[PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation MARK BRUMLEY

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work - for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

The Reformation was Right

Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."

1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" - sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."

Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:

"If, then, any Catholic - and there would seem to be many such these days - whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."

Bouyer quotes, at length, from the Second Council of Orange (529), the teaching of which was confirmed by Pope Boniface II as de fide or part of the Church's faith. The Council asserted that salvation is the work of God's grace and that even the beginning of faith or the consent to saving grace is itself the result of grace. By our natural powers, we can neither think as we ought nor choose any good pertaining to salvation. We can only do so by the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Nor is it merely that man is limited in doing good. The Council affirmed that, as a result of the Fall, man is inclined to will evil. His freedom is gravely impaired and can only be repaired by God's grace. Following a number of biblical quotations, the Council states, "[W]e are obliged, in the mercy of God, to preach and believe that, through sin of the first man, the free will is so weakened and warped, that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do good for the sake of God, unless moved, previously, by the grace of the divine mercy . . . . Our salvation requires that we assert and believe that, in every good work we do, it is not we who have the initiative, aided, subsequently, by the mercy of God, but that he begins by inspiring faith and love towards him, without any prior merit of ours."

The Council of Trent, writes Bouyer, repeated that teaching, ruling out "a parallel action on the part of God and man, a sort of 'synergism', where man contributes, in the work of salvation, something, however slight, independent of grace." Even where Trent insists that man is not saved passively, notes Bouyer, it doesn't assert some independent, human contribution to salvation. Man freely cooperates in salvation, but his free cooperation is itself the result of grace. Precisely how this is so is mysterious, and the Church has not settled on a particular theological explanation. But that it is so, insist Bouyer, is Catholic teaching. Thus, concludes Bouyer, "the Catholic not only may, but must in virtue of his own faith, give a full and unreserved adherence to the sola gratia, understood in the positive sense we have seen upheld by Protestants."

2. Sola Fide. So much for sola gratia. But what about the other half of the Reformation principle regarding salvation, the claim that justification by grace comes through faith alone (sola fide) ?

According to Bouyer, the main thrust of the doctrine of sola fide was to affirm that justification was wholly the work of God and to deny any positive human contribution apart from grace. Faith was understood as man's grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-completed response to God's saving initiative in Jesus Christ. What the Reformation initially sought to affirm, says Bouyer, was that such a response is purely God's gift to man, with man contributing nothing of his own to receive salvation.

In other words, it isn't as if God does his part and man cooperates by doing his part, even if that part is minuscule. The Reformation insisted that God does his part, which includes enabling and moving man to receive salvation in Christ. Man's "part" is to believe, properly understood, but faith too is the work of God, so man contributes nothing positively of his own. As Bouyer points out, this central concern of the Reformation also happened to be defined Catholic teaching, reaffirmed by the Council of Trent.

In a sense, the Reformation debate was over the nature of saving faith, not over whether faith saves. St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith "formed by charity." In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of "justification by grace alone, through faith alone," if the "alone" was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if "alone" was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity.

For Catholic theologians of the time, the term "faith" was generally used in the highly refined sense of the gracious work of God in us by which we assent to God's Word on the authority of God who reveals. In this sense, faith is distinct from entrusting oneself to God in hope and love, though obviously faith is, in a way, naturally ordered to doing so: God gives man faith so that man can entrust himself to God in hope and love. But faith, understood as mere assent (albeit graced assent), is only the beginning of salvation. It needs to be "informed" or completed by charity, also the work of grace.

Luther and his followers, though, rejected the Catholic view that "saving faith" was "faith formed by charity" and therefore not "faith alone", where "faith" is understood as mere assent to God's Word, apart from trust and love. In large part, this was due to a misunderstanding by Luther. "We must not be misled on this point," writes Bouyer, "by Luther's later assertions opposed to the fides caritate formata [faith informed by charity]. His object in disowning this formula was to reject the idea that faith justified man only if there were added to it a love proceeding from a natural disposition, not coming as a gift of God, the whole being the gift of God." Yet Luther's view of faith, contents Bouyer, seems to imply an element of love, at least in the sense of a total self-commitment to God. And, of course, this love must be both the response to God's loving initiative and the effect of that initiative by which man is enabled and moved to respond. But once again, this is Catholic doctrine, for the charity that "informs" faith so that it becomes saving faith is not a natural disposition, but is as much the work of God as the assent of faith.

Thus, Bouyer's point is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was initially seen by the Reformers as a way of upholding justification by grace alone (sola gratia), which is also a fundamental Catholic truth. Only later, as a result of controversy, did the Reformers insist on identifying justification by faith alone with a negative principle that denied any form of cooperation, even grace-enabled cooperation.

3. Sola Scriptura. Melanchthon, the colleague of Luther, called justification sola gratia, sola fide the "Material Principle" of the Reformation. But there was also the Formal Principle, the doctrine of sola Scriptura or what Bouyer calls the sovereign authority of Scripture. What of that?

Here, too, says Bouyer, the Reformation's core positive principle is correct. The Word of God, rather than a human word, must govern the life of the Christian and of the Church. And the Word of God is found in a unique and supreme form in the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The inspiration of the Bible means that God is the primary author of Scripture. Since we can say that about no other writing or formal expression of the Church's Faith, not even conciliar or papal definitions of faith, the Bible alone is the Word of God in this sense and therefore it possesses a unique authority.

Yet the supremacy of the Bible does not imply an opposition between it and the authority of the Church or Tradition, as certain negative principles adopted by the Reformers implied. Furthermore, the biblical spirituality of Protestantism, properly understood, is in keeping with the best traditions of Catholic spirituality, especially those of the Fathers and the great medieval theologians. Through Scripture, God speaks to us today, offering a living Word to guide our lives in Christ.

Thus, writes Bouyer, "the supreme authority of Scripture, taken in its positive sense, as gradually drawn out and systematized by Protestants themselves, far from setting the Church and Protestantism in opposition, should be the best possible warrant for their return to understanding and unity."

The Reformation was Wrong

Where does this leave us? If the Reformation was right about sola gratia and sola Scriptura, its two key principles, how was it wrong? Bouyer holds that only the positive elements of these Reformation principles are correct.

