HOME | DD

ThatOneGuy92 In reply to ??? [2009-12-18 21:39:59 +0000 UTC]

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

FaeTian In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 05:03:10 +0000 UTC]

Wow, that is really gorgeous! The colours are simply amazing. Well done!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to FaeTian [2010-03-09 17:37:21 +0000 UTC]

Awww, thank you so much!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlaineKatsura In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 03:33:20 +0000 UTC]

Is it true that the tradition of the Immaculate conception teaches that Mary was sinless?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-06-11 15:19:06 +0000 UTC]

No, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception held by the Catholic Church does not teach Mary was sinless. "Technically" speaking, but it is implied as the logical basis for her remaining sinless. But "technically"speaking, what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception DOES teach is that Mary was concieved without originial sin. "The dogma states that, from the first moment of her existence, Mary was preserved by God from the lack of sanctifying grace that afflicts mankind and that she was instead filled with divine grace. It is further said by Catholics that she lived a life completely free from sin." ([link] )

I hope that answers your question.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-06-15 05:13:04 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for answering my question.


Only God is perfect. Romans 3:10 says, "As it is written, 'There is none righteous, no, not one."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-06-15 15:45:05 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome! ^^

Well, you must define "perfect" here of course. "Perfect" for God, is a different kind of "perfect" for us.

And this passage doesn't prove anything, it doesn't even support the statement you made about God being perfect.

And when giving evidence from Scripture, you cannot simply isolate a passage and take it out of context. For example, I could isolate this passage and purport that "Oh, if NO one is holy or righteous, that means not even God is holy or righteous!." Right? So, let's look at this. So what is Paul saying in his letter to the Romans here?

If you look at a lot of Paul's writings, he makes his points sharply, poignantly, and he strikes right at the heart of the matter. Paul isn't quoting the psalms to say everyone sucks. No. What issue is he addressing?

In the early Christian communities there was a huge dispute about the relationship between Jews and gentiles. And Paul had to contend with this issue, because many early Christians said that you had to be circumcised and under the Law of Moses to be a true Christian, etc. That's rather besides the point but its background. So this is what Paul starst Romans 3 out with: "What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God." and in Romans 3:9 he continues this vein of thought: "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin."

Paul is making a point. And his point was made. Like I said, you should not isolate Scripture passages and put them forward like that. You have to read them and interpret them within their context.

As to your assertion though: "But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy." 1 Peter 1:15-16

And throughout the Epistles the people of God are often refered to as the "holy ones."

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-06-17 06:17:35 +0000 UTC]

We are made holy by God's grace and blood.

Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

We cannot be perfect while we are still in the flesh. We can only be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-06-18 00:04:32 +0000 UTC]

"We are made holy by God's grace and blood."

I didn't dispute that.

"We cannot be perfect while we are still in the flesh."

You will have to define what you mean by "in the flesh."

And you still have to define "perfect."

"We can only be saved by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ."

Once again, I didn't dispute this.

Again, you are taking Scripture passages out of context and applying them universally to all theological aspects of the faith. Once again, Paul is addressing the issue of who is better, the circumcised Jews or the uncircumcised gentiles. The context of Romans 3:23 is, well, let's just look at it:

"But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus."

What he is talking abou here is that, "Hey, guys, it doesn't matter if you're circumcised or uncircumcised because Christ came to fulfill the Law, and we believe in Christ! So you don't have to go from the old, imperfect law anymore." That's what he's saying.

But we were originally discussing the Immaculate Conception, not Mary's sinlessness. So, let's see what the Scriptures say about it.

I know we've had this discussion before, centered particularly around the Greek word, "kecharitomene" in Luke 1:28.

"In other words, the perfect tense in Greek is a past tense with a special meaning: it is used to refer to a past action which has effects felt in the present. So, here's what some modern, English-speaking scholars tell us "Kecharitomene" denotes, based purely on the definition of the word and its grammatical usage:

" 'Highly favoured' (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians 1:6 . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena [full of grace] "is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow' " (A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, p. 14)

"It is permissible, on Greek grammatical and linguistic grounds, to paraphrase kecharitomene as completely, perfectly, enduringly endowed with grace." (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament).

However, Luke 1:28 uses a special conjugated form of "charitoo." It uses "kecharitomene," while Ephesians 1:6 uses "echaritosen," which is a different form of the verb "charitoo." Echaritosen means "he graced" (or bestowed grace). Echaritosen signifies a momentary action, an action brought to pass (Blass and DeBrunner, Greek Grammar of the New Testament, p. 166). Whereas, Kecharitomene, the perfect passive participle, shows a completeness with a permanent result. Kecharitomene denotes continuance of a completed action (H. W. Smyth, Greek Grammar [Harvard Univ Press, 1968], p. 108-109, sec 1852:b; also Blass and DeBrunner, p. 175). ([link] )

Perhaps this gets at the heart of what we're talking about, but what does it mean to be perfectly and fully endowed with, to be "full of grace"? What does that mean?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-06-20 18:03:27 +0000 UTC]

To be full of grace means to be filled with the Holy Spirit that God has given us. We are each given a measure of faith and God makes our faith grow. Despite that we are still human and we make mistakes because we are still in our fleshly bodies. God disciplines us and shows us where we went wrong and gives us the opportunity to repent. He looks on us with compassion and will not leave us even when we are struggling with certain sins. He is abounding in love and mercy and wants us to come to Him and pour out everything in our hearts to Him and He heals us.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-06-21 18:07:46 +0000 UTC]

"To be full of grace means to be filled with the Holy Spirit that God has given us."

