Posted on 10/31/2010 11:59:22 AM PDT by RnMomof7
In Christ Alone lyrics
Songwriters: Getty, Julian Keith; Townend, Stuart Richard;
In Christ alone my hope is found He is my light, my strength, my song This Cornerstone, this solid ground Firm through the fiercest drought and storm
What heights of love, what depths of peace When fears are stilled, when strivings cease My Comforter, my All in All Here in the love of Christ I stand
In Christ alone, who took on flesh Fullness of God in helpless Babe This gift of love and righteousness Scorned by the ones He came to save
?Til on that cross as Jesus died The wrath of God was satisfied For every sin on Him was laid Here in the death of Christ I live, I live
There in the ground His body lay Light of the world by darkness slain Then bursting forth in glorious Day Up from the grave He rose again
And as He stands in victory Sin?s curse has lost its grip on me For I am His and He is mine Bought with the precious blood of Christ
Among other corrections that should have made if i proof read it more (sorry),
“while the teaching magisterium and conciliar decrees are helpful, writings were recognized as Scripture without it,”
the last word was supposed to refer to an assuredly infallible magisterium.
Eccl. 12:12
Remember that during the second and third centuries, the OT was very much neglected and the concentration of the Church was on the message of Christianity, not its divergence from Judaism.
When I was originally faced with this prospect, I was appalled, even angry. But evidence is too compelling which is why it is so well filtered by the Church. When was the last time you had a rabbi give a sermon on how the Jews see the Passover Lamb and what the Christians innovated from it? Jews are considered perfidious (unbelieving) "apostates" and all their views are heretical (kettle calling the pot black) and labeled.
Christianity is not Judaism, which was made clear in the Gospels and even clearer in Acts and the epistles. Why were you angry? Was the Torah rewritten? The rest of the Tanakh? What changes were made in the translation of the Septuagint - inadvertently and deliberately? We have some evidence, as we have evidence of the NT massaging.
I believe that the changes were required because of the inability of man to properly understand God, so we view Him, as we do everything else - through our anthropomorphic and current societal filters. I have no proof - but I do believe that this is what happened, just as I believe that the bishops converged in their meeting room in Nicea were led by the Holy Spirit to make the decisions that they made. Same as the cardinals in the Vatican when they are shoveled into the Sistine Chapel and told to stay put until a new bishop is chosen.
I have no proof except for the longevity of the practice and the fact that it makes sense to me on an experiential basis, as well as a theological one.
Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture:
[5]…there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. [6] And if by grace, it is not now by works: otherwise grace is no more grace. [7] What then? That which Israel sought, he hath not obtained: but the election hath obtained it (Romans 11, similar 2 Timothy 1:9)[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. (Eph 2)
No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man:
by works faith was made perfect (James 2:22)[8] By faith he that is called Abraham, obeyed to go out into a place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing whither he went. [9] By faith he abode in the land, dwelling in cottages (Hebrews 11)
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision: but faith that worketh by charity (Galatians 5:6)
Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4. Regarding Romans 3:19-20, 24-31 you have this to say:
As if anyone could be justified on the basis of merit, by a system of works-righteousness, it would be by the law, and yet the law condemns those who presume such, thus both Jews and Gentiles need salvation.
And
We see then that it is through faith in Jesus (of the Scriptures) blood, in His death and resurrection, that one is justified, this being called “the law of faith” in contrast with the system of works-merit under which man may boast. But if we have done works which save us then we could boast. Yet this does not separate faith from works, as the former births the latter, but it excludes works as a means of meriting justification, or acquiring it by merit of works, which Paul on to explicitly disallow, in contrast to faith.
The problem here is “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”, and the earlier reference to “by a system of works-righteousness”. These two references make Paul say what he did not say, that works of love (“faith working through love”, -- his expression) also are opposed to faith, no different than works of the law mentioned in verses 19-20 and works of “boast” in v.27. The reality is that the kind of works that oppose faith in Romans 3 are these two kinds of works precisely: works done under the law (Romans 3:19-20, 28) and works done for boasting (Romans 3:27, Eph. 2:9). It is, of course perfectly reasonable: both works done under the law and works done for social recognition are the kind of works done for a temporal reward. That is the reason they do not merit an eternal reward:
when thou dost an almsdeed, sound not a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be honoured by men. Amen I say to you, they have received their reward (Matthew 6:2)You attempt to improperly tie the works of temporal reward together with works of faith by stating “But if we have done works which save us then we could boast”. Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do. It is true that one who does some charitable work and then boasts of it has invalidated the salvific merit of his work (Matthew 6:2). It is not true that every time a good work is done it is thus invalidated. The righteous “sheep” in Matthew 25, for example, do not seem to be aware that they are righteous (“Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee?”). The Good Thief on the cross does not seem to be boasting of his good work defending Jesus (Luke 23:40-43). What you needed to say in order to make the clean sweep of all works as not salvific is to say “there are none saved because if anyone were saved that one would boast of it”. But you cannot say it, -- there is nothing in St. Paul to justify such a sweeping statement, but there is plenty in the writings of St. Paul alone to indicate that good works exist and remain good (Gal 5:6, Titus 3:8, 2 Timothy 4:7, 1 Corinthians 13:13). So lumping together works of charity with works for a temporal reward is a mere speculation on your part – it is not in the text you are commenting upon.
