Annalex: It is not enough to see the word "works" somewhere in the Bible and jump to conclusions. One has to determine the context in which that particular type of activity is pronounced upon, and the kind of activity being spoken about.
Daniel: It is you who jump to conclusions when you see “works” after a distinction is made between faith and works as basis for justification[ …] Abraham's works were not of the law, yet they did not save them
Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works. Beside the taking of the promise of progeny on faith, there were also the crossing of the desert, the act of hospitality to the Angels, and the sacrifice of Isaac, all works that cooperated with his faith to make it perfect (James 2:22) and continue the process of Abraham’s justification.
Annalex: I would like to know if the Eucharist, for example, is something you consider non-salvific works.
Daniel: as for the Lord's supper, that does not make one born again and a recipient of the gift of eternal life, but obedience to it as prescribed works “life” and blessing, as does other acts of obedience
Well, that is contrary to John 6 where Christ says nothing about obedience but a whole lot about the Eucharist granting eternal life to whom who “eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood”.
”Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.
Annalex: works of love (or of charity, or of faith) are singled out in the Gospel as at least conducive or perhaps concurrent to our salvation. So I need a comment specially on Matthew 25:31-46
Daniel: Mt. 25 either refers to eternal life because of such evidential faith, with works attesting to saving faith, or good works gaining eternal life by their merit. It cannot be the latter, but which system is what Rome promotes.
Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works. So I don’t know what “hermeneutics” are needed to conclude that good works contribute to our salvation and their absence contributes to our condemnation, and therefore we cannot be saved by faith alone. Also note that the works mentioned in Matthew 25 are not at all like works of the law and therefore your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.
Annalex: James 2 spends several paragraphs to debunking Faith Alone
Daniel: [James 2] is referring to how a man is justified by a type of faith that works, in contrast to mere intellectual faith which has none, not as regards what component actually appropriates justification
Yes. A man is justified by faith that works. Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does. Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”, -- if you do, you are contradicting St. James who called that faith dead and not appropriating anything.
There is, of course, zero contradiction of what St. Paul and Moses had to say on the matter, as hopefully you can see from my previous post.
Annalex: why, do you think, if "historical" Protestantism really held to some form of Catholicity as regards the "works", did that not result in a movement for the Lutherans to re-unite with the Church in the manner analogous to the Anglicans?
Daniel: if the East finds the papacy an insurmountable barrier, Lutheranism certainly would, as well as with tradition being equal with Scripture and things like praying to the departed, etc.. while Anglicanism is far looser in its doctrines and has much departed from historic Protestantism.
OK, I agree. In short, there is a whole complex of protestant “protests” and not any kind of technical issue such as justification. It is also cultural: the modern evangelicalism for example is just too modern in its psychological makeup to stomach Catholicism in any measure.
Annalex: Would you imagine Jesus arguing with the Father whether Man is totally depraved or perhaps just falling to sin in absence of grace; or whether the Cup Jesus drunk was for all or for the Elect? These divisions would be intolerable in any community of faith claiming biblical unity.
Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out
How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.
But the basis of the unity in Jn. 17 is a supernatural one
Ah, yes. Good point. So is the Communion of Catholics, -- of supernatural nature (Romans 6:3, Luke 22:32)
Annalex: in order to be an authentic Church one has to hold to the authentic, that is Catholic, doctrine. The Eastern Orthodox do, and so their Church, hostile as it is sometime to the West, is an authentic Church. The Anglicans and the continuing Lutherans do not, and so their apostolic succession is formal yet not efficatious
Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?
By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost; Christ refers to her in the future tense in Matthew 16:16. There sure were types of Church in the Ark of Noah, the Ark of the covenant and Blessed Virgin Mary, but for the birth of the actual Church we look at the New Testament and specifically the Acts.
Which is the true Church is established by continuity of doctrine to the Apostles as well as the continuity of clergy to the apostles. That criterion leaves the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox. The disputes that we have with the east do not rise to the level of doctrinal dissonance, at least from our perspective. I think, often the Orthodox provide a necessary corrective to the Western Church that at times is caught in its disputes with the Protestants and becomes infected with Protestant legalisms.
in both camps the believer is still saved by trusting in the mercy of God in Christ, not supposing that by God's grace he has done works of faith which merit or make him worthy of eternal life, though they testify of his faith.
What is he “supposing” does not really matter. If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation, you cannot get from A to Z bypassing them.
why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39
You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.
Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity<./I>
This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them? Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?
you could have thought of the real reason [full immersion] is used, which is that it corresponds to the term “baptismo” and description. (Acts 8:38,39)
That is a reason to practice full immersion when practical, but there is no reason to hold to any particular form of baptism because of that instance with the Eunuch. As two people are traveling, it is natural to seek water for baptism in an existing reservoir. When people are in a home, already stored water can be brought in for the occasion: “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized”(Acts 10:47). It is hard to imagine that in arid Palestine all baptisms were with full immersion. The words itself has to do with lowering down, but it is not exclusively used for complete immersion, consider “divers washings” – “διαφοροις βαπτισμοις” (Heb. 9:10), a reference to ritual washings, for example, before meals.
There is a greater reason to criticize this incongruent case of ritualistic formalism on the part of the Protestants. In general, while the operation of a Sacrament is subject to the will of God alone, its form is within the capacity of the Church to determine (“whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven” , Mt 18:18). It is entirely within the purview of a local bishop to define the exact manner of baptism as he sees fit for the economic and climatological condition of his diocese. Now, the Protestant system does not recognize sacraments altogether and instead sees in baptism an external sign of an internal change that already occurred. So what am I to make of this insistence on a particular sign? You yourself admit that “mode is not a salvific issue” later in your post. It seems to me, a modern designation, for example a framed diploma or a wearable badge would be much better suited in a Protestant setting.
The Lord's supper is not being referred to in Jn. 6
To argue that, you offer a link to The Lord's Supper: solemn symbolism or corporeal flesh and blood? , which says about John 6 this: […] If John 6 is what Rome says it means, then according to v. 53, in order to have "life in you", which comes by receiving the holy Spirit (Acts 10:43-47; 11:18; 15:7-9; Eph. 2:1, 5), and to receive the gift of eternal life, then we would see the apostles preaching to take part in the Lord supper in order to be born again, and be saved In John 6, Jesus is the bread of God “which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.” “..that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day” (vs. 35,40). This bread is called His flesh, “which I will give for the life of the world” (v. 51). And as He is the “living bread,” and “the life of the flesh is in the blood,” so the soon to be crucified Christ is metaphorical bread and blood.
I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him. In John 6 He says: I will give you bread that is my flesh, and food indeed. At the Last Supper He actually gives people bread – not words – and says that this is His body, and tells them to eat it. St. Paul in 1 Cor. 11 Speaks of the bread being eaten in which the body is to be discerned on the pain of damnation. Not faith or word, but the body of the Lord. Yet all that is metaphorical because to read the scripture for what it says destroys the Protestant narrative.
If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?
The Eucharist is something for one who is already born again. The rebirth is baptism. The unbaptized do not take the Holy Communion. That is the simple answer to your question why the Apostles call for baptism and not for the reception of the Eucharist.
Your theory of the “body of the Lord” in 1 Cor 11:29 being the mystical body of Christ which is the Church is ridiculous as well, because the body in v.29 is a reference (by quote, v.24) to the body Christ gave out at the Last Supper where He says “this is my body”. Not “this is the Faith” or “this is the Word”, but this is the body given up for you. Next you will be telling me that it was a metaphor hanging on the Cross.
availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.
So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?
Nor is emphasis upon mode surprising, as it is a result of emphasis upon Scripture
So, “not by faith alone are ye saved” and “take, eat, this is my body” is not something we want an emphasis on, but an inference that because the Eunuch and Deacon Philip went to a natural source of water they must have immersed themselves fully is giving the scripture emphasis?
Nor did his faith alone save him; the faith of Abraham is mentioned by St. Paul in Romans 4 in order to contrast it to the legal work of circumcision, not to his other and numerous good works.
This is dealt with in the previous response to your gospel which has souls doing works of a believer in order to become a believer, while the texts does not make the qualification you desire, but shows that if works Abraham could justify one than Abraham would be able to boast, but that before he was even commanded to be circumcised his faith was what was counted for righteousness, though it was expressed in works.
Matthews 25:31-46 simply says that the first group is saved because they did good works and the second group is condemned because they did not do such works...your ideas about all works playing the same non-decisive role in justification does not match the scripture.
Certainly they do, in the sense that works evidence faith. Those that are “charged” with the Holy Spirit are known by the light they shine, and because they are believers they are blessed with the inheritance of the saints. It is in consequence of our justification, that our good deeds become rewardable with spiritual and eternal rewards. But the saints come to God with no merit to justify them, being as helpless as Abraham was to birth a multitude of peoples, but their God-given faith procures imputed righteousness, which they live out.