Okay, so what does that mean? What does being filled with the Holy Spirit mean? What does it imply or entail? If a human being was perfecctly, completely and fully "graced" ("kecharitomene.") what would that do? Would you have sin? Would there be any room for sin if you were completely filled with God's Spirit?

So, what does it mean to be full of the Spirit?

"We are each given a measure of faith and God makes our faith grow. Despite that we are still human and we make mistakes because we are still in our fleshly bodies. God disciplines us and shows us where we went wrong and gives us the opportunity to repent. He looks on us with compassion and will not leave us even when we are struggling with certain sins. He is abounding in love and mercy and wants us to come to Him and pour out everything in our hearts to Him and He heals us."

With this you are getting rather off topic. I'm tryign to just focus on this one definition. That's all you have to give me. I'm not arguing that God is merciful, loving and compassionate. That didn't even come up in this conversation. I don't dispute that. You wanted to talk about Mary and the Catholic beliefs about her Immaculate Conception and sinlessness. I'm trying to oblige you.

I would like to address one thing you said though (more of a clarification) when you say: "Despite that we are still human and we make mistakes because we are still in our fleshly bodies" are you talking about concupiscence?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-07-04 14:02:08 +0000 UTC]

To be full of the Holy Spirit means that we have been born again. We are still human and we do sin, but we should not desire to sin. Concupiscence is we still desire to sin. I'm not talking about it at all.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-07-09 15:34:28 +0000 UTC]

Again, please explain what you mean by saying "born again." What does being "born again" entail? What does it mean? What particular traits accompany being "born again"? Is it a state of being? Was the angel Gabriel saying, "Hail, born again!"?

Catholics and Protestants have different definitions of concupiscense. "As a result of original sin, according to Catholics, human nature has not been totally corrupted (as opposed to the teaching of Luther and Calvin); rather, human nature has only been weakened and wounded, subject to ignorance, suffering, the domination of death, and the inclination to sin and evil (CCC 405, 418). This inclination toward sin and evil is called "concupiscence" (CCC 405, 418). Baptism, Catholics believe, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God. The inclination toward sin and evil persists, however, and he must continue to struggle against concupiscence (CCC 2520)." ([link] )

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-07-15 03:46:29 +0000 UTC]

If you have been born again, the Holy Spirit has regenerated you and made you a new creature (2 Corinthians 5:17). Before Pentecost, the Holy Spirit would come on someone, but not in a person (Psalm 51:11).

Baptism does not make a man turn to God. God does that Himself. Baptism is only an outward sign of what has already happened inside.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-07-18 00:33:35 +0000 UTC]

Okay, once again, I believe we are getting off on tangents, our originial discussion was about the Immaculate Conception. Perhaps we ought to try and start off in a new direction. So what exactly are you disputing?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2010-07-19 03:56:57 +0000 UTC]

How can a human being be redeemed while in the womb, when we can only be saved by grace through faith?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-07-19 05:15:19 +0000 UTC]

Well, the short answer to that is very simple: God.

After all, with God, all things are possible, yes?

But I'm sure you just don't want a simple explanation. I assume you want to know how that's theologically possible. Alright, there are several variables in this rather complex equation, so let's look at that, but first I think I'd like to address the differences between how Protestants and Catholics view salvation, becauseit is VERY different with an incredible amount of implications. And since salvation is at the essence of this question, let's look at it.

But first, for clarity's sake, I'm going to quote/type up some propositions of what Protestants believe about salvation, if you disagree, want to clarify, or add anything to it, please feel free. There's no point in arguing against a position that the other person does not believe, so I want to be clear.

For salvation, do you believe in Sola fide? (salvation by faith alone)?

I'm going to use the definition by Wikipedia, because I think it is a very good one:

"The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith, conceived as excluding all "works", alone. All humanity, it is asserted, is fallen and sinful, under the curse of God, and incapable of saving itself from God's wrath and curse. But God, on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of his Son, Jesus Christ alone (solus Christus), grants sinners judicial pardon, or justification, which is received solely through faith. Faith is seen as passive, merely receiving Christ and all his benefits, among which benefits are the active and passive righteousness of Jesus Christ. Christ's righteousness is imputed (or attributed) by God to the believing sinner (as opposed to infused or imparted), so that the divine verdict and pardon of the believing sinner is based not upon anything in the sinner, nor even faith itself, but upon Jesus Christ and his righteousness alone, which are received through faith alone. Justification is by faith alone and is distinguished from the other graces of salvation. See the Protestant ordo salutis for more detail on the doctrine of salvation considered more broadly than justification by faith alone." (Wikipedia [link] )

This also gets into the relationship between faith and works but I don't think we need to get into that with our present topic.

