faith & works
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm
http://www.carm.org/questions/lose_salvation.htm
just woke up, too groggy to have a healthy discussion
I read through already....which is basically what we have been talking about. What is faith to you? Why would works be in your salvation theory (wherever you place them)?
I am not picking but it does seems to be there is a logic failure (if I may use your words) since we are saved only by true faith in Christ (which is proved by our works). Yet, we are considered saved when profess our faith (which is not considered true faith to Christ yet)? The 2 links did not answer the questions I asked.
Also, the link seems to address between are we saved by faith or works?
But the real contention here is that we all agree that we are saved by faith but what kind of faith? Faith with no works needed or faith with works (that will proved that the faith is real/true in Christ)? It was not about saving by works alone....
On loosing salvation, Paul said that we are saved in hope and at the end, have we ran the race of our life? To says some are not saved in the first place, how would they know? If they have not "believed" in the first place, why do they start calling Jesus Lord...Lord...?
In the end, can one loose one's salvation? It seems unconclusive.....as the writer seems to say so and commented based on his own opinions.....and we are not suppose to follow 1 man's opinion?
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I am not sure if fu lu shou some kind of god? Really, I am not sure......
But if they display it as merely a display and not worhsipping it, I don't see real problems...
What I saw is really worshipping the deity with joss sticks, candles etc....
do you keep pictures of your ex girlfriend, if you have a wife?
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I do not agree on "blindfully odedient" as no Catholics need to do so - certianly not to a Pope who teaches wayward stuff.
What really is "more daring" to you? Reformation is about being daring? I don't think so.
reformation is about what is right. the church went wrong, if it was possible to correct the pope without getting killed, people would have considered it.
but the pope was way too high up, and the entire chain of command was corrupted.
there was no choice but to make a clean cut, and start from the basics again.
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I am going out but I took a glance at the links. It did not answer my questions at first look but I'll look at it again later.
oh yea sure, it's abit wordy, but it really reflects what we believe.
have fun!
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
do you keep pictures of your ex girlfriend, if you have a wife?
If you do, does that means you do not love your wife? Or does it means you worshipping your ex gf? Does it means that once one got rid of his ex gf's photo, he is truely committed to his wife?
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
reformation is about what is right. the church went wrong, if it was possible to correct the pope without getting killed, people would have considered it.
but the pope was way too high up, and the entire chain of command was corrupted.
there was no choice but to make a clean cut, and start from the basics again.
That's one way to look at it......but Jesus never fear from speaking the truth even when it cost Him His life.....
If you love your Church, you stay ....and you speak the truth even if that may cost you. The only reason is because you believed in God and you love Him enough to want to stay and speak the truth.
Like I said, in a marriage that turned challening, we don't just walk away.....if it was love that binds us in the first place, it will be love that will make us want to stay and make the marriage works.
Don't get me wrong that I am saying that reformation is wrong but you seems to look it one sided. I said there is always 2 side to a coin. You choose which side you want and which is more appealing to you.
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
If you do, does that means you do not love your wife? Or does it means you worshipping your ex gf? Does it means that once one got rid of his ex gf's photo, he is truely committed to his wife?
then it depends on the wife's point of view. if she wants u to get rid of it, because she's jealous, do you obey out of love, or do you try to justify it?
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
oh yea sure, it's abit wordy, but it really reflects what we believe.
have fun!
Anyway, I edited the reply and commented on it already.
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
then it depends on the wife's point of view. if she wants u to get rid of it, because she's jealous, do you obey out of love, or do you try to justify it?
Aiyah....get rid of it or not makes no difference to your love for your wife what....Ok, if she wants to get rid of it, get rid lor...
But God did not say we cannot have statue and icons....in fact, He ordered them to be made.
God only forbade idolatory which is praying to man-made item (such as the cow in OT) as god.....meaning the item is god to them. There is a big difference there....
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I agree with you that it is individual who deviate (oops!), corrupt and these are casual believers (they still go to church, got baptised and called themselves believers of God - they all have professed their faith) .....i.e. these are likely those people who Jesus said will not enter into the Kindgom of Heaven even though they called Him Lord...Lord....
So, not all Christians (Catholics, protestants etc..) will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven but only true disciple i.e. those will listen and act on His words - faith proved by their works.
