not hold an apostolic succession of authority nor is it with in the scope of this thread topic for me to force Augustine into being a Lutheran or adhere to a post-Trent, V1 or V2 Catholic.
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 3:23:07 PM
Thanks for the reply but just putting up some actual quotes from St. Augustine that prove your position would be more helping in trying to prove it. I would caution about being careful to remember about context and also that St. Augustine's opinions on free will and grace were still in a developing form through most of his lifetime.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 3:10:45 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]The Augsburg Confession is not binding nor authoritative on anyone other than Lutherans. How about providing the quotes that St. Augustine made to support your theory that he supports your theology?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
I'm aware that you do not hold to the augsburg confession, I thank you for some of the moderating of the ad hominem, yet much has been posted about what "protestants " believe and the teaching of their heresiarchs that at times I think it is prudent to state what I believe and will defend because I do not want to be held up as a anti-nomian pelagian.
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 1:33:47 PM
The Augsburg Confession is not binding nor authoritative on anyone other than Lutherans. How about providing the quotes that St. Augustine made to support your theory that he supports your theology?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 1:14:48 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]Another long quotation to no point. Original sin has left concupisence in us so that we are not able by our own effort to earn salvation before God. That is Catholic dogma.
The excess of claiming that "everything we do apart from God is sin" is sermopinc hyperbole.
Article II: Of Original Sin.
1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
3] They condemn the Pelagians and others who deny that original depravity is sin, and who, to obscure the glory of Christ's merit and benefits, argue that man can be justified before God by his own strength and reason. A.C. http://bit.ly/bFCRoY
quote:
I breath continuously 24 hours a day and if you were to carry your allegation to its logical conclusion THAT would be sinful. Get real.
Article XVIII: Of Free Will.
1] Of Free Will they teach that man's will has some liberty to choose civil righteousness, and to work 2] things subject to reason. But it has no power, without the Holy Ghost, to work the righteousness of God, that is, spiritual righteousness; since the natural man 3] receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God, 1 Cor. 2:14; but this righteousness is wrought in the heart when the Holy Ghost is received 4] through the Word. These things are said in as many words by Augustine in his Hypognosticon, Book III: We grant that all men have a free will, free, inasmuch as it has the judgment of reason; not that it is thereby capable, without God, either to begin, or, at least, to complete aught in things pertaining to God, but only in works of this life, whether good 5] or evil. "Good" I call those works which spring from the good in nature, such as, willing to labor in the field, to eat and drink, to have a friend, to clothe oneself, to build a house, to marry a wife, to raise cattle, to learn divers useful arts, or whatsoever good 6]pertains to this life. For all of these things are not without dependence on the providence of God; yea, of Him and through Him they are and have their being. "Evil" 7] I call such works as willing to worship an idol, to commit murder, etc. 8] They condemn the Pelagians and others, who teach that without the Holy Ghost, by the power of nature alone, we are able to love God above all things; also to do the commandments of God as touching "the substance of the act." For, although nature is able in a manner to do the outward work, 9] (for it is able to keep the hands from theft and murder,) yet it cannot produce the inward motions, such as the fear of God, trust in God, chastity, patience, etc.
quote:
St. Augustine always believed that sin enslaved people (as did St. Paul) and he beleived that grace set men free to choose to do what is good (just like St. Paul did in Romans 6). And Both Sts. Paul and Augustine (being good Catholics) found the beginning of their new life in Christ in BAPTISM.
So far, Catholics 3, Protestants ZERO.
Article IX: Of Baptism.
1] Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary 2] to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace.
3] They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 01:32:19 AM
I should also say that justification is not possible apart form faith. As trent taught, faith is the beginning of our walk with Christ, but it is not the end. We must also develop hope and charity as well. Faith without charity is nothing. But charity is likewise impossible unless it is grounded in faith.
