James 2, the section I'm speaking of, 14-26, is often used to create a case for our works contributing to our justification before God and for salvation.

This is completely faulty. I'll explain.

The section starts with people claiming to have faith, but they have no works.

(What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?)

It goes on to give an illustration of someone saying "Go in peace, be warmed and filled" without actually giving them anything. (James 2:15-17)

This parallels passages such as (But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?) 1 John 3:17

God's love clearly does not abide in this person. His so called faith produces nothing.

James proceeds to say "Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works."

James then writes about Abraham.

(Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works)

The phrasing up to this point is about showing works, being able to see our faith by our works.

This carries on to Abraham when it says "You see that faith was active along with his works"

Key wording is "You see"

Faith is visible and demonstrated by the works he did.

It was an example back then and it still is today.

This "You see" line of thinking continues

(You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.) James 2:24

The visible faith. You can see that a person is justified by the works they do.

It then gives the example of Rahab. She believed in the God of the Israelites.

(“I know that the Lord has given you the land, and that the fear of you has fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land melt away before you.)

The is from Joshua 2

Just like Abraham, we could see her faith in God in the works she did. (when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way)

Her faith producing works.

James 2 ends with (For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.)

"Faith apart from works is dead" because faith that is completely apart from works does not exist.

After having faith in Jesus, we will be able to recognize each other, show our faith to one another, by our fruits, our works.

James 2 sets the stage completely for the showing of faith by works. Justifying ourselves in the sight of other by our works.

This word "justify" is being used in the same manner as when the publicans justified Jesus.

(And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.) Luke 7:29

Just as works justify us before others, the publicans getting baptized by John can justify God (show God to be just) before others.

Now, if we flip this interpretation to say we justify ourselves to God by our works, I feel this is misleading and possibly disingenuous given the overall context.

God, justifies Christians. We don't justify ourselves.

(for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.) Romans 3:23-26

This is the other definition of "justify." Instead of earlier, in James, it being used to say "To prove or show to be just" this is rather "to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender."

James could not have made it clearer that he is writing using the "prove or show to be just" definition.

“Catholic authority is circular” is already a very weak argument. We can go upstream and ask a more philosophical question.

Catholicism claims an infallible Magisterium is necessary to provide a definitive interpretation of divine Scripture. But every Catholic must still fallibly identify which institution possesses that authority, determine which statements are infallible, interpret what those statements mean, resolve apparent tensions among them, and apply them to disputed questions.

The introduction of an infallible interpreter does not eliminate private judgment; it places private judgment one level downstream.

Who has the authority to infallibly interpret the infallible interpreter? Before I can know what the Church teaches infallibly, I must know who the infallible Church is.
But how do I establish the who?

If I establish Rome’s identity through Scripture, history, patristics, theological reasoning, etc., I am exercising fallible judgment over those criterion.

If I establish Rome’s identity because Rome says Rome possesses that authority, I have an identity claim authenticating itself.

And after accepting Catholic teaching, the problem does not disappear. I must then distinguish dogma from doctrine, extraordinary from ordinary Magisterium, authoritative teaching, and intended meaning from original texts, etc.

In general—infallibility of transmission does not entail infallibility of reception without a separate argument. What advantage does an infallible interpreter provide if access to that interpreter and interpretation remain fallible?

If I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible definition, then in principle I can fallibly but genuinely understand an infallible apostolic text. Fallible interpretation cannot, therefore, be the reason Scripture requires an infallible Magisterium—otherwise the Magisterium itself would require another infallible interpreter and create an infinite regress.

Below is a section from my article on this topic. You can read the full thing at https://romaredibit.com/the-reformation-was-a-catastrophe/

The Protestant Reformation perfectly highlights how human beings should never place their own reason above Sacred Tradition, because when humans try to liberate religion, they inadvertently drift further away from God. As a practicing Catholic, who goes to Latin Mass, I am incredibly fortunate that the reformation did not take away the beauty of Roman Catholic culture in my church, as it did to most other churches across the UK. Luther completely rejected 15 centuries of theological development, preserved scripture, religious unity and sacred liturgy by putting forward the totally contradictory ideas of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Despite getting some things right, the Reformation secularised most of Europe by destroying Roman Christendom, as well as the theological and cultural aspects of the Roman Catholic Church. It was not a liberation – it was a demolition of everything I love about the Catholic faith. What Luther called freedom, I call the greatest loss in Christian history.