This same link has a very good chart distinguishing how different groups view salvation under the heading "Works of the Law" Please look at it and compare it to the "Lutheran" view of salvation.

[link]

That will simply help you to understand the Catholic view of salvation. Unlike most Protestants, we believe that justification and sanctification are part of the same process; NOT that we are justified in one single event and then spend the rest of our lives being sanctified. Does that make sense?

Our views of sin are also different, and therefore the ways in which we can be saved from sin are different as well.

"Many Protestants teach[who?] that, due to original sin, humanity has lost any and all capacity to move towards reconciliation with God (Romans 3:23;6:23; Ephesians 2:1-3); in fact, this inborn sin turns humans away from God and towards themselves and their own desires (Isaiah 53:6a). Thus, humans may be brought back into a relationship with God only by way of God's rescuing the sinner from his/her hopeless condition (Galatians 5:17-21; Ephesians 2:4-10) through Jesus's ransom sacrifice (Romans 5:6-8; Colossians 2:13-15). Salvation is sola fide (by faith alone); sola gratia (by grace alone); and is begun and completed by God alone through Jesus (Ephesians 2:8,9). This understanding of original sin (Romans 5:12-19), is most closely associated with Calvinism (see total depravity) and Lutheranism. Calvinism allows for the "goodness" of humanity through the belief in God's common grace. Methodist theology adapts the concept by stating that humans, entirely sinful and totally depraved, can only "do good" through God's prevenient grace.

This is in contrast to the Catholic teaching that while sin has tarnished the original goodness of humanity prior to the Fall, it has not entirely extinguished that goodness, or at least the potential for goodness, allowing humans to reach towards God to share in the Redemption which Jesus Christ won for them. Some non-Catholic or Orthodox groups hold similar views."

So, to sum it up, traditional Protestantism teaches that after the Fall, human nature was completely and totally damaged and made corrupt. Not just becoming bad, but made evil.

The Catholic view is that originial sin did not corrupt human nature, but only damaged it severely, introducing personal sin and concupiscence.

Protestant view: The fall corrupted human nature.
Catholic view: The fall weakened human nature.

Both views have TONS of theological implications, as you can see. So to understand what we as Catholics believe about the Immaculate conception, you have to understand how we view sin and salvation. I hope I've helped you understand our view. If you have any questions or need any clarifications in that regard, I'd be more than happy to help you.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches on the Immaculate Conception:

"The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt* nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt* nature original sin brings."

*Note: "corrupt" used here means what I said about it weakening human nature, or damaging it. What it means by "corrupt" is concupiscence, which catholics define as fallen man's inclination towards sin. That's a very important clarification to make.

"Fundamentalists’ chief reason for objecting to the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s consequent sinlessness is that we are told that "all have sinned" (Rom. 3:23). Besides, they say, Mary said her "spirit rejoices in God my Savior" (Luke 1:47), and only a sinner needs a Savior.

Let’s take the second citation first. Mary, too, required a Savior. Like all other descendants of Adam, she was subject to the necessity of contracting original sin. But by a special intervention of God, undertaken at the instant she was conceived, she was preserved from the stain of original sin and its consequences. She was therefore redeemed by the grace of Christ, but in a special way—by anticipation.

Consider an analogy: Suppose a man falls into a deep pit, and someone reaches down to pull him out. The man has been "saved" from the pit. Now imagine a woman walking along, and she too is about to topple into the pit, but at the very moment that she is to fall in, someone holds her back and prevents her. She too has been saved from the pit, but in an even better way: She was not simply taken out of the pit, she was prevented from getting stained by the mud in the first place. This is the illustration Christians have used for a thousand years to explain how Mary was saved by Christ. By receiving Christ’s grace at her conception, she had his grace applied to her before she was able to become mired in original sin and its stain.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that she was "redeemed in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son" (CCC 492). She has more reason to call God her Savior than we do, because he saved her in an even more glorious manner!"

Does that answer your question? If you have any more, I'd be happy to answer them. Anyway, have a good day, and God bless!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2011-01-06 21:46:27 +0000 UTC]

Yes, I do believe in sola fide. Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."

Because of what Adam did, we are cursed by having sinful nature. Thus we have been corrupted by sin. There is no one who does good (Psalm 14:1-3, Romans 3:12). Luke 2:22-24 says, "And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord; (as it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord; ) and to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons."

Mary knew she was a sinner, just like the rest of us. According to the law of Moses, she offered two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sin offering (Leviticus 12).