Catholicism does not deny justification by faith. We insist that a saving faith must have 3 elements: belief, trust, and a good will. (We often use the words "faith, hope and charity" to describe tehm.)
art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 01:06:46 AM
Another long quotation to no point. Original sin has left concupisence in us so that we are not able by our own effort to earn salvation before God. That is Catholic dogma. The excess of claiming that "everything we do apart from God is sin" is sermopinc hyperbole. I breath continuously 24 hours a day and if you were to carry your allegation to its logical conclusion THAT would be sinful. Get real.
St. Augustine always believed that sin enslaved people (as did St. Paul) and he beleived that grace set men free to choose to do what is good (just like St. Paul did in Romans 6). And Both Sts. Paul and Augustine (being good Catholics) found the beginning of their new life in Christ in BAPTISM.
So far, Catholics 3, Protestants ZERO.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/05/2010 : 12:57:40 AM
I reiterate. NOT ONE of the 23 quotations describes the human mind as a horse with an empty saddle in which either God or the Devil is the rider. St. Aguystine used a mild metaphor that was sermonic in character to describe his conversion and nothing more.
I reitereate, Lutehr was MENTALLY ILL showing a psychotic understanding of human nature. Consequently, the religions that followed him out of the Church were based on mental illness.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 2:53:06 PM
In reading St. Augustine, it is clear that Martin Luther presented a caricature of his teaching, seen through his personally pessimistic lenses. In other words, he personally interpreted the Early Christian bishop's teaching and was therefore not guaranteed to be infallible.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:11:37 PM
I think the quote can be read in context also, the free will we speak of is in light of salvation.
Let us briefly consider this, lest we should suffer any thing most perniciously spoken, to pass by unnoticed. Here then, I observe, that if it be proved that our salvation is apart from our own strength and counsel, and depends on the working of God alone, (which I hope I shall clearly prove hereafter, in the course of this discussion,) does it not evidently follow, that when God is not present with us to work in us, every thing that we do is evil, and that we of necessity do those things which are of no avail unto salvation? For if it is not we ourselves, but God only, that works salvation in us, it must follow, whether or no, that we do nothing unto salvation before the working of God in us.
But, by necessity, I do not mean compulsion; but (as they term it) the necessity of immutability, not of compulsion: that is, a man void of the Spirit of God, does not evil against his will as by violence, or as if he were taken by the neck and forced to it, in the same way as a thief or cut-throat is dragged to punishment against his will; but he does it spontaneously, and with a desirous willingness. And this willingness and desire of doing evil he cannot, by his own power, leave off, restrain, or change; but it goes on still desiring and craving. And even if he should be compelled by force to do any thing outwardly to the contrary, yet the craving will within remains averse to, and rises in indignation against that which forces or resists it. But it would not rise in indignation, if it were changed, and made willing to yield to a constraining power. This is what we mean by the necessity of immutability:—that the will cannot change itself, nor give itself another bent; but rather the more it is resisted, the more it is irritated to crave; as is manifest from its indignation. This would not be the case if it were free, or had a Free-will. Ask experience, how hardened against all persuasion they are, whose inclinations are fixed upon any one thing. For if they yield at all, they yield through force, or through something attended with greater advantage; they never yield willingly. And if their inclinations be not thus fixed, they let all things pass and go on just as they will.
But again, on the other hand, when God works in us, the will, being changed and sweetly breathed on by the Spirit of God, desires and acts, not from compulsion, but responsively, from pure willingness, inclination, and accord; so that it cannot be turned another way by any thing contrary, nor be compelled or overcome even by the gates of hell; but it still goes on to desire, crave after, and love that which is good; even as before, it desired, craved after, and loved that which was evil. This, again, experience proves. How invincible and unshaken are holy men, when, by violence and other oppressions, they are only compelled and irritated the more to crave after good! Even as fire, is rather fanned into flames than extinguished, by the wind. So that neither is there here any willingness, or Free-will, to turn itself into another direction, or to desire any thing else, while the influence of the Spirit and grace of God remain in the man.
