How is this defensible?

[romishpopishorganist]

What does any of this have to do with reading the Scriptures through a lens and thereby intentionally coloring any given passage to fit one's desires?

What does any of this have to do....!!???

EVERYTHING!

The lens through which Protestants read the Bible is justification by Faith alone. Heck--Protestants define that which is Theopneustos as that which teaches justification by Faith alone. So not only do Protestants read the Bible in light of justification by Faith alone, they define that which is Theopneustos itself by justification by Faith alone.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

It is not defensible. He is wrong, Has he changed Catholic teaching on abortion, no. The US Bishops have come out as one voice in defense of life, thanks be to God. Calling out Biden. As one bishop has said, we are not employees of the pope.

And that bishop----who said that----that is a bishop who understands what it means to be a bishop.

Many bishops are under a faulty ecclesiology--and precisely see themselves as employees of the pope----or otherwise papal delegates who teach and preach in the name of the pope. Some of these guys can't even make a statement without whatever Pope Francis said in it. "Our Holy Father Pope Francis says...."

Sadly, few bishops grasp that they are bishops in their own right, not just papal delegates or employees of the pope.

 

[Our Lord's God]

What does any of this have to do....!!???

EVERYTHING!

Oh this should be amusing..........

The lens through which Protestants read the Bible is justification by Faith alone.

No, but as I said before, I'm sure some Protestants do that.

Because Rome teaches them to do so, Roman Catholics always read the Bible this way....... to their shame.

Heck--Protestants define that which is Theopneustos as that which teaches justification by Faith alone. So not only do Protestants read the Bible in light of justification by Faith alone, they define that which is Theopneustos itself by justification by Faith alone.

Straw man arguments won't help your situation.

To read the Bible "through a lens" is to intentionally practice eisegesis to get the resulting interpretation you want and satisfy your fleshly desires.

This is a shameful practice and it is also precisely what Rome teaches its flock to do.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Straw man arguments won't help your situation.

Those aren't straw men. Faith alone is everything in the Protestant system. I showed an example of this.

To read the Bible "through a lens" is to intentionally practice eisegesis to get the resulting interpretation you want and satisfy your fleshly desires.

Um, yeah--that is just my point:

1) The Protestant assumes that it is NOT eisegesis to interpret Romans as teaching justification by Faith alone

2) The Protestant argues in a circle anyway. They prove justification by Faith alone using the Bible, then prove the Bible using justification by Faith alone.

In other words--the Protestant has already concluded that the Bible teaches justification by Faith alone-----they then read Romans and go "See? Here is the Scriptural proof for justification by Faith alone!"

Here is the thing:

The minute you have decided that James should be interpreted in light of ROMANS rather than ROMANS being interpreted in light of James---you have interpreted Scripture through a lens. You talk about comparing Scripture with Scripture. That is fine. But who decides WHICH Scriptures to compare WHICH Scriptures to? WHO decided that when deciding what the Book of James means----that------Romans should be the interpretive lens through which to understand James? Why can't we read Romans in light of James instead? That's right: your interpretive lens forbids this.

 

[bluedog1us]

Those aren't straw men. Faith alone is everything in the Protestant system. I showed an example of this.

Um, yeah--that is just my point:

1) The Protestant assumes that it is NOT eisegesis to interpret Romans as teaching justification by Faith alone

2) The Protestant argues in a circle anyway. They prove justification by Faith alone using the Bible, then prove the Bible using justification by Faith alone.

In other words--the Protestant has already concluded that the Bible teaches justification by Faith alone-----they then read Romans and go "See? Here is the Scriptural proof for justification by Faith alone!"

Here is the thing:

The minute you have decided that James should be interpreted in light of ROMANS rather than ROMANS being interpreted in light of James---you have interpreted Scripture through a lens. You talk about comparing Scripture with Scripture. That is fine. But who decides WHICH Scriptures to compare WHICH Scriptures to? WHO decided that when deciding what the Book of James means----that------Romans should be the interpretive lens through which to understand James? Why can't we read Romans in light of James instead? That's right: your interpretive lens forbids this.

James 2 has been explained ad nauseum on here. Works PROVE faith , but it does not save anyone. To justify something is to prove something. Just like justifying a math problem. But what those works prove does not save. Faith saves and works prove that someone has saving faith. To treat those works as saving someone is not only contradicting Romans, but all of scripture, plus what Jesus said many times.