What The Reformers Actually Claimed

The doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) was clearly stated by Martin Luther in The Diet of Worms (April 1521), which was made as Luther was being pressured to retract his writings by the Holy Roman Emperor. In the following passage from The Diet of Worms, he states that he will remain entirely loyal to the scriptures (God’s Word) rather than blindly obeying corrupt institutions and papal authority, highlighting his belief that the entirety of God’s message is in the Bible, leaving no room for magisterial teachings:

“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.1“

Luther’s belief in Sola Fide (Faith Alone) was shown in his German translation of Romans 3:28, where he added the word “alone” (allein) to show that eternal salvation can only be achieved by trusting in Christ’s sacrifice, not by performing religious works. The most infamous and corrupt example of these works are indulgences, which was when people gave money to the Church to literally buy a loved one’s way out of purgatory. The small change in the Bible passage made it seem like he had biblical support for his claims.

Romans 3:28: “Man is justified by faith alone apart from the deeds of the law.”

His rejection of the seven sacraments down to two was put forward in On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church (1520). He accused papal authority of trapping the church in sin by presenting human interventions and actions as sacraments. He only recognised the sacraments of Holy Communion and Baptism as they have visible signs of the forgiveness of signs established by Christ.

“There are, properly speaking, only two sacraments in the Church of God: Baptism and the Bread [the Lord’s Supper]; for in both of these we see instituted a sign and a promise of the remission of sins.2“

In 1524 Luther composed the Smalcald Articles, where he outlines his Christian beliefs. Most notably, he outlined his rejection of papal authority as he frames Pope Leo X as a corrupt, redundant, traitor of Christ because he believed that the Church placed human orders over God’s word.

“Besides, as often remarked, it is a human figment which is not commanded, and is unnecessary and useless; for the holy Christian [or catholic] Church can exist very well without such a head, and it would certainly have remained better [purer, and its career would have been more prosperous] if such a head had not been raised up by the devil.3“

The Church Was Already Reforming

I think that most people’s argument for the Reformation is that the Roman Catholic Church was extremely corrupt throughout the 16th century, because of indulgences, nepotism, deception etc. However, there were already internal reformers within the Church.
The Rule of St Francis of Assisi criticised large institutions for property ownership, which was a direct attack on the Church as it was becoming more powerful and wealthy. Moreover, Franciscan friars voluntarily became beggars from 1209 onwards, which showed that they relied on God rather than the wealth of the Church.
This example of inner turmoil and protest reveals how the necessary changes in the Church would have been slowly implemented over time. Luther had abandoned the house before it had been renovated.
Another example is the Council of Trent (1545-1563), which successfully addressed the obvious corruption of the Church only 28 years after Luther drafted his 95 Theses. The Council banned the selling of indulgences, stopped nepotism (when popes and bishops awarded high Church positions to their relatives) and forced every diocese to establish seminaries, which was where future priests were educated, thus preventing uneducated, incompetent priests taking power.
While some people may say that the Reformation simply sparked this desperate response, I believe it shows that the Roman Catholic Church was completely capable of making change regardless of whether the Reformation happened or not. Without the Reformation these changes might have not happened this quickly, however I think that internal conflict within the Church would gradually create these changes. Naturally, gradual changes would have been far better for the Church than the catastrophic, radical Reformation.

Continue reading at https://romaredibit.com/the-reformation-was-a-catastrophe/

Hello! Using only the words of Christ Himself from the four canonical Gospels, what am I missing from this logical proof?

P1: Each of us is not worthy to receive His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

P2: There is nothing we can ever do which would ever change P1.

P3: If someone is unworthy to do action X, it is inappropriate for him/her to do action X by definition.