In a word, if we be under the god of this world, without the operation and Spirit of God, we are led v captives by him at his will, as Paul saith, 2 Tim. ii.; so that, we cannot will any thing but that which he wills. For he is that " strong man armed," who so keepeth his palace, that those whom he holds captive are kept in peace, that they might not cause any motion or feeling against him; otherwise, the kingdom of Satan, being divided against itself, could not stand; whereas, Christ affirms it does stand. And all this we do willingly and desiringly, according to the nature of will: for if it were forced, it would be no longer will. For compulsion is (so to speak) unwillingness. But if the " stronger than he" come and overcome him, and take us as his spoil, then, through the Spirit, we are his servants and captives, (which is the royal liberty) that we may desire and do, willingly, what he wills.
Thus the human will is, as it were, a beast between the two. If God sit thereon, it wills and goes where God will: as the Psalm saith, " I am become as it were a beast before thee, and I am continually with thee." If Satan sit thereon, it wills and goes as Satan will. Nor is it in the power of its own will to choose, to which rider it will run, nor which it will seek; but the riders themselves contend, which shall have and hold it. ------pg 60-61
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 12:03:09 PM
20. " Because my heart was delighted " (ver. 21). He is saying with what things he is tempted : " because my heart was delighted," he saith, " my reins also were changed." When those temporal things delighted me, my reins were changed. It may also be understood thus : " because my heart was delighted " in God, " my reins also were changed, that is, my lusts were changed, and I became wholly chaste. " My reins were changed." And hear how. " And I was brought unto nothing, and I knew not" (ver. 22).
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/04/2010 : 09:52:36 AM
I reviewed every single one of the 23 quotations from St. Augustine. NOT ONE OF THEM describes man as a horse with an empty saddle in which either the devil or God is the rider. A few of the quotes speak of how sin makes men like beasts before God about which there cannot be any argument.
The point I was making is that Luther's analysis of human nature (and in fact the whole Protestant error of total depravity) has its origin in mental illness. Tim, you have followed a maniac into his delusions and are trying to force reality to conform to them. Those of us with normal reality testing can see that this is pathological and we reject it just as the Holy Spirit did when Luther was condemned by the Church.
Let's get back to cases. The moral law from the OT was legislated postivistically by God. It is part of the Eternal Law that proceeds from God's very nature. The Mosaic Law bore witness to it but did not invent or assert it.
As Christians, the Eternal Law of God binds us but the Mosaic Law AS A WHOLE does not. We are nto expected to be obsevant Jews, but we are expected to avoid idolatry, adultery, theft, murder, and false witness. All of creation is so bound.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:59:17 PM
The reason I ask for more specific citation(s) is that in some of his writings, St. Augustine compared the state of man after the fall to that of the beasts, used in this context to mean "animals". He did not use it in reference to man after justification, nor did he use that term in his writing on grace and free will. In Nature and Grace, he used in reference to man's tongue being unruly when discussing Pelagius's misinterpretation of St. James's letter in Scripture.
So, if you've read some works of St. Augustine's in which he specifically supported Luther's idea that even after justification, man's will is just an empty saddle on a beast, please provide the exact reference(s).
After that, perhaps we can discuss the level of authority in teaching with regard to theologians.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Patti |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 10:40:28 PM
Just which proof-text are you pointing to in support of your theory on St. Augustine? There are 23. Which one(s) specifically has/have to do with man's will as Luther perceived it?
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 9:43:15 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
{My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote this is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind.
I think this was in reference to St Augustine http://bit.ly/cGTvce
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 6:54:39 PM
That long quote given by Tim is from Luther's psychotic ravings in his tract "The Bondage of the Will." Since Luther was -- and is -- a condemned heretic, his opinons are clearly ignorable.