 

[leonard03782]

There is a lot of hypocrisy in your Question, and loaded with mockery. Certainly appears by the words posted by Carm posting rc's that they delight in mocking Scripture. And it shows they have no love for God when they do it. Nope, their real love is elsewhere. If you truly knew God and loved Him, you would not be replying to me in the way you did.

Rc's run to everyone and everything else for spiritual guidance including atheists who don't believe in the existence of God. rc's make excuses for every inconsistency of their institution or why God should look the other way and accept their mariolatry and saint worship, etc.... and all the while pretend that they are doing all this for God.

How could you possibly believe what He says about worldly issues when you don't believe what Scripture says about the gospel message and all other spiritual and moral issues that Scripture is crystal clear on.

It won't stop here......

John 16:
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

 

[Stella1000]

A new day said:
There is a lot of hypocrisy in your Question, and loaded with mockery. Certainly appears by the words posted by Carm posting rc's that they delight in mocking Scripture. And it shows they have no love for God when they do it. Nope, their real love is elsewhere. If you truly knew God and loved Him, you would not be replying to me in the way you did.

Rc's run to everyone and everything else for spiritual guidance including atheists who don't believe in the existence of God. rc's make excuses for every inconsistency of their institution or why God should look the other way and accept their mariolatry and saint worship, etc.... and all the while pretend that they are doing all this for God.

How could you possibly believe what He says about worldly issues when you don't believe what Scripture says about the gospel message and all other spiritual and moral issues that Scripture is crystal clear on.

It won't stop here......

John 16:
1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

Why are you bringing this up now? I recognised that new day was offended by my question 55 posts ago and out of respect, I let it go even though I didn't know why. You take issue all this time later, so perhaps you could answer my question. When moral issues like IVF confront Christians, how do they decide what to do?

 

[leonard03782]

Why are you bringing this up now? I recognised that new day was offended by my question 55 posts ago and out of respect, I let it go even though I didn't know why. You take issue all this time later, so perhaps you could answer my question. When moral issues like IVF confront Christians, how do they decide what to do?

Let me see........it could be that I just saw the post. perhaps, i did not have anything to say about it before. Or maybe, just maybe, I was commenting to something that AND said and did not even consider what or who he was replying to.

AND answered your question. As a matter of fact, he could not have been clearer and it could not have been answered any better..

When it comes to morality, we seek what God says about moral and spiritual issues. And we do this by looking to see what HE has said in Scripture. HE is the one who set the bar and boundaries where moral issues are concerned.

I understand why he replied the way he did. You do not listen to, nor do you accept anything that you do not want to hear. You quote the Scriptures when it suits your purpose and turn around and reject it in favor of whatever the world has to say about any given subject.

MATT 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

I may be wrong, however, in my opinion you have the dubious distinction of being called out for this more than any other of your fellow rc's. Well, at least since the time you arrived at this forum.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

James 2 has been explained ad nauseum on here.

You missed the POINT.

My POINT was not "Protestants cannot explain James 2." They CAN. I suppose----if you have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone, then the idea that James is saying that works PROVE Faith is a good explanation.

But--in order to explain James that way--you have to have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone---becasue in giving that explanation------you are subjugating James 2 to Romans. You are interpreting James 2---not as it is on its own, but according to Romans.

But---who says James should be read in light of Romans? Why shouldn't we read Romans in light of James? See--Protestants have made the Book of Romans--sort of like--Scripture within Scripture, a Bible within a Bible. All Scripture is God Breathed, but Romans--is sort of like---super God Breathed. Why? Because the Protestant reads everything in the Bible according to Romans. For that matter, the Protestant proves the Bible using Romans.

Protestants use the Bible to prove justification by Faith alone, then use justification by Faith alone to prove the Bible.

 

[Nondenom40]

You missed the POINT.

My POINT was not "Protestants cannot explain James 2." They CAN. I suppose----if you have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone, then the idea that James is saying that works PROVE Faith is a good explanation.

But--in order to explain James that way--you have to have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone---becasue in giving that explanation------you are subjugating James 2 to Romans. You are interpreting James 2---not as it is on its own, but according to Romans.