This is why I am still pluzzing on on professing of faith saved one and once saved, always saved. Can help to enlighten?
hmm... when did i say "once saved always saved"? i think omnia had commented that we had at least the point that once saved is not always saved.... you know, you have a tendency to misread and insert words not previously present.
i believe that a person who give up on Christ will NOT be saved.... someone who forsake Christ.... as in abandoning the faith and become someone of another religion, no different from one who returned the gift of salvation.... all these has nothing to do with works whatsoever.
i say again, to me, works is NOT part of salvation, which is a gift of God through Jesus Christ. Because of the sacrifice of Christ, i am compelled to do good works, not because it will add to my salvation, but i love because Christ first loved me, and i do good works because of what Christ has done to me....
.... but i don't understand why you keep questioning my stand if not to find fault at it... do i question your stand?
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
Actually, I would appreciate if you, dumbdumb or vince69 can help me explain how the theory works....
that one is saved by his true faith in Christ and the way to tell them apart (those with true faith in Christ and those who merely claimed) is by the fruits or their works.
i am a singaporean because i am born in Singapore.... and my parents registered my birth with the Registrar of Birthi hold a red IC to show that i am a singaporean....
without my red IC i am still a singaporean.... although if i am overseas, that may be a little problem....
what so difficult?
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
hmm... when did i say "once saved always saved"? i think omnia had commented that we had at least the point that once saved is not always saved.... you know, you have a tendency to misread and insert words not previously present.
i believe that a person who give up on Christ will NOT be saved.... someone who forsake Christ.... as in abandoning the faith and become someone of another religion, no different from one who returned the gift of salvation.... all these has nothing to do with works whatsoever.
i say again, to me, works is NOT part of salvation, which is a gift of God through Jesus Christ. Because of the sacrifice of Christ, i am compelled to do good works, not because it will add to my salvation, but i love because Christ first loved me, and i do good works because of what Christ has done to me....
.... but i don't understand why you keep questioning my stand if not to find fault at it... do i question your stand?
You said salvation in hope is not certain and now after what I explained, is it still uncertain ? Just want to know...
So you don't beleived in once saved always saved? Ok. Noted.
I don't know why you keep telling me reasons you do good works.....because I know that from you church doctrine. If you don't do, you deny Christ.
My question is can a person who deny Christ claimed to have faith in Christ? I don't need lengthy explainations....just yes or no.
I also know that you said that works is not part of salvation. My question is why then is works in the salvation theory?
And if it is agreed (with vince69 and dumbdumb) that it is true faith in Christ (one that is proved by works) that saves, why then is one saved when he profess his faith (that has no work to show yet)?
Finding fault? No lar....trying to find answers....
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
hmmmm misunderstanding? Wraped interpretations?
Corrupt clergy corrupt the Church (the people) and not the doctrines unless they changed / twisted them (the doctrine) .......
yes... wraped interpretations? wrap what?
ok... so the catholic church can be corrupted by corrupt clergy.... and the catholic church comprises what??? ok... people.... so how do the clergy CORRUPT the people? through...... teachings.... hence doctrine.
here's not to say that the catholic church is bad.... if it is contended that THERE ARE CORRUPT CLERGY... you can rest assured that these corrupt clergy corrupted something...
has the catholic church doctrine remain unchanged over the years... no... apparently the second vatican council is not as widely accepted as hoped.
Many traditionalist Catholics hold that the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of its documents, moved the Church away from important principles of the historic Catholic faith. These principles include the following:
- the belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ;
- the belief that the modern idea of religious liberty is to be condemned;
- an appropriate emphasis on the "Four Last Things" (Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell);
- the belief that the books of the Bible are historically inerrant;
- a devotion to scholastic theology and
- an organically grown apostolic Roman liturgy, as they define the Tridentine Mass.
They claim that these progressivist changes were made possible because of the ambiguity present in the official texts of the Council.
here's not to say i think that the second vatican council is good or bad, i really personally don't care.
this was simply to highly that doctrinal changes occured over the years, and i am sure at a smaller scale.... corrupt clergy will do strange things in their local context.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
i am a singaporean because i am born in Singapore.... and my parents registered my birth with the Registrar of Birthi hold a red IC to show that i am a singaporean....
without my red IC i am still a singaporean.... although if i am overseas, that may be a little problem....
what so difficult?
which means you still need a pink ic (not red lah) to proved your identity right? If not, why government issue one? And it does not explain the problem.....
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
You said salvation in hope is not certain and now after what I explained, is it still uncertain ? Just want to know...
i said that salvation in hope is not certain if you factor in good works because if such good works is not quantifiable then how much good works is good works....
i believe that my salvation is complete in because of the works of Christ on the cross.
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
I don't know why you keep telling me reasons you do good works.....because I know that from you church doctrine. If you don't do, you deny Christ.My question is can a person who deny Christ claimed to have faith in Christ? I don't need lengthy explainations....just yes or no.
