wad caused the 'breakaway'?
-
Originally posted by vince69:and my Bible says otherwise...
can we disagree? sure... I have no problem with this...
-
I don't see any point to keep on like this, we are all going around in circles, each are standing on their point of views... it will be good for all to back off for a while and cool down first.Originally posted by Icemoon:oh no .. if vince says yes .. our month's rating will be jialat for sure.
where is davidche who is supposed to jian shou zhen li? -
I don't even remember when the Nicene Creed was formulated. Honest!Originally posted by ben1xy:Nicene Creed
We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
U choose to acknowledge the first part but choose to overlook the baptism bit? or u just choose to look at the nicene creed of 325?
Anyway, the Creed uses "remission of sins". This one like not the same as the Protestant's idea of salvation - regeneration, justification, santification and glorification. Furthermore it can't be that if you are baptised, your sins are forgiven (this is the definition of remission isn't it?) - this is heretical and 100% salvation by works.
The Catholic perspective might be good in explaining certain aspects of theology but when we delve into theology proper, they can't beat the Protestants. -
at least agree that rating is important bah.Originally posted by vince69:can we disagree? sure... I have no problem with this... there is no need to agree on everything... -
By the way, what is the Catholic counterpart to Systematic Theology? Summa Theologica?Originally posted by Icemoon:The Catholic perspective might be good in explaining certain aspects of theology but when we delve into theology proper, they can't beat the Protestants. -
actually, not true. The really trained ones are continuously engaged in apologetics and teach in Universities and stuff.Originally posted by Icemoon:The Catholic perspective might be good in explaining certain aspects of theology but when we delve into theology proper, they can't beat the Protestants.
The half past 6 Catholics here (meaning ME!!) aren't relly informed on most aspects of Catholic Theology. But we are trying lah. We have heaps of materials, but sometime very dry and really hard to comprehend.
-
yeap. i see the same stuff over n over again.Originally posted by vince69:I don't see any point to keep on like this, we are all going around in circles, each are standing on their point of views... it will be good for all to back off for a while and cool down first.
1. Not edifying
2. i dun see the point debating -
yup, if you want to draw a comparison, the Summa Theologica would be closest to Systematic Theology. and you might also want to consider our Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).Originally posted by Icemoon:By the way, what is the Catholic counterpart to Systematic Theology? Summa Theologica? -
It is not about the people. It is about the individual theologies. I suppose the Catholic understanding of salvation is pretty simple. But for the Protestants, they have terms like monergism and synergism and they argue whether regeneration precedes faith. Catholics may think they are splitting hairs and it doesn't matter 'cos Protestants are still wrong (to quote sgMacross).Originally posted by ben1xy:actually, not true. The really trained ones are continuously engaged in apologetics and teach in Universities and stuff.
The half past 6 Catholics here (meaning ME!!) aren't relly informed on most aspects of Catholic Theology. But we are trying lah. We have heaps of materials, but sometime very dry and really hard to comprehend. -
But the problem is there are many versions of Systematic Theology (by different authors) but only one version of Summa Theologica (by the same author).Originally posted by ben1xy:yup, if you want to draw a comparison, the Summa Theologica would be closest to Systematic Theology. and you might also want to consider our Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).
what does this mean?
Catholic theology is stagnant? No one bothers to write an easily accessible guide for the modern readers? -
we haveOriginally posted by Icemoon:But the problem is there are many versions of Systematic Theology (by different authors) but only one version of Summa Theologica (by the same author).
what does this mean?
Catholic theology is stagnant? No one bothers to write an easily accessible guide for the modern readers?
Karl Rahner a German who wrote Foundations of Christian Faith - Grundkurs des Glaubens
then like i mentioned - our CCC. though it isn't exactly something likke Systematic Theology -
i guess u r right though Icey. there's always room for improvement!
-
Baptism - refering to water baptism?Originally posted by ben1xy:U choose to acknowledge the first part but choose to overlook the baptism bit? or u just choose to look at the nicene creed of 325?
One is baptised then considered saved, ie. received salvation through Christ?
OR
One had already received salvation through Christ, then baptism?
sequence of event:
ACTS 10:44-48
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46For they heard them speaking in tongues[b] and praising God.
Then Peter said, 47"Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Received the Holy Spirit first (the seal of our salvation)
Then go through water baptism. -
so we are sama sama...Originally posted by ben1xy:actually, not true. The really trained ones are continuously engaged in apologetics and teach in Universities and stuff.