Mary was saved by Jesus just like every one else who is a Christian: by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2011-01-06 22:57:51 +0000 UTC]

Once again, isolated Scripture passages cannot legitimately be put forward as the sole and complete teaching on one aspect of the Faith my friend. It needs to be considered within the WHOLE and ENTIRE context of Scripture. Each book of the Bible has its own aim, its own genre, its own audience, its own specific idea, or view, or point that it is addressing.

I think St. James does a perfectly good job of refuting the notion of Sola Fide:

"What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”

Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.

In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." – (James 2:14-26)

I think he is VERY clear about that.

Protestants and Catholics are in complete agreement about this: We do NOT earn salvation. We CAN'T. It is a completely unmerited, generous gift from a loving Father who sent His Son into the world to redeem us. It seems to me that many Protestants have this very mistaken notion about the relationship between faith and works. They seem to think that what Catholic’s mean by “works” are just ways of thinking we can somehow “earn” salvation. This is a gross distortion. As I said before, NO ONE CAN EARN SALVATION. Such an idea is preposterous. But when Luther was coming up with all this, what he saw were abuses and people thinking they could earn salvation. That would be the remnants of the Pelagian Heresy that was condemned by the Church at the Council of Carthage in 418. Basically, people bounce back from extreme to extreme. Pelagius saw that the heresy of Manichaeism was false. Manichaeism was basically a kind of resurgence of Gnosticism that declared that everything of the flesh, everything physical and corporeal was inherently evil, and that everything of the spirit was good. We were, essentially, spirits trapped in wicked fleshy bodies. This heresy later had resurgence in the form of the Albingensian heresy where people were encouraged to commit suicide and perform other horrific acts against their bodies (because of course they believed the body was evil). Obviously, that was wrong. But of course, as we humans do, Pelagius took his own extreme too far and said that humans taught that moral perfection was attainable in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will. St. Augustine addressed that in his own day and age by saying that moral perfection was NOT attainable without the help of Divine Grace, and of course, Martin Luther, being an Augustinian monk, would have been greatly influenced by him. But Luther didn’t follow Augustine’s happy medium, he ALSO took his views to the extremes and said that works are worthless and that ALL YOU NEED IS FAITH ALONE. Which St. James refutes.

When it all comes down to it, what Sola Fide practically says is that we do all just about Jack Squat. It pretty much denies free will and human choice. The only “choice” there seems to be is whether to “accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior” which is all hog-wash. There isn’t just ONE choice in human existence. We choose to do things everyday. We can choose to help our neighbor. We can choose to form good habits. WE HAVE FREE WILL. We can CHOOSE the good. We can. People do good things all the time. God’s grace assists the natural faculties He has already given us. His grace prompts us. But we are the ones who choose to listen and follow him or not.

Like I said before, the Catholic view is that salvation is a PROCESS, not an EVENT. We strive toward moral perfection with the help of God’s grace gradually. No one can become SNAP perfect and “saved” all at once. St. Paul says: “with fear and trembling work out your salvation" (Phi 2:12)

”According to the law of Moses, she offered two turtledoves or two young pigeons as a sin offering (Leviticus 12).”

And Jesus was baptized. Did he need it? No. Mary was a faithful follower of the law of Moses, therefore she obeyed the command to offer up two turtledoves. Did she need to do it? No. But they both did those things because they were obedient to the law.

Do you have any more questions or need any clarifications?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2011-01-07 06:59:39 +0000 UTC]

Also, for Philippians 2:12, Paul is saying that our works show the result of our salvation. We do have free will, but only to a certain extent. I we are in sin then we have no choice but to sin. We can agree that there are a lot of people who do good works. What is their motive though? Are they doing it to make themselves feel good? Or, if they are saved, is it the work of the Holy Spirit in them? He saves us according to His mercy, not by our works of righteousness (Titus 3:5).

I do have one question: What about the penitent thief who was crucified with Jesus? He simply confessed his faith and Jesus and Jesus promised him, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

What about people who are converted on their deathbeds? Sola Fide states what is said in Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith in Christ alone. That He alone is enough to pay for our sins.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to BlaineKatsura [2011-02-07 06:10:55 +0000 UTC]

Sorry I took so long to reply to this, I’ve been really busy with this semester at school and my dA messages in the inbox just kept piling up. Okay, so where were we? Ah yes…

Alright. Now I will present to you what the Catholic Church teaches and what I believe. I hope that's alright with you. Even if you don't agree with me, at least it will be helpful for you to have the information in future conversations with Catholics, since it seems that you have a very great misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church ACTUALLY teaches.

As in all good discussions, I think it is most helpful to clarify and establish definitions that we can both agree on.

I'll start with the definition of "Sola fide" that is, Justification by Faith.
"The doctrine of sola fide or "by faith alone" asserts God's pardon for guilty sinners is granted to and received through faith or belief alone, to the exclusion of all human efforts or works." (Wikipedia)

I think that is a good definition. I underlined "to the exclusion" because that clause is the primary one we shall be disputing. You should know that the only thing Protestants and Catholics really disagree about (in terms of Sola Fide) is the definition of faith. To simplify, Protestants believe that human beings can only be saved by faith in Christ, and that good works are the fruit of that faith. Catholics believe that human beings can only be saved by faith in Christ, but we MUST act on this faith, indeed, works is an intrinsic part of Faith. For Protestants, faith and works are separate. For Catholics, faith and works are two parts of the whole. Works without faith doesn't do anything for you and Faith without Works doesn't do anything for you either. They need to go together.