Unfortunately, these principles were unnecessarily linked by the Reformers to certain negative elements, which the Catholic Church had to reject. Here we consider two of those elements: 1) the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the nature of justifying faith and 2) the authority of the Bible.

1. Extrinsic Justification. Regarding justification by grace alone, it was the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the rejection of the Catholic view of faith formed by charity as "saving faith." Bouyer writes, "The further Luther advanced in his conflict with other theologians, then with Rome, then with the whole of contemporary Catholicism and finally with the Catholicism of every age, the more closely we see him identifying affirmation about sola gratia with a particular theory, known as extrinsic justification."

Extrinsic justification is the idea that justification occurs outside of man, rather than within him. Catholicism, as we have seen, holds that justification is by grace alone. In that sense, it originates outside of man, with God's grace. But, according to Catholic teaching, God justifies man by effecting a change within him, by making him just or righteous, not merely by saying he is just or righteous or treating him as if he were. Justification imparts the righteousness of Christ to man, transforming him by grace into a child of God.

The Reformation view was different. The Reformers, like the Catholic Church, insisted that justification is by grace and therefore originates outside of man, with God. But they also insisted that when God justifies man, man is not changed but merely declared just or righteous. God treats man as if he were just or righteous, imputing to man the righteousness of Christ, rather than imparting it to him.

The Reformers held this view for two reasons. First, because they came to think it necessary in order to uphold the gratuitousness of justification. Second, because they thought the Bible taught it. On both points, argues Bouyer, the Reformers were mistaken. There is neither a logical nor a biblical reason why God cannot effect a change in man without undercutting justification by grace alone. Whatever righteousness comes to be in man as a result of justification is a gift, as much any other gift God bestows on man. Nor does the Bible's treatment of "imputed" righteousness imply that justification is not imparted. On these points, the Reformers were simply wrong:

"Without the least doubt, grace, for St. Paul, however freely given, involves what he calls 'the new creation', the appearance in us of a 'new man', created in justice and holiness. So far from suppressing the efforts of man, or making them a matter of indifference, or at least irrelevant to salvation, he himself tells us to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling', at the very moment when he affirms that '. . . knowing that it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish.' These two expressions say better than any other that all is grace in our salvation, but at the same time grace is not opposed to human acts and endeavor in order to attain salvation, but arouses them and exacts their performance."

Calvin, notes Bouyer, tried to circumvent the biblical problems of the extrinsic justification theory by positing a systematic distinction between justification, which puts us in right relation to God but which, on the Protestant view, doesn't involve a change in man; and sanctification, which transforms us. Yet, argues Bouyer, this systematic distinction isn't biblical. In the Bible, justification and sanctification - as many modern Protestant exegetes admit - are two different terms for the same process. Both occur by grace through faith and both involve a faith "informed by charity" or completed by love. As Bouyer contends, faith in the Pauline sense, "supposes the total abandonment of man to the gift of God" - which amounts to love of God. He argues that it is absurd to think that the man justified by faith, who calls God "Abba, Father," doesn't love God or doesn't have to love him in order to be justified.

2. Sola Scriptura vs. Church and Tradition. Bouyer also sees a negative principle that the Reformation unnecessarily associated with sola Scriptura or the sovereignty of the Bible. Yes, the Bible alone is the Word of God in the sense that only the Bible is divinely inspired. And yes the Bible's authority is supreme in the sense that neither the Church nor the Church's Tradition "trumps" Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the Word of God in an authoritative form is found only in the Bible, for the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form as well. Nor does it mean that there can be no authoritative interpreter of the Bible (the Magisterium) or authoritative interpretation of biblical doctrine (Tradition). Repudiation of the Church's authority and Tradition simply doesn't follow from the premise of Scripture's supremacy as the inspired Word of God. Furthermore, the Tradition and authority of the Church are required to determine the canon of the Bible.

Luther and Calvin did not follow the Radical Reformation in rejecting any role for Church authority or Tradition altogether. But they radically truncated such a role. Furthermore, they provided no means by which the Church, as a community of believers, could determine when the Bible was being authentically interpreted or who within the community had the right to make such a determination for the community. In this way, they ultimately undercut the supremacy of the Bible, for they provided no means by which the supreme authority of the Bible could, in fact, be exercised in the Church as a whole. The Bible's authority extended only so far as the individual believer's interpretation of it allowed.

The Catholic Church and Reformation Principles

As we have seen, Bouyer argues for the Reformation's "positive principles" and against its "negative principles." But how did what was right from one point of view in the Reformation go so wrong from another point of view? Bouyer argues that the under the influence of decadent scholasticism, mainly Nominalism, the Reformers unnecessarily inserted the negative elements into their ideas along with the positive principles. "Brought up on these lines of thought, identified with them so closely they could not see beyond them," he writes, "the Reformers could only systematize their very valuable insights in a vitiated framework."

The irony is profound. The Reformation sought to recover "genuine Christianity" by hacking through what it regarded as the vast overgrowth of medieval theology. Yet to do so, the Reformers wielded swords forged in the fires of the worst of medieval theology - the decadent scholasticism of Nominalism.

The negative principles of the Reformation necessarily led the Catholic Church to reject the movement - though not, in fact, its fundamental positive principles, which were essentially Catholic. Eventually, argues Bouyer, through a complex historical process, these negative elements ate away at the positive principles as well. The result was liberal Protestantism, which wound up affirming the very things Protestantism set out to deny (man's ability to save himself) and denying things Protestantism began by affirming (sola gratia).

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

Catholics have responsibilities as well. One major responsibility is to be sure they have fully embraced their own Church's teaching on the gratuitousness of salvation and the supremacy of the Bible. As Bouyer writes, "Catholics are in fact too prone to forget that, if the Church bears within herself, and cannot ever lose, the fullness of Gospel truth, its members, at any given time and place, are always in need of a renewed effort to apprehend this truth really and not just, as Newman would say, 'notionally'." "To Catholics, lukewarm and unaware of their responsibilities," he adds, the Reformation, properly understood, "recalls the existence of many of their own treasures which they overlook."

Only if Catholics are fully Catholic - which includes fully embracing the positive principles of the Reformation that Bouyer insists are essentially Catholic - can they "legitimately aspire to show and prepare their separated brethren the way to a return which would be for them not a denial but a fulfillment."