But---who says James should be read in light of Romans? Why shouldn't we read Romans in light of James? See--Protestants have made the Book of Romans--sort of like--Scripture within Scripture, a Bible within a Bible. All Scripture is God Breathed, but Romans--is sort of like---super God Breathed. Why? Because the Protestant reads everything in the Bible according to Romans. For that matter, the Protestant proves the Bible using Romans.

Protestants use the Bible to prove justification by Faith alone, then use justification by Faith alone to prove the Bible.

This is pure utter nonsense. YOU missed the point. No one has to read Romans in light of James or vice versa. Because while Romans is talking about justification from God, James isn't. There is no lens. We don't need a lens like catholics do. Scripture harmonizes with the rest of scripture which is why we don't have to shoe horn our doctrines like the rcc does. James has nothing to do with being justified by God. Your post is one big strawman, as usual. Our repeated explanations of James should have at least allowed you and other catholics to correctly describe what we believe. But like sola scriptura, you never get it right.

 

[bluedog1us]

You missed the POINT.

My POINT was not "Protestants cannot explain James 2." They CAN. I suppose----if you have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone, then the idea that James is saying that works PROVE Faith is a good explanation.

But--in order to explain James that way--you have to have already accepted that Romans teaches justification by Faith alone---becasue in giving that explanation------you are subjugating James 2 to Romans. You are interpreting James 2---not as it is on its own, but according to Romans.

But---who says James should be read in light of Romans? Why shouldn't we read Romans in light of James? See--Protestants have made the Book of Romans--sort of like--Scripture within Scripture, a Bible within a Bible. All Scripture is God Breathed, but Romans--is sort of like---super God Breathed. Why? Because the Protestant reads everything in the Bible according to Romans. For that matter, the Protestant proves the Bible using Romans.

Protestants use the Bible to prove justification by Faith alone, then use justification by Faith alone to prove the Bible.

Because the WHOLE new testament teaches justification by FAITH. God does not contradict Himself. If you go with works for salvation you have to tear out 90 percent of the new testament, plus a lot of the old testament. So we know by that alone that works don't save. Read Hebrews 11....all by FAITH! The Works they did only proved their faith, but their works were not reckoned to them as righteousness.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because the WHOLE new testament teaches justification by FAITH. God does not contradict Himself. If you go with works for salvation you have to tear out 90 percent of the new testament, plus a lot of the old testament. So we know by that alone that works don't save. Read Hebrews 11....all by FAITH! The Works they did only proved their faith, but their works were not reckoned to them as righteousness.

Okay, and what I do not understand---is WHY exactly----works that are the product of Faith should be divorced from the very Faith that produced them and have no saving value.

Why do Protestants draw a dichotomy between Faith and works? Why are works opposed to the very Faith that produces them?

Truly--I have never understood the Protestant hang-up with with works and why Protestants oppose works to Faith as though works are totally and completing unrelated to Faith and have nothing to do with it.

 

[Our Lord's God]

Okay, and what I do not understand---is WHY exactly----works that are the product of Faith should be divorced from the very Faith that produced them and have no saving value.

Why do Protestants draw a dichotomy between Faith and works? Why are works opposed to the very Faith that produces them?

Truly--I have never understood the Protestant hang-up with with works and why Protestants oppose works to Faith as though works are totally and completing unrelated to Faith and have nothing to do with it.

Because Ephesians 2:8. But you should already know this.

Your own works cannot contribute to salvation. Humans are flesh by definition and the flesh is hostile to the will of God. For this reason, your own works are as filthy rags and your own works are useless to help you.

And that's why:

for it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.
Philippians 2:13

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works which God prepares beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10

The born of God children of God do not do their own works. Those works stink; they are dead works. Rather, they do as Jesus taught and deny themselves to do the will and works of God. Just as Jesus did not do his own works but only did his Father's works, the children of God do not do their own works, and they do not want to do their own works. Rather, they do God's works, His righteousness, the righteousness of God. His works are not filthy rags and His children do His works and not their own works. As He is, so also are they in this world.

And the natural man simply cannot comprehend the difference between his own works which he does by his own design for God, and God's works which He prepares for them to do.

People also tend to squabble without acknowledging one basic fact. Ephesians 2:8 is one thing. Hebrews 9:28 is another. James has the latter in mind not the former.

