/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

I think you need to sort out the fundamentals if those polar opposites are your criteria

>>854396

>polar opposites

Some would say so, but I do not. I've been studying Christianity for more than a year now and I still don't know which of the two churches are correct. There are some things that the Catholics say that I just can't accept, and there are some things that the Orthodox say that I just can't accept. Don't even get me started with Protestants…

>>854397

What exactly do you find so difficult to accept? It sounds like you are trying to tailor doctrine to your preferences.

>>854398

Examples:

>Against the Catholics

1. Regarding the Catholic belief that Mary was without sin (immaculate conception), and that she was assumed into heaven. I don't believe it. It's not in the bible, it's not mentioned by the church fathers… the Catholic church just "made it up" in the 19th century, a clear sign that they were turning mythology into doctrine.

1b. Near idolatrous emphasis on Mary.

2. Catholic priests forbid marriage. This is weird.

3. Doctrine of Transubstantiation just doesn't feel right.

>Against the Orthodox

1. I think filioque is correct. Orthodox reject this.

2. Also I think having a Pope who has the authority to dogmatically resolve conflict is important.

3. Palamism: the idea that heaven/hell are states of being and not a reward/punishment. Not sure how I feel about this and how it impacts Soteriology.

>Against them both

Both hold the claim that "outside the church there is no salvation". Therefore the Catholics claim that the Orthodox cannot be saved, and the Orthodox claim that the Catholics (most likely) cannot be saved. I believe that someone living in the wild could be saved by God's grace even if he has never heard of Jesus.

All in all I have more against the Catholics than I do the Orthodox. Protestants are just a big hot mess IMO. The more I look in to it, the more I realize that if I were to be a Catholic, I'd have to be a Sedevacantist.

>>854397

Start with protestantism and tell me your issue with sola fide

>>854403

My understanding of "faith alone" is that Protestants believe that all you need to do is "believe in the gospel" and you will be saved. The "alone" is crucial, because that explicitly states that nothing else contributes to the salvation of your soul other than simply believing that Jesus Christ died for your sins and was resurrected. Would you say my understanding is correct?

>>854407

Yes that's basically it in short. It is important to note that saving faith will necessarily result in works in the protestant view, as opposed to the roman catholic or other view which asserts our works can merit (in part) grace.

We protestants believe in sola fide because it is plainly what Ephesians 2 or John 3 teaches. There is also plenty of support from the early church fathers.

>>854409

>saving faith will necessarily result in works in the protestant view

Well, you could say the same for the Catholic view. In the Catholic view, it is not actually by faith itself that we are saved, but by grace (sanctifying grace). Sanctifying grace comes through faith. What you call "saving faith" is more or less sanctifying grace.

But is it possible to believe and to still not be saved? Yes

>"Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father."

In the Orthodox tradition, there isn't really a difference between "faith" and "works". They're seen as the same thing. Having faith in God is living a Godly life. That sounds more similar to what you're saying. I think most of these disagreements come down to issues in language (eg. we don't mean the same thing by the word "faith")

>>854412

Yes EO has a fuzzier view based mostly on different terminology.

Roman Catholics teach in their catechism that we merit graces for salvation through our works. I hope you can agree that this contradicts ephesians 2.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2027.htm

>But is it possible to believe and to still not be saved? Yes

The point of that passage is that these people do not have real faith. As we discussed, real (living) faith will necessarily result in works. This has always been the protestant witness, outside of some east anglian antinomianist heretics

>>854414

I think the key lies in this:

>Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves

>Moved by the Holy Spirit

We cannot do it by ourselves. We need God the Holy Spirit. But we also need to cooperate with God's grace, and in cooperating with grace we've earned our salvation. In that sense we've earned it because we've allowed the Holy Ghost to work in us.

>real (living) faith will necessarily result in works.

I don't know if that follows. How do you substantiate this claim? But more importantly, if what you're saying is true, then we are actually not in disagreement:

>you say that (living) faith is necessary for salvation

>living faith produces works

>therefore faith+works is necessary for salvation

So, we agree that a saved man 1) has faith and 2) has works. You say the works are a result of the faith only, I say that the works are the result of him cooperating with God's grace. Regardless, the man cannot be in mortal sin and he must have the works, so we don't actually disagree with the criterion, but rather the cause of it. Do you agree?

btw it is bedtime here will have to continue at a later time

>>854418

I think you're choosing to read the catechism paragraph in a complementary way. It says we merit grace.

>How do you substantiate this claim?

James 2, ephesians 2, that same passage you quoted.

>So, we agree that a saved man 1) has faith and 2) has works

Yes, with the exception of deathbed conversions

>You say the works are a result of the faith only, I say that the works are the result of him cooperating with God's grace.

I read these as synonymous

>we don't actually disagree with the criterion, but rather the cause of it. Do you agree?

It sounds like you and I agree and both of us disagree with the roman church, who for 500 years have understood this definition of sola fide and have not changed their mind on the council of trent.

Most protestants, including myself, would extend the logic and argue that if you think you are earning salvation for yourself, even just in part, you are not believing on Jesus wholly and your gospel is deficient (ergo, not saving).