Today, as in the sixteenth century, the burden rests with us Catholics. We must live, by God's abundant grace, up to our high calling in Christ Jesus. And in this way, show our Protestant brethren that their own positive principles are properly expressed only in the Catholic Church.

Mark Brumley. "Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation." Catholic Dossier 7 no. 5 (September-October 2001): 30-35.

This article is reprinted with permission from Catholic Dossier. To subscribe to Catholic Dossier call 1-800-651-1531.

Mark Brumley is managing editor of Catholic Dossier. A convert from Evangelical Protestantism, he was greatly influenced by Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, when he first read it over twenty years ago. Recently, Scepter Books has republished The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which can be obtained online at www.scepterpub.org or by calling 1-800-322-8773.

I fail to see what your problem is. IT is His act of redemption ("pay[ing] the price in full for my sin"). How do you suppose this act of His is extended in time and space? That is precisely why He founded His Church. "Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven?" shows that Jesus was giving His apostles and their successors His power through the ages. (I notice you carefully omitted commenting on this in your response).

There is no response that a Catholic would accept atta. An entire church has been built on the authority of these few words, in spite of the fact there is no other supporting scripture. So no matter what I say to you you will refuse it.

Most Protestant would see the keys as a sign of authority. Like the keys held by a jailor. When the Jews made a man a doctor of the law, they put into his hand the key of the closet in the temple where the sacred books were kept, and also tablets to write upon; signifying, by this, that they gave him authority to teach, and to explain the Scriptures to the people. This prophetic declaration of our Lord was literally fulfilled to Peter, as he was made the first instrument of opening, i.e. preaching the doctrines of the kingdom of heaven to the Jews, Acts ii. 41; and to the Gentiles, The keys would represent doctrine and authority. Peter and the apostles were to be given the authority to act in Christ’s stead, but they were men subject to sin and error. Matthew Henry says it this way

”They had no certain knowledge of the characters of men, and were liable to mistakes and sins in their own conduct; but they were kept from error in stating the way of acceptance and salvation, the rule of obedience, the believer's character and experience, and the final doom of unbelievers and hypocrites. In such matters their decision was right, and it was confirmed in heaven. ….And this binding and loosing, in the common language of the Jews, signified to forbid and to allow, or to teach what is lawful or unlawful.”. Adam Clarke notes this on binding and loosing “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth] This mode of expression was frequent among the Jews: they considered that every thing that was done upon earth, according to the order of God, was at the same time done in heaven: hence they were accustomed to say, that when the priest, on the day of atonement, offered the two goats upon earth, the same were offered in heaven. As one goat therefore is permitted to escape on earth, one is permitted to escape in heaven; and when the priests cast the lots on earth, the priest also casts the lots in heaven.”

I do not expect these words to change your thought on the oft cited scripture on which all of Roman Catholism rests. But it is good for you to understand the protestant understanding of the same words.

To the Church was left the important mission of (1) preaching His Gospel (certainly on such an important matter as this He Wouldn’t have left us to our own devices resulting in the splintered groups collectively known as Protestantism) and (2) as a conduit for his graces (continuing the Jewish system of priesthood).

I understand that when Catholics look at Protestants they see what appears to them a doctrinal mess. In actuality on matters pertaining to Salvation we have basic agreement. The doctrinal variations come with varying subtexts. I know you would be loath to admit it, but there are doctrinal divisions with in the Catholic Church. The difference is they occur behind closed doors, one need only look at the various councils to see the arguments. We Protestants have the right to argue them in full view. :>) I would only say this, the ability to have full and open participation by the body means it is less likely a ‘grave ‘ error will occur (not impossible, but more difficult)

As for the “importance” of a continuation of the Jewish system of the priesthood I believe would horrify most Protestants. I believe that Christ by His death ended that system.

Hebrews 7
26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;
27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
28 For the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity; but the word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, who is consecrated for evermore.

With all due respect, this sounds very much like the "I will not serve" rebellion of satan. Some have surmised (no, it's not in the Bible--it's just a guess--that when told Jesus would be born in the form of a man is when satan had enough). AT ANY RATE, MY POINT IS THAT YOU ARE SHOWING SUPREME ARROGANCE. IF JESUS WANTED TO DO IT THAT WAY, WHO ARE WE TO SECOND GUESS HIM? "...Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

I addressed the bound and loosed above.I would ask again .do you not think if God desires something He can do it?

Please note where I used the word absolutely ANYWHERE. I was only quoting Scripture. Baptism is not a work of ourselves--the saving power of it (as well as faith, of course) IS a gift of God.

I will repeat myself here. Baptism does not save anyone. The grace of God saves man. You mention faith as an after thought. I will say again, even the Roman Catholic Church has not limited salvation to the baptized.
Romans 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
1 Peter 1
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls.

God instituted the rituals in order to do just that. Some need a priest, but not all--baptism and matrimony.

The only “rituals” that are instituted plainly are the ones accepted throughout all of Christianity. Baptism and the Lords Supper.

Tell me something...Since the apostles were preaching before written Scripture, how was anyone saved? (QUESTION 1)

The simple answer is

Romans 8 But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

But they did have the scriptures.Jeus taught from them. Do a word search on how many times the New Testament has “it is written”. the Old Testament proclaims Christ in EVERY book
the apostles understood that the word of God ,even the word as proclaimed in the Old Testament brought life

Romans 10;17So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Galatians 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Ephesians 1
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise,

And please respond to the following: How come Jesus told the apostles to "baptize in the name of the Father..." And if everything is a WORK to you, what is the function of a churcH? (QUESTION 2)

A “work” is anything we depend upon for salvation beside Christ. Christ paid the entire price for our sins. His death was not a token, or a symbol. It was real and it was complete. When we try to add anything to that, we are stealing His glory from Him. We are telling Him he is a powerless god. That somehow we are better able to pay the price for our own sins than He was. The “church never “saved “ anyone atta Jesus Christ hung on that cross, and when He closed his eyes He saw you, and as the pain ripped through his body He said this is for atta, this is for terry, He did it all!!! We are nothing but filthy rags washed white in His Blood. The church is the visible body of Christ. It’s function today is the same as the function was when the apostles left that upper room. It is to proclaim the Good News. God made man was born and lived and suffered and died on a cross so that those that whosoever calls upon His name will be saved.

