re: Did you attend Church today?

quote:

---

quote:

---

That means our works do not merit or earn anything towards our salvation

---

That is just not what I have ever said in this thread and it is inherently against what Father Mike in the video said. He explicitly stated that we cannot earn our way to heaven, yet here you are trying to saying we’re at odds. I’ve exhausted my abilities to explain that works according to the Church are not meaning our actions merit salvation.

---

The reason why I keep pressing this is because this is what Rome has taught officially at least since the Council of Trent. It's what other Catholic posters like Champagne keep bringing up time and time again. It's what other documents like the Catholic Catechism teach. And, it's what Catholic theologians have pressed in debates with Protestants over the years. I've read it. I've heard it. I've debated it. You are not in alignment with your own church.

Even the priest you cited in the video is in agreement with me, except he kept couching it in fuzzy language to make it sound like something else. If the biblical position of good works being merely a required evidence of justification and not a required merit of salvation were what the priest meant, he would not have enlisted the common arguments against the classic position of sola fide.. Even his poor analogy betrayed this, as he compared salvation to becoming a great guitarist, which requires work to do. Salvation doesn't require works on our part, but only on Christ's, so the analogy supports my accusation.

But since it seems like you are done discussing at this point, I'll cut to the chase and just show you from your own church's teachings why I keep harping on this point of meritorius works:

From the Council of Trent:
CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

"Hence, to those who work well unto the end and trust in God, eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits." -Chapter 16 of the decree

Catholic Catechism
CCC 2010 - "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."

CCC 2027 - "No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods."

CCC 2068 - "The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: 'The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord...the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments.'"

These don't even speak to the treasury of merit by the works of the saints and Mary, who the RCC teaches Christians can draw on for their salvation.

One of the biggest issues here is we are talking about different things when we talk about justification. I'm referring to a legal declaration by God that sins are forgiven, righteousness is imputed, and salvation is sure. Rome includes sanctification (the process of being made more and more holy) in their definition of justification, so that salvation is obtained through sanctification in addition to the remission of sins (CCC 2019).

quote:

---

I have read these passages a great deal. It's amazing to me how your Reformed Presbyterian Protestant theological training has trained you to ignore the plain words and plain meaning of Jesus's direct answer to a direct question.

---

You have to read it in context. Jesus' words about Him being a door/gate, vine, bread, water, light, and so on are very plain, but if you were consistent, you would think Jesus was literally made out of bread, or that His profession was a shepherd.

You didn't even touch on my statement about Jesus misleading many others by neglecting to inform them of their need to keep the law and do good works to merit salvation, because He simply left them with "believe".

quote:

---

"Faith Alone" is not a theological doctrine that is taught by Jesus Christ Himself. The plain words of His plain answers to the direct questions on two occasions makes this conclusion very certain - Jesus Christ did not teach the theological doctrine of Faith Alone.

---

You gave two examples (though you only actually cited one), but here are examples where Jesus only taught belief or unbelief saves or condemns:

John 3:16
John 3:18
John 3:36
John 5:24
John 6:40
John 6:47
John 11:25-26
John 16:8-9
Luke 7:50
Luke 8:48
Luke 17:19
Luke 18:42
Luke 23:42-43
Mark 16:16

There are many other verses that could apply from Jesus' own words, and that doesn't even touch on the other NT writings.

quote:

---

You can follow whatever faith you like or none at all. I'm simply inviting everybody to read the two New Testament passages in which Jesus answers the direct question "How do I get to Heaven" and closely examine Jesus's answer to confirm that he cites nothing close to "Faith Alone."

---

I know Catholics like to take one or two verses or passages and use them out of context to support doctrines and dogmas that developed from human tradition, but this is pretty bad.

quote:

---

And it is also very certain that Jesus never taught the theological doctrine of Bible Alone.

---

Sure He did. Want me to go through the argument again? I don't think it will move the needle, since I've done this before. Several times.

quote:

---

Martin Luther said "Faith Alone" back in the 1500s, but Jesus Christ never even remotely implied the theological doctrine of "Faith Alone." How do I know this? Because I've studied what Jesus taught in direct reply to the direct question.

---

I've also studied what Jesus taught, and it's clear to me that He taught that coming to Him by faith is the basis for salvation, and that good works prove that faith is true.

quote:

---

Foo’s Calvinist Bible - in particular Matthew 7, reads as:

---

You have consistently shown yourself to be a poor theologian. I'd suggest you sit this one out.

quote:

---

CCC 2010 - "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."