Fascinating the huge difference one little distinction makes, isn't it? A whole lot of theological division…

(Just as an interesting thought, it seems to me that it’s not as though Protestants believe that works don’t save you. They do. But only ONE work does, and that is accepting God’s salvation. I may be wrong, but that’s what it looks like to me. Just as an aside…)

Wikipedia has a nice little chart on this (here: [link] ) that I'll sum up for you here.

Roman Catholic

Process or Event - Process
Type of Action - Synergism
Permanence - Can be lost via mortal sin
Justification & Sanctification - Part of the same process

Catholics believe that justification and sanctification (a.k.a. faith and works) are part of the same life-long process and that God helps men achieve salvation through grace, but that that grace can be cut off by man's free choice (mortal sin).

Protestant

Process or Event - Event
Type of Action - Divine monergism
Permanence - Can be lost via loss of faith Justification & Sanctification - Justification is separate from and occurs prior to sanctification

I can also quote back to you a bunch of Scripture passages that do NOT support Faith Alone and show the importance of works:

Matthew 12:36-37: "I tell you, on the day of judgment you will have to give an account for every careless word you utter; For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned."

Matthew 16:27: "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done."

Matthew 7:21 (part of the Sermon on the Mount): "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

Romans 2:6,7; 13: "For he will repay according to each one's deeds. To those who by patiently doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; for it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified."

2 Corinthians 5:10: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done is his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad."

James 1:22: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says."

James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone."

Revelation 20:13: "All the dead were judged according to their deeds."

Etc, etc, etc. But that will really get us nowhere. There is Biblical support for both, like I said before, it is a matter of understanding the definitions. As I understand it (as one Protestant told me), Protestants seem to believe that “Faith is for Justification (salvation) while Works are for Sanctification (growing as a follower of Christ).” (as she put it).

The Catholic position disputes that, Protestants believe that faith and works are separate, while Catholics believe that justification and sanctification are part of the same process, not separate processes. That is one of the fundamental differences we are disputing.

Once you see that chart and compare it, you can really see why Catholics and Protestants dispute with each other over this. Catholics believe salvation is a process. Protestants believe it is an event. Catholics believe that one cooperates with Divine Grace to achieve salvation, Protestants say God just gives it to you after you’ve repented, accepted Jesus as personal Lord and Savior, etc, etc. Catholics say sanctifying grace can be lost through a grace and serious sin which kills God’s life in the soul, Protestants say it is through loss of faith. Catholics believe that Justification and Sanctification work together in a life-long process while Protestants believe that Justification (ie salvation) and Sanctification (good works that come after because of justification) are two totally separate things.

Do you see all of the implications of those differences? Catholics and Protestants approach salvation, grace, justification and sanctification in TOTALLY different ways. Knowing that this is the way Protestants approach salvation really helps me understand your answers. And why you interpret the Scripture passages completely differently than I do.

So, essentially what we are REALLY disputing is not what the Scriptures say. You say the Scriptures support Sola Fide, while I say they do not. What that hinges on is the interpretation. If you have a philosophical/theological backdrop for your beliefs you’re going to conform the Scriptures in accordance with your previously held beliefs. You use Scripture as your support. But YOU interpret it. And that’s one of the main differences between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics believe that when Christ established His Church He also gave teaching and interpretative authority through the Apostles, ie, in the Magisterium. Like the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution. Now, tell me, from what you know of law and American history, people have GONE ALL OVER THE PLACE in their interpretations of the Constitution. To prevent this, the Founding Fathers invested the Supreme Court with the power to interpret the Constitution. Now, Our Lord is far wiser than the Founding Fathers, and He knows how we weak human beings like to interpret everything ourselves. Hence, the Magisterium guards and defends the treasury of truth that Christ has placed at the heart of His Church. There are over 33,000 Protestant denominations. Which one is the Church of Christ? How can you be sure? They’re all invented by human beings post-Reformation. Heck! Event he founders of the Reformation, (Luther, Calvin, etc) all split up right off the bat. Why? Because their greatest authority were themselves and their own personal interpretation of the Scriptures. And of course, they all disagreed. So now we have huge rifts within the church made by a bunch of people who disagreed with their pastors and leaders and split off, and then their disciples split off, etc, etc, etc. But the history of the Church is a whole new set of issues.

Now, to your own comments:

”Also, for Philippians 2:12, Paul is saying that our works show the result of our salvation.”

See my above argument about how this is a matter of interpreting Scripture in light of already believing Sola Fide. You say this passage speaks of works as the result of salvation. I say that it speaks of the process of salvation. As I explained in the chart above, it should be obvious why we disagree here, because we view justification, salvation and sanctification differently. You see it an event. The Church teaches that it is a process. Hence, “the continuing to work out your salvation in fear and trembling.”