And you never answered the question either about Jesus describing the Last Judgment: "I was hungry...." (QUESTION 3) Why do you think Jesus would've made such a big deal about a "sign"--woops--"work?" The apostles knew Jesus' intent. According to you they misinterpreted and passed along their mistake for 1500 YEARS!? So are you calling Jesus a liar: "...and

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
good works (as opposed to works to “earn “ our salvation) flow from our salvation ,they are not the cause of it, nor do they assist it. They are the natural outcome of a regenerated heart. They are the “fruit” of salvation. There will be a judgment of works of the saved. It will be a judgment of rewards. I once heard this thought. Billy Graham (if you want to use the Pope go ahead :>) goes up to heaven; he is standing in line waiting for the Lord to judge his obedience in his works. Standing next to him is a church gardener. When the time comes for the judgment, both men received the exact same reward. Because both men were equally faithful and obedient. We hope to hear the words from Matthew
Matthew 25:21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.

the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?" (QUESTION 4)

I think I have responded to that! :>)))

You made several comments in your #433 which I haven't had time to address directly to you, since I am finding that I don't have much time for FR right now.

However, most of these comments were answered in RnMomof7's post #582 to you. You responded to RnMomof7's #582 with your own post #768 as follows:

I love the way you slough over James by saying that he is talking to antimonians and therefore it doesn't pertain to the general audience.

I am by no means "sloughing over James." It just suits your anti-Protestant bias to say that I am.

What you need to realize is that one of the parties in the present doctrinal controversy doesn't really understand James's real point. For the sake of the argument. I'll say maybe it's me and the Reformers; then again, maybe it's you and the Papists. I'm asking you to consider the possibility that the latter is the case. But so far, you have refused to consider that. You have even refused to see what I am saying--which accounts for the fact that you have wound up misrepresenting what I am saying.

Pardon me for offering some gentle criticism, but I think that you are too zealous in defending the RC line to be completely honest about what I am saying. Please relax and re-think everything.

I know it's difficult to relax, to be objective, in a situation like this, but it's important. It is the only way one can discover if one is being Satanically suckered. And the Bible itself warns you not to rule out this possibility!

So, please be objective. If you will thoughtfully re-read what I did say, you will discover that I definitely didn't say that James is talking to antinomians rather than to a more general audience. I merely said that James is not attacking the mainstream Calvinists. My goodness, mainstream Calvinists DEMAND practical, fruit-bearing faith--which is the same as James's bottom-line demand.

My point is that Calvinists do read and heed the broad warning contained in James's teachings (just as we should)! Look again at what Calvin said. Calvin clearly indicated that the person who does not produce good works is going to burn in hell. The consistent Calvinist goes on to maintain that most of what passes for saving faith in our day is the faith of devils. This, in fact, was the Protestant Reformers' bottom-line charge against the Church of Rome.

And this charge by the Protestants was an extraordinarily serious charge. Heck, it was inarguably true. But inarguably true or not, Rome tried to deny it over and over and over and over. Instead of repenting, Rome killed her accusers when she got the chance--which, of course, made the Reformation even stronger. In other words, Rome condemned herself through her actions.

You may not want to acknowledge that as you should, but I will have more to say about it later in this post.

James is pretty straight-talking throughout...

I would say that he is being downright salty in the way he covers an enormously important practical matter of what saving/justifying faith is.

But you need to understand some important things about James's "straight talking." First of all, he is speaking at a practical level rather than a doctrinal level; that practicality is largely what impresses you as "straight talk." But the very fact that he is speaking at a practical level rather than a doctrinal level affects the way we are supposed to interpret James's words.

I repeat what I have said over and over on this thread. We are supposed to fit James's statements with Paul's decidedly more doctrinal passage in Romans 3 and 4. We are not supposed to "sum" the two passages in a too-simplistic way. In other words, we must not merely observe that Paul is emphasizing faith in his discussion of justification and that James is emphasizing works in his own discussion of justification and then "conclude" that man is justified by faith-plus-legal-obedience.

The problem is, Paul explicitly says in Romans 3:20 "By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight." And when we look at everything else Paul is saying in his context, it is obvious that we must not insert the word "alone" between "law" and "shall." Unfortunately, this is what the RCs do by their doctrinal stance concerning the systematic-theological role of moral obedience in justification. This is because they don't understand what James is saying and what he is not saying. As a matter of fact, RCs necessarily wind up misunderstanding both James and Paul. If it weren't so sad, it would be funny.

Speaking of funny, the RCs gripe incessantly that Luther inserted the German word for "alone" in his paraphrastic translation of Romans 3:28. But by their doctrinal stance, RCs do insert the word "alone" into Romans 3:20! Their misunderstanding of James's epistle forces them to do this--despite the fact that Paul obviously resents their tampering. It is therefore hypocritical for RCs to gripe about Luther's translation of Romans 3:28.

And I will say again that the RC's claim that James authorizes their flagrant tampering with Romans 3:20 and condemns Luther's paraphrastic translation of Romans 3:28 just won't wash. The problem is, the RCs have not figured out what James is saying and what he is not saying. James is no less authoritative than Paul, of course--since they are both Apostles--but Paul is more peculiarly doctrinal than James. So, if they appear to be at odds, it's because of that.

James and Paul are actually talking about different things. They have to be. It behooves us to figure out what the difference is. The Protestants have figured this out. The RCs haven't. The RCs just sum up the passages in a doctrinally sloppy way and wind up with a doctrine which Paul roundly condemns!

Look again at Romans 3:20. Paul really is saying that legal obedience does not contribute anything to a sinner's justification. Justification occurs by faith, occurs apart from legal obedience. (This idea of "apart," taken in the immediate context of what Paul is saying in Romans 3 and 4, is where Luther got the "alone" idea. The "alone" idea is theologically correct in stating Paul's point in the verse even if Luther's word is not transliteral. [For that matter, no translation of the Bible is completely transliteral anyway.])

***

That brings us to my next comment concerning what you have called James's "straight talk," especially concerning the matter of why RCs haven't understood James's supposed "straight talk." It again involves the fact that James is being practical, not presenting theologically fastidious high doctrine. This does not mean that James has nothing of doctrinal importance to say, of course; however, it does mean that a less-than-thoughtful reader will not get James's message right as to its doctrinal implications.