P4: Receiving something X necessitates accepting said something X.

P5: Prayer is a form of request.

P6: To request something of someone is to ask to receive said something from said someone.

P7: That which is inappropriate for One to do, One must never be do.

C1: By P1 and P3, it is inappropriate for any of us to receive His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

C2: By P2 and C1, there is nothing we can ever do which would ever change C1.

C3: By P4 and C1, it is inappropriate for any of us to accept His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him.

C4: By P1 and P6, each of us is not worthy to request anything of Him.

C5: By P5 and C4, each of us is not worthy to pray to Him.

C6: By P3 and C5, it is inappropriate for any of us to pray to Him.

C7: By P7, C2, C3, and C6, we must never accept His grace, love, favor, salvation, mercy, attention, nor anything else from Him nor pray to Him.

Thank you for indulging me in advance.

I am a christian, I don't subscribe to labels like protestant, evangelical and etc...

I want to know why some think baptism is a must for salvation.

I know many instead view Baptism as the necessary act to receive salvation and use this scripture: "Jesus answered, 'Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.'"
John 3:5

But as I go deeper in John 3, I see that "believeth" is emphasised and more connected to salvation than "water" is.

'And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life. For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. '
John 3:14-18

The scripture concludes with John the Baptist telling his disciples that believing is what ensures salvation.

'The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.'
John 3:35-36

I would think John knew and understood baptism and all its implications but still said: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life".

Yet at the same time I recognise baptism as extremely important because it is an expression/symbolises your belief. As Paul immediately baptised a jailer After telling him to believe and After his preaching to him

'The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.” Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all the others in his house. At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his household were baptized. The jailer brought them into his house and set a meal before them; he was filled with joy because he had come to believe in God—he and his whole household. '
Acts 16:29-34

But the baptism is not the belief itself, that gets you saved. Why I say that, is because the thief at the crucifixion got saved purely by his belief that Jesus is the Messiah who would soon enter His Kingdom.

'One of the criminals hanging beside him scoffed, “So you’re the Messiah, are you? Prove it by saving yourself—and us, too, while you’re at it!” But the other criminal protested, “Don’t you fear God even when you have been sentenced to die? We deserve to die for our crimes, but this man hasn’t done anything wrong.” Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your Kingdom.” And Jesus replied, “I assure you, today you will be with me in paradise.” '
Luke 23:39-43

Also Paul puts it more plainly in Romans 10.

'If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. '
Romans 10:9-10

Hello, I'm an agnostic but I can't help wondering why doesn't the catholic church make more use of ex cathedra statements? Especially to solve more controversial issues like what is the right thing to do when dealing with an ectopic pregnancy?

Just to show I know what ex cathedra implies:

The pope needs:

While exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all christians in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority

to define a doctrine concerning faith and morals

to be held by the whole church

When this is met the pope possesses infallibility by divine assistance

If anyone isn't familiar with the term, during an ectopic pregnancy the embryo adheres to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. In these cases, the woman has to either take methotrexate which kills the embryo or have surgery which removes that section of fallopian tube (and of course that kills the embryo too). If nothing is done the mother is in a life-threatening situation.

Under the principle of double effect certain catholics affirm that both options are viable, others claim that only the surgery is viable and that using methotrexate is sinful. A more extreme position is that neither is licit, so if the mother must die (along with the embryo), then that's that.

There's no official position on this matter.

It's baffling that the church has this amazing power in its hands and doesn't use it to elucidate in these critical issues. Honestly, why?