I also know that you said that works is not part of salvation. My question is why then is works in the salvation theory?
And if it is agreed (with vince69 and dumbdumb) that it is true faith in Christ (one that is proved by works) that saves, why then is one saved when he profess his faith (that has no work to show yet)?
Finding fault? No lar....trying to find answers....
So how much good works does one need to do to guarantee salvation?
If I did one good deed yesterday and didn't do one today and died, how?
If I didn't do good work this entire month.... but did heaps prior to that, do I go to heaven if I die now... just yes or no....
If I didn't do good works my whole life, but helped an old lady across the road, and I got hit by a car, do i go to heaven... just yes or no....
Seriously, if you are trying to find answers.... sgforums is NOT the place....
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
which means you still need a pink ic (not red lah) to proved your identity right? If not, why government issue one? And it does not explain the problem.....
but not having a pink ic (yes pink and not red, i stand corrected) on me does not prove that i am not a singaporean, right....? government records will show that i am a singaporean... though that will take time....
i am sure God's record can be accessed a little more rapidly....
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
yes... wraped interpretations? wrap what?
ok... so the catholic church can be corrupted by corrupt clergy.... and the catholic church comprises what??? ok... people.... so how do the clergy CORRUPT the people? through...... teachings.... hence doctrine.
here's not to say that the catholic church is bad.... if it is contended that THERE ARE CORRUPT CLERGY... you can rest assured that these corrupt clergy corrupted something...
has the catholic church doctrine remain unchanged over the years... no... apparently the second vatican council is not as widely accepted as hoped.
Many traditionalist Catholics hold that the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of its documents, moved the Church away from important principles of the historic Catholic faith. These principles include the following:
- the belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ;
- the belief that the modern idea of religious liberty is to be condemned;
- an appropriate emphasis on the "Four Last Things" (Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell);
- the belief that the books of the Bible are historically inerrant;
- a devotion to scholastic theology and
- an organically grown apostolic Roman liturgy, as they define the Tridentine Mass.
They claim that these progressivist changes were made possible because of the ambiguity present in the official texts of the Council.
here's not to say i think that the second vatican council is good or bad, i really personally don't care.
this was simply to highly that doctrinal changes occured over the years, and i am sure at a smaller scale.... corrupt clergy will do strange things in their local context.
Why get so excited? Relax....I merely quote what you said right? Thanks for your explanation which now leads us to Vatican II (talking about going OT). And I thought you prefer the Catholic Encyclopedia which contains many interesting articles? I am sure there is one on Vatican II and it may not paint the same picture as the wiki did.
And you missed out that the wiki also said:
In a 22 December 2005 speech to the Roman Curia, Pope Benedict XVI decried those who interpreted the documents of the Council in terms of "discontinuity and rupture". The proper interpretation, he said, is that proposed at the start and at the close of the Council by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI. On opening the Council, Pope John XXIII stated that the Council intended "to transmit the doctrine pure and entire, without diminution or distortion", adding: "It is our duty not only to guard this precious treasure, as if interested only in antiquity, but also to devote ourselves readily and fearlessly to the work our age requires. ... This sure unchangeable doctrine, which must be faithfully respected, has to be studied in depth and presented in a way that fits the requirements of our time. For the deposit of the faith, that is, the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is one thing, and the way in which they are enunciated, while still preserving the same meaning and fullness, is another." After thus quoting his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI then declared: "Wherever this interpretation has guided reception of the Council, new life has grown and new fruit has ripened. ... Today we see that the good seed, though slow in developing, is nonetheless growing, and our profound gratitude for the Council's work is growing likewise."
But that (Vatican II) really has nothing to do with our discussion here on faith and works.
-
actually we are talking about the differences between doctrine of protestant and catholic churches, so the vatican is part of the discussion....
and i didn't missed out the part, i merely draw the attention to catholic traditionalists who think that the church shifted... somewhat.... and that was in response to the issue of corrupt clergy, who we all admitted to exist.
... but this thread is really on an endless loop...
i cannot answer your questions, and you cannot answer my questions either....
many theologians have examined all the verses and it's one of those things that will never be totally answered or have the other side be totally convinced. so as i'd said many times.... it is pointless.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
actually we are talking about the differences between doctrine of protestant and catholic churches, so the vatican is part of the discussion....
and i didn't missed out the part, i merely draw the attention to catholic traditionalists who think that the church shifted... somewhat.... and that was in response to the issue of corrupt clergy, who we all admitted to exist.