{My charge that Luther was flagrantly psychotic when he wrote this is a clinical one. Luther makes a number of seriosuly disturbed remarks in this book. Among them, he actually says that the human mind is like a horse with an empty saddle and that either God or the Devil rides in it. This is clearly not the perception of a normal human mind. When I studied psychiatry in med school the professor told us "There are only 2 kinds of people who deny free will: psychotics and Calvinists." In my experience, there is only ONE kind of person.}
I prefer what Rousas John Roushdoorny said about the law. He strongly refutes the anti-nomianism that Tim and his heresiarch espouse. Please see his commentary on Romans and Galatians.
We are not expected to be observant Jews, but we are expected to live by the moral standards of the OT. Both Jesus and St. Paul routinely quoted the 10 commandments and the 2 great commandments from Leviticus to that end FOR CHRISTIANS, NOT JUST FOR JEWS. Luther was way off base when he claimed otherwise. But we observe the moral laws like CHRISTIANS not like Jews who follow rabbinic authority. Jesus reinterpreted the commandments for us and we are to follow his lead.
The supreme error of the amateur Protestant pundit is to go preaching anti-nomianism. It is unbiblical and easily refuted by a simple reading of the Bible. And the Protestants THEMSELVES constantly deny such an interpretation in their sectarian teachings. Nevertheless they still hawk it to unwary Catholics. This amoral schizophrenia is the central temptation by which anti-Catholics try to tempt people to abandon Christ and his Catholic Church. Then they start introducing their own rules which jsut resurrect the very Jewish scruples that St. Paul warned us about.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| artsippo |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 6:35:06 PM
Tim sez:
quote:
A Catholic once said "Theologians have no authority in the magisterium, nor are they guaranteed infallibility. We are therefore free to ignore them when they go off the track."
so does this apply to laity?
Tim, we would never ignore you no matter how off base you are. We will always give you an answer with gentleness and reverence.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 6:26:37 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Avelino[/i]
[br]I would rephrase this a little.
As the Gospels state, through Moses came all law. There are two types of Mosaic law:
1) the ceremonial law, i.e circumcission, animal sacrifices, etc.
2) eternal law which are contained in the Ten Commandments
In my opinion, throughout his letter to the Romans, Paul explains the ceremonial laws are no loner necessary but the eternal laws are necessary.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tim Buley[/i]
[br]"Paul used the term law in two different ways. One referred to the Mosaic Law, which could be put aside or even abolished, and the other referred to God's Eternal Law, such as codified in the Ten Commandments and perfectly interpreted by Christ as "Love the Lord Your God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself." This is also the law God has written on our hearts and the one that must be obeyed by living out our faith as Christians.
In Scripture, when Paul referred to "the law" in connection to works, he meant the Old Testament law. When he referred to "the law" in connection to obeying God by loving Him and our neighbor, Paul meant the Eternal Law written on our hearts. The OT Law was oriented toward bringing man to understand the Eternal Law; when Christ came and perfectly interpreted the OT Law, it was no longer essential because the Word had given us its meaning and revealed the higher law that was its goal."
Patti,
Is this observation the private interpretation of the laity, or magisterial dogma?
Simul Justus Et Peccator
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen
"But however, it is not truth that Paul is here speaking of the ceremonial works only: for if that be case, how will his argument stand good, whereby he concludes, that all are unrighteous and need grace? But perhaps you will say—Be it so, that we are not justified by the ceremonial works, yet one might be justified by the moral works of the decalogue. By this syllogism of yours then, you have proved, that to such, grace is not necessary. If this be the case,. how very useful must that grace be, which delivers us from the ceremonial works only,the easiest of 'all works, which may be extorted from us; through mere fear or self-love!
And this, moreover, is erroneous—that ceremonial works are dead and unlawful, since the death of Christ. PauL never said any such thing. He says, that they da i not justify, and that they profit the man nothing in the sight of God, so as toumake him free from unrighteousness. Holding this truth, any one may do them, and yet do nothing that is unlawful. Thus, to eat and to drink are works, which do not justify or recommend us to God; and yet, he who eats and drinks does not, therefore, do that which is unlawful.