You then introduce Romans 4:1-6, skip verses 7-9 and then cite verse 10, and comment:
Here it is plainly stated that faiyh justifies the unGodly, not the Godly There is nothing about the godly in that passage, and therefore we cannot conclude from it that faith justified only the ungodly, if that were what you are saying. But probably not, so moving on: faith being counted for righteousness, that is precisely what it says. It also must be understood that the works he rejects are not works of the law, but works done before the law
The works he rejects are circumcision. It is repeated 6 times between verses 6 and 10. Circumcision is works of the Jewish law. So Abraham was not justified by the work of circumcision. True, -- the Catholic Church teaches that also. But the lumping up of all possible works together with circumcision fails in application to this passage also.
The texts is not contrasting works of the law versus works of faith, but makes faith the appropitative means of justification, and Abraham having been justified, is then circumcised, which is allegorical to baptism. This is in reference to the verse 11 that you added to the scope. None of that passage, verses 1 through 11 is contrasting of the law versus works of faith, just as you say; it is contrasting justification with circumcision and concludes that faith of Abraham contributed to his justification and circumcision did not. Here you are attempting to make two analogies: between works of the Jewish law and good works of faith and love, and between circumcision and baptism. But neither works of love or baptism are in the text. Yet good works St. Paul himself declared salvific in the same letter, Romans 2:7-10 and baptism was said to save us both by Christ Himself (Mark 16:16) and by St. Peter (1 Peter 3:21). So you are building analogies without scriptural support. One can assert that this [Abraham might be the father … to them also that follow the steps of the faithful] means one do the works of Abraham to be saved, but we have just seen that he was justified by faith, not works
Yes, of course one can assert that. St. Paul himself asserted that in Hebrews 11, as the entire chapter lists glorious works by Abraham and other Old Testament saints. At the same time, no we have not seen that “he was justified by faith not by works”; we only have seen that he was justified by faith not circumcision.
in the next 2 chapters justification is not something they are seeking by being sanctified, but a present reality
Justification is a reality for the Romans as it is a reality for Jew or Greek, because Christ dies for them also. There is nothing in the next 2 chapters to support your lumping up circumcision with every possible kind of work.
Here [Romans 4:19-51] again it is Abraham's faith which is counted for righteousness, not his works, though the two are so intertwined that one presumes the other
Intertwined they are, but where is “not his works” in that passage? Remember, you do not need to prove me that people are justified by faith intertwined with works; you need to prove to me that we are justified by faith alone without the good works intertwining.
Paul will go one to qualify salvation by grace as concerns election being strictly not because of anything man did
Not “strictly”. St. Paul writes this:
[11] For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God, according to election, might stand,) [12] Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger. [13] As it is written: Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated. [14] What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid. [15] For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy; and I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy. [16] So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
What it says is that election is strictly by grace. That is Catholic teaching. It does not say that it is “strictly not because of anything man did”, it says rather the opposite, namely that if one did not do “any good or evil” then the purpose of election “might stand”. It teaches Grace Alone, not Faith Alone. The verses that you also cite, “if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace” (Romans 11:5-6) reinforce that Catholic point.
No treatment of Romans can be complete without the passages that bracket chapters 4-11. The explanation of salvation being primarily by works is in Rm 2:7-10; this is a concise restatement of Christ’s sermon on salvation in Matthew 25:31-46; it is given without any qualifications that the Protestant mind likes to attach to any biblical statement on the salvific nature of good works. That fits the theme of the early chapters of the letter that strive to show universality of the plan of salvation as well as the universality of the hold that sin has over the mankind, and insufficiency of legal remedy devised by men. Salvation is not by the law but “by the law of faith”, -- a formulation that again points to an active, doing character of Christian faith. To see chapters 4-11 as some statement on “faith alone” is to accuse St. Paul of stating the opposite in Chapter 2 and then changing his mind.
The rest of the letter likewise would be impossible to comprehend in the Protestant jaundiced light. If chapters 4-11 were supposed to be about faith alone, why does chapter 12 begin “I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service”. Faith alone “therefore” is not alone but demands a “living sacrifice” and a “reasonable service”. St. Paul, in short is as much a good Catholic in Romans as he is in any other letter.