"But wait a minute!," you might say, "You conceded earlier in this post that James was strictly 'straight-talking.' Now, you are suggesting that James's statements are potentially misunderstandable!"

Oh, they definitely are. As a matter of fact, I never flatly declared that James's was engaging in strictly straight talk. (To appreciate why I say this, see below.)

James is actually warning Christians of the danger of antinomian easy-believism. Although he is addressing us all, James is actually in a spiritual contest with antonomians (or "would-be" antinomians) in particular. And he has found a rhetorically cute way to strike them out! What I mean by that is that James throws the antinomians an argumentative pitch which they can't hit. He throws them a curve which they didn't expect.

The fact is, James does seem, upon first reading, to be contradicting the teaching which they had gotten from the likes of Paul. This is how he gets their attention. But he is not contradicting Paul. He is contradicting the antinomian's misunderstanding of Paul. The antinomians do not understand what saving faith really entails.

Notice the irony in the antinomians' predicament. As I pointed out above, James exploits this very irony to get their attention. He is, in effect, saying "Oh, you think you understand Paul? Well, let me show you something you haven't thought about. Whatever you understand from Paul's teachings, you must quit stupidly assuming that faith is a shallow notion. Paul certainly never said that it is! My goodness, Brother Paul himself would tell you that saving faith is a life-changing thing by which the sinner is discovered to be alive to God. This is not some minor experience. It is a staggering thing.

"This, in fact, is one of the reasons why Paul made his case concerning justification by talking about Abraham. Look at the profound trust Abraham displayed and tell me whether you really have what he had! Abraham trusted God completely. And this trust necessarily displayed itself in the way he behaved. I am not seeing any of this in you, however--and that does not bode well for you!

"If there is no incontrovertible evidence of a supernatural union with the True and Living God, very much like the relationship which Abraham had with God, then you don’t clearly have the spiritual life you are talking about. If you do not display the same kind of trust which Abraham displayed, then one should assume that you have only a non-saving assensus--i.e., you are not justified.

"Some how, some way, you'd better start having and displaying real faith--the kind Abraham had. That automatically means you'd better start producing the fruits of real repentance unto life. Under this logic, works of faith are necessary."

(Notice that the Calvinist is not at all reluctant to say that works are necessary. But they are a consequential necessity associated with faith, not an antecedent necessity.)

James hammers on the difference between true faith and phony faith point throughout his Epistle. And in James's famous passage concerning who is really justified--i.e., really saved--he keys on the fact that the only faith which saves at all is real trust in Christ. This is terribly important inasmuch as most professing Christians have no such thing. They do not know the God of Abraham. (They just feign this knowledge. They are actually dead to God, despite the fact that they are often quite religious! This was the Reformers' complaint against RCism. And it is our complaint against many RC FReepers. A lot of folks are devout RCs but don't seem to have the foggiest idea what Biblical Christianity is.)

James knows that God knows the disposition of the heart--works aside--but he says "Show ME your faith without any works." This is something which they can't do, of course!

When we go back and compare this demand with what Paul is saying, it becomes obvious that James is ultimately using the idea of justification differently from the way Paul used it in Romans 3 and 4. Paul emphasized justification in the sight of God and said that this occurs apart from works. James, on the other hand, is telling us that we do need to be able to see your faith. Why? Because saving faith is not just a theoretical construct, even if it is theologically necessary to regard it a theoretical level to understand Paul's insistence that works do not contribute anything to a sinner's justification before God. If you lift up a hammer of works to shape the altar of justification, you will defile it.

We must keep works as a consequential necessity in our doctrine of justification, not an antecedent necessity. The RCs do not understand this. And that is why they say things like Bill O'Reilly said. They really do believe that one gets to heaven by "living right"--with a little Bible-oriented PMA thrown in. (That approach is the surest way to wind up in hell. God is holier than today's RCs have ever dreamed possible.)

Consistent with the above findings, we could simplify things by saying that Paul is talking about justification before God and James is talking about a visible justification, a justification before men. (James is going on, of course, to say that if men can't see your justification, then you don't have justification before God, either!)

So, Calvin's formulaic statement of the doctrine of justification fits the two passages perfectly.

…. and his message is not qualified anywhere.

Wrong. What James is saying definitely IS qualified elsewhere. Gosh, it is qualified in Romans 3:28.

The Bible interprets itself for us. And whatever James is saying, Romans 3:28 is flatly telling you that justification is not by "faith plus works. " It is by a working faith. That is different. Salvation itself turns on the difference!

This is what you have refused to accept. And the bottom-line reason why you have refused to accept it is because it is the Protestant explanation. You have never honestly considered the possibility that Rome does not know what she is talking about.

The idea that the message is directed toward those who don't think they need to believe in order to be saved is not implied anywhere, and it's very self-serving of you to make that inference.

It is even more self-serving of you [grin] to accuse me of being self-serving when I have been laboring so hard to help you understand what you simply refuse to understand. You need to re-think what I have said.

But just to be clear about it, let me say that I frankly don't assume that RCs have Scriptural faith. And it's not just because I believe a lot of RCism is hocus-pocus nonsense (although I do believe that it is--hence my reference to "hocus pocus," which word was actually derived from a very old joke about the mass!). Rather, it's because I honestly do think that today's RCs are trying to fabricate faith out of works. I honestly think that if they had real faith in God the Word, they would not squawk about Calvin's careful, Word-honoring explanation of the theological relationship between faith and works. They would not continue to misunderstand (actually, ignore!) Paul's serious doctrinal warnings to their peril.

. Now, in regards to Paul to the Romans 3:28: it seems as if he is saying faith is sufficient for justification. But notice the absence of the word ALONE.

Read what I have said in this post. Your observation is not relevant after all. If you want to continue claiming that it is terrible relevant that Paul doesn't say "alone," I will immediately neutralize your complaint against the arch-villain Luther [grin] by pointing out (again) that Paul says "apart from the law." This language does establish Luther's point, like it or not.

And if you still don't like where that leaves you and Rome in the controversy, I will just have to condemn your reading of Romans 3:20. Your theology of justification forces you to read "alone" into 3:20--and it ain't there.

…thatrefers to the Law, it is the ceremonial Mosaic law. For corroboration that it is so look at Romans 7:6 "Now we have been released from the law--for we have died to what bound us..."