These men err also in this.—The ceremonial works, were as much commanded and exacted in the old law, and in the. decalogue, as the moral works: and therefore, the latter had neither more nor less force than the former. For Paul is here speaking, principally, to the Jews, as he saith Rom. i.: wherefore, let no one doubt, that by the works of the law here, all the works of the whole law are to be understood. For if the law be abrogated and dead, they cannot be called the works of the law; for an abrogated or dead law, is no longer a law; and that Paul knew full well. Therefore, he does not speak of the law abrogated, when he speaks of the works of the law, but of the law in force and authority, otherwise, how easy would it have been for him to say, The law is now abrogated? And then, he would have spoken openly and clearly.
But let us bring forward Paul himself, who is the best interpreter of himself. He saith, Gal. iii., " As many as are of the works of the law, are under the curse : for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them." You see that Paul here, where he is urging the same point as he is in his epistle to the Romans, and in the same words, speaks, wherever he makes mention of the works of the law, of all the laws that are written in the book of the law."
http://bit.ly/aOyylr
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 02/03/2010 : 6:06:45 PM
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Patti[/i]
[br]quote:
Is this observation the private interpretation of the laity, or magisterial dogma?
I'll let you figure that one out:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm
Now, why do you ask? Just curious.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare.
A Catholic once said
"Theologians have no authority in the magisterium, nor are they guaranteed infallibility. We are therefore free to ignore them when they go off the track."
so does this apply to laity?
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 11:03:35 AM
Good answers Avelino and Patti.
The sad thing about the Protestant antinomian revolt was that it confused the Mosaic Law (which bound Israel) with the Moral Law (that binds Creation). The Moral Law was emphasized by the Mosaic Law but it pre-existed it, being (as Avelino so clearly said) the Eternal Law. The Christian dispensation does not require Mosaic observance but it DOES require adherence to the Moral Law.
What we have to remember is that God understnads our limitations and He expects of us what we are capable of doing. He does not hold us to godlike standards. it was this mistake which drove Martin Luther into madness and led to his apostasy.
There are some people who are given the power to live lives of supernatural virtue and in fact all Christians are given actual graces to enable tehm to go beyond the merely human. But we should not carry that to a ridiculous extreme as Luther did. He tortured himself with the fact that he was a mere man and not absolutely perfect and it destroyed him. His solution was to imagine that freedom form the Law meant freedom from morality and the Protestant revolt was created.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Avelino |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 10:45:49 AM
Hi Time:
I am not sure if you are being facetious but I will answer your question anyway.
I certainly tried to the best of my ability. I can honestly tell you, through the grace of God and my willingness to accept and participate with his Grace, I am much more Holy than I was four years ago but I have a long way to go but of course I will never be as Holy as I want to be. I will need to be perfected by God.
Also, I want to clarify why I try so hard to do the first and second commandments:
1)As for the first commandment, I truly enjoy removing idolatry from my life. I am not sacrificing anything by avoiding idolatrous behavior. Avoiding idolatry does indeed permit you to love God with a greater intensity.
2) As for the second commandment, I try to fulfill this obligation for four reasons. The first reason, is that when we love our neighbor, I believe we are loving God, thereby also following the first commandment. The second reason is that if a Christian fails to set a good example by following the second commandment, he may end up shaking the faith of others. Thirdly, I feel Christians should inspire other Christians to fulfill this obligation. By doing this they will inspire other Christians and also return the inspiration to me. Lastly, this is a way to evangelize without words. As St. Francis use to say, "Preach the Gospel. Use words when necessary."
I also want to make it clear that I am not trying to earn my way to heaven. Truth be told, I don't think about Heaven and the afterlife that much. What excites me the most is that Jesus made it possible for me to have a bit of Heaven in my heart in this life and it brings me true freedom and joy.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tim Buley[/i]
Avelino,
Did you meet this obligation today?
Simul Justus Et Peccator
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen |
| Avelino |
Posted - 01/25/2010 : 10:18:34 AM
I would rephrase this a little.
