12 Apr 07
Originally posted by SALADINThe question should be are Catholics saved all of them. Because the Bible says that if you are a Christian you are saved. And yet they still try to work their way to heaven when you don't have to.
ok... a debate has sort of started in the Debates forum stating that Catholics are NOT Christians?
i am really finding this hard to get my head round... can anyone here help me understand?
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by RBHILLFaith without works is dead.
The question should be are Catholics saved all of them. Because the Bible says that if you are a Christian you are saved. And yet they still try to work their way to heaven when you don't have to.
The only Catholics I ever met who were actually trying to work their way into heaven were nuns (not all nuns, just a couple of them). But if you are "saved" and yet do no good works, then are you really being a good Christian? It's not about trying to get into heaven. It's about trying to make the world here a better place.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by reader1107What is Christian?
Faith without works is dead.
The only Catholics I ever met who were actually trying to work their way into heaven were nuns (not all nuns, just a couple of them). But if you are "saved" and yet do no good works, then are you really being a good Christian? It's not about trying to get into heaven. It's about trying to make the world here a better place.
12 Apr 07
Originally posted by reader1107Works come after you accept Christ.
Faith without works is dead.
The only Catholics I ever met who were actually trying to work their way into heaven were nuns (not all nuns, just a couple of them). But if you are "saved" and yet do no good works, then are you really being a good Christian? It's not about trying to get into heaven. It's about trying to make the world here a better place.
13 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdThanks for pointing out even more reasons why we need the Magisterium of the Church, although this might not be your original intention ..... 😉
Just to broaden this a bit—since not everyone who rejects the notion of sola scriptura, or biblical literalism/inerrancy is Roman Catholic 🙂—one needs to look at the tradition, particularly the patristic period. However, when one does look there, one finds, I think, what Jaroslav Pelikan called a somewhat “pluralistic tradition.”
When people clai ...[text shortened]... fact, say what one thought it did, no matter how invested with the Spirit one thought s/he was.
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by ivanhoeWell, no it wasn’t... 😉
Thanks for pointing out even more reasons why we need the Magisterium of the Church, although this might not be your original intention ..... 😉
I still have a bit of the “protestant principle” in me. But I think sola scriptura is/was an error, at least as it developed with/after the reformation. I think it is a bit blind to ignore how the church and tradition have read the scriptures, and from them—as well as early oral tradition—arrived at doctrinal articulations. (in my case, especially in the East; although, despite the fact that Augustine was not followed so closely in the East, there was in the patristic era only one church).
14 Apr 07
Originally posted by SALADINAre you familiar with the logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman"?
ok... a debate has sort of started in the Debates forum stating that Catholics are NOT Christians?
i am really finding this hard to get my head round... can anyone here help me understand?
Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
It seems like this is sort of the same thing. Some Protestants say "No True Christian would have images of Jesus in the church" and the like. Therefore, they decide Catholics aren't "True Christians". However from the perspective of an outside observer, of course they are.
It's like if a Shi'ite were to say that a Sunni wasn't Muslim because he's Sunni and not Shi'ite...I think.
14 Apr 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoung[/i]Rec'd. I'm going to steal this to start a thread...
Are you familiar with the logical fallacy called "No True Scotsman"?
[i]Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journa o say that a Sunni wasn't Muslim because he's Sunni and not Shi'ite...I think.