No, it does not refer to the ceremonial Mosaic law. You just want it to refer to that, so you can keep your doctrine of justification by faith-plus-works. This prejudicial mindset on your part is seen in the fact that you dared to offer Romans 7:6 as evidence. Heck, it is not evidence of what you are reading into Romans 3:28. (Actually, your citation of 7:6 is evidence that you are practicing standard RC eisegesis, not exegesis.)

Furthermore, recall the admonition that adultererss, sodamizers, thieves will not enter God's kingdom (1Cor:9). That shows the moral law is very much in play still.

I don't intend to go off into a discussion of theonomic issues. So, I will say that the above observation is not relevant to the discussion.

No one has commented on the most obvious quote of all: "For I was hungry and you gave me food..." (Matt 25:35 That's JESUS, folks, at the Last Judgment, so I guess He cares more than a little as to our "works."

Irrelevant. I pointed out in my e-mail to RnMomof7 that you are pursuing the wrong line in this entire discussion. I have repeatedly stipulated that works are necessary in the Christian life, that the Lord does look at such things. But they don't contribute to your justification before Him. If you think they do--and all the RCs I have ever met think they do contribute!--then you just don't know God.

In looking over the rest of what you've written, it just strikes me as very legalistic and contrived.

I am careful. I am of the opinion that you are not. I don't think you have grasped what sorts of things are at stake.

I don't understand what is so hard to understand. We must first believe that Jesus is Savior, but we must not presume upon that faith.

You don't even see what our complaint against you and Rome is. And you never will until you entertain the possibility that you are Satanically blinded to everything of importance in this discussion. Sin is worse than you realize.

***

You also said in your #433

Confession and baptism are more than works. They are divinely instituted.

I certainly agree that they are "divinely instituted" works. But I submit that this means somewhat less than you assume that it does. The fact that these divinely instituted works are still works, rather than faith itself, amounts to a serious problem for Romanist theology.

This is not a problem for my theology as a Baptist, as it turns out. Confession to a priest is easy when you realize that all true Christians are priests--indeed, saints!--and that most of these true priests/saints are absolutely wonderful confidantes and helpers. And with regard to baptism, I would say that I expect Christians to undergo baptism in one way or another. I just maintain that baptism is not part of justifying faith. We mustn't even dare to present baptism to God as though it were surely a thing of faith, as though it surely justifies a sinner. It doesn't justify, precisely because it is a work--whether a divinely instituted work or not. In fact, it doesn't even help to justify you except as it points to justifying faith in Christ.

Baptism presents the gospel in visible symbolism. But this does not mean that its recipients are true partakers of the gospel. The problem is, baptism is not the gospel. It presents the gospel. The gospel is actually distinct from baptism in this very way. And perhaps the best way to understand that the baptismal rite is not the gospel itself is to point out that some people who undergo a baptismal rite still wind up in hell.

There are Mafia hit men and IRA murderers who go to confession regularly and count on their other religious rituals to get to heaven. They are badly mistaken. In a manner of speaking, they are spiritually insane. Gosh, it is obvious from numerous texts, certainly including those penned by James, that the person who is truly born again has a heart of love for God and man. The murderers in the Mafia and the IRA may do "penance," but they have never repented. That's different. And it's the difference between heaven and hell.

My point is that some people who profess to believe the gospel do not believe the gospel. Worse still, some people who believe they believe the gospel do not believe the gospel.

In other words, people who think salvation somehow rests in confession and baptism--on the grounds that these are divinely instituted things with which they have complied--have not actually believed the gospel. As I have already indicated, confession and baptism are not the gospel. They are practical articles of the gospel, so to speak, but they are not the gospel itself, and anyone who can't see the difference has actually substituted the part for the whole--and thereby missed the whole.

Calvin's understanding of justification fixes this problem. His position concerning the relationship which necessarily exists between faith and works automatically prevents the stupidly wicked nonsense displayed by religious reprobates in the Mafia and the IRA. And look at the irony here: the unrepentant murderers in the Mafia and the IRA, by claiming the RC doctrine of justification by faith-plus-works, are actually living in sheer contempt of James. They think this is "sort of okay."

But again, it is not okay at all! Mafia and IRA murderers who continue as Mafia and IRA murderers have NOT been born of the Spirit of Christ. They are NOT justified before God. James is warning them about THAT. The Mafia and IRA murderers are guilty of presenting their unbelief to God and hoping against hope that it is faith. If they don't repent of this foolishness, they are going to wind up in an eternal hell.

I realize that Catholics are not taught this Protestant warning, but it is correct. And it is pretty obvious to everyone except a Catholic. RCs are taught to presuppose that the RC line, including works-derived tokenism, is correct. This is why Protestants get nowhere in discussions of things like sainthood and the priesthood, concerning which the RCs are inarguably wrong.

(RCs "know" that the RC "interpretations" in these matters are correct--but they are not correct! And neither is the RC understanding of James. The Mafia and IRA murderers really are on their way to hell, not heaven. Look at James again. He is telling you that some folks just have the faith of devils, i.e., not truly saving faith at all. So, when we see the cases of the Mafia and IRA, we realize that James actually condemns the tokenism which has taken over RCism.

And the whole mess started hundreds and hundreds of years ago with the RCs ignoring the staggering implications of Romans 3:28. When we finally realize what Paul is saying, we discover that Paul's doctrine actually blocks tokenism by saying that there is nothing a sinner can do in the flesh to get himself justified before God. James agrees with that, since he is condemning tokenism in an interestingly different way. He is saying to the Mafia and IRA murderers "You sure don't look very 'justified' to me. You are manifestly just tokenistic fools with the 'faith' of devils."

My point here is that the RC position jumps out of the frying pan right into the fire. And this is not an accident. See 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12.)

****

Saving faith is a wonderful, surprising experience of trusting Christ. The sinner actually comes to know God personally. I assure you that it is the weirdest thing in the world!

As I pointed out in my #680, 697, and 699, most people in our day never experience this staggering thing of spiritual re-birth. I'm afraid that this is even true of most professing Christians. And the ex-Catholics whom I know tell me that it is apparently the rule, not the exception, with RCs.

Part of the problem consists in the false notion that the spiritual re-birth is somehow sourced in baptism.

