Catholic/Protestant/Anabaptist

[aragtaghooligan]

I read all that thank you for the history lesson. I have one question what do you all believe the relationship between faith and works is? You mention these a few times in this thread and I was a little confused and worried. I believe an apple tree is the perfect explanation for my belief on this subject. An apple tree does not become alive and healthy by producing apples but by receiving nutrients (water/ good soil) and good pruning from the gardener. When this happens it produces apples. We do not become Christians/ Believers/ Saved by being good people or producing good works but by coming to know the Lord and this relationship changes us and causes us to do good. When we sin or when an apple rots you do not glue on fake fruit but you deal with the heart issue. What do you all think?

[Miss Friendship]

That's a great example. I believe that works is a result of salvation. So if we have a saved person with no works, I would question whether they are truly saved or not, but yes, its not works that save you...

I should point out we are saved twice. Once by Jesus, a transforming of our life, (salvation) but also we are going to be saved again on Judgment Day from the lake of fire. And it appears then the judgement will be on our works.

So works doesn't save you, and yet it does. Am I making sense?

[aragtaghooligan]

Uh that makes sense except the belief about judgment day I don't have an end times belief but hmm

[Miss Friendship]

Oh I am pretty sure all end time beliefs include the Judgment Day. Its specifically mentioned in scripture.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Sorry for being so late in responding but an important distinction I would make is that the works and participation in the Sacraments are the normative way by which we receive grace. So it is a synergistic act between us and God, us doing works and receiving the Sacrament and God through those things giving us grace. So in your example growing the apples is not just the end result but a part of the process as well.

[aragtaghooligan]

I'm confused, so if someone couldn't take communion (maybe they are allergic to gluten or they can't go to church because they are sick maybe even continually so like they live in a long term care facility or something) then they can't be forgiven? In my tradition communion is more of a reminder of the grace we've already received just by believing.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I've had friends who are allergic to gluten who are still able to take communion. If someone is sick then the Deacon takes communion to them.

No of course they aren't barred from forgiveness, this is just the normative way to receive forgiveness and grace. I just don't see anywhere in Scripture or the Early Church where communion is just a symbol.

[aragtaghooligan]

You say normative a lot in these conversations, what does it mean exactly?

I just feel like you lean too heavily on what we have to do and it goes against Ephesians 2:8-9. (For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.)

You said "So it is a synergistic act between us and God, us doing works and receiving the Sacrament and God through those things giving us grace." That doesn't make sense to me. I mean I know what synergy means but it still doesn't make sense. It sounds like you think people have to do something to solidify their salvation which again, goes against Ephesians 2: 8-9 which says that we receive grace through faith not works.

I mean know you say it is ultimately grace but you make it sound like we can't recieve that grace if we don't do certain things. Kind of like how in the OT people had to follow all the laws, and if they didn't follow the laws they had to do certain sacrifices.

One of the interesting things I found when reading Leviticus was that even though it is known as this book of crazy laws over and over again it says that it is God who makes us holy, not we who make ourselves holy by obeying laws. But back then we had to obey the laws for God to make us holy. (An example of what I'm talking about is Leviticus 21:8 "You shall sanctify him, for he offers the bread of your God. He shall be holy to you, for I, the LORD, who sanctify you, am holy.") That sounds like what you are talking about. We earn our salvation by doing works and because of these works God offers us the grace of making us holy. But that is the OT way not the now way.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Normative means the standard way of doing things. So for example the thief on the Cross who confessed God went to paradise with Him but we wouldn't consider that the standard way of becoming and being a Christian.

Grace is the gift of God, we in no way earn that grace and our Salvation is not earned by our works. But our actions draw us closer to God and God gifts us with His grace through the Sacraments. God does what He wills so of course He could and does give us His grace without us doing these works but us doing them is the normative.

God does make us holy but He doesn't do it without our consent, that would defeat the whole purpose. We don't earn our salvation, we could never do that. But we do participate in our sanctification.

[aragtaghooligan]

Ok, that makes sense, except one thing. If it is possible to do it all in a way other than what is normative then why is it so important to do the normative thing?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Because it's still the best way. As I said the thief on the cross was saved but people don't argue that we should wait until we're dying. The issue should not be what is the least we can do but what is the most.

[aragtaghooligan]

Hmmmm but why is it better to not wait until we die? It's not about being better or holier you get heaven at the end and so does that thief, but you got a whole life with Jesus where he only got a death and an eternal afterlife with Jesus. The fact that God's way is best for us is something I think we need to focus on more. It's not some weird fuzzy vague oh this is what we should do. There is a reason why we should do it. Although sometimes I can understand why God's way is better and feel happier doing his way and sometimes I don't, but that's another story all together.

[Blitz]

Yawns, MF the Catholic church is big on tradition which can explain a lot of the things they do that are iffy.
Also indulgences are no more 'sold'. People still give huge amounts of money to the Catholic Church to cover their sins. Personal experience of all my extended family. A lot of them.

[Eleventh Doctor]

People give money to religious organizations of all types to cover their sins.

[aragtaghooligan]

I do not see why there being a larger variety of places being donated to in this vein makes it better.

[Eleventh Doctor]

My point is that this is not a uniquely Catholic thing and has more to do with the type of individual making the donation rather than the organization

[aragtaghooligan]

Oh ok, thanks for clarifying but I have never heard of anyone donating to charity to cover their sins, maybe so they can stop feeling guilty but that is two different things. I have been told over and over that the catholic church promotes maybe not theologically, but experientially, a life style of earning salvation. I don't know if that is true or not, but I do know that attempting to earn salvation through works is different than then when someone forgets the salvation they already have, starts to feel guilty, and then donates to feel better. Both are actually bad. The motivation should be love. But they are sort of different.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I disagree with Catholics on several issues but I want to make sure we disagree on issues they actually hold and I can say that they do not promote a life style of earning salvation. I would disagree with that. Now I'm sure some hold to that view but just as errant views in Protestantism shouldn't be viewed as representative of Protestantism as a whole, neither should these views be held as representing Catholicism as a whole.

[aragtaghooligan]

ok, cool, thank you.

[Tarol]

Your Bible vs the Catholic Bible may be what jehoshaphat wants to know but I don't know who decided what books would be in the Protestant Bible. I am genuinely curious.

I know this is really old, but I thought I'd answer it real quick... The difference between the (I guess I'll call it:) Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is the Catholic Bible has 7 more books in it's Old Testament compared to the Protestant's. The reason the Catholic Bible has 46 books is because the Jewish canon during the very early Church contained 46 books (the Septuagint has 46 books). However, in AD 90 and 118, the Jews held two councils, and confirmed a canon of 24 books. Martin Luther, during the Protestant Reformation, researched the current Jewish canon at his time, and found it had only 24 books. Luther decided to return to the original canon rather than the traditional Christian canon. Some of the 24 books were split up (such as turning Kings into 1 & 2 Kings), and it turned into the 39 books in the Protestant Bible.

(from: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/ask ... jun01.html)