... but this thread is really on an endless loop...
i cannot answer your questions, and you cannot answer my questions either....
many theologians have examined all the verses and it's one of those things that will never be totally answered or have the other side be totally convinced. so as i'd said many times.... it is pointless.
eh....then the thread title is wrong liao right? It should read "differences between doctrine of protestant and catholic churches" instead of "faith & works" and didn't vince69 started this as you are complaining about OT in the other thread?
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
i said that salvation in hope is not certain if you factor in good works because if such good works is not quantifiable then how much good works is good works....
i believe that my salvation is complete in because of the works of Christ on the cross.
So how much good works does one need to do to guarantee salvation?
If I did one good deed yesterday and didn't do one today and died, how?
If I didn't do good work this entire month.... but did heaps prior to that, do I go to heaven if I die now... just yes or no....
If I didn't do good works my whole life, but helped an old lady across the road, and I got hit by a car, do i go to heaven... just yes or no....
Seriously, if you are trying to find answers.... sgforums is NOT the place....
Actually, you did not say "salvation in hope is not certain if you factor in good works" but it's ok.
And salvation in hope is certain because Paul has explained in clear terms unless of course if you disagree with Paul. It is a process that starts from profession of faith until we face our Lord.
Salvation is possible by Christ dying on the Cross and is available to all human race for free. But to attain it, there are conditions and that does not changed the fact that salvation is still free. For us is by faith and works (that will prove our faith) and for you faith alone.
By the way, it is not works alone that saves and we are not working to be saved.
I don't know why you go back to quantify and measure of good works (again) which we have already explained many times.....that it is good works from the heart that counts.
It is about a Christian life that we live that will proved that we are truely converted and our deeds proved our faith.
Same question again, how do you measure and quantify faith? Cannot ?
Perhaps, we can by the works we produced that comes from our heart. It is not about hair splitting moments if it becomes part of our life. To make it simple, every good work is done because we love Christ from our heart. Do we need to count how many times we love Christ?
And everytime we decline to show love and charity is to deny Christ because we choose not to love Christ......
The question you never answer was : If one deny Christ, can one claimed to have faith in Christ?
And the question I am seeking answer to is how can faith (without fruits yet) saves when it is agreed by all (I hope) that it is true faith in Christ (that has works to proved) that saves?
Or is that what you mean by problem in comprehension and wrap interpretations? If so, then of course this forum is not the place to seek answer but is that your personal opinion ??
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
but not having a pink ic (yes pink and not red, i stand corrected) on me does not prove that i am not a singaporean, right....? government records will show that i am a singaporean... though that will take time....
i am sure God's record can be accessed a little more rapidly....
Ha..Ha...Ha... but why would you not have a pink ic if you are a Singaporean? If you lost it, must report police and get a replacment leh....I think not doing so is an offence. So, always must have pink ic har....no need to bother God on this.
-
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
ok there were corrupted clergymen who either misrepresented these teachings for their own earthly gains or who did not live according to the sound doctrines they were preaching (thereby setting very bad examples for the faithful).... so what does that translate to? corrupt doctrine lah..!!!That translates to errant clergymen teaching corrupt doctrine to the faithful. It does not necessarily mean that the official doctrines of the Church were corrupted by these clergymen (which they were not). I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand this difference. Maybe the following illustration might help.
Let's take the official doctrine of the Catholic Church which teaches that Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the trinity. An errant priest might corrupt the teaching and preach that Jesus was say, an angel and that if the faithful were to donate 20% of their harvest to the priest, he will get the angel Jesus to bless them and make them angels too. The priest has certainly corrupted the Church's doctrine, but does that make the official doctrine of the Church (that Jesus is God) corrupt ? Most certainly not ! The solution therefore would be to censure such priests and remove them, not to go change the doctrine that Jesus is God.
Originally posted by Chin Eng:
has the catholic church doctrine remain unchanged over the years... no... apparently the second vatican council is not as widely accepted as hoped.Many traditionalist Catholics hold that the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of its documents, moved the Church away from important principles of the historic Catholic faith. These principles include the following:
the belief that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Christian church founded by Jesus Christ;
the belief that the modern idea of religious liberty is to be condemned;
an appropriate emphasis on the "Four Last Things" (Death, Judgment, Heaven, and Hell);
the belief that the books of the Bible are historically inerrant;
a devotion to scholastic theology and
an organically grown apostolic Roman liturgy, as they define the Tridentine Mass.
They claim that these progressivist changes were made possible because of the ambiguity present in the official texts of the Council.here's not to say i think that the second vatican council is good or bad, i really personally don't care.
this was simply to highly that doctrinal changes occured over the years, and i am sure at a smaller scale.... corrupt clergy will do strange things in their local context.