What I am saying is that regeneration is not sourced in baptism. It turns out that baptism, wrongly understood, actually becomes a spiritual decoy in the hands of Satan and lands sinners in hell. In much the same way, the second chapter of James 2, wrongly understood, becomes a spiiritual decoy in the hands of Satan--and lands sinners in hell.

Think about that. It really is an example of the phenomenon of 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12. The Mafia and IRA murderers have been taught that they were spiritually re-born in their baptisms, but they have been mistaught on this point! This is seen in the fact that, baptized or not, they don't have a heart of real love for God and man. They just have defiled consciences which they can't ever really get cleansed once and for all before God.

(By the way, Romans 2 tells us that the fact that they are frequently convicted of sin proves nothing positive about them. The fact is, everyone has a conscience. It is a purely Adamic thing. It is a racially transmitted faculty [see Augustine for a discussion of man's racial being and the Fall in which man acquired the knowledge of good and evil]. The conscience is not something which comes directly from God. Therefore, mere conviction of sin is not something which is only/always an operation coming directly from God.

Again, the Mafia and IRA murderers are no more regenerate than my dog. They are in their way to hell. And I say that the RC system, rather than helping them to avoid disaster, is speeding them on their way to hell. James condemns these hypocrites--all of them! But Rome's "priests" don't even grasp this. The unrepentant murderers whom they are "helping" have a spiritual cancer which is going to land them in hell, and the "priests" are giving them a placebo of "priestly absolution." As a result, non-born-again sinners caught within RCism WILL NOT SEEK THE REAL CURE. We Protestants would therefore say that Rome's "priests" are guilty of spiritual malpractice.

I would urge RCs on this thread to talk privately with the ex-Catholics who now tenaciously defend the Protestant positions on these threads. Like my good friend Richard Bennett [www.bereanbeacon.org], they will tell you that they didn't know God in RCism, even though the Church of Rome insinuated that they did know God!

The take-home point here is that their baptism communicated nothing of the Person of the Spirit by Whom the sinner discovers a true, life-giving union with the True and Living God.

***

In my next post, I will address your quotation from John 3.

In concluding the present post, I would like to commend you for your interest in the Scriptures, but I must warn you that the verse does not mean what you have been taught.

Regards,

The_doc is OUT!!! To quote you from your post by RuMomof7: Some Catholics act as if James is trashing Calvinists, but he is actually trashing antinomians. This is why I responded as a I did concerning James. You did slough off discussion of James... It has nothing to do with "anti-Protestant bias." (ad hominum #1)

... It is the only way one can discover if one is being Satanically suckered. And the Bible itself warns you not to rule out this possibility! Which is why St. Peter tells us: "There are certain passages in [the Scriptures] hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them..." (2Peter3:16) p> Rome killed her accusers when she got the chance--which, of course, made the Reformation even stronger. In other words, Rome condemned herself through her actions. And I suppose all those monastaries and those within throughout England were just miraculously immolated by the wrath of God? C/mon--killing certainly occurred on both sides.

But you need to understand some important things about James's "straight talking."

Well, no matter what, no one could accuse you of same. What you write is a marvel of double-speak. Where do you get off saying he's speaking at a "practical rather than a doctrinal level?"

I repeat what I have said over and over on this thread. We are supposed to fit James's statements with Paul's decidedly more doctrinal passage in Romans 3 and 4. The way you are trying to do it, you need a shoehorn!

Speaking of funny, the RCs gripe incessantly that Luther inserted the German word for "alone" in his paraphrastic translation of Romans 3:28. But by their doctrinal stance, RCs do insert the word "alone" into Romans 3:20! Excuse me, what you are doing in your second statement is making up a charge and replying to it as if it were in fact true. As to the first, it is not merely an RC gripe (except for the fact that St. John was, of course) when he wrote under inspiration: "...If anyone adds to these words, God will visit him with all the plagues described herein!"

Look again at Romans 3:20. Paul really is saying that legal obedience does not contribute anything to a sinner's justification. Justification occurs by faith, occurs apart from legal obedience. ONCE MORE WITH FEELING: YOU ARE MAKING UP A STRAW DOG. NO ONE DISAGREES WITH THIS. FAITH UNDERLIES OBEDIENCE. HOWEVER, YOU COULD SAY THAT GOOD WILL (LOVE) COULD LEAD YOU TO FAITH. BUT YOU HAVE COMPLICATED THIS ENOUGH AND I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU MORE!

Look at the profound trust Abraham displayed and tell me whether you really have what he had! Abraham trusted God completely. And this trust necessarily displayed itself in the way he behaved. I am not seeing any of this in you, (ad hominum #2) however--and that does not bode well for you!

Abraham was in God's grace. He hadn't committed any serious sin, so he didn't have an obstruction. To the degree we have sinned, we are misled. Any psychologist will tell you that our thoughts inspire our actions, but SO TOO OUR ACTIONS INSPIRE OUR THOUGHTS. This is particularly true in a spiritual/religious vein. So invested are we in seeing ourselves in a good light, that we will self-correct our beliefs, many times, to do this. THIS IS DELUSION.

Catholics believe that we must be kept on the straight and narrow by frequent reception of the sacraments: penance and Holy Eucharist. Rather than relying on false faith, as you would have it, we are keeping our faith as pure as possible by working on our thoughts and actions.

Who are you to judge my spiritual state? This is precisely the kind of judging we are warned against. I am following Jesus, but I know if I don't respond correctly, I am doomed.

works of faith are necessary Well, aren't you the one who said they weren't? You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Bill O'Reilly has no place in this discussion.

Consistent with the above findings, we could simplify things by saying that Paul is talking about justification before God and James is talking about a visible justification, a justification before men. (James is going on, of course, to say that if men can't see your justification, then you don't have justification before God, either!)

Now you are finally speaking plainly--and it's plain bunk. We are not to care what people think of us. The most dangerous and evil are those who come as an "angel of light." God sees things differently than we do, as you should know.

I got your little joke, but perhaps the joke might be on you.

I DARED to offer Rom 7:6 as evidence?

I don't intend to go off into a discussion of theonomic issues. So, I will say that the observation [the admonition that adultererss, sodamizers, thieves will not enter God's kingdom (1Cor:9) shows the moral law is very much in play still] is not relevant to the discussion.

Hah! Says who? It is CENTRAL to the discussion, and even a wordy fellow like you can't get around that!

Irrelevant. That's your answer to the above? Sounds as if words fail even you!

