FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Catag94 said:
FTACo88-FDT24dad said:
Catag94 said:
I am familiar and have dug deeply into those topics. I understand the scriptural basis for each. My point is, and your reference to the scriptures etc hasn't refuted, the fact that these are dogmas that were officially add to the RCC Catechism centuries later and did not exist in the early church. One of the main difference, as I understand, between the EO and the RCC the approach development of doctrine. The EO would point to these as examples of dogma in the CCC today that simply didn't exist in the early church. They would also suggest that, if suddenly, St Peter were reading the CCC today he may be asking where those came from?
Well, St Peter, they came some 1800 years later when the RCC started adding them out a concern they had a conundrum.
1854 Immaculate conception- as a result of being consumers with the original sin doctrine and to eliminate the possibility that Jesus was exposed to original sin in Mary's womb.
-1870 Vatican 1 Papal infallibility
And then
-1954 Assumption of Mary because, well it is sort of required by immaculate conception.
I know you can point to some tradition and reference some saints on each of these but not as far back as the first century. So, my point remains these point to a difference. The EO, to my knowledge, rejects these making them, at least on these issues, more like the original church.
What are your thoughts about applying the same test to the novel idea of Sola Fide? There's zero evidence of that in the first 1,500 years of the church.
I'd say that the Apostle Paul was quite clear about Abraham's Justification by Faith and that he went to great lengths to help those he taught to understand that works are a natural accompaniment of true faith, and that "faith" without works was evidence of no true faith at all.
So, I'm not sure why you'd say the concept of justification through faith was absent the church for 1500 years.
To be clear, I never said justification through faith was absent for 1,500 years. I said there is no evidenceof faith alone. Catholicism teaches that the initial grace of justification is 100% a gift from God and we have nothing to do with earning or meriting that initial grace. So if we limit the question to the initial moment of justification (i.e. baptism) then Catholics and most Protestants are in agreement. Where the road splits is what happens after that initial justification. Catholics believe salvation is a process, not merely a one time event.
But I stand by my statement that there is no evidence of sola fide as proclaimed by Luther being taught or believed in the Christian religion prior to Luther. It's a theological novum when he first proclaimed it. It's revolutionary not evolutionary.
Well I understand and I stand behind the idea that it is through faith we are justified. That said, I agree that faith ALONE (as in I believe the same way that Satan and the evil spirits believe) is not sufficient. If things the Catholic accepted definition of "Faith Alone", then I totally agree.
Again, I think Paul made it clear in Romans regarding Abraham's justification. Abraham was justified because of his faith. Abraham believed, feared, and obeyed God, despite what God commended of him. So, his actions proved his faith. In this sense, it wasn't his believe or faith alone, but his responding which was a result of that faith; true faith.
This is why, I mentioned earlier that anyone who claims faith but has no actual actions demonstrating a true faith is a liar or "faith with out works is evidence of no true faith at all".
This is very different that one being able to merit Gods grace through works. As Paul said, if one could, it would be a wage or a debt God had to pay.
So, I suspect we all are more in agreement than it seems but the language and semantics get into the way.
In addition, I believe God's people are Saved, are being saved, and will be saved.
Anyone who thinks I can ask Jesus into my heart, and I'm saved, but is t a new creation and has no evidence of faith is a liar and will be perhaps shocked to find himself with the hosts and not the sheep. Likewise, I fear the Catholic raised people who "check all the boxes" and attend mass for a lifetime, but don't actually know Jesus may even be more shocked to find the same.
Jesus said it best when he said, "I'm the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know me."
You can tell a tree by its fruit. A tree that claims to be a peach tree but only produces thorns is a liar.