Nearly 18 months after the controversial “Da Vinci Code” movie sparked widespread protests from the Christian community, the Catholic Church in India is once again up in arms – this time against Shekhar Kapur’s “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.”
-
(Photo: Universal Pictures / Pool)In this image released by Universal Pictures, Cate Blanchett, right, and Geoffrey Rush appear in a scene from the film 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age.'
The church’s objection to the film – a loose rendition of events during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I – is that it portrays the Catholic Church in a negative light and sharpens the denominational divide.
The film’s director has denied claims that “Elizabeth” is anti-Catholic, telling reporters in Sydney earlier this month that the film was “anti [all] extreme forms of religion.”
According to Joseph Dias, general secretary of the Catholic Secular Forum (CSF), however, the film shows the pope negatively and highlights the involvement of an entire congregation of priests and laity in plotting Elizabeth’s murder.
“In the 21st century, when we are talking about unity irrespective of caste or creed, we have people like Shekhar Kapur not only taking us back to issues that are no longer relevant but also rubbing salt over wounds,” said Dias.
A memorandum was sent to Censor Board chief Sharmila Tagore and I&B (Information and Broadcasting) minister Priya Ranhan Dasmunsi asking for a preview before the film's release.
“We want a representative from the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (the top body of the Catholic Church in India) to be placed on a panel viewing this film, and to have a say in censoring objectionable scenes,” said Dias.
CBCI spokesperson Babu Joseph said “they have distorted the Catholic history of England. We do not approve or endorse it. The church has taken note of it, that they are portraying it in a bad light. We strongly disapprove of this tendency.”
“Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” which released in the United States on Oct. 12, hits theaters in India on Nov. 23.
RSS
Studying the topics of justification and sanctification are essential to understanding salvation as a whole. Let us continue to revisit these subjects with humility and sincerity. I do appreciate the scriptural passages that you used and your responses concerning them. The Catechism was introduced because it is your final source of authority; is it not? As concerning the SDA church; in short it was certain doctrines that could not be supported by scripture. More specifically, it was their extra biblical teaching and position of Ellen White. Timothy George - a Baptist theologian said it best when he said, "We should speak where God has spoken and be silent where He has been silent". Talk to you soon or on our next CP article. Have a good one.
Well it could keep going back and forth, but in a way that wasn't the most important point. It was your comment that: "he has never supported his positions from scripture but has always quoted from other sources". Now I have not used the Catechism, it is you who introduced it. A Catholic can clearly defend their position from scripture. You might take exception to the scripture verses and feel that it means something different to you, but as I've done for the last few pages the scripture verses are clearly there. I just can't remember if I introduced the Catechism last time or if it was you. I guess we will have to agree to disagree like last time. I'd like one day to know why you left the SDA, but I realize that it was a personal choice and respect your privacy. All the best.
Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the SPIRIT, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. 1Peter 1:2
For it is God which worketh in you both to WILL and to DO of his good pleasure. Philippians 2:13.
As you clearly highlighted in Hebrews 11; it was by faith in God which allowed these individuals to do what they did. God blessed these people and worked in their behalf because they trusted in him. Justification is what God does FOR US, while sanctification is largely what God does IN US. Philippians 2:13 says - it is God which works IN us (Ezekiel 36:26) and He alone deserves ALL the glory. This is why Protestants believe in salvation by grace alone apart from any meritorious works.
It is difficult to accept the quotation that you posted when the Catechism clearly states we can merit for ourselves and for others . . . . . etc.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – second edition, 1994, 1997 – Article II Grace and Justification, section III Merit – p. 487- paragraph 2010 states:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, WE CAN THEN MERIT FOR OURSELVES AND FOR OTHERS the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the ATTAINMENT of eternal life.
This statement does not accurately describe the Protestant or Biblical position regarding sanctification:
The protestant belief is that if you "accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," he declares you justified, though he DOESN’T REALLY MAKE YOU JUSTIFEID OR SANCTIFIED; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you're eligible for heaven.
According to Scripture, it is the Holy Spirit which actually begins and finishes the process of sanctification and therefore does not leave the believer in the same state as you mentioned.
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is He THAT IS WITHIN YOU, than he that is in the world. 1John 4:4.
In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also AFTER THAT YE BELIEVED, YE WERE SEALED with that Holy Spirit of promise, Ephesians 3:13.
And grieve not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption. Ephesians 4:30.
Being confident of this very thing, that HE which hath begun a good work IN YOU will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: Philippians 1:6.