Everybody (including 'traditionalist Catholics' as the article calls them) will have their own views; doesn't necessarily mean they are right in every way. But that aside, we have to make another important differentiation between Church doctrine/dogma vs worship practices/disciplines. Obviously, the way Catholics worship God, the way the Church conducts its activities etc will change over the centuries but doctrines/dogma held by the Catholic Church has not changed although they have been built upon (eg: development of the doctrine of the trinity; the term trinity was not used by the apostles).
-
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:
it's not the first time i've seen a catholic housing other deities as "decoration". is this accepted in your teachings?
Originally posted by dumbdumb!:i'm talking about the displaying of other gods as decoration, like fu lu shou etc? which i have seen in catholic households.
yeah, i do consider it idolatry la. catholics displaying statues of Christ etc. and set up altars for statues of mary.
but i'm talking about displaying fu lu shou as a decoration. do the catholic church endorse it?
The Catholic Church certainly preaches against replacing the one true God with other 'gods' (which might include money, power, vanity; and not just other deities). But as far as I know (I might be wrong), the Church does not forbid fu lu shou statues, paintings of buddha (which can be quite artistic
) etc as long as the Catholic does not see them as anything more than works of art, souvenirs, decorations etc. Originally posted by dumbdumb!:do you keep pictures of your ex girlfriend, if you have a wife?
Might not be a good idea but I'm sure the wife would not mind pictures of your favourite car/dog or female sibling.
-
Originally posted by Smarty Boy:
Ha..Ha...Ha... but why would you not have a pink ic if you are a Singaporean? If you lost it, must report police and get a replacment leh....I think not doing so is an offence. So, always must have pink ic har....no need to bother God on this.
actually factually untrue... you don't need to report unless it is stolen. I lost mine once, went to the police station, and was told i don't need to do it unless it was stolen or i was robbed.... at least you learned something today.but the period between losing the old and getting the new.... i was still a singaporean nontheless....
-
Originally posted by Omnia:
That translates to errant clergymen teaching corrupt doctrine to the faithful. It does not necessarily mean that the official doctrines of the Church were corrupted by these clergymen (which they were not). I don't know why it is so difficult for you to understand this difference. Maybe the following illustration might help.
Let's take the official doctrine of the Catholic Church which teaches that Jesus Christ is God, the second person of the trinity. An errant priest might corrupt the teaching and preach that Jesus was say, an angel and that if the faithful were to donate 20% of their harvest to the priest, he will get the angel Jesus to bless them and make them angels too. The priest has certainly corrupted the Church's doctrine, but does that make the official doctrine of the Church (that Jesus is God) corrupt ? Most certainly not ! The solution therefore would be to censure such priests and remove them, not to go change the doctrine that Jesus is God.
actually, i do not recall that i said that the catholic church doctrines are corrupt.... if i had done so, please point that out to me. your first statement basically summarised what i have been trying to say... so you agree with me that errant (corrupt) clergymen teaches corrupt doctrine to the faithful?
you know, you guys seem to think i am condemning the catholic church.... please show me where i have done so.
Originally posted by Omnia:Everybody (including 'traditionalist Catholics' as the article calls them) will have their own views; doesn't necessarily mean they are right in every way. But that aside, we have to make another important differentiation between Church doctrine/dogma vs worship practices/disciplines. Obviously, the way Catholics worship God, the way the Church conducts its activities etc will change over the centuries but doctrines/dogma held by the Catholic Church has not changed although they have been built upon (eg: development of the doctrine of the trinity; the term trinity was not used by the apostles).
change... built upon.... to me these are just politically correct statement.... it happens to all denominations... in an attempt to show that things are unshakable... however it goes to show that there is a transition, evolution, better understand, new revelation... hence change.
exactly.... these traditionalist catholics may not be correct.... perhaps neither are you nor smarty boy.... and it goes to show that even with the realms of the catholic church, things are not as universal as thought.
going back to good works... smarty boy does not want me to dwell on "quantity" ok, so let's leave quantity out of it....
i did good works yesterday, without an ulterior motive.... and let's say God knows me and ok-ed the good works.... i die today.... am i saved?
i did not do any good works yesterday, but have done plenty without an ulterior motive.... and let's say God knows me and is disappointed that i did not do any good works yesterday.... i die today.... am i saved?
i do not believe the intention of this thread is as noble, as pointed out by smarty boy, to learn.... i believe it is an attempt to tear down and disprove.... because as i'd said many times before.... we all do good works one way or another. we all have christ.... knowing whether good works will guarantee the salvation is no longer important as long as good works is being done...
i never really want to disagree with you guys.... you believe what you believe.... if you are willing to accept that there are different understanding...