“We do have free will, but only to a certain extent. I we are in sin then we have no choice but to sin.”
What’s that supposed to mean? We either have free will or we don’t. We either can choose good and evil or all of our actions are completely determined. There’s no half-way mark with that. But I see what you’re trying to say. This disposition to sin is what the Catholic Church defines as concupiscence. We ARE free. However, sin limits our freedom. We CAN ALWAYS choose the good, however, slavery to sin (which is a matter of degree, ie, the more one unites one’s will with God’s, the holier one is) wounds our ability to “see” clearly and to choose clearly. We DO have a choice whether or not to sin. We always do. Sin did not corrupt human nature. It just wounded it. We can always choose. To say that we can only ever do evil is just doesn’t make sense. The Catholic Church teaches that Natural Law is an intrinsic part of human nature. What is natural law? “The Catholic Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked. Humans are capable of discerning the difference between good and evil because they have a conscience. There are many manifestations of the good that we can pursue. Some, like procreation, are common to other animals, while others, like the pursuit of truth, are inclinations peculiar to the capacities of human beings. To know what is right, one must use one's reason and apply it to Aquinas' precepts. This reason is believed to be embodied, in its most abstract form, in the concept of a primary precept: "Good is to be sought, evil avoided." (Wikipedia)
“The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.” (CCC, Moral Law [link] )

Ie. Natural Law is that moral law which all men have planted within their souls. Murder is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. It is good to care for the poor, to help the weak and defend those who are most vulnerable. All societies and all cultures, universally, pagan and ancient, modern and Christian, all of these societies down the millennia know this to be true, and their laws and governments reflect that.


“We can agree that there are a lot of people who do good works. What is their motive though? Are they doing it to make themselves feel good? Or, if they are saved, is it the work of the Holy Spirit in them?”

What does this have to do with anything? A good deed is a good deed, regardless of why it is done. The act itself is objectively good, and therefore, if it is good, it is in accordance with the will of God, Who wills all good things. Now, if someone does it merely for their own self-gratification, for example, if a rich man gives money to the poor, not because he wants to help them, but because he wants to be admired for his good deeds, then would he benefit from it? Only insofar as he participates in doing a good deed, and perhaps insofar as God can dispose his heart to doing good deeds self-lessly in the future. However, that deed still benefits the poor. And a pagan or a non-Christian can do a good deed for selfless reasons the same as a Christian can. Being a Christian doesn’t magically make you able to do good things because you weren’t able to before. God, because He has implanted his Sacred Indelible Image on all men in all times and places, directs them through that natural human dignity to desire eternal happiness with Him, and so ordains and wills and works through all people’s good deeds (and even works to bring good out of evil).


“He saves us according to His mercy, not by our works of righteousness (Titus 3:5).”

So, I’m not really sure why you keep bringing this up. I DON’T DISPUTE THIS. I hope the above chart will have helped you to understand the differences in approach. Catholics believe that we can only be saved through the merits of Christ. Like I said before, Faith and Works are BOTH part of the PROCESS of justification. It’s when Protestants start getting into the exclusive FAITH ONLY when Catholics have a problem with it. We can’t earn our salvation. It’s pure gift. But we have to cooperate with God’s grace. Holiness is a thing of degrees. Holiness is the degree to which you become more and more Christ-like. You can’t instantly become perfectly Christ-like. And that’s why Catholics don’t believe that Justification is an event. It’s a process. Salvation only happens at death. WE DON’T EARN SALVATION. I don’t know how many times I have to reiterate this. Again, I hope that chart helped to clear this up a bit.


”I do have one question: What about the penitent thief who was crucified with Jesus? He simply confessed his faith and Jesus and Jesus promised him, "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:43)

That’s not really an honest question. And what I mean by that is that you’re already anticipating the answer and therefore presuming upon it. Why ask me, since you already clearly have the answer to that question? But what is my answer to your question? This: What about the penitent thief? Clearly you want to try and hold him up as an example of Sola Fide, which I dispute. That doesn’t necessarily support Sola Fide. Is not confession with the lips a work itself? How do you know that it was faith ALONE that saved him? Did he not rebuke the other thief? Could he not have offered up his sufferings on the cross as a sacrifice or a penance for what he had done? “We deserved this punishment, but this man has done nothing wrong…” Again, that doesn’t necessarily support Faith ALONE. And that’s the key word here, ALONE.


“What about people who are converted on their deathbeds? Sola Fide states what is said in Ephesians 2:8-9. Faith in Christ alone. That He alone is enough to pay for our sins.”

Again, see above. The merits of Christ bring us our only hope for eternal salvation and union with God. Again, not disputing that.


“Actually, James doesn't refute it. We can only be made right with God by our faith. Faith + Salvation = Works. You say "NO ONE CAN EARN SALVATION" and then you say that sola fide is "all hogwash". We can only choose to do good when God saves us. God grants repentance (2 Timothy 2:25).”