---

"Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit..." The Catechism is not describing autonomous human achievement. Rather, God gives grace, the believer cooperates with that grace, and God rewards the works that His grace has enabled.

"The merit of man before God ... arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace." — CCC 2008

It means that merit is derivative and grace-based, not independent merit separate from Grace.

You’re doing the same thing you do with the Bible. Take words used and apply your own meaning instead of the intended meaning.

quote:

---

"Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit..." The Catechism is not describing autonomous human achievement. Rather, God gives grace, the believer cooperates with that grace, and God rewards the works that His grace has enabled.

"The merit of man before God ... arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace." — CCC 2008

It means that merit is derivative and grace-based, not independent merit separate from Grace.

---

It's the word "cooperation" that I'm drawing attention to. You want to focus on God's grace, but grace is a free and unmerited gift. What this cooperation is doing is saying that God merely enables man to do good works and then rewards those good works with justification. Man contributes to his own salvation by his own works. Whether or not those works were grace-enabled or not is irrelevant to my point: Catholicism teaches that man contributes to his own justification (salvation) by good works, which is what I've been saying all along.

It seems like you're finally catching up and agreeing that is what the RCC teaches. You are just taking exception to the lack of nuance I'm giving it by not acknowledging that those good works flow from God's grace, but like I said above, that's just a prevenient grace that enables man to save himself. He's still contributing to his own salvation by his own merits, and the merits of others other than Jesus Christ (the saints, etc.)

This is what I mean when I say that it's faith + works: you believe that we can merit our own salvation by contributing to and increasing the justification that we receive upon baptism and regeneration. Because we can fall from that grace through our sin, we have to make up for it by our works. Jesus might have paid the price for our sins and applied it to us through baptism, but then we have to cooperate with God from then on by our good works, which are not merely a sign of our justification, but a contributor to it.

quote:

---

though I don't think TRex was on the ark

---

If I look for it, I can probably find the old threads where you said you thought Noah had taken dinosaurs on board the ark.

quote:

---

you deny the historical existence of Jesus, who even the most skeptical of atheistic scholars agree existed according to the evidence.

---

Ok Foo, if you were not completely full of shite, I would not be able to find a single scholar (let’s stick to PhD credentials from divinity schools, theological seminaries, and ancient history and philosophy programs at universities) who take seriously the mythicist position of the existence of the historical Jesus.
List of Historians Who Take Mythicism Seriously

Maybe you are talking in hyperbole, and not outright lying, since I know and you know you are aware of mythicist scholars. Maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt. Or maybe I shouldn’t. You act as an apologist on this site to mislead the gullible, and you should be ashamed.

quote:

---

You are the outlier.

---

When Galileo suggested the earth revolves around the sun, he was an outlier. The church punished him, because they all “knew” the earth is stationary and that the sun moves around the earth… because it says so in the inerrant word of God!

100 years ago, most historians and educated types believed Moses to have been a historical person. Nowadays in 2026, the overwhelming scholarly consensus is that Moses did not exist, nor was there an exodus of Israelites out of Egypt, nor was there a conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.

I may take a minority position right now, but give it time. It will grow into a majority position in another couple of decades in the US.

The Bible Says Jesus Was Real. What Other Proof Exists?

quote:

---

While billions of people believe Jesus of Nazareth was one of the most important figures in world history, many others reject the idea that he existed at all. A 2022 Ipsos survey, for instance, found that of the 3,119 American adults surveyed 10 percent did not believe Jesus was a real person and 14 percent didn't know.

---

So 4 years ago, 24% of Americans who answered the survey doubted the historicity of Jesus.

I listen to Bart Ehrman podcasts. His arguments are extremely weak - they amount to something like all these stories exist so there must’ve been a real guy. That same argument could be used for the historicity of Hercules, Achilles, Odysseus, and Romulus and Remus. His inner circle or subordinate scholars I can tell doubt the historicity of Jesus but for their career they can’t out themselves.

quote:

---

I'm open to "dinosaurs" being on the ark, but what is defined as a dinosaur can vary, and there were many of many sizes. I don't think there was a full-sized T-Rex on the ark, but that doesn't mean dinosaurs weren't on the ark. You were more specific (T-Rex) while you referenced me being more general ("dinosaurs").

---

In your defense, Foo, your beliefs of Noah and his ark with dinosaurs on it are not much more preposterous and ridiculous than the base biblical Noah’s ark story,
You really are one lunatic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I may take a minority position right now, but give it time. It will grow into a majority position in another couple of decades in the US.