As the Gospels state, through Moses came all law. There are two types of Mosaic law:
1) the ceremonial law, i.e circumcission, animal sacrifices, etc.
2) eternal law which are contained in the Ten Commandments
In my opinion, throughout his letter to the Romans, Paul explains the ceremonial laws are no loner necessary but the eternal laws are necessary.
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Tim Buley[/i]
[br]"Paul used the term law in two different ways. One referred to the Mosaic Law, which could be put aside or even abolished, and the other referred to God's Eternal Law, such as codified in the Ten Commandments and perfectly interpreted by Christ as "Love the Lord Your God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself." This is also the law God has written on our hearts and the one that must be obeyed by living out our faith as Christians.
In Scripture, when Paul referred to "the law" in connection to works, he meant the Old Testament law. When he referred to "the law" in connection to obeying God by loving Him and our neighbor, Paul meant the Eternal Law written on our hearts. The OT Law was oriented toward bringing man to understand the Eternal Law; when Christ came and perfectly interpreted the OT Law, it was no longer essential because the Word had given us its meaning and revealed the higher law that was its goal."
Patti,
Is this observation the private interpretation of the laity, or magisterial dogma?
Simul Justus Et Peccator
Yours in Christ,
Avelino
In the begining God created man in his own image. Ever since that time man has been trying to return the favor. - Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen |
| Patti |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 9:05:02 PM
quote:
Is this observation the private interpretation of the laity, or magisterial dogma?
I'll let you figure that one out:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a1.htm
Now, why do you ask? Just curious.
Yours in Christ,
Patti
Laudare, benedicere, praedicare. |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 8:15:47 PM
patty said that there were 2 ways that St. Paul spoke about the Law. Actually, there were a few more. But Patti has basically gotten it right. St. Paul speaks primarily of the Mosaic law in Romans and Galatians where the so-called 'Reformers' mistakenly climed he was talking about all law.
What the Bible clearly says is that we Christians are not expected to be observant Jews. Nevertheless we are expected to be 'servants of righteousness.' (See Romans 6) And if we love our neighbor as we love ourselvesjesus taught us that we would gain eternal life. This is another biblical teaching that Protestants totally ignore.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 8:08:49 PM
Tim, that type of excessive false piety is typical of Proestantism. We are not gods or angels and we are not expected to be.
As Jesus told us:
"Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance. " (Luke 15:7)
God appreciates our struggle to be good. He is a loving father trying to raise up his children to be good people. He accepts us for who and what we are and doesn't sit around making recriminations for how 'imperfect' we are. That is the kind of nonsense the Pharisees pulled and Jesus condemned them for it.
John, when you try to do what is right you are a child of God doing fingerpainting for God the Father. It may not be perfect but He truly appreciates and treasures the gifts you give him.
As for the Protestant martinets who want to whine about how imperfect everyone is, they will be judged as strictly as they judge others. I pity them.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 6:56:43 PM
"If a person were actually able to give to his neighbor the fullness of a free and unselfish love under all circumstances of life, he would thereby have fulfilled the Law. For all the commandments which the apostle now quotes, the Sixth, the Fifth, the Seventh, the Eighth, the Ninth, and any other commandment that may be mentioned, - they are all included under one heading, in one summary, and that is: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Note that St. Paul here, as the Scriptures elsewhere, Mark 10, 19; Luke 18, 20; Jas. 2, 11, does not follow the conventional order of the commandments, as given in the Decalog; the enumeration and the order of the commandments is of very minor importance, their content is the essential factor. And they all are included and comprehended in that one injunction, namely, to love one’s neighbor, every fellowman, with the same love with which we regard our own interests and guard them against every infringement. And this is further confirmed by the statement: Love works no evil to one’s neighbor; a person that is actually filled with the love that agrees with the will of God will engage in nothing which may cause ill to befall his neighbor, will avoid all the sins that are mentioned in the commandments. The word “neighbor” is here explained in the original text as the one who is near us. Any person in our immediate vicinity with whom we have had dealings, whom the providence of God has placed near us, is our neighbor, and towards such a one, especially if he be of the household of faith, Gal. 6, 10, our love should exhibit itself in deeds of kindness, according to the will of God. And therefore the fulfilling of the Law is love, the proof and evidence for the completed fulfillment; in love the doing of all the commandments, of both the first and second tables, is included, its essence fills and covers all demands. It is an ideal which the believers strive and work for all their lives, to measure up to this standard, and by the grace of God they always make some little headway toward their goal." - http://www.kretzmannproject.org/
3) Meeting this obligation fulfills the law.