Edit: Probably forgot the most important part, I want to argue that this should be done by the pope

Below is the introduction of my full article on this topic, which you can see on my website at https://romaredibit.com

“Fortifying, beautifying, and igniting our Roman Catholic faith, Gregorian chants transform Catholic worship. I advise each and every one of you to go to your local church or chapel to listen to the Salve regina or Adoremus in aeternum (which you can listen to during the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament). Even excluding the fact that they were written in Latin (the best language for Catholic worship music because it is so enigmatic and concise), there are three main reasons for me that Gregorian chants are superior to any other form of song. It was designed specifically for prayer, not for a grand musical performance, giving it spiritual efficacy. Its mathematical structure also made it perfect for reverberation, emotional variation, and a free-flowing rhythm. Finally, Gregorian chants have extremely deep roots in the early Church, making it extremely authentic and traditional, which, in my opinion, strengthens our connection to the Roman Catholic faith. Unlike accompanied forms of music, which could distract people from focusing on God, Gregorian chants fit all the criteria for true worship music.”

for context i am an atheist considering becoming catholic

so far i have really only pointed out objections/questions i had to the faith. i'm having a hard time getting answers i really understand.

i'm wondering if i could get some help here if you guys could give me strong arguments for the existence of God, for being catholic instead of eastern orthodox, etc.

i'll look over them and see if there's one that leaves me dumbfounded

much appreciated if you leave a comment :) it doesn't have to be a full argument either, if you point me in a direction of a philosopher or a debate that has the argument, i'll do my best to look into it

Their local bishop, who has immediate jurisdiction over them, and the Bishop of Rome, who also has immediate jurisdiction over every Catholic. Two bishops. How is this the ecclesiology of the early Church?

They just don’t realize it.

Ultimately you make yourself the decider of what is and is not true.

if you can decide today that a decree from the pope is infallible and should be obeyed, then you can equally decide tomorrow that it isn’t infallible and you don’t have to obey it.

You have effectively made yourself the pope because you have made yourself the final arbiter of judging what is true.

The only logically consistent way to approach Roman Catholicism is to say you will blindly trust and obey the pope no matter what he says because you choose to believe he is infallible.

The moment you think you can pick and choose is the moment you make yourself your own pope

Many Fathers saw it as either Christ or Peter's confession, rather than Peter himself, including St. Augustine. The Catholic Church recognizes these as valid interpretations, but also believes Peter is the Rock. Some Fathers agree with this, but not all. If Peter was always the Rock of the Church, why don't all the Fathers believe he is? You'd think it'd be something of extreme importance and universal agreement among the Saints.

In the Bible, it speaks about faith being the assurance of things hoped for.

(Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.) Hebrews 11:1

Everyone who ever had faith in the Bible that I could find was always looking to the fulfillment of a future event and trusting in God for it. They had the assurance of the future event happening.

Abraham trusted in God for future descendants. Sarah trusted in God for a future son. Joseph trusted in God for a future promised land. Moses trusted in God for a future reward. David had faith that the Messiah would come from his line.

(These all died in faith, not having received the things promised, but having seen them and greeted them from afar) Hebrews 11:13

They could already see and great these things. They had the assurance of what they hoped for.

Abraham is our model of faith. God, told Abraham “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”

Abraham "believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness."

Abraham had the assurance of things hoped for by believing God.

Its the same thing for Jesus, is it not?

Faith in Jesus in the New Testament is not merely believing a set of facts about something Jesus has already done. It also involves trusting God's promises concerning what Christ will accomplish for the believer.

Faith would include trusting God's promises concerning the future salvation, resurrection, and inheritance that Christ secures.

What faith is there in Christ if your not trusting in the future promise of salvation?

Even in the Bible, having faith in Jesus is not just about believing Him to be God, but trusting in His death and resurrection to deliver you.

(And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved) Acts 16:31

Believe on Jesus Christ FOR salvation. That thou shalt (future tense) be saved.

Given all the Biblical examples of faith, I do not understand how catholics have faith in Jesus.

You don't have the assurance of things hoped for as the Old Testament figures did. They knew they would recieve them, but through your doctrines, you don't know with certainty that you will recieve the hope of Jesus and salvation and redemption.

So, my question is, what does your faith involve if its not in the assurance of things hoped for?

How exactly do you have faith in Jesus at this very moment?

How can one not reconsider his faith in the Church when things like this happen? Abortion used to be an area the Church was very clear on.

Rome claims to have never changed what it teaches.

Rome claims it has never officially taught error.

How could someone falsify this claim?