|
In the inset, you give me numerous quotes. I will comment on some and treat the rest summarily. I will firstly deal with the patristic quotes, while reminding the reader that no Church father is himself infallible in the same sense in which the Holy Scripture is infallible, the councils are infallible, or the solemn papal declarations on faith and morals are infallible. Especially, the Western Fathers, often separated from the core patristic tradition by their use of Latin translations and simply the passage of time, should not alone be taken as gospel with all their views. St. Augustine, for example, while man of soaring intellect and style, should not be taken as a representative of the rest of the Church in his often off-center writings on justufucation. St. Clement of Rome writes: Chapter 32. We are Justified Not by Our Own Works, But by Faith. Note that the context is of the Old Testament righteous, whose election was surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches. While St. Clement does say “not by ourselves … or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith”, one needs to examion what, to Clement, that faith meant. We only need to peek into the next chapter, one immediately following the concluding Amen of Chapter 32: Chapter 33. But Let Us Not Give Up the Practice of Good Works and Love. God Himself is an Example to Us of Good Works It is also worth noting that the sequence in St. Clement’s letter follows Titus 3:5-8, where the idea of salvation being not of works of love does not even arise since St. Paul speaks only of “works of justice”. Ambrosiaster indeed concludes “sola fide justificati sun” commenting on Romans 3:24 (“Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus”). So the Scripture says “grace”, he thinks “faith”. The rest of the commentary is though on grace and is Catholic: “Gratiam Dei in Christo esse testator; quia voluntate Dei a Christo redempti sumus, ut manu missi justificaremur” (I quote from In Epistolam Beati Pauli AdRomanos). Ambrosiaster is not an important father of the Church and alongside St. Augistine relied on pre-Jerome Latin translations. The first quote of St. Augustine does not say anything about works of love; it is plain and quite Catholic discourse on works of the law being opposite of grace. The second quote from St. Augustine is much better for your purpose. Here it is again:
But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence So one CAN be justified by faith alone and following repentance. We can certainly see that in people unable to work due to some disability or circumstance. However, the general principle is not following here: it is true that exceptionally one can be justified without good works, but it is still not true that anyone as a general proposition is thus justified. Who is Andreas? His comment is a speculation that Abraham had “pre-baptismal faith” and “post-baptismal faith”, and the pre-baptismal one was unaccompanied by works. This is silly: there is nothing in the scripture about either Abraham’s two faiths or his baptism. Quite simply, Abraham’s justification, just like yours or mine, was a process. One stage of it was unaccompanied by works; other stages are very much inseparable from works. The rest of the inset are quotes from diverse Protestant thinkers that advocate for the idea that faith precedes and is a precondition for justification while good works follow. That, in itself, is an acceptable thought for a Catholic Christian, provided that justification is understood correctly as a lifelong process and not necessarily, nor usually, a single event. They quote various scriptures in support of this Catholic doctrine. If you think there is something in their output that need special addressing as regards the meaning of the scripture or the Catholic teaching in general, let me know and I will. |
This is long enough. I will address the portion of your post 7010 following the inset later.
The OT was neglected at first because it was believed, by some (such as Marcion) that the OT God was not the God of the risen Christ. Also, Christians were doing everything to make the Jews look like the bad guys. It was +Irenaeus who, at the end of the 2nd century, realized that without the OT Christianity had no legal appeal, and began to integrate the OT and the NT.
Christianity is not Judaism, which was made clear in the Gospels and even clearer in Acts and the epistles. Why were you angry?
I was angry, as a believer, that my Church had to resort to corruption and manipulation in order to establish what it claimed to be the true dogma. The Gospels, actually affirm Jesus' teaching as Judaism which, unless it was written from ignorance by non Jews, seem rather deceptive. The first defection from Judaism is Paul's antinomialism.
I believe that the changes were required because of the inability of man to properly understand God
Mark, the changes were required to create an a whole new religion using Judaism as its legal authority pretty much the way Mormonism was created.
Was the Torah rewritten?
No, some of the changes are quite subtle. A good example of manipulation of scriptures are found in such instances as when the suffering servant is said to suffer for our iniquities instead of the Tanakh's from our iniquities.
Other issues revolve around the idea of sprinkling of the blood of the innocent victim atoning for our sins. Jewish customs required animal sacrifice only for things committed inadvertently (unintentionally), and in no instance did it ever involved sacrificing a human being, especially a Jew.
For intentional sins, the OT is very clear that no man (or animal) can atone for, except the person who committed them. And that he can do only by repentance and prayer. So, Christian teaching that Jesus was like a sacrificial animal whose blood atoned for the sins of the world is alien to Judaism, yet it is presented by Christians as being part of it. Furthermore, the blood had to be sprinkled on the altar in the Temple.
Another example is the idea that Jesus was like the Passover Lamb. The blood of the Passover Lamb was not shed to atone for anyone's sins, but to show the Egyptians that their god (they worshiped lambs the way Indians worship sacred cows) is no god; it was an act of desecration of an Egyptian deity demanded by God of Israel. Equating Jesus with the Passover Lamb is to the Jews like saying Jesus was a false god. But the Christians weaved a different story around that story.
This is no different than the Mormons saying their trinity is one god in purpose and not in nature. It is a complete distortion of the core Christian dogma used to create a new religion.
Now, I am not interested in challenging your beliefs, Mark. I merely state what I know And I know the Church never told me the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Instead, it seems it fabricated its own truth and I think I can see pretty clearly why it took it 300 years to cook that stew.
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?
Rather than being much redundant, i will address the main points which could benefit from clarification and or expansion, with some organization.