*** I certainly agree that they are "divinely instituted" works. But I submit that this means somewhat less than you assume that it does. The fact that these divinely instituted works are still works, rather than faith itself, amounts to a serious problem for Romanist theology.

But especially for those who refuse to take Jesus at His words: "Go forth and teach ye all people, and BAPTIZE them..." Since we are not Moslems, faith is implied.

There are Mafia hit men and IRA murderers...

Are you kidding? I see you wrote this at 7 something one evening. I would've expected it to be around 3 in the morning for the sense it makes. If Bill O'Reilly doesn't belong in this discussion, the Mafia hit men and IRA don't either and for you to interject them shows how base and banal your thinking is.

Part of the problem consists in the false notion that the spiritual re-birth is somehow sourced in baptism. No, it confirms the spiritual re-birth--unless it's infant baptism (that's why confirmation occurs later).

The conscience is not something which comes directly from God The law is written in men's hearts. But to be true, a conscience must be correctly formed

Again, the Mafia and IRA murderers There you go again! I've really had enough! As if their nominal Catholicism matters for anything!

Well, watch and pray. I'll do the same.

1. Mark 11: 29--"Tell me, was John's baptism of divine origin or merely from men?" In your case, substitute "MY"
2. 1Peter 3:21--"You are now saved by a baptismal bath..." You had written: Baptism does not save anyone. Baptism presumes the grace of faith, otherwise why would men request it? What you are saying is that baptism is nothing special--just an outward sign.
3. John 3:3 "...no one can see the reign of God unless he is begotten from above."
4. John 3:5--"no one can enter into God's kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit."
Numbers 3 & 4 are talking about a SPIRITUAL rebirth, so the explanation of amnionic fluid in a physical birth really doesn't apply.
5. The apostles were told in Matt 28:19-20--"...Baptize them...Teach them to carry out everything I have commanded you." This shows 2 things: a. that baptism is very important and not just a little "added plus" and b. that THE APOSTLES WERE ENTRUSTED WITH GOD'S MESSAGE. (the quotation doesn't end by saying "EVERYTHING WRITTEN IN SCRIPTURE....")

On this last point: Don't you think the apostles, who were entrusted with His message, knew Christ's intent more than anyone? This idea of yours that baptism is just a formality was never in dispute until the Reformation. Seems rather odd.

Regarding your response to what is the function of the Church--you say it is to proclaim the Good News. God made man was born and lived and suffered and died on a cross so that those that whosoever calls uppon His name will be saved.

You are once again forgetting Our Lord when He said that just calling His name will not merit Heaven for us. Jesus is all merciful, but he normal case for salvation is through the Church and through baptism. I cannot speak beyond that. But in normal cases that is what is necessary.

Catholics maintain that the Church is also to make men holy. In Matt: 28: 18--"Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go therefore, and make disciples of all the nations..." He is showing that He has extended this authority to His apostles and their successors--priests and bishops. They are the ones who are to extend His graces through the Sacraments and the Mass.

See John 6:52 "...if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, You have no life in you.." As you can see if you read the chapter in its entirety, Jesus is speaking about His PHYSICAL body. This also implies PRIESTHOOD--to keep such a precious Treasure precious and clean and kept in reverence.

Also, guarding His truth--preaching the Good News--CORRECTLY is of the utmost importance. In letter to Titus regarding priests and bishops Paul says: "he must hold fast to the authentic message, so that he will be able both to encourage men to follow sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict it." (Titus 1:9)

When you referred to Hebrews 7 as saying that priesthood is finished in Jesus (there are no more), notice that the whole discussion in this book is about Jesus AS OPPOSED TO THE JEWISH PRIESTHOOD. Yes, Jesus fulfilled His Sacrifice, but by His priests and the working of the Holy Spirit it is made present to all in an unbloody way. Far from telling Him He is a powerless God we are recognizing that He has passed along His authority to His apostles and their successors. (John 20:21-22) "As the Father has send Me, so I send you...Receive the Holy Spirit..."

In your Protestant rebellion against works you are denying priesthood and the sacraments, and thus go against Jesus' own words. You really have not responded adequately to my bringing up Jesus' describing the Last Judgment: " I was hungry..." Our faith is one thing, BUT THAT FAITH DEMANDS A RESPONSE. In Matt 25:40 Jesus says, "I assure you, as often as you did it for one of my least brothers, you did it for me." We do not want this said about us: "Their words are bold but their deeds are few." (Matt.23:2) We need to stand up for the Truth but we need to be kind and good to one another.

I believe the totality of the faith is found in my Church. The_Doc's post to me was over 4360 words and it was the most convoluted piece of writing I've seen in a long time (and in the end he admitted faith needed works). At any rate, Jesus wouldn't try to trip us up so much. St. Paul was a brilliant man, but very hard to understand and building up a whole theology on one quotation and disregarding the others is a house of cards.

Your answer to question 4? Nonexistent!!! If the Church was wrong all those 1500 years, then I guess the gates of hell did prevail. Remember too: (Matt 28:20--And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world." That would mean that He was not with us. Who is putting Jesus to the lie?

p.s. Thoughts before actions, correct. But actions INFLUENCE thought--that was my only point. That is not an unBiblical statement.

p.p.s. Matthew Henry, Adam Clarke veer very close to admitting the Church teaching of INFALLIBILITY. The primacy of Peter is all that is missing there. Regarding the keys to Heaven: if that's all it is then consider: "If you forgive men's sins, they are forgiven them; if you hold them bound, they are held bound." (John 20:23). Also, if you notice: the Protestant thinkers are assuming PRIESTLY POWERS to the apostles since they are referring to the Jewish PRIESTHOOD with their talk of "binding and loosing."

p.p.p.s. Protestants, in their insistence that faith is all that is needed, have made themselves a pretty religion that is very CONVENIENT. I BELIEVE, THEREFORE I'M SAVED, PERIOD. But we were told we have to put ourselves out for GOD AND MAN--otherwise, why even have all those exhortations to good works in Scripture--to make US feel good?

LAST P.S.--Nice try saying the Old Testament was all that was needed to preach the word before the New Testament was written. A lot of that preaching was done to pagans, who cared not a whit about what it contained. Furthermore, your quoting of Paul's denegration of the Law would be contradicted.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.