The half past 6 Catholics here (meaning ME!!) aren't relly informed on most aspects of Catholic Theology. But we are trying lah. We have heaps of materials, but sometime very dry and really hard to comprehend.
half past 6 Catholics (Ben)
Bo Chap Christian (Vince)
this is fun, we should do this more often, just straight plain simple discussion on doctrine and theology... -
psst... what I normally do is, take notes including the Bible verse quoted, go home then slowly verfy the verses... find it easier this way.Originally posted by munyc:Umm... I guess scripture never mentions whether Onesiphorus is alive or dead when Paul said the prayer, but from the last verse, it sounds that Onesiphorus must have passed away.
It is usual to find different ways the verses is put. I attended Friday Prayer Meeting here, and whenever the speaker quotes verses from his Bible, I will usually strain my ear to match his text with mine from my own Bible. -
definitely vince!Originally posted by vince69:so we are sama sama...
half past 6 Catholics (Ben)
Bo Chap Christian (Vince)
this is fun, we should do this more often, just straight plain simple discussion on doctrine and theology...
Agree on the things we can
disagree on issues we cannot agree on, but yet respect each other -
That is the problem. Catholics view baptism as not only ritual. There are so many things happened, as indicated in Matthew 4 during Baptism of Jesus.Originally posted by Icemoon:Baptism is just a ritual. After all there are many who backslide after their baptism.
If your heart is opened and you are not willing to accept, is the heart really opened?
Interesting. Is this the same Lazarus that was resurrected by Jesus?
You open the front door of your house (or apartment, or home, if you want to engage with wordy argument) everyday. But do you let just anyone into your home?
About parable of Lazarus, he is NOT the one Jesus raised from the dead. -
half past 6 Catholics (Ben, David2)Originally posted by vince69:so we are sama sama...
half past 6 Catholics (Ben)
Bo Chap Christian (Vince)
this is fun, we should do this more often, just straight plain simple discussion on doctrine and theology...
Bo Chap Christian (Vince)
Oh yes, btw, my name is David2. '2' because of davidche...
-
Why not? He is God. With His infinite power He can choose to make a person sinless by His Grace, if He want to. We all sinned and fall short of God's Glory, but if God wants, He can take away our sins, by His Grace. And, it is stated in the Bible, "Mary, full of Grace."Originally posted by vince69:NO
on the basis
1) If Mary is without sin, then why Christ said
Mark 10:18
"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
and Paul?
Romans 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
the word is ALL, meaning no exception, if Mary is without sin, then there will be exceptions
2) If Mary is without sin, then she do not need a savior, hence that means there is another way to God aside from Christ, making the following statement false, implying Jesus lied (which is an insult to Him)
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
3) if God made Mary without sin, what stops Him from making everyone without sin, thus spare Christ His Son from the cross? If God can remove sin with the sheding of blood, then He had just nullified His Laws.
So, how full is full? Let's say you fill a cup with water, until a level that an additional drop will cause the water to overspill. That is full. All Christians (Catholics and Protestents alike) agree that salvation is by Grace alone. Which means, where there is Grace, there will be no sin. If we are to consider it mathematically, 50% Grace, 50% sin. 99% Grace, 1% sin. 100% Grace, 0% sin. Full means 100%. If Mary is full of Grace (kecharitomene), as proclaimed by Archangel Gabriel, then is Mary sinless?
Mary is sinless, but she is just a human, and has no power to raise herself from the dead. She was still bound by the corrupt body inherited from Adam. She needs Someone Divine i.e. Jesus to raise her up. So, she still needed a Saviour. She acknowledged that.
What stops Him from making everyone without sin? He is God. Do we want to question Him in this sense?
And, as signified by the top-to-bottom tearing of veil, Christ's death on the Cross signifies that the Heaven is opened again the moment Jesus died. Which means, the Law is never nullified. Christ has to die once and for all in order to open the Way between humanity and God. -
Your logic never fails to amaze me.Originally posted by munyc:Why not? He is God. With His infinite power He can choose to make a person sinless by His Grace, if He want to. We all sinned and fall short of God's Glory, but if God wants, He can take away our sins, by His Grace. And, it is stated in the Bible, "Mary, full of Grace."