Grace and works are separate altogether. Faith and works are either separate or one and the same, depending on the nature of the works.
Grace and works are not separate as grace enables works, but in reality grace works through faith producing works.
Grace and works are of different origin. God sends grace; we do works. They are often contrasted in the scripture: [Rm. 11:5-7; 2 Tim. 1:9; Eph. 2:8,9] No similar contrast is drawn in the scripture between faith and works, because they both are something originating in the heart of man: [Ja. 2:2; Heb. 11:8,9; Gal. 5:9]
I have affirmed the separate place each have, but in context, you fail to grasp the manner in which they go together, in relation to how faith and works go together. Nor is it that good works eventually produce faith and that faith originates in the heart of man, as faith is a supernatural gift from God, enabling one to effectually believe revealed truth beyond the ability of man.
God, in His grace, gives faith, which results in works.
You also appeal to Rm. 2:7-10 as teaching salvation by works, but which describe what saved persons do, which is works of faith, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) and which i fully affirm. One is justified “by faith alone” in that God-given supernatural faith is what is counted for righteousness, though it is expressed in works. Man comes to God, being drawn to Him but destitute and damned, and out of a poor and contrite heart believes in Him who justifies the unGodly, not the Godly, and their faith is counted for righteousness, an dare given the gift of eternal life. Those who continue in the faith, trusting in the Lord Christ to save them, not their works or goodness or that if their church, do works of faith, led by the Spirit, which only believers can do, and will finally fully realize “eternal life” and recompense for their suffering and works, in the mercy and grace of God.
Let me examine your treatment of Romans 3-4.
A point by point rebuttal of your rendering of this is not necessary as it is a continuance of your insistence on reading into the text what you want to see.
While Rm. 3 excludes both Jews and Gentiles from having any moral fitness whereby they could merit acceptance with God, and instead renders them are all under sin and need of justification by grace, and even though Rm. 4 plainly teaches that if Abraham had done works that merited justification then he could boast, (Romans 4:1-3) you state that he did do justifying works he could boast of, that “Yes, -- we could boast. But it doesn’t mean we always do.” And rather than what Paul is teaching, that if works could merit justification than man could boast, you attempt to make the exclusion of works to be that of boasting of such works, or ones done for temporal gain, while sanctioning doing works to gain eternal life. Supposing that the Catholic system only supports doing works of love for not other reason than love for God is a fantasy, while one must be justified to do works of such love.
The works of the law also provided spiritual benefits, but which system is excluded because it is based upon moral merit by obedience (Gal. 2:20) rather than faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which again, Paul has been laboring to show both Jew and Gentiles they are in need of, being unable to be morally worthy by works.
And when Rm. 4 contrasts Abraham being justified by works before he was circumcised or under the law, you insist this only means works of the law being disallowed, such as circumcision and works done for social recognition, when again, in reality it is part of his contrast between works morally meriting justification, as under the law, versus faith procuring it, in which he clearly states the latter is counted for righteousness. Thus it is of faith, that it might be by grace, by which faith is given, resulting in works led by the Spirit. (Rm. 8:14)
And as man cannot do anything that would make him actually worthy in God's sight, Rm. 4 concludes with justification being something which man cannot gain except by faith. For Abraham was unable to gain the promise, but his faith was counted for righteousness, and which resulted in actions which produced a nation. “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" (Romans 4:21-24)
In contrast, if you have man doing works meriting justification which he could boast of but does not, and if your criteria (as stated in other responses) for such salvific works are works of love by one who imitates Christ, then you have souls doing Christian works of love in imitation of Christ before they are justified, in order to be justified!
In this and other examples you confuse what faith does with the actual means by which justification is appropriated, though faith and work go together. Thus when you see Titus 3:5 and Eph. 2:8,9 which contrast faith and works in an unqualified manner, you invoke verses which speak of what faith effects in order to assert they are causative of justification.
Moving on, your continuing commitment to either argue against a straw man or failure to read or comprehend this oft stated definition and its distinction results in your supposing that Rm. 12:1,2 is contrary to sola fide. If any faith has historically taught or fostered works of faith it is those who hold to sola fide.
As regards Rm. 11:11-16, you again misconstrue how grace works in order to force it to conform to salvation by grace through merit, when an unbiased reading of the text would allow you to see that it is teaching that the elect are chosen as such before they did works, and thus it is purely by grace, under which repentance and faith is given, resulting in works which confirm the saved state of the soul.
When you come to the patristic quotes, after giving the necessary qualifier,” that no Church father is himself infallible,” you misconstrue Clement's words to mean that their election was “surely not of faith but of grace (“but through the operation of His will”), just as Rome teaches,” meaning that they were saved by grace through works of merit! That Clement exhorts them to works, just as those who hold to sola fide do, cannot be used to make his words, “we not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men” to mean justification is by works out of merit. Again, sola fide teaches that the faith that the faith that saves is a faith that follows, but it is the God-given faith aspect which procures justification by imputed righteousness.
