Can you imagine this!

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 28 2004, 04:10 PM'] Yes - it is a Law, and if we neglect it after we come to faith, or if parents neglect it for their children, they commit grave sin thereby.

However, Christ did not come to take away the 'hard law' of the Old Testament and give us the 'easy law' of the New Covenant. He came to FULFILL THE LAW, so that we may be saved by [b]grace. [/b]

Yes, we must obey the commandments of God. But we are [b]NOT JUSTIFIED THEREBY. [/b]

This is a Pelgaian blasphemy. We do not receive grace as a reward for faith and works. We receive grace so that we may have faith that works by love. [/quote]
You do not know the difference between justification and salvation.

Again, you get a failing grade for not studying.

Ichy maybe you think you know it all, but we don't learn by osmosis, you actually have to read and be able to retain what you read.

You are wrong. It has been shown to you, yet you do not understand. Maybe one day you'll get the bright idea to study.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Dec 28 2004, 07:47 PM'] You do not know the difference between justification and salvation.

Again, you get a failing grade for not studying.

Ichy maybe you think you know it all, but we don't learn by osmosis, you actually have to read and be able to retain what you read.

You are wrong. It has been shown to you, yet you do not understand. Maybe one day you'll get the bright idea to study. [/quote]
You offer no argumentation, you simply say "I do not know the difference"

YOU, sir, get a failing grade for being a goof.

I know the difference. I simply do not accept Rome's definitions of the terms. If you wish to argue, then bloody well offer argumentation to the things I say, and don't just say "youre wrong".

Apotheoun, I would be more than happy to discuss this issue with you, as it seems you are well prepared for scholarly discussion of this topic.

Edited December 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Archangel' date='Dec 28 2004, 06:39 PM'] We know "faith alone" isn't going to do it. 

James 2:24 - [b]See how a person is justified by works and [u]not by faith alone[/u].[/b] [/quote]
Of course we're not justified by a bare, alone faith.

Faith is the alone instrument of justification. But that faith is never alone, but works through love (Gal 5:6) We do not deny James 2:24

Edited December 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Apotheoun]

It is grace alone that justifies a man, for grace causes both faith and good works.

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 28 2004, 09:04 PM'] It is grace alone that justifies a man, for grace causes both faith and good works. [/quote]
Grace, through the [i]instrument of faith, yes. [/i] As we believe, faith is the alone instrument of justification. Grace brings about those works, but those works do not justify us.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 28 2004, 07:21 PM'] Grace, through the [i]instrument of faith, yes. [/i] As we believe, faith is the alone instrument of justification. Grace brings about those works, but those works do not justify us. [/quote]
No, because the sacraments are instruments of grace as well, and so faith alone is not sufficient to justify a man; instead, he must be incorporated into Christ's body and the ordinary means for achieving that is the sacrament of Baptism.

God bless,
Todd

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 28 2004, 09:25 PM'] No, because the sacraments are instruments of grace as well, and so faith alone is not sufficient to justify a man; instead, he must be incorporated into Christ's body and the ordinary means for achieving that is the sacrament of Baptism.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Argh..this is going to be a much more complicated discussion than I thought, due to differing Sacramentological views.

How would you go about beginning such a discussion, Todd, with differing views on the nature and effects of Baptism such as we have? Where should be the beginning point for a discussion/debate on the nature of justification? I'm at a loss, since your view of justification is inexorably tied in with the Sacrament of Baptism. I agree with [i]a form[/i] of Baptismal Regeneration (for more information on my view, read the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism), but not ex opere operato, like Rome's view.

Edited December 29, 2004 by ICTHUS

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 28 2004, 09:55 PM'] Argh..this is going to be a much more complicated discussion than I thought, due to differing Sacramentological views.