To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them WHICH ARE SANCTIFIED BY FAITH that is in me. Acts 26:18
But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the SPIRIT and BELIEF of the truth: 2Thessalonians 2:13
Actually there is a Catholic link on this website and Fr. answered the question better than I ever could, he wrote:
the Catholic Church has NEVER taught the doctrine of 'justification by works' which repeatedly has been ascribed to us. We hold as inspired Scripture Saint Paul's Letters, especially Galatians and Romans. I would remind our enquirer that Paul's greatest Letter, Romans was written precisely to the Church in Rome-that Church with which all Catholics are still in communion! We have held Paul's Letter as well as the witness of his very life (he was martyred and buried in Rome) and maintain his teaching still. That teaching is this:(Romans 3.21-26)
I repeat, the Catholic Church has always taught the Gospel according to which God makes us righteous through the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ!
Fr.'s answer is here:
http://www.askacatholic.com/AAC_AnswerDirectory/Answers_to_Questions/2006_09SeptemberQuestions/2006SeptemberWhyFaithAndWorksJustify.cfm
You mention Hebrews 10 but if you keep reading and reach Hebrews 11 then you will see faith in its completion.
Hebrews 11:17.
17. BY FAITH Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son
The significant of the verses Hebrews 11 shows that all works for God are done by faith, which is concluded in Hebrews 12:1-3.
1. Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,
2. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
3. For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.
Taking note that Abraham offered to his son to God as a result of Faith, we can effectively gain a conclusion from James 2:24.
18Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
He sends you an actual grace, say, in the form of a nagging voice that whispers, "You need to repent! Go to confession!" You do, your sins are forgiven, you're reconciled to God, and you have supernatural life again (John 20:21–23). Or you say to yourself, "Maybe tomorrow," and that particular supernatural impulse, that actual grace, passes you by. But another is always on the way, God never abandoning us to our own stupidity (1 Tim. 2:4).
This is what Paul discusses when he instructs us: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. Do all things without grumbling or questioning, that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain" (Phil. 2:12–16).
hmmm..bringing out the Catholic Catechism. Well then you realize from it that there are 2 types of graces.
Sanctifying grace stays in the soul. It's what makes the soul holy; it gives the soul supernatural life. More properly, it is supernatural life.
Actual grace, by contrast, is a supernatural push or encouragement. It's transient. It doesn't live in the soul, but acts on the soul from the outside, so to speak. It's a supernatural kick in the pants. It gets the will and intellect moving so we can seek out and keep sanctifying grace.
The protestant belief is that if you "accept Christ as your personal Lord and Savior," he declares you justified, though he doesn't really make you justified or sanctified; your soul is in the same state as it was before; but you're eligible for heaven.
Catholics see it differently. If you sin grievously, the supernatural life in your soul disappears, since it can't co-exist with serious sin. You then cease to be justified. If you were to die while unjustified, you'd go to hell. But you can become re-justified by having the supernatural life renewed in your soul, and you can do that by responding to the actual graces God sends you.
I will be out for most of the day but will read your response this evening; have a good one.
The process of sanctification is also a process and a gift of God; without personal merit.
By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Hebrews 10:10
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Hebrews 10:14
Good morning to you.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church – second edition, 1994, 1997 – Article II Grace and Justification, section III Merit – p. 487- paragraph 2010 states:
Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, WE CAN THEN MERIT FOR OURSELVES AND FOR OTHERS the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the ATTAINMENT of eternal life.
This friend is contrary to what the Scriptures teach; listen to the following passages:
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. Romans 3:28
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Romans 4:5
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:16.
The Scriptures teach that salvation is a GIFT, we cannot earn a gift – Romans 6:23, Ephesians 2:8, 9. Again the Bible teaches that there is no merit to be earned or gained by our works. These two views are polar opposites.
If it was a merit based system then Catholics would have to tithe a certain amount, attend pilgrimages, do a certain amount of missionary works.... The Catholic religion is completely voluntary. Actually a lot of protestants don't like that because Catholic Churches usually don't have all the requirements (social functions, etc.) as many protestant denominations.
Whereas I would say yes based on the verses I stated and the question/response we shared previously. Thus, I totally agree with your statement: We do not work FOR grace but FROM grace. That phrase is totally in line with my beliefs and the church...what's wrong with your statement? Grace/faith produces works...the two are connected.
The question is really not whether there are works. I agree that there are some works that the individual has to do along the way. The real question is whether our works are meritourious. I would say no; as indicated by my previous statements.
Again, our works are not meritorious; if this is true then Christ has died in vain. Philipians 2:21 says, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if RIGHTEOUSNESS come by the LAW, then Christ is dead in vain."