For Ambrosiaster, you assert that “faith” in “They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God” is supposed to be “grace” in order to support justification by grace through works which merit it.
Faced with Augustine, “when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence” you allow that “one CAN be justified by faith alone and following repentance. We can certainly see that in people unable to work due to some disability or circumstance. However, the general principle is not following here: it is true that exceptionally one can be justified without good works, but it is still not true that anyone as a general proposition is thus justified.”
I am glad you allow this in a qualified manner, except that inn this context repentance is part of the act of faith, and if one can be justified by faith alone in the case wherein a soul has no ability, then it affirms sola fide, the difference being that in the sola fide i describe, no man has the ability to do works which would morally merit justification, but that God gives faith which procures it, with obedience following.
For me, it is not the sequence that is critical, but the recognition that no man can morally merit justification, being morally destitute, and that instead he is damned due to his works, and must be granted repentance and given faith, albeit a faith that will produce obedience towards its Object, insomuch as the possessor of said faith is able (and which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so), and which faith is counted for righteousness. But yet while eternal life is given as a free gift, one must continue in faith, and works are the gauge by which faith is evidenced, and thus the doers of the law are those who are justified, and works of faith are recompensed beyond the gift of eternal life.
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.
One is free to leave the church at any time, and many do. If one wishes to stay, he has to form his faith accordingly.
At one time (changeable) canon law (open to some interpretation) generally forbade lay persons from engaging in debate question of dogmatic or moral theology with “heretics.”
Yes, -- before one debates the Catholic doctrine it is good if one knows it himself. It is conceivable that at times only consecrated life of a priest provided sufficient education; it may come to this again. I certainly ask anyone Catholic to correct me in the event that I misrepresent the Catholic doctrine; I would not wish to speak my opinions and peddle them off as something valid. Private interpretation of scripture is something amusing and alluring, but it really should not be something the Catholic mind should busy itself with. Here, compared to the Protestant approach, a great and important division needs to be understood. The Church is not a debating society nor is it s research institution. Rather, it is a transmission belt between the historical events that occurred in the ministry of Christ on earth and us. We don’t sit around in a Bible study and wonder what we think the Bible might really mean. We simply ask, and get an answer from the mouth of the Church as she is a timeless supernatural institution divinely endowed by the gift of infallible transmission of the Truth Who is Christ. For example, with you, it might seem that I debate. I do not. I explain what the Church teaches. In the process, the facts of scripture and logic come to light that defeat the Protestant theological fantasies, and hopefully, put you and other Protestant heretics on the path of doubt. But conversion that I so much desire for my Protestant friends is not going to come about because of any debate. Note that Christ never debated with His disciples; they became disciples because He called them. This is how people come to His Church also, because they want to be taught rather than be debated with.
I said primary [disagreement with the Orthodox is primacy and infallibility of the papacy], and what i said remains true
With that, I don’t argue, although I would remark that primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not disputed but rather his infallibility outside of the Church councils. My remark was addressing your other point, that Rome “rises and falls” on the papacy. That is not so: most of Catholic theology was not shaped by popes and in fact what we argue with the Protestants for example, is mostly contained in the teachings of the seven councils of the unified Church. Even today, the Pope has a far stronger command line to the bishops of the West than of the East, and there is no doubt that in the re-unified Church the papacy will be in line with what is was in early Middle Ages, where the individual bishops had great autonomy, as the various Catholic Churches of Eastern Rites enjoy today.
will Rome reject Papal supremacy and infallibility, the Immaculate Conception , etc.?
The doctrines that Rome developed without the cooperation with the East will most likely remain an optional belief in the East, till such time that a council including the East should adopt them universally. It is just my opinion. Note that the bulk of the Orthodox objections are not to the beliefs themselves but to the unilateral adoption of them. They can be reintroduced in a council and adopted by it in some form.
without needed revivals and reformations (plural), eventually there would be no church of the living God
I agree. We have seen several reformations in the Church that were very salutary: the monastic movement in the early Middle Ages, Scholasticism, St. Francis in the West and Palamism in the East, Trent, and now we see the beginnings of some reform even though the actual implementation of the Vatican II left the Western Church nearly in ruins and will have to be backtracked. The problem with Protestant Reformation is not in its stated initially desire to reform the Church, -- that was accomplished at Trent, but with their gradual abandonment of solid scriptural theology from Trent on.
God preserves His church as He preserved a remnant of true Israel, using men and leaders, and in the NT church stones like Peter who also effectually confess Christ but who did not possess assured infallibility, who thus become autocratic demi-gods.
The scripture clearly assigned the infallibility to the Church (Mt 16:18, 18:18). Whether the prayer of Christ for specially Peter in Luke 22 amounts to actual infallibility can indeed be debated, but surely St. Peter is singled out among other apostles as a greater authority in these instances.