---

Good luck with that. The current consensus is based on known evidence. What evidence do you think will be found that will make it more doubtful that Jesus was a historical figure?

---

It’s not about finding more evidence, Foo. It’s moreso about old people and old ideas dying off, allowing modern scholarship and modern ideas to flourish. Really there isn’t any evidence that Jesus was historical, at least not good evidence, not convincing evidence. You have the very weak “the brother of the Lord” thing about James. You have very weak evidence in Josephus for those that try to convince others of a “kernel of truth” of the historical Jesus contained within the obviously Christian-interpolated/fabricated “Testimonium Flavianum”.

Just look at the UK.
UK survey: 40 per cent don’t believe Jesus was real

quote:

---

40 per cent don’t believe Jesus was real, survey finds: A culture survey on behalf of the Church of England has suggested that 40 per cent of people do not believe that Jesus was real, with 25 per cent of those aged between 18 and 34 believing that he was a fictional or mythical character.

---

quote:

---

A number of academics think that Jesus was a real person who lived in Galilee more than 2,000 years ago; however, details about his life are widely debated.

---

Back to your comments:

quote:

---

So 4 years ago, 24% of Americans who answered the survey doubted the historicity of Jesus.This was based on a survey. You've now moved from scholars to general public? Is that where you have to go to get support? OK

---

When I am making a case that the majority of people in the general public think a certain way, yes I go to polls, you idiot. I am not using the general public as a reason or as evidence of my positions.

quote:

---

It’s not about finding more evidence, Foo.

---

It has to be. There is an abundance of evidence that Jesus existed, and if you reject His existence, you have to question the existence of most figures of antiquity, who have much less evidence of their existence. Your hatred of Christianity would have to wipe out our understanding of most of history, or at least make us all hyper skeptical.

quote:

---

It’s moreso about old people and old ideas dying off, allowing modern scholarship and modern ideas to flourish.

---

So you are saying that the tens or hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last hundred plus years who looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that Jesus existed only did so due to some other reason than the evidence? Was it tradition? Was it the influence of or threats by Christianity that kept and keep scholars in line?

Do you hear how crazy you sound? You can dismiss Christian theology about the great flood as silly all you like, but what you are doing here is accusing the vast majority of modern scholars—even young ones—as being beholden to older ideas rather than the evidence (as you see it).

And by new ideas, you really mean old ones. You think all scholars should adopt a mythisist position, which is not new. That’s because of your anti-Christian bias.

You aren’t Galileo fighting the good fight against the establishment. You are hater of God trying to poison the minds of others, and are disappointed that even others hostile to Christianity can’t deny the historical reality of Jesus.

quote:

---

There is an abundance of evidence that Jesus existed

---

No, there is a very small amount of evidence for the historical Jesus that isn’t contained in mythological literature (the gospels). And that very minimal evidence is very weak evidence.

Conversely, the evidence of Jesus starting out as a purely mythological figure without a kernel of a historical person is quite strong.

Both scenarios are possible. Both are even plausible. But based on the overwhelming preponderance of evidence, the Jesus of the gospels and of Paul was most likely not a historical person.

quote:

---

if you reject His existence, you have to question the existence of most figures of antiquity, who have much less evidence of their existence.

---

False equivalency, false binary

quote:

---

Your hatred of Christianity

---

I go to church most Sundays and send my kids to Catholic school. It has its pros and cons. I don’t hate it.

quote:

---

So you are saying that the tens or hundreds of thousands of scholars over the last hundred plus years who looked at the evidence and came to the conclusion that Jesus existed only did so due to some other reason than the evidence? Was it tradition? Was it the influence of or threats by Christianity that kept and keep scholars in line?

---

Yes, yes, and yes

quote:

---

You can dismiss Christian theology about the great flood as silly all you like, but what you are doing here is accusing the vast majority of modern scholars—even young ones—as being beholden to older ideas rather than the evidence (as you see it).

---

Modern scholarly consensus is that the flood of Genesis - flooding the whole word - and Noah’s ark are non historical (except for the flood of Shuruppak on which the myth is based). Scholars would laugh at you foo and ask if you’re joking.

quote:

---

You are hater of God trying to poison the minds of others, and are disappointed that even others hostile to Christianity can’t deny the historical reality of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

No, there is a very small amount of evidence for the historical Jesus that isn’t contained in mythological literature (the gospels). And that very minimal evidence is very weak evidence.

---