Avelino,
Did you meet this obligation today?
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| Tim Buley |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 6:44:29 PM
"Paul used the term law in two different ways. One referred to the Mosaic Law, which could be put aside or even abolished, and the other referred to God's Eternal Law, such as codified in the Ten Commandments and perfectly interpreted by Christ as "Love the Lord Your God with all your being, and love your neighbor as yourself." This is also the law God has written on our hearts and the one that must be obeyed by living out our faith as Christians.
In Scripture, when Paul referred to "the law" in connection to works, he meant the Old Testament law. When he referred to "the law" in connection to obeying God by loving Him and our neighbor, Paul meant the Eternal Law written on our hearts. The OT Law was oriented toward bringing man to understand the Eternal Law; when Christ came and perfectly interpreted the OT Law, it was no longer essential because the Word had given us its meaning and revealed the higher law that was its goal."
Patti,
Is this observation the private interpretation of the laity, or magisterial dogma?
Simul Justus Et Peccator |
| artsippo |
Posted - 01/24/2010 : 4:41:08 PM
Hey Ralph! Chill. Your accusation that the Catholic divorce rate is as high as among non-Catholics is not true. Catholics have a lower divorce rate all round and PRACTICING Catholics are far below the average. Besides the Catholic Church DOES NOT SANCTION divorce. Unlike the various Protestant sects, we do not consider civil divorce to be a sufficient reason to allow remarriage. Only when a marriage is found to be null and void is permission given for a Catholic to attempt another marriage.
The real point, Ralph, is that the founders of your religious rebellions against God ALL advocated civil divorce and remarriage without any problem. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and that great Churchman Henry VIII all permitted it.
But put that Aside and the central question remains. There are so many clear biblical teachings that Protestants just plain ignore or white wash or otherwise twist that the divorce thing is a mere bagatelle. James 2:24 will condemn all of you for hypocrites and blasphemers before the Great White Throne and not one of you will have any excuse for it. And that is only one doctrine among DOZENS. I pity you.
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro! |
| john654 |
Posted - 01/23/2010 : 8:28:02 PM
Ralph,
The Obedient Catholics who post here are not brain dead. We are aware of how many protestants are in the Catholic Church. Were do you think the Protestant, man made, religion came from?
John
quote:
[i]Originally posted by Ralph[/i]
[br]Was thinking of adding my Protestant 2 cents to this conversation, BUT, the accusation that Protestants ignore Jesus teaching on divorce, when the Catholic Church has just as high a divorce rate, reminds me how foolish I would be to enter into a conversation here about Sola Fide. And then you wonder why Protestants don't comment here.
Ralph
quote:
[i]Originally posted by artsippo[/i]
[br]Avelino asks:
quote:
But how do Protestants get around this obligation that Paul spells out so clearly in Romans and still insist that the Sola Fide doctrine is correct?
The same way they ignore Jesus' teaching against divorce, St. James' teaching against 'sola fide', St. Peter's teaching against private interpretation ofhte Bible, and St. Paul's teaching on the real presence:
THEY IGNONRE IT!
Art
Omnes semper - ad Jesum, per Mariam, cum Petro!
I posted a song Marie Bellet performed at her concert at The Fathers of Mercy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBkxj_Hf-dg&feature=channel_page |
|
|