The delegation and “leader among brethren” status of Peter is not what is in dispute, but its perpetuation what Rome imputes to that leadership
Ah, OK, so you actually agree to the above. Now as to perpetuation. It is reasonable that the ecclesial structures set up by Christ are perpetuated as He set them up in not in some other form; note as well that we do see episcopacy being perpetuated explicitly in the scripture (the entire two letters to Timothy and the letter to Titus are on this subject). Secondly, this shows the intention of St. Peter to perpetuate his office:
[12] …I will begin to put you always in remembrance of these things: though indeed you know them, and are confirmed in the present truth. [13] But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. [14] Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. [15] And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. [16] For we have not by following artificial fables, made known to you the power, and presence of our Lord Jesus Christ; but we were eyewitnesses of his greatness (2 Peter 1)
If apostolic succession will use Acts 1 as a precedent then it needs to maintain 12 with the same level of credibility, chosen by lot, while the absence for a successor for James and no manifest provision being made for Peter, unlike that for Moses in the Old Testament, serves as a precedent for a local bishops in corporate leadership after the death of the apostles.
Were the Early Church Protestant, I am sure she would use this Protestant system of treating the scripture as a manual to be blindly followed. But since the Early Church was Catholic, she instead followed the actual needs of the growing flock rather than some rigid arithmetical scheme. We see actual apostolic succession in action in the two Timothys and Titus, based on discerning the vocation (Titus 1:5-9), education (2 Timothy 14-17), and sacrament (1 Timothy 4:14).
Or having God sovereignly raise up a Paul, with like qualities and attendant supernatural
God raised up many saints and doctors, and some of them became bishops and popes in that manner. That the Church finds talent when talent is needed is no contradiction to the sacramental system of Holy Orders. Note that St. Paul made sure to bring his extraordinary calling in conformance with the hierarchical system of the Church (Gal. 2:9)
where do you simply see magisterium in my sentence and why did you replace “AIM” with magisterium? That changes the whole point. You must know by now that SS affirms the church magisterium, and the assuredly infallible status is the issue.
Sorry, I only meant to make a short reference to your longer sentence. The assuredness of the infallibility comes from the mandate to bind and loose on earth, which is guaranteed to hold in heaven (Mt 16:19, 18:18). Thank you for focusing me on the real issue. Regarding ποιμαίνω, “to feed” is really one of those dreadful “dynamic” translations, the verb describes a relationship of a pastor to the flock of sheep.
thus the church is autocratic
She is, more precisely, monarchic. That is bad?
institutional religion is full of multitudes whose hope of eternal life is based upon them being a good person, without ever having made a conscious decision for Christ and realizing regeneration
Being a good person is a start, but no, salvation does not depend just on that if your reference is to the Catholic Church.
Rome's claim to be as infallible as they [The Jerusalem Council] were
That is because the promise to bind and loose in heaven what they bind on earth was not time-limited in any way, and we see apostolic succession in action right in the scripture (1-2 Timothy, Titus).
that study likely may lead to rejection of the Roman Catholic papacy
That it could, this is why I was careful to say “if not Catholic of the Western mold, then Eastern Orthodox. ”
Quoting Cantate Domino The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the "eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew 25:41), unless before death they are joined with Her
That Lumen Gentium might cause some to cringe is very true but the essence of the teaching is the same: that last chance of salvation comes from the Catholic Church at the time of one’s death, even though formal and sacramental conversion might not be available. There are no non-Catholics in heaven.
Thus you sanction their deaths
What I said was this: “Our best effort was to ensure their salvation. If they were, they were Catholic when they died. It si not too late by the way, to pray for Hus, Luther, Tyndale, Bruno, or any other heretic”. I don’t think I “sanctioned” anything. Tyndale, by the way, was executed by Protestant England, but of course we can pray for all of them even today.
the apocryphal 2 Maccabees [sanction prayers for the dead] for evident idolaters
2 Maccabees has been in every Christian Bible since Luther decided he did not like it. How is that “apocryphal”? On this subject, the Old Testament would not of course be dispositive any more than on eating of pork, -- the prayer for the dead is simply something that the Jews did as we see from the Maccabees episode. It is a good thing to do because God knows your prayers before you prayed them and can condescend to your petition at the time of the judgement, regardless of the time of the petition being offered. Besides, the souls in Purgatory depend on our prayers directly.
You either cannot comprehend or refuse to that the cause of works can justify one as a believer while works are shown to be a basis for judgment, because its effects manifest that he is. Jesus was God, but He said to believe Him due to His very works sake. (Jn. 4:11)
You are right, what you wrote is not comprehensible. If works are basis for judgement that saves you, then you are saved by your works.
leaving their church means losing their soul […] a restriction Rome at least now does not make but you do
Rome does say so now. While there is a greater appreciation that membership in the Catholic Church need not be formal when at the hour of death one converts, the conversion is necessary for salvation. However, we are saved by our works. One who attained sanctity through his works is essentially Catholic; such are for example the Orthodox whose works of piety often surpass nominal Catholics. The danger is that without formal conversion one may actually reject the Church and therefore reject Christ.
“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification, that of God-given faith versus works, though they are basically inseparable.
Again, this is incomprehensible sophistry. If faith that “appropriates justification” (whatever that combination of words means) is inseparable from works, and indeed it is, -- then we are not saved by faith alone, exactly how the scripture teaches.
