I am genuinely curious as to how Catholics respond to Paul's letter to the Romans, specifically this section:
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
I understand that Paul is not Christ, and therefore just because Paul says something, it's not necessarily 100 percent canonical... but surely one of the most influential christian writers ever should be taken at face value when he denounces faith through good works?
I respect the catholic church, even as a Lutheran, and I'm not trying to do 'smugman.jpg'. This is a genuine question, and I'd genuinely like to know what catholics on /his/ think.
>>984583
not a catholic, but good works having a part doesn't mean pelagianism.
>Paul
You mean the obsessive neurotic who hijacked the Christian religion and introduced Hellenic (specifically, Platonic and mystery concepts) ideas to the Jewish religion?
Daily reminder: the JErusalem Church of Peter and James and the original disciples did not believe Jesus to be God or pre-existing. To them, he was merely an annointed human (Messiah) and a leader, and Paul's teachings were decried as blasphemous by the original disciples.
>>984626
Stop doing this. You've done it in nearly half a dozen threads now.
>>984657
Not him but this is pretty much a historical reality. Sorry that reality conflicts with dogma.
>>984667
>This board is dedicated to the discussion of history and the other humanities such as philosophy, religion
>>984677
Historical discussion of religion =/= proselytizing
>>984626
St. Paul, noble apostle, pray for him, he knows not what he says.
>>984742
It doesn't say "historical discussion of religion." It says "religion." I hate the edgy, fedora-tipping bullshit that gets posted here a lot, but thoughtful questions/criticisms like OP's should be encouraged.
>>984626
Daily reminder that everything you've said is incorrect and you can go tip on >>>/r/christianity if you want
>>984752
And the bringing up of how Christianity developed, and Paul's influence on the early church, the conflicts between the Jersualemite branches and whatever you call Paul's followers isn't?
>>984583
There is no mention in the catholic doctrine of good works being a path to salvation, just the fact that you view us this way shows how much of a caricature of the church each protestant holds in his mind just to feel superior.
The only position we hold is that good works are a sign and a confirmation that the person is a born again christian and that the Holy Spirit is at work within that person. While a lot of people (those who don't read the bible) mistake the cause with the effect it is not a part of the doctrine.
Also since you're lutheran I urge you to check the meaning of greek words 'sarx' and 'somos' and then see which word is used in Christ's own words when describing the nature of The Eucharist. It's a biblical proof of Communion being literally flesh, not some mystical babble, but you would never change your views would you?
>>986904
>being literally flesh
Shouldn't we be able to detect things like blood vessels then? The closest thing that has happened there is one "miracle" where watery red mold was interpreted as blood and one person who didn't observe proper procedure claimed to detect cardiac muscle.
>>984583
I kind of take it as Paul saying what God decides is just, it's just.
>>984583
>surely one of the most influential christian writers ever should be taken at face value when he denounces faith through good works?
Even protestards are starting to open their eyes.
Look up the New Perspective on Paul:
http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_New_Perspectives.htm
>I am fascinated by the way in which some of those most conscious of their reformation heritage shy away from Paul’s clear statements about future judgment according to works. It is not often enough remarked upon, for instance, that in the Thessalonian letters, and in Philippians, he looks ahead to the coming day of judgment and sees God’s favourable verdict not on the basis of the merits and death of Christ, not because like Lord Hailsham he simply casts himself on the mercy of the judge, but on the basis of his apostolic work. ‘What is our hope and joy and crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus Christ at his royal appearing? Is it not you? For you are our glory and our joy.’ (1 Thess. 3.19f.; cp. Phil. 2.16f.) I suspect that if you or I were to say such a thing, we could expect a swift rebuke of ‘nothing in my hand I bring, simply to thy cross I cling’. The fact that Paul does not feel obliged at every point to say this shows, I think, that he is not as concerned as we are about the danger of speaking of the things he himself has done – though sometimes, to be sure, he adds a rider, which proves my point, that it is not his own energy but that which God gives and inspires within him (1 Cor. 15.10; Col. 1.29). But he is still clear that the things he does in the present, by moral and physical effort, will count to his credit on the last day, precisely because they are the effective signs that the Spirit of the living Christ has been at work in him. We are embarrassed about saying this kind of thing; Paul clearly is not. What on earth can have happened to a sola scriptura theology that it should find itself forced to screen out such emphatic, indeed celebratory, statements?
>>986918
There are multiple confirmed miracles, peer-reviewed by teams of doctors, atheists picked on purpose and not told what tissue they were examining. I won't do your homework, google this and believe.
>it's a Paulites piss off God episode
>>987281
Lmao