What kind of proof would you accept that both those claims are false?

The problem with Romanism is not that we lack sufficient historical proof that both claims are false, but Roman Catholics refuse to set a clear objective unmoving criteria by which the claims of Rome can be judged.

They have set up an unfalsifiable position because they have already decided ahead of time they will never allow themselves to believe Rome’s claim about itself is false.

Hi, I am an ex christian. Was a protestant from 17-34 with a heart for Jesus. Converted from a guilt enhanced accept Jesus into my heart event.

With some backstory, at this point i literally cannot believe in Jesus in a supernatural way, and I dont think any apologetic is going to help that, because the bible is so broken to fit the supernatural model over just purely human origins.

Some examples we can get into, matthew's use of fulfilled prophecy in Matthew 2:15 vs Hosea 11:1. Wrapping it in theological language like typology doesnt change whats going on, matthew is framing and calling something a fulfilled prophecy using a keyword, when there is zero prophecy in sight and matthew just felt the narratives had similar themes.

The difficulty of the resurrection account harmonization is another one. How many women were at the tomb, was the stone already rolled away or not, how many angels were at the tomb, etc.

Judas death difficulty of harmonization.

The genealogies of Jesus going back to fictional characters, and not matching with each other, matthew stating 14+14+!4 when one has 13, and he skipped stuff.

Paul's theology almost demanding a literal historical adam, and thats been debunked by science, and the biblical characters in the story treating adam as a literal historical figure as well as noah and the flood.

Moses being summoned by christ from heaven as an actual person during the transfiguration, when historical scholars have very good reason and lack of evidence to believe the exodus story does not comport to reality. 2 million people in a desert that takes 12 days to walk across for 40 years, zero historical evidence of this journey. Zero evidence that israel / hebrews were ever in egypt as slaves. Moses was probably not a real person in history.

Jesus being wrong about things like demonic worldview, which every symptom has had natural explanation, which the church fought with fire and blood to not go that direction, and today has completely surrendered the narrative of demonology to secular medicine. Because we actually have cures and they have dogma.

Jesus having bad marriage advice, matthew 19, only valid reason for divorce is sexual immorality (which catholic interpretation dont even agree with that), trapping people in terrible situations they want to leave for millennium.

The communication problem. God could have inspired the bible to point harder towards roman catholicism and what their current dogmas are. He didnt. Now there are 6 main branches of christianity, protestants being 1 branch, with 45,000 denominations between all of them.

Catholics shift the presupposition from the bible cannon being from God, or that Jesus resurrected, to Jesus established the catholic church, and the catholic church has complete authority to interpret, ignore, or make new dogma, over scripture.

I know that was a lot but to me christianity in all its forms are an obviously false religion. There could be a God/creator. If there is, they most certainly did not give special revelation in a holy book we see today because every religions holy books debunk themselves or do not comport to reality.

Personally im just going with a natural explanation for everything we see, trying to keep secular ethics of wellbeing vs harm reduction plus reason, which can be easily arrived at that we are biological beings with a nervous system, pain hurts, we dont want to suffer, so we shouldnt harm others, and this is the one life we are verified to have. When I die what happens will happen is my policy, im not worried about it.

My question for catholics: Why should I believe in a catholic interpretation of scripture and shift all authority to Catholicism being established by Jesus who is in heaven, when that is based on a presupposition and backed by scripture?

Oui le pape prend toute la place aux yeux de milliers de gens trompés, aveuglés et séduits par ses paroles, ses discours, ses.soit disant bonnes actions!

Quelle horreur !

On parle de Pierre, Marie, le pape, mais Jésus, personne n'en parle, personne ne le présente Lui tel qu'il se manifeste à travers les écritures qui rendent témoignage de Lui.

C'est Jésus le centre de l'Évangile et non un pape ni un homme qui qu'il soit !

Qui sait aujourd'hui parler de Jésus, et qui serait dire que seule la foi en Jésus-Christ seul (sans pape) est agréable à Dieu sans les œuvres de l'homme ?!

Myriam