That my friend is why the Church believes in Faith and Works. I think the Church would agree with what you wrote, but as my last question to you also emphasized there are some works that the individual has to do along the way. We do not work FOR grace but FROM grace. What's wrong with that? I'm not going to argue about that. Don't you remember what I wrote:
I am already saved through God's grace (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I'm also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
Listen to what Jesus says in Luke 17:10 -
So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do.
Again, our works are not meritorious; if this is true then Christ has died in vain. Philipians 2:21 says, "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if RIGHTEOUSNESS come by the LAW, then Christ is dead in vain."
If our works are meritourious why then did Jesus have to die? We could just work our way to heaven.
When we look at Paul's theology, works are the RESULT of salvation, not the CONDITION of salvation. Ephesians 2:10 makes it clear that we are saved UNTO good works. We are saved BY grace but FOR works. We do not work FOR grace but FROM grace (See Titus 2:11, 12; 2Corinthians 5:14). Good works do not BRING salvation; they simply ATTEST to the salvation that has already been received by FAITH (Romans 6:23; 10:9, 10; 11:6). These works are portrayed as an EVIDENCE that a person has saving faith.
In the context of Paul's writings, it would seem that Romans 2:6-8 emphasizes that how a person habitually acts or conducts himself in daily life indicates the state of his heart. A person who habitually engages in good works thereby SHOWS that his heart has been regenerated by God (verse 7). A person who habitually engages in bad deeds show his alienation from God (verse 8). It is really that simple.
I'm dragging my feet out the door because I'm enjoying this chat. Just remember that the Catholic Church also believes in Grace (as clearly indicated in the Catholic Catechism), we just don't believe in faith alone.
Ok, now back to your answer:
Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God?
Absolutely!
Then we are not saved by faith alone. After all, we cannot be saved if we do not have our sins forgiven, and we cannot have our sins forgiven if we do not forgive others. Therefore, we are saved by faith and at least one work: the work of forgiving others of their sins against us.
We will chat when you get back.
Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God?
Absolutely!
This difference is repeated over and over again throughout the New Testament; it is FAITH. Jesus tells us that the work we must do is BELIEVE in him whon God had sent - John 6:29.
The nation of Israel could not enter the promised land because of unbelief. Hebrews tells us that those who come to God must first BELIEVE that he is - Hebrews 11:6. Jesus did not perform many miracles is some places because of there unbelief - Matthew 13:58.
Romans 4:20 says that Abraham did not stagger in unbelief and Hebrews 4:11 says that we must not fail to enter his rest through unbelief. So, people are not saved because they fail to do something but because they do not believe that God is good, loves them, and has given this a great gift. Unbelief.
I have to get going and I'll read your response when I get back -
Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God?
Let me ask you a question: Do we have to forgive others in order to have our sins forgiven by God?
Yes, love is the greatest virtue. However 1John 4:19 says, "We love him, because he first loved us."
We love because we believe by faith that he first loved us.
Ok, then let me put it a different way:
Christ redeemed all men with his death on the cross. In other words, he paid the price for all men's sins. Yet not all men are saved. What is the difference between those who are merely redeemed and those who are redeemed and saved? Is it something Jesus did, or is it something each saved individual does? If it's something Christ did, then why aren't all men saved? After all, Scripture says he desires that all men be saved (cf. 1 Tim. 2:3–4). But if it's something the individual believer did, then isn't that a work? The point here is that the believer has to "do" something in order to be saved. The difference between the believer and the unbeliever is not something Jesus did; it is something the believer did that the unbeliever didn't do: The former believed, by the grace of God, but he had to cooperate with that grace. He had to do something or else he would not have been "saved."
That is like me claiming to love my wife and yet my actions or inactions demonstrate otherwise.
Your simply not biblically correct:
1 Corinthians 13:13 say that love is greater than faith? After all, if salvation is the greatest thing we can achieve, and it is by faith alone that we achieve salvation, then faith should be greater than love. But the Bible says differently.
I think we have two different views concerning "works". The Bible clearly tells us that a man is not justified by works. Again, James was not talking about someone who had faith but someone who SAID he had faith. In other words, we cannot add to what Christ has done for us. Let me ask you this; when will you be certain that you have done enough work?
Your not making sense to me again. Please explain your statement again:
Yes, and the fact is this someone had claimed he had faith and yet did nothing to demonstrate his faith. It is evident that this person really did not demonstrate his faith.
The entire New Testament demonstrates that we are saved by trusting in Jesus Christ alone; this was the good news, the gospel that was preached! That Jesus had died for our sins and became our substitute in death and in life. Living by faith.
"he had faith and yet did nothing to demonstrate his faith. It is evident that this person really did not demonstrate his faith"...yes. Online4Him and it is called WORKS!