The statement was not that there is a verse countering Rome that you would allow as valid, but that you must prove your statement that “The reason Catholics remain Catholics is that invariably the apparent contradictions are shown to not be, upon careful examination.” And as said, “They are not to doubt Rome in the first place, while your invariable conclusion is a highly presumptuous stretch.”
Well, there are personal reasons for each one, but it is also true that one who carefully examines every apparent scriptural contradiction with Catholicism, the contradiction melts. Whereas “we are not saved by faith alone” or “this is my body, eat it” cannot be melted away other than by kilobytes of transparent sophistry of the sort ‘“Sola” is restricted to what precisely appropriates justification […] though [faith and works] are basically inseparable’.
So one could not read Peter's sermon Acts 10:36-43 and be saved? “And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. " (2 Timothy 1:5; 3:15)
You are saved by your works of faith, not by reading anything. A life-long dedication to the virtues described in the scripture will get you saved indeed, but not familiarity with the scripture alone.
Observe, that in the Acts the conversion following a sermon is described thus:
[41] They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. [42] And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers. [43] And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. [44] And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. [45] Their possessions and goods they sold, and divided them to all, according as every one had need. [46] And continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they took their meat with gladness and simplicity of heart; [47] Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.They were added to the Church and they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. The process of their salvation began with the sermon; it did not end with it.(Acts 2)
Annalex: It is good to read the scripture. It is also good, in fact, critical for salvation, to go to Mass
Daniel: What a contrast to the book of Acts where souls were first saved and then they continued in the word, and the services were not that of watching a type of play every week but ranged from highly participatory meeting (1Cor. 14) to preaching service (Acts 20:7ff) to a agape feast, with the latter being about as close as you will get, but its not a mass
They continued the scripture tells us not only in the word but rather they “were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread”. In other words, the Holy Mass was a part of the perseverance. Yes, abuses of the Holy Mass existed (1 Cor. 11), and probably will continue to exist. However, for the modern abuses of the Holy Mass I would blame the ill spirit of the Reformation that continues to infect the Western Church
neither were the elders part of a separate class of priests offering up expiatory sacrifices.
This is a bizarre change of words, as scriptural “presbyter” is translated by Protestants as “elders” and by authentic Christians as “priests”; in the authentic Churches the classes of priests do exist: priests and bishops (from “episcopos”), but both can offer the sacrifice of the Mass. In fact, the priest is enabled by his bishop and offers Mass upon his authorization. The laity and deacons cannot do it, but for that reason they are not called “priests”.
Is the separation of priests as an order than can offer the Sacrifice of the Mass scriptural? Surely it is: the model for the Mass is the Last Supper at which Jesus as Priest offered the sacrifice of His Body and Blood to the Apostles. He did not say “let us offer one another the sacrifice of By Body and Blood” but rather he offered it Himself. Then He told them to “do this”, so at that point He consecrated them to do what He did and be priests. In fact, when the Protestant system impersonates true priesthood it also separates those who offer the breads and the grape juice from those who partake in that ritual.
Is, finally, the sacramental nature of the Holy Orders scriptural? In Titus 1:5 we read
For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee
And in 1 Timothy 4:14:
Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood
So, yes, presbytery (however translated into English) is a sacramentally consecrated order and not merely an occupation like for example a Protestant minister is an occupation or an electrician is an occupation.
So they [Catholic] can convince souls not to look to Scripture
When the Catholic doctrine is discussed in the Scripture, it is easy to see that what the scripture teaches is Catholic. For example, our distinctive beliefs, in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the necessity of works alongside faith for salvation, the ability of true priests to forgive sin, the monastic life being the highest form of discipleship – are all directly visible in the scripture, whereas the Protestant notions of scripture alone, faith alone, the Last Supper desacralized into a memorial snack – all are mental convolutions far distant from the plain text of the scripture.
Annalex: I said, "everything the Bible says, the Church also teaches". see the difference?
Daniel: And the certainty of this claim, rests upon her claim to be infallible […] the laity [according to that claim] cannot derive surety of doctrine from Scripture. If order to do so one must submit to the AIM, which again, infallibly interprets Scripture and history
No it does not rest on the infallibility at all. Where did I on this thread, for example, tell you to agree with me because I speak in defense of the infallible Church? It is me, Catholic, who reads “this is my body” and believes it. It is me, Catholic who reads “you are not saved by faith alone” and believes it. You invent theories intended to contradict these simple statements, and to bring your theories to some phony compliance with the Holy Scripture you need page upon page of mental contortion. That the Church is infallible is very true, but in order to ascertain for yourself that what the Church teaches is true and what Protestantism teaches is counterscriptural nonsense one only needs to read the scripture with an honest eye.
Annalex: if you have an rgument on how Matthew 25:31-46 does not teach justification by works of charity, I would like to pursue that.