James 2:24: "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." It doesn’t get much clearer than that.


And hopefully by now you understand the distinctions I made with the different way Catholics and Protestants view salvation. It’s EXACTLY your “Faith + Salvation = Works” formula that I dispute. I say it is: Faith + Works = Salvation. See the difference?

“When Paul says, “For we consider that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the law,” he is teaching that the works of the Old Testament Mosaic law, such as circumcision, could not bring salvation. In the New Testament, faith does bring salvation, provided it is made alive by charity. Saving faith is active: it is ”faith working through love” (Gal 5:6).

In 1 Corinthians 13:2, St. Paul tells us that faith without love (charity) is nothing (it cannot save). Charity means love of God, and Jesus says that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments (Jn 14:21). When the rich man asks Jesus what he must do to be saved, Jesus answers: “keep the commandments” (Mt. 19:16-17). Thus it is clear from Scripture that faith alone is not enough for salvation. We must also have charity and keep God’s commandments.

St. James condemns the idea that we are saved by faith apart from good works: “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone…For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead” (James 2:24, 26)

The Catholic Church teaches that we are saved by God’s grace alone. Grace enables us to have the saving faith that works in love (Eph 2:8-10). All good works must be done in the grace of God to have any supernatural value.”


You say: “It is true that in this life, we won't be perfect, but when we do come humbly to Christ and repent, we stand saved forever.”

“The idea of “once saved, always saved” was unheard of before the Protestant Reformation (October 31st, 1517). Mt 24:13 tells us that we must “persevere to the end” in order to be saved. St. Paul says the same thing in 2 Timothy 2:12: that we must hold out to the end if we want to reign with Christ. In Rom 11:22. Christians are warned that they will be cut off if they don’t persevere in the kindness of God. Hebrews 6:4-6 describes people who are sharers in the Holy Spirit (born-again Christians) but then fall away from God.

Remember St. Paul’s advice: ”work out your salvation with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12). Who should have more assurance of salvation than St. Paul? Yet he says: ”I drive my body and train it, for fear that, after having preached to others, I myself should be disqualified” (1 Cor 9:27). Scripture is very clear: Christians can lose their salvation.

The Catholic Church teaches us that we must die in a state of sanctifying grace in order to be saved. Any mortal (grievous) sin leads to the loss of sanctifying grace and the risk of eternal damnation if we should die in this state.”
“Our salvation will be completed when we receive glorified bodies. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in that person who will work through them to do the work God has for them, but they don't need to work to earn salvation.”

Okay, I am making an official proclamation. The salvation-through-works Horse has now officially been declared dead from the repeated beatings it has received. I shall not comment on that accusation further, except to add that if you STILL believe the Catholic Church teaches that anyone can in anyway EARN their way to Heaven, you either A.) Need to look back over what I have said over and over again, OR B.) actually listen to what I’m saying. Because if you read over what I have said and have comprehended the words and you STILL hold that Catholics think you can earn your way into Heaven you clearly have not listened ANYTHING I have said. Now, THAT being said, yes, the Holy Spirit grants us grace to do God’s will. “Without me you can do nothing” after all. But, as I have repeatedly said, look over the differences in how Catholics and Protestants view this whole thing. Works aren’t just a tag on the Faith sticker. It’s an intrinsic part of what Faith is. As James says, “faith without works is dead.”


“The work only shows their rewards in Heaven. They show our faith in God.”


What? “The work only shows their rewards in Heaven”? What’s that supposed to mean? Do you mean that the more good works they do the higher their place in heaven will be? Or do you mean that good works on earth are just a manifestation of how holy someone is? Once again, become VERY familiar with that chart I have repeatedly flogged you with. I hope you find that helpful in understanding the differences we have. It helped give me a clearer, neater picture anyway, I’ve only been repeatedly mentioning it because I fold it to be very helpfula dn I hope it would be the same for you..


I do have a question though, more for curiosity than anything else. I like to answer people’s questions about the Faith and Our Lord knows that I love defending Mother Church. I believe that apologetics is a spiritual work of mercy, so I am happy to discuss Catholic teaching for people who want to know about it. However, if you don’t mind me asking, what is your motivation for commenting on my various (often Marian related) pictures with these disputations? I have answered your questions/objections on other pieces before, but you seem to keep coming back with the same objections. Did you read my other answers carefully? And if you’re not even interested in hearing my answers (which I have a suspicion that you don’t) then why comment? I should hope that my art is not found to be so irritable to people’s sensibilities that feel obliged to criticize my artwork. Perhaps I mistake your intentions, but I am wondering more for curiosity’s sake.

And, to finish my dreadfully long novel, I bid you a very good night (or morning), and may God bless and keep you always through the love of Our sweetest Lord Jesus Christ and in the Power and Grace of the Holy Spirit.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlaineKatsura In reply to Theophilia [2011-01-07 06:14:49 +0000 UTC]

Actually, James doesn't refute it. We can only be made right with God by our faith. Faith + Salvation = Works. You say "NO ONE CAN EARN SALVATION" and then you say that sola fide is "all hogwash". We can only choose to do good when God saves us. God grants repentance (2 Timothy 2:25).