It really does come down to our motivation! Why are we doing the things we do? Are we doing works out of love and appreciation or are doing works out of fear or trying to earn salvation?
James views intellectual faith as good thing ("you do well," v. 19a), but not as a thing that will save us by itself (James 2: 14, 17, 20, 24, 26).
Yes, and the fact is this someone had claimed he had faith and yet did nothing to demonstrate his faith. It is evident that this person really did not demonstrate his faith.
He is stating a fact, not offering a definition. James does not see anything wrong with the faith he is talking about. The faith isn't the problem; the fact it is alone is the problem.
Verse 14 says, What does it profit, my bretheren, though a man SAY he hath faith, and have not works? can fatith save him? No, not that kind of faith which is a SAID faith; anyone can say something.
However, when James is read in its context it is talking about having a "said faith" or a presumptious faith which is no faith at all. True faith will be demonstrated by action but our actions "works" are not meritourius and contribute nothing to our salvation which has already been purchased by the blood of Christ.
the expression "faith alone" only appears once in the Bible—in James 2:24—where it is rejected.
Yes, and we all accept all this by faith.
Peter states, Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by THESE ye might be partakers of the divne nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2Peter 1:4.
In 1Cor. 9:27, Paul is basically saying that he subdues his body (the sinful self) in order to finish the race set before him; selfdenial.
Thus, ss the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."
I agree with that; Paul said he had kept the faith!
Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. Hebrews 10:38, 39, and Chapter 11.
I believe anyone who trusts Christ alone for their salvation regardless of which church they are connected to will be saved. I am praying for you.
Paul was frank in admitting that even he could fall away: "I pummel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified" (1 Cor. 9:27).
yes, by this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother" (1 John 3:10), "If any one says, 'I love God,' and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen" (1 John 4:20), "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome" (1 John 5:3).
Such an individual was Paul, writing at the end of his life, "I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day" (2 Tim. 4:7-8).
Well said truthandjustice1, 'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven'
Wow what a powerful chapter
Not so, but ok I will not argue with you about let's take an exact quote from our Lord and Savior:
Matt 7:21
'Not everyone who says to me, "Lord, Lord" shall enter the kingdom of heaven'
Read it
If you read Romans chapter 11 in its context it is evident that the focal point is FAITH compared to UNBELIEF. Verses 6, 20, and 23 support everything that I have shared; we are saved by faith alone. That is putting our trust in God's promises by faith.
Great chapter :)
simple answer: consider this warning Paul gave: "See then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness; otherwise you too will be cut off" (Rom. 11:22; see also Heb. 10:26–29, 2 Pet. 2:20–21).
Adam and Eve, who received God's grace in a manner just as unmerited as anyone today, most definitely did demerit it—and lost grace not only for themselves but for us as well (cf. also Rom. 11:17-24)
truthandjustice -
Simple answer: Yes
Simple question: Why don't you leave a works orientated system where merit becomes the focal point for its adherents. What can pilgrimages, indulgences, adoration of images, purgatory, invocation of the saints, penance, and auricular confessions have to do with the finished work of Jesus Christ?
Online 4 Him
Simple question:
HAVE YOU LEFT THE SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH?
truthandjustice1- You asked me to explain what I meant about this statement: There can be no unity for those who clearly know what the Scriptures plainly teach. This previous statement should help.
(For the Church to be one with Christ it must first maintain unity with itself?????)
Let’s let allow the scriptures to define true unity. . . . . John 17:21 says, “That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”
However what is ignored by the ecumenists are the prerequisites that alone will provide unity.
Sanctify them through thy truth: they word is truth – John 17:17.
There are but two prerequisites to the uniting of the flock of Jesus: the first is TRUTH, and the second is SANCTIFICATION. It is plain from the words of Jesus that there is no sanctification aside from truth. With so much pluralism and eclecticism being promoted in the ecumenical movement there is not a sliver of hope that this movement can lead to TRUE unity.
Yet truth alone is not sufficient to bring unity. We may have an intellectual knowledge and acceptance of the truth, but unless in the power of the indwelling Jesus Christ we allow the truth to permeate every neuron of our mind and sinew of our body, we will not be agents of unity. Many see unity as a goal, an objective, or an aim, but that thought cannot be sustained. UNITY IS A RESULT. It is a natural consequence that binds together those who have been sanctified by the TRUTH.
All men and women on the planet, who permit the Holy Spirit to bring them to truth, and permit Christ to sanctify their hearts and lives without manipulation, will be united one with another. Unity brooks no consensus and no compromise. The very suggestion that powerful truths such as - salvation by faith alone, salvation through God’s grace alone, salvation in Christ alone, and the truth that is revealed in God’s word alone be put aside in quest for unity will be repugnant to all faithful Christians. Such a movement degrades Christianity into a pagan faith hostile to the true gospel.