So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time without respect to sin, to save those who eagerly await him. Hebrews 9:28

 

[bluedog1us]

Okay, and what I do not understand---is WHY exactly----works that are the product of Faith should be divorced from the very Faith that produced them and have no saving value.

Why do Protestants draw a dichotomy between Faith and works? Why are works opposed to the very Faith that produces them?

Truly--I have never understood the Protestant hang-up with with works and why Protestants oppose works to Faith as though works are totally and completing unrelated to Faith and have nothing to do with it.

Because (1)...John 6:
28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”

29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.

Acts 16:
30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

2. You can't figure out our thing about works because your religion tells you that by works you can merit eternal life. Scripture nowhere says that. Yet you believe a religion that totally denies the gospel of Jesus Christ, as per the canons of the council of Trent. And you never will figure it out until you are born again by the Spirit, by grace through Faith.

Without being born again, and becoming a child of God it is impossible to do ANY good works. Just like those in Matt. 7.

 

[mica]

Those aren't straw men. Faith alone is everything in the Protestant system. I showed an example of this.

Um, yeah--that is just my point:

1) The Protestant assumes that it is NOT eisegesis to interpret Romans as teaching justification by Faith alone

2) The Protestant argues in a circle anyway. They prove justification by Faith alone using the Bible, then prove the Bible using justification by Faith alone.

In other words--the Protestant has already concluded that the Bible teaches justification by Faith alone-----they then read Romans and go "See? Here is the Scriptural proof for justification by Faith alone!"

Here is the thing:

The minute you have decided that James should be interpreted in light of ROMANS rather than ROMANS being interpreted in light of James---you have interpreted Scripture through a lens. You talk about comparing Scripture with Scripture. That is fine. But who decides WHICH Scriptures to compare WHICH Scriptures to? WHO decided that when deciding what the Book of James means----that------Romans should be the interpretive lens through which to understand James? Why can't we read Romans in light of James instead? That's right: your interpretive lens forbids this.

you post in circles.

 

[Stella1000]

AND answered your question. As a matter of fact, he could not have been clearer and it could not have been answered any better..

A new day said:
When it comes to morality, we seek what God says about moral and spiritual issues. And we do this by looking to see what HE has said in Scripture. HE is the one who set the bar and boundaries where moral issues are concerned.

The reason I asked was because I wanted to know how the theory works in practice. We live in this world and have to face issues that were never even issues 2000 years ago. I wanted to know how one is meant to give account on issues with authentic Christian witness. Issues like the morality of IVF or the morality of contraception, stem cell or artificial intelligence technology, pornography. When someone says to you (or A New Day) what is the Christian position on these things, how do you give an answer, a witness? Just saying 'read the bible and you'll know' seems to me to be a poor answer in giving account.

I understand why he replied the way he did. You do not listen to, nor do you accept anything that you do not want to hear. You quote the Scriptures when it suits your purpose and turn around and reject it in favor of whatever the world has to say about any given subject.

MATT 15:7 Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

I may be wrong, however, in my opinion you have the dubious distinction of being called out for this more than any other of your fellow rc's. Well, at least since the time you arrived at this forum.

Every response you've ever made to me since I arrived has been equally rude and snarky so don't try and pretend it's because of something other than I'm a Catholic.

 

[romishpopishorganist]

Because (1)...John 6:
28Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?”

29Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.

Acts 16:
30Then he brought them out and said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

31And they said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

2. You can't figure out our thing about works because your religion tells you that by works you can merit eternal life. Scripture nowhere says that. Yet you believe a religion that totally denies the gospel of Jesus Christ, as per the canons of the council of Trent. And you never will figure it out until you are born again by the Spirit, by grace through Faith.

Without being born again, and becoming a child of God it is impossible to do ANY good works. Just like those in Matt. 7.

No one is denying that belief in the one whom God has sent, namely Jesus, is absolutely necessary for salvation. No one is suggesting that one can be saved without belief in Jesus, or that human good works in and of themselves save.

But to go from "This is the word of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent" to "Therefore works are not saving" strikes me as an unjustifable leap in logic.

 

[Our Lord's God]

No one is denying that belief in the one whom God has sent, namely Jesus, is absolutely necessary for salvation. No one is suggesting that one can be saved without belief in Jesus, or that human good works in and of themselves save.

But to go from "This is the word of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent" to "Therefore works are not saving" strikes me as an unjustifable leap in logic.