Daniel: That should be put to rest, as well as the latter, which is a matter of hermeneutics, and of your seeing a description of Jesus blessing souls because they had a kind of faith that works by love as making that the precise means of appropriating justification, which Paul does for faith, clearly excluding works as meriting it
In Matthew 25:31-46 Jesus blesses souls who did works of love and condemns souls who did not. So, we are judged by our works and therefore are not saved by faith alone, as Protestantism falsely teaches. Nowhere does St. Paul draw the distinction between “appropriating justification” and being continually justified, and nowhere does he exclude all kinds of works from that initial appropriation, but merely works done for a temporal reward.
We should both be able to agree that God can justify and purify hearts by faith before they were baptized (Acts 15:8,9) as baptism by desire allows. The importance again is of a soul having a poor and contrite heart that sees he is damnable and destitute of any way to escape Hell or gain Heaven except by casting all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, and does so, trusting and thus calling upon the risen Lord to save him by His blood and righteous, and which is a type of God-given faith that is confessed, expressed in baptism (normatively) and works of faith, led by the Spirit. And that saving faith is one that continues in the faith, repenting when convicted of not doing so, which i have many times defined it as.
Yes, that describes Catholic faith quite well. I don’t think it describes a Protestant faith well, because Protestantism is built upon resisting plain scripture and often plain words of Christ, in favor of deceptive and artificial constructs.
The implied second action in Matthew 27:8 is the arrival of the day when Matthew is writing his book.
Amen I say to you, that there are some of them that stand here, who shall not taste death, [eos] they see the kingdom of God coming in power. (Mark 8:39)
According to you, the verse means that the moment the kingdom of God comes, all will taste death (and while dead, see what is going on).
No, it doesn’t and No, I don’t.
How you can draw such a conclusion is a mystery since the verse says “some” not all and puts the seeing BEFORE tasting death and nothing about “the moment”.
Until really is not a difficult word and trying to redefine it to support an idea not in the Scriptures simply won’t do.
Mark 8:39? Maybe Matt.16:28?
Not when another event, not a time marker is the statement controlled by "until". For example, "I was honest [eos] the theft of the jewelry occurred" is a perfectly good Greek statement, even though we would not use "until" in its American equivalent. Even better, if you replace a statement of state "I was honest" with a statement of someone's inaction: "I was not in touch with Jesse James until the theft occurred", then it matches Matthew's 1:25 closer and American "until" works in it. This simply means that I was honest all the time before the theft and therefore not connected to the theft. I gave examples of such in my previous post to Count-your-change.
Matthew 1:25 certainly does not suggest she remained a virgin after she gave birth! [...] to defend Mary's perpetual virginity with scripture is a rather untenable
I agree. I simpy am saying that the scripture doesn't suggest otherwise either. I know that as a postive fact we know of Mary's lifelong virginity historically and not from the scripture.
Sure she could, and she did. The restriction on blood is different from the restriction on fornication, because no one is hurt by eating blood any more than by eating steak (Shakespeare's Merhcant of Venice story comes to mind). Fornication though is in itself inflicting damage on people.
Divine revelation is progressive. God reveled Himself to the primitive people in simple Don't's like "don't drink blood" because they were primitive -- we do the same thing when we tell children not to run with scissors. The Revelation God gave the Christians is Love God and love your neighbor, and about the rest think for yourself -- you are not saved by the laws but by your works.
You make unwarranted assumptions:
“The restriction on blood is different from the restriction on fornication, because no one is hurt by eating blood any more than by eating steak”
The restriction on eating blood was based upon life being in the blood and life belonging to God to decide its use, not man. The harm was in the violation of God’s law and the taking by man what did not belong to him. (Gen. 9 and Lev. 17)
One, what a conjunction is and how it functions seems to make no difference to your understanding and two,
“I know that as a postive fact we know of Mary’s lifelong virginity historically and not from the scripture.”
How exactly do you “know” this apart from Scripture? source?
Thank you.
Metmom: [quotes Eph 2:1-10, emphasizes verse 8] It doesn't say *works of the Law*, it just says works, period
Yes, Eph. 2:8 does refer to all kinds of work, but is says that grace is not the result of works of any kind, and every Catholic knows that. The dispute is whether salvation is a result of works of love alongside the faith, and the verse does not speak to that. It is a good idea to understand that nature of the argument before contributing to it.
See the previous post of mine. It is a very common misreading of Eph 2:8.
Metmom: But Catholicism is. Lots of them.
The Church has lots of laws, for the benefit of the faithful who need to know what is and what isn't obedient behavior. However, my point to count-your-change is that the Church, not the formalities of the Jewish laws is the source of those, and none of them are salvific. We are saved by grace alone and not by the works of the law.
No, the world owes us nothing. If someone wants to be saved, he has to obey the Gospel and be Catholic, but the choice is entirely his. Many are called, the elect are few.
In order not further add to any confusion let’s see if by “works” we mean the same thing.
I understand the term to indicate some sort of action or visible evidence of one’s faith as Paul and James described.
That one cannot perform the “works” of the Mosaic Law as a means of attaining salvation I think we agree on already and needs no further elaboration.
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.