Truthandjustice1 –
Here is what you initially put forth to readers on the CP:
I’ll let people who are truly interested in truth read my responses and then compare them to your post Protestant Reformation beliefs.
Why rattle off with statements about lawsuits, catholic conversions, and issues other than what was initially put forth? Would it be fair or beneficial to other readers to analyze protestant conversions and recent scandals within the Catholic Church?
We are discussing two systems of belief if you will; there can be no unity when one system (Protestantism) believes that the Scriptures alone are the sole rule of faith and practice for Christians. While the other (Catholicism) is a works orientated system where merit becomes the focal point for its adherents. What can pilgrimages, indulgences, adoration of images, purgatory, invocation of the saints, penance, and auricular confessions have to do with the finished work of Jesus Christ.
All of the above subjects and the others listed in my previous statements cannot be supported by Scripture. Does it not bother you that these things cannot be supported by scripture? Neither Jesus nor the disciples ever taught these things. They taught that salvation is a free gift accepted by faith and that the Holy Spirit would continue the process of sanctification also by faith. Galatians 2:16-21. Our works that we do will be motivated by our gratitude and appreciation for what Jesus Christ has already done in our behalf.
God himself states in Ezekiel 36:26: “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. “
Unless this experience becomes our own we labor in vain. To place our trust in anything other than Jesus Christ himself becomes a cheap substitute regardless of our public religious affiliations. Jesus Christ himself is the only mediator between God and man – 1Timoth 2:5.
The flip side is who I wished converted to Catholicism. I'd say C.S Lewis, his best friend Tolkien couldn't even convince him.
I like this statement:
"At one point I had to explain how I differed on a certain point from both Catholics and Fundamentalists: I hope I shall not for this forfeit the goodwill or the prayers of either. Nor do I much fear it."
Love his books.
I was just asking myself if I wanted to hear somebody's conversion story to Catholicism who would I want to hear - I guess John Wayne because I was a big fan of the Duke. Anyways, there is a Catholic link on this website, so if you have any questions I think you should direct your questions to them because I'm not a theologian.
Had a chance to return to do some work and respond :). Does that mean you left the SDA? Liberal protestants coming to Catholicism...hmmm well I guess if you count the denial of ordination of openly homosexual leaders then yes I guess they are coming to the liberal Catholic church. Wow you are one of the first people I've heard call the Catholic Church liberal. As we all know Pope John Paul and our current Pope are very liberal :), they get a lot of attention from the media because they are so liberal.
I'm honestly unsure what calls people whether they see themselves as liberal or conservative. What called Jeb Bush to leave the evangelical Church for the Catholic Church, Tony Blair to leave the Anglican church for the Catholic Church, Sam Brownback to leave the Methodist Church for the Catholic Church, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to leave the Baptist Church for the Catholic Church, the current governor of Louisiana to leave hinduism for Catholicism? I'm honestly not sure because I'm not a convert. Tolkien when he was writing the Lord Of the Rings wanted it to be a devoutly Catholic endeavor based on his own conversion to Catholicism. I don't really understand it, but I guess for him it was choosing good over evil. Everybody has a different conversion experience.
As for your statement: There can be no unity for those who clearly know what the Scriptures plainly teach. Please explain.
Truthandjustice –
Give it a rest; I have told you in the past that I do not believe in Ellen White. Let’s stick to the topic at hand – remember?
I’ll let people who are truly interested in truth read my responses and then compare them to your post Protestant Reformation beliefs. ???????
The issue is and has always been TRUTH. Protestants hold the Bible to be the only rule of faith in practice and belief. The can be no true unity apart from Biblical truth; something Rome has left behind a long time ago. There can be no unity for those who clearly know what the Scriptures plainly teach.
Salvation through faith alone, through grace alone, through Christ alone, revealed through the scriptures alone. That has always been the case since biblical times.
You pride yourself with continual statements about how LIBERAL Protestants are leaving their churches to join Rome. Not everyone is infatuated or blinded by the ecumenical movement that promotes a false unity.
The very suggestion that powerful truths such as - salvation by faith alone, salvation through God’s grace alone, salvation in Christ alone, and the truth that is revealed in God’s word alone be put aside in quest for unity will be repugnant to all faithful Christians. Such a movement degrades Christianity into a pagan faith hostile to the true gospel.
Online4Him, one last question before I log off tonight:
In the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual dated 1986 and issued by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists we find listed on page 28, doctrine number:
17. "The Gift of Prophecy".