Faith that doesn’t work doesn’t “appropriates justification” and faith that works does.
It is a kind of faith that works obedience, but “worketh not” as regards moral merit, nor it is merely intellectual, as meaning a faith that would not show obedience, when able.
Surely you are not trying to say that a mere intellectual faith “appropriates justification”
Surely you are not contradicting that one CAN be justified by faith alone to one unable to work, while i extend inability to all, as being unable to do works which merit acceptance with God. Cornelius did good works which were preparatory to conversion, which as established before, process sola fide recognizes, but was forgiven and regenerated by believing. And then was baptized.
If his good works are not in evidence, he did not persevere and so no saint – he is not saved. So therefore, works are necessary for salvation,
In this evidentiary sense, as having a faith that will work obedience, yes, but not based on moral merit, as one comes to God with nothing.
Westminster Confession of Faith: Chapter 16: Of Good Works These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith [c]: and by them believers manifest their thankfulness [d], strengthen their assurance [e], edify their brethren [f], adorn the profession of the Gospel [g], stop the mouths of the adversaries [h], and glorify God [i], whose workmanship they are, created in Christ Jesus thereunto [k], that, having their fruit unto holiness, they may have the end, eternal life.
why does Scripture provide for assurance that one is saved? (1Jn. 5:13) Appealing to PI no less. But the issue then would be that this does not assure one will continue the faith, and for that Calvinists see texts such as Rm. 8:28-39
You got it, none of these guarantee that the faithful will continue in the faith.
It would be helpful if Roman Catholics understood the distinctions, as most understand Rome as disallowing being confident you are saved in their present tense, although as substantiated before, Trent allows for knowing you are one of the elect by “special revelation,” which certainly is subjective PI.
Protestants do hold that imputed righteousness and regeneration are all part of one event, being washed, sanctified and justified, so that the convert is given power to live out his new identity.
This is great, but why then I continue to hear from some Protestants that imputed justification is purely forensic, where God merely overlooks the imperfections without removing them?
Calvinism and Arminian have a different “Ordo Salutis.” but both camps confess being washed, sanctified and justified (1Cor. 6:11) is all one event. Calvinism does get into precision with its terms, and equates the awakening of the soul to believe as regeneration, and among Arminianism faith & repentance usually go together, as they must, though the evident works of repentance follow. (Acts 26:20)
As for practical me, i see (to reiterate again) the main thing being man being destitute of any means whereby he can morally merit glory of God, (Rm. 3:23) and instead his sins damn him, (Rm. 3:9-20) thus rightly abasing man and exalting God, in which position he can only look to God for mercy in Christ, who justifies the UnGodly through faith, "Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference" (Romans 3:22)
As for order, I see (through a glass, darkly) God preparing souls for salvation by conviction of need, (Jn. 16:8) and drawing souls to Christ, (Jn. 12:32) and opening the heart (Acts 16:14) and granting repentance and faith, (Acts 11:18) with as many as were ordained to eternal life believing, (Acts 13:48) being washed — forgiven of all trespasses, (Col. 2:13) justified — by imputed righteousness, (Rm. 4:5,6;22-24) and sanctified — by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, but which is also progressive. (2Thes. 2:13)
Also, what you wrote before makes justification a process rather than a single event. Baptism is an event, but “living out this new identity” is itself a part of justification, is it not?
I have indeed provided much substantiation that Sola fide neither supports a kind of faith that would not produce obedience towards its Object or that it excludes any preparatory work by God in the heart of those who are to be justified. Yet as the imputed righteousness is understood to be that of Christ, who as the scapegoat, became sin for us, then it holds that this cannot be increased, but that its practical outworking is always to have a greater realization, having “its fruit unto holiness, and in the end, eternal life.”
availability of water was not an issue in Act 10, as Simon's house was by the seaside.
So St. Peter was wondering if Simon would forbid the seaside?
First you tried to support non-immersion baptism by suggesting Peter was looking for a water held around a house in a bucket, and when i pointed out to you that the house was by the sea, you think "Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" (Acts 10:47) refers to opposition by Simon? He is not even mentioned, but contextually Peter is responding to “they of the circumcision” who found this hard to take, and in any case it does not support Peter looking for a bucket over immersion.