It is true that in this life, we won't be perfect, but when we do come humbly to Christ and repent, we stand saved forever. Our salvation will be completed when we receive glorified bodies. It is the work of the Holy Spirit in that person who will work through them to do the work God has for them, but they don't need to work to earn salvation. The work only shows their rewards in Heaven. They show our faith in God.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-17 02:12:06 +0000 UTC]

She was conceived without original sin. How could God allow His Son, after all, to live nine months in a tainted vessel?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-17 05:21:06 +0000 UTC]

If she had no sin, then why did she have to offer a sin offering (Luke 2:21-24)? Please, also read Leviticus 12:6.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-17 12:30:36 +0000 UTC]

It was traditional for Jewish women to do so; she was to remain isolated for seven days after her son's birth, longer if it had been a daughter. The offering was made after the period of isolation Remember, Jesus Himself didn't need to be baptized by John, yet He was.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-18 06:51:00 +0000 UTC]

In Mark 3:21, Mary thought Jesus was insane. How could she have been perfect if she thought that the Lord was crazy?

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-18 12:33:51 +0000 UTC]

She was concerned as any mother would have been. His other kinsmen may have just dragged her along. By the way, those kinsmen, James, Judas, Simon, etc, were His cousins, not His brothers.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-19 04:36:00 +0000 UTC]

They were his half-brothers and half-sisters. The Greek word used there is "adelphos". The "a" here is a connective particle and "delphos" means "the womb". This word translates "brother", meaning that James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas came from Mary's womb when she became pregnant by Joseph. Matthew 1:25 says, "But he did not have sexual relations with her until her son was born. And Joseph named him Jesus." Just as the verse says, Joseph did not have sex with Mary until after Jesus was born.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-19 12:42:04 +0000 UTC]

Then, how come they didn't take her in after He died? Why did He leave her to the care of the Beloved Disciple, John, if He had brothers? Look, we're on this website to create and critique art, not to debate religion. My time on Myspace's religion forum taught me that it only leads to arguments.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-20 06:15:54 +0000 UTC]

I don't have a religion. I have a relationship with God the Father through Jesus Christ. You can too, friend. ^_^

James was head of the Jerusalem church, so I don't think he traveled far from Israel. I'm not sure about Simon and Joseph. Jude wrote an epistle, so I think he was also spreading the Gospel. John traveled and Mary also being a part of the group might have witnessed and spread the Gospel along with John.

Jesus Christ is risen! ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-20 12:23:32 +0000 UTC]

Thank you for the offer, brother.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-21 21:31:43 +0000 UTC]

This not something to delay. Would you like know Him, instead of knowing about Him?

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

Morkos In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-22 03:54:33 +0000 UTC]

As you can probably guess, I'm a devout Catholic. But, as I said, thanks for the offer.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-22 04:11:03 +0000 UTC]

I think you might find the testimony of Alberto Rivera interesting.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlaineKatsura In reply to BlaineKatsura [2010-01-21 21:32:06 +0000 UTC]

*to know Him

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BlaineKatsura In reply to Morkos [2010-01-21 04:34:51 +0000 UTC]

I cannot explain everything in Scripture, but I accept it as 100% truth.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

frederickh In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 03:02:26 +0000 UTC]

This is beautiful!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to frederickh [2009-12-19 02:07:05 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

shinaraz In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 02:26:16 +0000 UTC]

Gorgeous!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to shinaraz [2009-12-19 02:08:39 +0000 UTC]

Thank you!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

LiquoriceSnaps In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 00:54:41 +0000 UTC]

Wow, so beautiful. I love how you still managed to make her look humble, even though she's standing on the moon

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to LiquoriceSnaps [2010-03-09 17:39:14 +0000 UTC]

Awww, well thank you! I know! The marvelous humility of Mary is astounding! She was the highest of created creatures, and therefore (or probably because) of that, she was the most humble. Mary is amazing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

elavoria In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 00:23:54 +0000 UTC]

Oh she's so beautiful! I love how you did the serpant/moon part, and her halo, and the vividness of it all is amazing.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to elavoria [2010-03-09 17:40:14 +0000 UTC]

Thank you! I drew inspiration from many different sources that I all liked, then I combined them. It was a lot of fun, and I do love making pictures of Mary.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

elavoria In reply to Theophilia [2010-03-10 00:24:37 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

harumeau In reply to ??? [2009-12-15 00:23:31 +0000 UTC]

Ooh this is very pretty! I love the border. And the clouds, and her halo, and the sun... XD

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Theophilia In reply to harumeau [2010-03-09 17:44:19 +0000 UTC]

Thank you so much! Yeah, the border tok a VERY lon time to do. But I love borders, so it was sooo worth it.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0