"One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth, which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction.
Can you please explain this dogma as outlined by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists?
Online4him, what's up with all the law suits by the SDA church against websites?
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/news/n20061029.htm
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/news/n20060603.htm
The Ellen White inspired SDA Online4 Him, how are you doing?
I haven't heard your take on the Seventh Day Adventists in a while. Please don't bore me again with the visions.
Ellen G. White, the Seventh-day Adventist's prophetess makes the claim that what she writes is not her ideas, but "that which God has opened before her in vision."
"In my books, the truth is stated, barricaded by a 'Thus saith the Lord.' The Holy Spirit traced these truths upon my heart and mind as indelibly as the law was traced by the finger of God upon the tables of stone." Letter 90, 1906. Talk about a great biblical faith. Did you not see all the bible verses previously quoted? Are we picking books now? you forgot:
Are Seventh-Day Adventists False Prophets?
By: Wallace Slattery
Teachings of Seventh-Day Adventism,
By: John H. Gerstner
Kingdom of the Cults, rev. and updated ed.
Edited By: Ravi Zacharias
By: Walter Martin
or just go to this site:
http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/
I can't forget this one: The Perils of Ecumenism, by Colin D. & Russel R. Standish.
reformer –
It is difficult to discuss matters of faith with anyone who does not believe that the Bible alone is the source of truth. I have had past discussions with truthandjustice1; he never stays on one topic and he has never supported his positions from scripture but has always quoted from other sources.
I find it interesting that he would make this statement:
I’ll let people who are truly interested in truth read my responses and then compare them to your post Protestant Reformation beliefs.
How can he speak of the post beliefs of the Protestant Reformation and yet fail to realize that Rome has taught these post unbiblical beliefs:
Purgatory 593, Temporal Power 754, Donation of Constantine 858, Money for Masses 1100, the Inquisition 1184, Sale of Indulgences 1190, Transubstantiation 1215, Adoration of the Host 1226, Cup denied to laymen 1415, Tradition equal to the Bible 1545, Immaculate Conception of Mary 1854, Separation of Church and State Condemned 1864, Papal Infallibility 1870, The Assumption of Mary 1950, etc.
Many Evangelical Christians today are being told by their leaders that Catholicism is merely a denomination of the Church of Jesus Christ and they need to come together with these other Christians in true unity. People need to understand that biblical truths for which past believers have laid down their lives in martyrdom are being compromised or completely eroded in the name of unity.
If people who are truly interested in truth and are willing to compare the differences; they can access a couple of good resources on the web or a sound Christian bookstore. I would recommend the following books – Romanism and the Reformation by H. Grattan Guiness, All Roads Lead to ROME? By Michael de Semlyen, Evangelical Answers by Eric Svendsen, Lessons from the Reformation by Alonzo T. Jones, The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White, and The Case for Traditional Protestantism by Terry L. Johnson. This would be a good start.
Yes, reformer, Jesus only became head of the church after the protestant reformation...those poor lost apostles and early Christian Fathers. hahahaa..your funny reformer is that what you actually believe?
Peter - that other great idol of the Catholics. When does Jesus enter the equation, I wonder?
Colossians 1:18 He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.
I'll let people who are truly interested in truth read my responses and then compare them to your post protestant reformation beliefs.
That's the difference between you and me you follow new age ideas while I stand with the word of God as professed by the apostles and early Christian fathers. Your new age ideas after the protestant reformation are just that - new age ideas
Peter the first Pope
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
Once again you fail to answer simple questions. However, I'll keep answering your questions. The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles' teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy's generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
Pope Clement I
"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
I knew mentioning Mary was a mistake. Catholics can get very touchy about their idol. As for me, I am not a Lutheran; only an admirer of Luther's courage in standing against the tyranny of the Pope. My point, which you seem to have lost somehow, is that the Papacy is not only un-Christian but anti-Christian; a device of Satan to blind the masses to the all-sufficiency of Christ. Putting Mary on a pedestal is all part of that great ongoing deception.
When did this belief that you infer is common knowledge begin? well after the protestant reformation...hmmm..interesting
Today most Protestants are unaware of these early beliefs regarding Mary's virginity and the proper interpretation of "the brethren of the Lord." And yet, the Protestant Reformers themselves—Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli—honored the perpetual virginity of Mary and recognized it as the teaching of the Bible, as have other, more modern Protestants.