How would you go about beginning such a discussion, Todd, with differing views on the nature and effects of Baptism such as we have? Where should be the beginning point for a discussion/debate on the nature of justification? I'm at a loss, since your view of justification is inexorably tied in with the Sacrament of Baptism. I agree with [i]a form[/i] of Baptismal Regeneration (for more information on my view, read the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism), but not ex opere operato, like Rome's view. [/quote]
One could begin by an investigation of the threefold nature of a sacrament; or could focus perhaps on a sacrament as an action of Christ [i]in[/i], [i]with[/i], and [i]through[/i], His mystical body, the Church; or one could focus on the ancient view of signs as containing the reality of the thing that they signify.

But regardless, I feel compelled to add that since my conversion to Catholicism I have been baffled by the Protestant rejection of the doctrine that the sacraments work [i]ex opere operato[/i], because this doctrine protects against both the Donatist heresy and Pelagianism. The efficacy of the sacraments is based upon Christ's own institution and His continued action within the Church, and not upon any subjective disposition or presumed holiness of the priest celebrant, or of the recipient of the sacrament in question.

God bless,
Todd

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 29 2004, 01:46 AM'] But regardless, I feel compelled to add that since my conversion to Catholicism I have been baffled by the Protestant rejection of the doctrine that the sacraments work [i]ex opere operato[/i], because this doctrine protects against both the Donatist heresy and Pelagianism. The efficacy of the sacraments is based upon Christ's own institution and His continued action within the Church, and not upon any subjective disposition or presumed holiness of the priest celebrant, or of the recipient of the sacrament in question.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
I wanted to point something out here. You say that the doctrine of ex opere operato protects against Pelagianism. I would disagree.

However, I think we should start another thread to discuss this. What about a thread on the nature of Baptism?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 29 2004, 12:12 AM'] I wanted to point something out here. You say that the doctrine of ex opere operato protects against Pelagianism. I would disagree.

However, I think we should start another thread to discuss this. What about a thread on the nature of Baptism? [/quote]
It protects against Pelagianism because the sacraments are not "our" works; instead, they are Christ's works [i]in[/i], [i]with[/i], and [i]through[/i] His Church. The energies of the celebrant, or of the recipient of the sacrament for that matter, are not the primary cause of the grace contained within the sacred mystery; rather, Christ is the cause.

God bless,
Todd

[ICTHUS]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Dec 29 2004, 02:24 AM'] It protects against Pelagianism because the sacraments are not "our" works; instead, they are Christ's works [i]in[/i], [i]with[/i], and [i]through[/i] His Church. The energies of the celebrant, or of the recipient of the sacrament for that matter, are not the primary cause of the grace contained within the sacred mystery; rather, Christ is the cause.

God bless,
Todd [/quote]
Okay...let's discuss this in the thread I started for this purpose

Peace,
Ryan

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='ICTHUS' date='Dec 29 2004, 12:12 AM']However, I think we should start another thread to discuss this. What about a thread on the nature of Baptism?[/quote]

I think it is better to first work out the theology of the sacraments in general, and then move on to particular sacraments. The Protestant understanding of signs and symbols is impoverished, and so when a Protestant speaks about a sacrament, he talks about something very different from what an Eastern (or even a Western) Catholic would believe.

God bless,
Todd

[Don John of Austria]

once agian on topic Crusader1234 do you have an answer.

[crusader1234]

My comments about only the protestors and such being able to fight in such a war were not meant in the way you interpreted them. I was using this example to illustrate my point that most of the people that talk like they're all about Pro-Life causes and would support a war against abortionists really haven't done much in the beginning.

I typed out a long, exhaustive, boring response - but in the end I had digressed far past your original question (technically not a question but whatever) and decided to reel it back in. You made a point about a war on abortion being morally obligatory, and that being debatable. What about working against abortion now, before a war is called? In all honesty, since the beginning of this debate, how much time (excluding prayer) have you devoted to the cause of the unborn?

[quote][b]2308[/b] All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. [/quote]

So in the end, I agree that a war would be morally permissible, but all Catholics should be trying to stop abortion before war called - which simply is not happening.