Replies

NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific.

Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans. My point is not to argue specific theology, but to point out that you are incorrect to state that Protestants share a common faith at the specific level on key issues. One of the problems with defending the faith vs. Protestants, from my point of view, is that I don't know where "john doe" stands regarding "theology x" until he says something. Everyone can learn what Catholicism teaches by reading the Catechism. It is quite simple to find it. As to Protestants, where is this source that I can go to that explains what you believe, all of you, on a variety of subjects, because it would make my job a lot easier rather than guessing what I am up against beforehand.

Where does this come from? Verse 17 says plainly "IF ANYONE" (KJV - "any man"), not "if any community". The condemnation in 17 is on the one, not the many. If you look at my quote I said that 16 was plural, not 17 (except for the last "you").

LOL! You are attacking your own position by changing your story. Of course Paul is not condemning the entire community. However, that was your stance several posts ago, which I then responded sarcastically:

So Paul is condemning the entire community because there is dissent being caused by some of the community???

You are clearly befuddled on these verses, aren't you? Don't feel too badly, most Protestant commentaries do not have an adequate response to them.

Not in Catholicism we're not, because there is no such thing as spiritual death for you until one dips a toe into the lava. :) In Catholicism being spiritually dead is like being three days behind on the electric bill. No big deal, just pay the $10 late fee (do your penance) and you are suddenly NOT spiritually dead.

Doing your penance doesn't forgive sins. Jeez, if you are going to make fun of us, at least get it right...I tire of the strawman you have erected.

I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time? Even you must admit that a person can become so enamoured in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God. I think we need to discuss what "spritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.

The vast majority of the first ante-Apostolic Christians did not have the means or clout to have their beliefs preserved in perpetuity. No one can know what they were.

What we have is enough to tell us that Catholicism is a continuation of Biblical Christianity. Take the Fathers as historical records, not God-inspired works, and you will find out that the information we have leads us to believe that the Catholic faith that we have today is the full-grown mustard seed of Peter's day. You are placing your hope on the absence of records. That is not how historians work. We look at what is available and (presuming that the source is not an avid liar proven by other sources) accept the historical document as truthfully relating events.

If historians worked the way you are imagining, we would "KNOW" nothing about the past. "Maybe the South won the US Civil War and there was a big conspiracy to cover it up"... No, if you apply that logic to the roots of Christianity, then you would have to apply it elsewhere to be consistent. You are special pleading.

It is debatable whether some of the early Church Fathers believed in some form of Sola Fide, but I won't even go there.

Wise decision. I have not seen one sentence that stated such a fantasy. Either the first Christians were hopelessly distorting the Gospel just given to them or the Gospel has been preserved intact and the Reformation folks are wrong. If God preserves His People from error (the Church IS the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH), then where does that lead the protester?

For any Roman Catholic of the time in power and authority (who wished to remain so) to support Sola Fide would be like a modern day Democrat supporting tax-cuts, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or allowing the mention of God in a public school. Bottom line - political suicide.

That's just plain nonsense, FK. Why would a Catholic of 300 AD worry about writing something that might be used by the reformers 1200 years later? Those men were theologians writing to the people of their time, expressing their beliefs of God, Christ, and the plan of salvation. Politically correct? You should read some of the stuff the Fathers wrote. Trust me, they weren't afraid to express their opinions as they wrestled with the issues of the times, such as Jesus' connection with the Father. The debate swings back and forth as the Church looks inward at its beliefs, trying to put them down and define them more narrowly. You think they did that in such a way so that the Pope didn't haul them off to the dungeon because of some reformer might pick up on it in 1520??? Please.

James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God.

Some of the "reformers" didn't think so. It is a sign of a heretic to eliminate parts of the Word of God. Whether they are Gnostics or Protestants, the effect is the same: twist the Scriptures to try to get it to say what you want. And if that doesn't work, cut out those offending parts, like 2 Maccabees or Sirach, or James. That is exactly what Luther did or try to do He even added the word "alone" in Romans 3:28 because he wasn't satisfied with the Scriptures and thought that he might help God explain things better.... That is the type of person you base your interpretation of the Bible upon.

James and Paul only contradict when a works-based salvation model is thrust upon James, against his free will at that. :)

Who said anything about works salvation in James? It says that faith alone doesn't save! Consider Sola Fide dead and buried. It doesn't say that works alone saves. See, the problem is that you have to have it "either/or". Too bad. It prevents you from seeing the wonderful integrity of the entire Bible without having to build a "canon within a canon" by always falling back on Paul, Paul, Paul...

James and Paul both recognize that a faith that doesn't show works is no faith at all, yes. This does not at all mean that works are a separate and distinct component of salvation. Works are an included component of true faith.

Which means that faith is not alone. Spell out the consequences of what you have said. There is hope for you yet...

Then I said you must not honor Abraham, or Moses, or David, et al. because I know the Church doesn't venerate them anywhere near the way you do Mary.

No, I think you said that we don't honor the OT men at all. You never said anything about honoring them "anywhere near Mary".

Where does the Bible say that the world will venerate Mary in the way that you do?