Most Protestants claim that Mary bore children other than Jesus. To support their claim, these Protestants refer to the biblical passages which mention the "brethren of the Lord." As explained in the Catholic Answers tract Brethren of the Lord, neither the Gospel accounts nor the early Christians attest to the notion that Mary bore other children besides Jesus. The faithful knew, through the witness of Scripture and Tradition, that Jesus was Mary's only child and that she remained a lifelong virgin.
An important historical document which supports the teaching of Mary's perpetual virginity is the Protoevangelium of James, which was written probably less than sixty years after the conclusion of Mary's earthly life (around A.D. 120), when memories of her life were still vivid in the minds of many.
According to the world-renowned patristics scholar, Johannes Quasten: "The principal aim of the whole writing [Protoevangelium of James] is to prove the perpetual and inviolate virginity of Mary before, in, and after the birth of Christ" (Patrology, 1:120–1).
Oh I see you just pick what you want and then the other stuff, well that is just irrelevant. Why do Lutherans, to this day, read out of the Apocrypha like the Catholics, recognize Catholic saints, holidays and festivals, baptize infants like the Catholics? simple questions but maybe not. What church do you attend?
I'm not here to defend the specifics of Lutheranism. However, Luther did address the Pope as 'your Hellishness' and completely denied his authority over the Church. This is entirely consistent with the scriptures, which categorically describe Christ as the Head of the Church. However, it is not surprising that Luther, as the first great reformer, should have held onto certain falsehoods connected with the operation of the Catholic church; devotion to Mary being the most notable. Jesus himself was at pains to emphasise that Mary was no more than an ordinary woman, albeit a particularly blessed one. It is also evident from the scriptures that she did not remain a virgin.
I've never read anywhere that the former Catholic priest Luther said that the Pope was unscriptual. Actually Luther even held to very strong Marian beliefs: "unique place in all of [humankind]." He insisted "the festivals of the Purification and Annunciation of Mary may be continued, and for the time being her Assumption and Nativity." He could even imagine her as a heavenly intercessor. Wow! If Luther was so different then answer me this why do Lutherans, to this day, read out of the Apocrypha like the Catholics, recognize Catholic saints, holidays and festivals, baptize infants like the Catholics? I'm very interested in your response.
The divide between Catholicism and Protestantism is not denominational; it is between one religion and another. This was the view of all the great Protestant reformers, starting with Luther, and the reason why they were willing to go to their deaths rather than submit to the unscriptural 'authority' of the Pope. Catholicism is not a branch of Christianity; it is counterfeit Christianity, designed to lead the uncritical masses to destruction. Indeed, the Catholic church has been responsible for the deaths of more Christians than any other instititution in history. The sooner we grasp this simple fact the better.
What must really hurt is that this big budget movie will do far less than 50 million, it's not even at 40 million worldwide with its run coming to end in the US.
jlm
Do you really think the Vatican cares about this movie? did they raise an objection to it anywhere?...no! why? because they are too busy trying to find positions for the bishops converting from the Church of England...ouch facts must hurt
like the davini code, this isnt issue isnt about 'censoring history'. this is about sensationalist Hollywood skewering and dumbing down history, for its own melodramtic ends. the davini code wasnt objected to because its opponents wanted to 'hide' history. it was objected to because its creators manufactured an idiotic and anti-Christian version of history to go along with their conspiracy theories of what boogeymen Clergy are. a good way to test the davinci code theory regarding clergy is simply to go meet one. i have met religious all over the world, and if there are a class of people you could term heroic, it is them. of course the media though would rather portray them all as sickos. makes us feel better about ourselves without having to change ourselves i guess.
Online4Him . . you are right on.
I agree with you jlm. Instead of censoring this period of history; why not publicly admit that these actions were abhorrent and counterproductive to the cause of Christ. What is this all about? This is all about attempting to dismiss history so that Catholic Church can continue its push for Christian Unity.
I'm not sure why this is receiving so much attention either. But, what strikes me as odd is the following quote “We want a representative from the Catholic Bishops Conference of India (the top body of the Catholic Church in India) to be placed on a panel viewing this film, and to have a say in censoring objectionable scenes,” said Dias. Why is it that people want to "censor". This only leads to bad results. Censor history? What is that all about? Things really happened, people were treated really badly, and now censor it out of history? I find that very interesting that the Catholic Church wants to censor its own history so that people won't know what really happened.
the Protestant Reformation
Why all the commotion about this film; we cannot erase or forget what has transpired througout history? We should not forget that Protestant Reformation transformed western civilization and brought for the most part Europe out of the dark ages. Let us not forget the past lest we repeat it.
I agree with you amatheson. Protestants, Catholics, Jews, all religions have persecuted others who didn't agree with them. It is a sad state of affairs. But, that is not what Jesus taught his true followers to do. Even our own country persecutes those who aren't in agreement with the government. Just try to be too different. You will end up on a "list". It is just a matter of time before persecution happens again.