So, how full is full? Let's say you fill a cup with water, until a level that an additional drop will cause the water to overspill. That is full. All Christians (Catholics and Protestents alike) agree that salvation is by Grace alone. Which means, where there is Grace, there will be no sin. If we are to consider it mathematically, 50% Grace, 50% sin. 99% Grace, 1% sin. 100% Grace, 0% sin. Full means 100%. If Mary is full of Grace (kecharitomene), as proclaimed by Archangel Gabriel, then is Mary sinless?
Mary is sinless, but she is just a human, and has no power to raise herself from the dead. She was still bound by the corrupt body inherited from Adam. She needs Someone Divine i.e. Jesus to raise her up. So, she still needed a Saviour. She acknowledged that.
What stops Him from making everyone without sin? He is God. Do we want to question Him in this sense?
And, as signified by the top-to-bottom tearing of veil, Christ's death on the Cross signifies that the Heaven is opened again the moment Jesus died. Which means, the Law is never nullified. Christ has to die once and for all in order to open the Way between humanity and God.
Your understanding of the Protestant doctrine is incomplete. You only stated sola gratia, but how about sola fide and sola christus?
And here is one fallacious argument you made - sola gratia does not mean all grace must relate to salvation and sinlessness. I give you one example:Genesis 6:6-10 - It repented him that he had made man on the earth. And being touched inwardly with sorrow of heart, 7 He said: I will destroy man, whom I have created, from the face of the earth, from man even to beasts, from the creeping thing even to the fowls of the air, for it repenteth me that I have made them. 8 But Noe found grace before the Lord. 9 These are the generations of Noe: Noe was a just and perfect man in his generations, he walked with God. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
Using your logic, are you saying Noah is sinless?
You said "What stops Him from making everyone without sin? He is God. Do we want to question Him in this sense?". Before that, you said "Why not? He is God. With His infinite power He can choose to make a person sinless by His Grace, if He want to."
So are you saying God is not benevolent? He wants to see us suffer? Or rather, He wants to see us suffer, then send His Son Jesus Christ to a tragic death on Calvary.
Are you worshipping a sadistic God? -
The Bible makes it very clearly - the first one to enter Paradise with the Lord did not get baptized. I think this point is there for a reason, that salvation is not dependant on baptism. Heck, I'm not sure whether the robber was even baptized in the Holy Spirit.Originally posted by munyc:That is the problem. Catholics view baptism as not only ritual. There are so many things happened, as indicated in Matthew 4 during Baptism of Jesus.
You open the front door of your house (or apartment, or home, if you want to engage with wordy argument) everyday. But do you let just anyone into your home?
About parable of Lazarus, he is NOT the one Jesus raised from the dead.
Interesting .. I didn't know Lazarus is another common name like Mary. -
icey, i mentioned it here many times. In our Catholic doctrine, there are 3 types of BaptismOriginally posted by Icemoon:The Bible makes it very clearly - the first one to enter Paradise with the Lord did not get baptized. I think this point is there for a reason, that salvation is not dependant on baptism. Heck, I'm not sure whether the robber was even baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Interesting .. I didn't know Lazarus is another common name like Mary.
the first type is the one u r talking abt.
there is also baptism by desire and baptism by blood -
Once again, the fact that the first to enter paradise did so via the first type mean something.Originally posted by ben1xy:icey, i mentioned it here many times. In our Catholic doctrine, there are 3 types of Baptism
the first type is the one u r talking abt.
there is also baptism by desire and baptism by blood -
You seem to know Protestant doctrine clearly, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus, sola scriptira, only only, but just too many onlys. You know so well yet you know little about the Gospel. I wonder you know as much the Catholic doctrine.Originally posted by Icemoon:The Bible makes it very clearly - the first one to enter Paradise with the Lord did not get baptized. I think this point is there for a reason, that salvation is not dependant on baptism. Heck, I'm not sure whether the robber was even baptized in the Holy Spirit.
Interesting .. I didn't know Lazarus is another common name like Mary.
How sure are you that Paradise = Heaven? Bible never equates that.
And, I think you've forgotten that Jesus bleeds blood and water when he was pierced. Yes, the thief's leg was broken, but it never mentioned that once his leg was broken, he died. Seconds later, water flowed from Jesus' body (to be exact, heart). How sure are you that the water does not splash on the repentent thief? -
Btw, Ben, well said.Originally posted by ben1xy:icey, i mentioned it here many times. In our Catholic doctrine, there are 3 types of Baptism
the first type is the one u r talking abt.
there is also baptism by desire and baptism by blood