Basically, a good post. However, I would add a caveat. The book of James was written to the Scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentile believers.
Modern Day Pharisaism
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Basically, a good post. However, I would add a caveat. The book of James was written to the Scattered tribes of Israel, not to the Gentile believers.
A Pharisee is one that is trying to be justified by the works of the law (what they do).
Paul makes it clear they we are justified by faith in Christ apart from the works of the law, Romans 4:5.
I would say that the most obvious Pharisees today are Catholics.
Cruciform
New member
Here's your fatal flaw once again. NOTE: Not every type of "work" (deed, act of mercy or obedience) qualifies as a "work of the law," as you wrongly assume. This is made clear by the apostles themselves, Paul in particular, the same apostle who warned against trying to be saved through performing "works of the law." For example, consider Pauline statements like those in Romans 2:6-11; 1 Corinthians 9:23-27; 15:10; Galatians 5:6-7; and Philippians 2:12-13. In addition, throw in Hebrews 5:9 for good measure; there are other passages that could be mentioned as well. If your assumption---"any and all deeds" = "works of the law"---were true, Paul could never have written any of the above statements without directly contradicting himself. Therefore, the contradiction must be yours.
(Note now that even though Pate has been utterly refuted by St. Paul himself regarding Paul's own phrase "works of the law," he (Pate) will simply continue to make the very same claim in countless subsequent posts here on TOL. (Pate apparently knows more about Paul's own statements than Paul does, after all.) Truth, for Pate, simply doesn't matter when compared with the traditions of men that he's been fed by his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. His lack of intellectual integrity is thus glaringly evident and publicly noted.)
Amen, all Catholics wholeheartedly agree that "works of the law" (that is, the Mosaic Law Code) will save no one. However, then there are the deeds of mercy and obedience (also called "works") that Paul talks about in the biblical texts cited above. One's interpretations and theology must account for BOTH sets of texts. Pate's theology plainly fails to do so (see above).
Given the above, it's more than clear that your doctrine of soteriology is fatally flawed and hopelessly erroneous, as are your sectarian opinions about the Catholic Church and her teachings.
End of thread.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Cruciform
New member
Not "works of the law," you mean.
See Post #16 and #23 above.
End of thread.
Catholicism is a religion of works.
They try to hide this by saying that it is the grace of Jesus working in them that cause the works.
I say HOGWASH.
Paul clearly teaches that "The Just Shall Live By Faith" and not by rules, laws or religion.
If they don't do their religion, they don't feel that they are saved, which tells me that they are trusting in their religion to save them.
Catholics will be in the Lord, Lord, didn't we, group. What the Catholic church is to the Catholic, Jesus Christ is to the Gospel believing Christian.
They try to hide this by saying that it is the grace of Jesus working in them that cause the works.
I say HOGWASH.
Paul clearly teaches that "The Just Shall Live By Faith" and not by rules, laws or religion.
If they don't do their religion, they don't feel that they are saved, which tells me that they are trusting in their religion to save them.
Catholics will be in the Lord, Lord, didn't we, group. What the Catholic church is to the Catholic, Jesus Christ is to the Gospel believing Christian.
Cruciform
New member
...but not of the "works of the law," which are what Paul specifically forbade.
Already decisively answered and inescapably corrected in Post #23 above.
End of thread. :yawn:
Cruciform
New member
Amen. For example, the myriad recently-invented, man-made sects of Protestantism teach as doctrines such "commandments of men" as sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, anti-sacramentalism (anti-Incarnationalism), sola fide, a truncated and incomplete biblical canon, Restoration Theology, Primitivism, "once-saved-always-saved, etc., etc., etc.
I think that the Bible provides sufficient guidance and it appears to me that the Catholic Church adds things ('man-made')not included in the Bible
Cruciform
New member
Your assumption is radically contradicted by the phenomenon of Protestantism itself: tens-of-thousands of competing and contradictory self-defined man-made sects and denominations all separated from one another not only by trivial matters, but by essential and defining doctrines of the faith. A hopeless chaos of interpretive subjectivism and doctrinal innovation.
Provide an example, please.
The Pope
Cruciform
New member
This is an example of a "man-made addition by the Catholic Church which is not included in the Bible"? My reply is simply to offer the following sources:
"The Church in Scripture & the Writings of Early Christianity"
"The Primacy of Peter in Scripture & the Early Christian Church"
"Apostolic Authority & Succession in Scripture & the Early Christian Church"
"The Primacy of Peter in Scripture & the Early Christian Church"
"Apostolic Authority & Succession in Scripture & the Early Christian Church"
Is there another example you can offer?
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
A lot of information, but I remain unconvinced by your assertions.
In my opinion, the Bible is sufficient:
2 Timothy 3:15–17
Cruciform
New member
....just as you have been conditioned to be by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. No surprise there.
Of course, your proof-text here says nothing whatsoever about the Bible being "sufficient" (you've merely read it into the text), but only about the Scriptures being "useful"---hardly the same thing, is it. See THIS and THIS.
If you have a genuine interest in understanding this point, I recommend THIS, THIS, and THIS as well. You might want to make copies of these articles to study at your leisure. May God bless you as you seek the truth.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
No thank you.
We clearly have a different interpretation of the Bible and could continue discussion endlessly. I don't see the utility of this. I deny being in a 'sect' and the term 'proof text' is yours, not mine.
We should all endeavor to constantly seek the truth with humility and to communicate with others in love.
We clearly have a different interpretation of the Bible and could continue discussion endlessly. I don't see the utility of this. I deny being in a 'sect' and the term 'proof text' is yours, not mine.
We should all endeavor to constantly seek the truth with humility and to communicate with others in love.
Cruciform
New member
And yet the Bible's own teaching indicates otherwise, as well as the consistent teaching and practice of the early Christian Church.
Except that the Catholic Church was founded not by mere men, but by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Indeed, it is the only claimant to the label of "the Church" which was NOT ultimately man-made [SOURCE].
Pharisaism is Pops McHoliest up in the Vatican, founded in 1054 AD when it was decided that he was the unblemished surrogate of Christ and anyone who had a problem with it should die.
Just like how the Pharisee came to corrupt Moses' seat, so to did the Roman Church to Peter's.
Just like how the Pharisee came to corrupt Moses' seat, so to did the Roman Church to Peter's.
I agree that Jesus Christ founded His Church in AD 33. However, I do not agree that this was 'the Catholic Church'.
I will continue the seek the truth to the best of my ability and expect that we will continue to disagree.
Cruciform
New member
That's what I thought. So much for a genuine desire to understand on your part. Sadly, your disingenuousness is therefore noted.
Could not some of your personal interpretations of Scripture in fact be wrong, requiring a paradigm shift in your conception of the Christian faith?
My point was that you have derived your present doctrinal ideas and beliefs from various non-Catholic sectarian sources, which of course you definitely have. (You certainly didn't derive them from Catholic sources, after all...)
Actually, "proof-text"---a text intended to prove or support one's position---is a common term used in theological discourse and scholarship. It's a perfectly legitimate---not to mention accurate---word to use on a theological discussion forum.
Amen. It won't help us, however, to then proceed to "seek the truth" in a manner which is faulty and inadequate, and which will ultimately fail to bring us to any sort of doctrinal certainty or authority whatsoever. Yet this is simply the condition of all like yourself who remain mired in the clay of Protestant sectarianism, and who fail to make their way, by God's grace, to that one historic Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never---never---prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+