If anyone's shocked by what Catholics did to Protestants - and I am - you should check out what Protestants did to Anabaptists.
One of the saddest things I ever read was a letter written by a pregnant mother to her unborn child who was to be allowed to be born before her execution by Protestants because of her 'deviant' beliefs.
Anabaptists were burned at the stake by Catholics and either drowned or put to the sword by Protestants. The Protestant Reformation in Europe was, in fact, as much about political power as anything else.
Insitutionalized religion condemned Jesus and in all its forms - whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant etc. - has been a cruel enemy to his followers ever since.
Those of who think we stand should take heed lest ...
True religion isn't about abusing people in any way shape or form, I agree with your point. Jesus never forced people to follow Him or love Him. It was always about freedom of choice. Freedom. That is the toughest problem that demonimations deal with. They forget that Jesus taught freedom. And, HE loved people regardless of what side they were on or what their beliefs were. If a person choose not to follow Jesus, He didn't abuse them, tease them, treat them with disdain or any such thing. He allowed them the freedom to walk away or to follow. That is what the Protestant reformation was about, freedom to chose. Unfortunately, it has come to represent bashing Catholics, so the Protestants did the same as the Catholics (when they first came over to this country many protestants did exactly what they were running from - if you weren't their chosen demominations - you were an outcast and mistreated). Jesus says "come ALL you who are burdened", He is not exclusive. It is us humans that take the gospel and abuse people with it and make it exclusive. Shame, Shame.
I'm not going to try to justify that any more then I would pedophile priests that is why we have to pray for our church leaders, regardless of denomination, because the abuse of power is an ugly disgusting thing.
I accidentally flagged my own post as inappropriate .. not realizing what the "flag" botton is. I guess I will know better next time. I'm not going to re-write what I had before. . .just read Foxes Book of Martyrs. It will explain to you what really happened during that time. If you were not a Catholic you were killed, left to starve or tortured for your faith. It is amazing how we don't forget the Jewish Holocost, but the "Dark Ages" have remained just that. . dark .. barely anything in the history books and if portrayed correctly in the movies or other venue then you are bashed and treated horrible. Interesting that the similiar tactics are being used today as they were back then. Not allowed to have freedom.
Just to let you know jlm that I didn't flag your comment as inappropriate I feel that you have a right to state what you stated and feel free to post it again. I would like to remove this abuse of flagging.
Part of me doesn't understand why people get upset or offended at movies produced from Hollywood. Has any movie made ever once changed what actually happened in history, good or bad? It is ok to speak about your disagreement with a movie and not fund the producers by not attending it, or even better why not use it as a springboard to talk to unbelievers about your faith in God and Jesus?
Does this movie change the importance of a relationship with Jesus? No. It's not about religion, its not about denomination, its not about the sins of men in the past.
Its about a living relationship with Jesus Christ, King of kings, Lord of lords, Creator of all!!
"sharpens the denominational divide".
“In the 21st century, when we are talking about unity irrespective of caste or creed, we have people like Shekhar Kapur not only taking us back to issues that are no longer relevant but also rubbing salt over wounds,” said Dias.
They are writing a historical (albeit lose) drama here. What were you expecting ecumenical camaraderie. This was a time of great spiritual division, and yes violence.
jlm - I was going to suggest "Foxes Book of Martyrs" but you beat me to it.
During what is referred to as the "Dark Ages" where the Catholic Church ruled Europe, it was a horrible time for Christians, Muslims and others who were not Catholic. These people were tortured, killed, and starved for their faith and for freedom of religion. It is estimated that the Catholic Church killed over 13 million people - but this has been completely written of history. Queen Elizabeth was one of the few to stand up to the church and to stand for freedom of religion and for separation of Church and State Politics. She was amazing. If you are interested in reading about how the Catholic Church treated people in those times, read Foxes Book of Martyers - you won't be able to make it till the end. Things may be different now .. but there was a reason at the time that Protestants and Catholics were separated against each other. The Protestants got their name because they were protesting the Catholic rule over Europe. It is amazing how this has been completely forgotten.
Once the doctrine remains consistent, who cares about revisionist history? The monarchy in England was less powerful then the Pope in that era and it remains the same to this day. I guess it is good timing for the movie since leaders in the Church of England are leaving in droves to become Catholic. I guess Queen Elizabeth would be turning over in her grave if she knew that the leaders in her church and recently retired PM (who was also a Church of England follower) are converting. Not to mention the fact that Prince William is currently dating a Catholic.