For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God not of works, so that no one may boast.

 

[bluedog1us]

No one is denying that belief in the one whom God has sent, namely Jesus, is absolutely necessary for salvation. No one is suggesting that one can be saved without belief in Jesus, or that human good works in and of themselves save.

But to go from "This is the word of God, that you believe in Him who He has sent" to "Therefore works are not saving" strikes me as an unjustifable leap in logic.

How do works save you? What can you do to save yourself by doing works? How do works ADD to one's salvation? One is either born again or NOT born again. And without being born again all one's works are as filthy rags to the Lord! How many piles of filthy rags does it take to please God and merit your salvation? Paul, Peter, and none of the other apostles stood on a street corner selling dirty rags. They preached the gospel, which is salvation by grace through faith, PERIOD. They NEVER mentioned anything needed to be added to Christ's finished atonement on the cross for salvation. One can either trust Jesus and what He did on the cross, or one's self for salvation, one saves the other condemns! And what leap in logic. Like I said one saves and one damns one to hell. IF man could save himself Christ would not have had to die to save us. Its really pretty simple but people want to be in charge of their salvation, which is not possible.

 

[A new day]

Every response you've ever made to me since I arrived has been equally rude and snarky so don't try and pretend it's because of something other than I'm a Catholic.

re: post # 86

Good gravy train! Just because someone posts in any thread, does not automatically mean that person is being rude or snarky. As someone else said "If you are so thinned skinned that you think a response is 'targeting' you, maybe an internet discussion board isn't the place for you."

Where in the post did leonard quote you or respond to you? Where did he say anything rude or snarky? You jumped all over him for simply posting Scripture. He quoted me specifically, because something in my post reminded him of those verses and he posted them for me to see.

Nothing in the carm rules, say a person must reply to a post instantly. If you want instant feed back, go find a chat room where you will get instant feedback in real time. A message board is for the purpose of leaving a message and others can either read or reply to it at their leisure when they have time to read or respond.

Secular experts are very important in addressing these issues. Without that input we'd have to accept scriptures authority

What is hypocritical, is the fact that rc' posters in this forum keep telling us that we are to look to and depend upon "the one true church", because it has authority. rc's claim to be worshiping God, but then you make the above statement that the rcc needs the advice and input from atheists all the while telling others who are non-rc, that they need to look to the rcc for answers.

The above quote also sounds as if checking with how God's views such things is a terrible thing, so lets seek spiritual and moral advice from an atheist who doesn't believe God exists and is determined to prove our existence without God being involved. An atheist is an enemy of God.

John 3:31
The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.

So what does He say about IVF in Scripture?

Whenever any of us non-rc's have posted Scripture, you have been quick to correct us with what "rcc history" and "rcc tradition says" and point us into those directions, in an attempt to prove that Scripture is not reliable. Yes you quote it when you think a one liner will go in your favor. And since Scripture does not mention IVF or abortion, you thought yourself smart by asking the above question that would be unanswerable from the biblical perspective proving sources outside of Scripture being more weighty.

When we read Scripture as a whole, and not in tiny pieces here and there; we can see that God greatly values children who are born and the unborn alike and not just children but ALL human life. It isn't hard to come to the conclusion from Scripture that ALL of these worldly concern's where embryonic stem cells and abortion is concerned; take away human life and therefore wrong.

An atheist speaks from a carnal and ungodly perspective. They care to a point, but NOT from God's perspective. They care nothing about how God sees and feels about these. So an atheist can not truly give input from a moral position, nor can the atheist give input from a spiritual position, because both of these require God's perspective, for HE is the one who set morality and spiritual measures in place.

So why would you seek spiritual and moral guidance from the world who is at enmity with God?

On the issue of pornography. Scripture strongly condemns all sex, outside the boundaries of marriage between a man and a woman. God instituted marriage and intended for the married couple to experience and enjoy sexual intimacy as part of marriage. Porno, always occurs outside of the bounds of marriage, and thus we can see from Scripture which condemns sex outside of marriage, of viewing pornography as wrong.

On the issue of AI, just as people in bible times, made things from wood, metal and stone. So today's activity really isn't new. For such things are futile imaginings of worshiping the work of human hands which can never outdo, the creative power of God. A robot will NEVER have a soul and spirit, like humans do; for man can not create or cause anything done by man to have a soul and spirit.