Nowhere. But I doubt the Bible would foretell my personal devotions, anyway.

Regards

FK: "NO Bible-believing Protestant could possibly say that baptism is salvific."

Every Protestant believes that Baptism is merely an ordinance? Perhaps you should poll the Anglicans.

You know how I use the term "Bible-believing Protestant". It would be unfair of me to characterize the Anglicans because I simply do not know enough about their belief system. What I DO know is that among all of the Protestants with whom you and I regularly have exchanges, I am aware of NONE who believe that baptism is salvific.

My point is not to argue specific theology, but to point out that you are incorrect to state that Protestants share a common faith at the specific level on key issues. One of the problems with defending the faith vs. Protestants, from my point of view, is that I don't know where "john doe" stands regarding "theology x" until he says something. Everyone can learn what Catholicism teaches by reading the Catechism. It is quite simple to find it. As to Protestants, where is this source that I can go to that explains what you believe, all of you, on a variety of subjects, because it would make my job a lot easier rather than guessing what I am up against beforehand.

This is well stated. My first advice would be to get away from thinking that on the one hand there is Catholicism and on the other is Protestantism. Catholicism is a self-contained monolithic faith. Protestantism is nothing like that. IMHO, the true Protestantism is found in Reformed theology, which is spread across different denominations. You know for a fact that of the many Reformers you normally deal with, the theologies are nearly identical.

And, I can say the following with no reservation at all: Since I started posting here I have had the pleasure of conversation with many Roman Catholics. Overall, I would say that the theology that I have been showed has been very consistent. And, I would say that it has been no more consistent than that of the Reformers I have also encountered across these threads. IOW, in the universe of people who know what they're talking about, there is plenty of consistency ...... on all sides.

I thought you were being literal and I have no idea why you think I have changed my stance. While it's not impossible, with my training, I don't usually attack my own position. :)

I presume you read the story of the Prodigal Son. Are you saying that God only forgives sins one time?

For salvational purposes "Yes", and for healing purposes "No". For salvation the blood of Christ served to forgive us believers of all sins ever committed. We are further told in the Bible that we are to confess our sins to one another, as well as to God of course. "Confession is good for the soul", etc. This is a healing mechanism but has nothing to do with salvation.

Even you must admit that a person can become so enamored in sin that they are considered spiritually dead and not capable of repenting without some miraculous intervention by God.

Well, it depends on who is doing the considering! :) Certainly, those with true faith will falter, sometimes for years. No question. However, my faith's view of scriptures is that God promises that He will bring such a person back into the fold before it is too late. That is what POTS is all about.

I think we need to discuss what "spiritually dead" is, since you have a mistaken concept. Every sin doesn't cause spiritual death - as John's epistle clearly states.

If you're talking mortal vs. venial then I think I get that. If there is more then I am happy to listen. However, the Bible is clear that every real sin DOES result in spiritual death. "Rom 6:23 : For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." This doesn't include any qualifications on different levels of sin.

Either the first Christians were hopelessly distorting the Gospel just given to them or the Gospel has been preserved intact and the Reformation folks are wrong. If God preserves His People from error (the Church IS the pillar and foundation of the TRUTH), then where does that lead the protester?

The protester does not protest God's Church, he protests the distortion of it by others. If the early Fathers were correct in their interpretation, then Christianity is NOT a revealed faith, but a hidden faith that only a few are able to uncover. I just can't accept that.

Why would a Catholic of 300 AD worry about writing something that might be used by the reformers 1200 years later? Those men were theologians writing to the people of their time, expressing their beliefs of God, Christ, and the plan of salvation.

Oh, I don't accuse them of intellectual dishonesty, I think they believed what they wrote. What I'm saying is that the reason we know what they wrote is that the ones who held the power agreed. Aside from Augustine, and maybe a few others on specific issues, I don't think that Reformed thinking was preserved to the level it probably enjoyed. IOW, I don't think the first Reformers were really the first Reformers. Luther and friends were not inventing something new. They were just the first to organize the theology.

FK: "James and Paul are EQUALLY the word of God."

Some of the "reformers" didn't think so.

Well, I won't ask you to name names, but I can't think of a single Reformer around these parts who would disagree with what I said. But if you are talking about Luther, then you are right that he was wrong to try to get rid of James. Thank God he failed, or I would surely be the lesser for it. I can forgive him. :)

There is no problem. Any salvation model that includes works as a separate element is a works-based model. I know that you do not dismiss the importance of faith, you just concentrate on works. I get it. :)

Sola Fide will only pass away when the Bible does. They are linked forever. I don't understand how on the one hand you say to consider the whole Bible (that's good), but on the other hand you say to ignore Paul when he disagrees with Roman Catholic theology. Obviously, Paul is a major part of the whole Bible.

FK: "Works are an included component of true faith."

Which means that faith is not alone. Spell out the consequences of what you have said. There is hope for you yet...

:) Then it is a semantic argument over what "faith" means. I don't see works as a separate element in salvation. I don't believe that some with faith do works and others with faith do not. I believe that is impossible. Works are a visible manifestation of faith, an evidence of it. My use of Sola Fide includes this.