”Born again”, by the way, is what happens at baptism (John 3:3-8, Titus 3:5) and not at the Eucharist, so in the narrow technical sense you are,. I suppose, correct when you say that the Eucharist does not make one born again.
Yes, that is clear, and which means that Jn. 6:53 cannot refer to the Eucharist, as having life has already been accomplished by believing the word, but if you do not you have no life in you. (Eph. 1:13; Acts 15:8.9)
I wonder what would it have been that Christ could say so that you could believe Him.
John, of all the apostles, makes that clear. Hearing and believing the gospel of the crucified and risen Christ is always what resulted in life in one, and to “live by” something in that context refers to the word of God, and only once in all the epistles to the churches on doing that is the Lord's supper mentioned, and which was to correct a problem with the manner of doing so, not to promote it as a means of regeneration or worshiping the elements and making it a means of expiation for sin.
If the “food indeed” of John 6 was somehow “food metaphorical” why did the disciples have to leave? Jesus wanted to fool them?
You are reading this into the text. They did not have to leave, but left for the same reason that Nicodemus supposed he had to be physically born again, because they mistook Jesus enigmatic speech as referring to the physical, and with that mind also rejected His talk of ascending “up where he was before.” However, Jesus words in Jn. 6:63,64 refer to believing in Him who “hast the words of eternal life” (v. 68) in the sense where it elsewhere in John does, that which Peter confirms in v. 69, “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.” This this just what Mt. 16:16 confesses, and what John Mary does in John 11:25-27. "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world."
And as stated before, believing the gospel is always what gave life, and believers eat and drink Jesus the same way Jesus explained it: " As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." (John 6:57) which was not by literally eating His body, but by living according to His word, the doing of which was Jesus “bread.” (Jn. 4:34)
As for 1Cor. 11, Paul's words are not the “as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, you consume Jesus body and blood, soul and divinity,” which you read into words such as “drinking” a cup, but “ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.” Not recognizing transubstantiation is not in view here, but how Jesus death was remembered by the breaking of bread is, and contextually refers to showing the kind of love for the corporate body of Christ that He did in purchasing it with His own blood, as briefly explained on FR here. That “body” is what Paul continues to focus on in the next chapter. If Roman Catholics will not see this, then they need more than additional explanation, and the insistence on making the apostles out to be drinking blood and Jn. 6 to refer to spiritual life through such is a testimony to loyalty to men over objective exegesis.
Daniel: if this is referring to comprehensive doctrinal unity than Rome is also left out
How so? There is a single Catechism that contains the doctrines all Catholics hold together; when a doctrine allows for debate that fact is itself a matter of unified doctrine.
Other churches can have similar, but what was meant by comprehensive doctrinal unity is that of completeness, and while churches from Rome to cults boast of some degree of comprehensive doctrinal unity, this has never been realized in completeness, which is exceedingly extensive, though in the Bible the early church heart had a unity of the Spirit in surrender to Christ and the core salvific light they had, which is possible today. Some issues would be dealt with more, but not exhaustively all, and to be of the same mind and judgment can mean we recognize what are clear core salvific essentials and allow some degree of inquiry and disagreement in others, in the context of a right heart before God.
It was deviation from basic truths and carnality that was targeted for censure in the epistles, and the Lord reproved a sectarian spirit among His apostles. (Mk. 9:38-40) On this spiritual level, i known quite well what manner of unity Rome has amongst itself, despite disagreements, versus that of evangelicals, despite disagreements, and which i have already commented on.
As for doctrinal unity, as said before, Rome has official defined little of the Bible, and those pronouncements are themselves in need of interpretations, while limited disagreement is allowed in non-infallible teachings, though disagreement reigns as to what all is or isn’t. Meanwhile, i do not think the early church doubted such things as whether Moses authored most of the Pentateuch, or if Jonah was really swallowed by a fish, by which things Rome's approved scholarly works typically deny but evangelicals typically contend for.
Daniel by what means is it established who is the OTC is?
By the way, not that it matters greatly, I would not use the term “Old Testament Church”. The Catholic Church was established at the Pentecost;
I would not use it ether here: it means One True Church, as explained before. As for the latter statement, another FR Roman Catholic apologist here contends it started in the gospels. Yet, as said before, the surety of the claim that Scripture and history renders Rome to be the 1st century church is based upon her claim that her claim is infallible truth, which disallows evidence to the contrary from determining it.
Responding to these has taken a lower priority by now, with other things needing attention.