Posted on 06/13/2012 2:59:02 PM PDT by Gamecock
In my experience with those who wrestle with conversion to Roman Catholicism—at least those who have professed faith in the gospel, the driving theological issue is authority. How can I be certain that what I believe is true? The gospel of free grace through the justification of sinners in Christ alone moves to the back seat. Instead of the horse, it becomes the cart. Adjustments are made in their understanding of the gospel after accepting Rome’s arguments against sola scriptura. I address these remarks to friends struggling with that issue.
Reformation Christians can agree with Augustine when he said that he would never have known the truth of God’s Word apart from the catholic church. As the minister of salvation, the church is the context and means through which we come to faith and are kept in the faith to the end. When Philip found an Ethiopian treasury secretary returning from Jerusalem reading Isaiah 53, he inquired, “Do you understand what you are reading?” “How can I,” the official replied, “unless someone guides me?” (Ac 8:30-31). Explaining the passage in the light of its fulfillment in Christ, Philip baptized the man who then “went on his way rejoicing” (v 39).
Philip did not have to be infallible; he only had to communicate with sufficient truth and clarity the infallible Word.
For many, this kind of certainty, based on a text, is not adequate. We have to know—really know—that what we believe is an infallible interpretation of an ultimate authority. The churches of the Reformation confess that even though some passages are more difficult to understand, the basic narratives, doctrines and commands of Scripture—especially the message of Christ as that unfolds from Genesis to Revelation—is so clearly evident that even the unlearned can grasp it.
For the Reformers, sola scriptura did not mean that the church and its official summaries of Scripture (creeds, confessions, catechisms, and decisions in wider assemblies) had no authority. Rather, it meant that their ministerial authority was dependent entirely on the magisterial authority of Scripture. Scripture is the master; the church is the minister.
The following theses summarize some of the issues that people should wrestle with before embracing a Roman Catholic perspective on authority.
1. The Reformers did not separate sola scriptura (by Scripture alone) from solo Christo (Christ alone), sola gratia (by grace alone), sola fide (through faith alone). As Herman Bavinck said, “Faith in Scripture rises or falls with faith in Christ.” Revealed from heaven, the gospel message itself (Christ as the central content of Scripture) is as much the basis for the Bible’s authority as the fact that it comes from the Father through the inspiration of the Spirit. Jesus Christ, raised on the third day, certified his divine authority. Furthermore, he credited the Old Testament writings as “scripture,” equating the words of the prophets with the very word of God himself and commissioned his apostles to speak authoritatively in his name. Their words are his words; those who receive them also receive the Son and the Father. So Scripture is the authoritative Word of God because it comes from the unerring Father, concerning the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Neither the authority of the Bible nor that of the church can stand apart from the truth of Christ as he is clothed in his gospel.2. Every covenant is contained in a canon (like a constitution). The biblical canon is the norm for the history of God’s saving purposes in Christ under the old and new covenants. The Old Testament canon closed with the end of the prophetic era, so that Jesus could mark a sharp division between Scripture and the traditions of the rabbis (Mk 7:8). The New Testament canon was closed at the end of the apostolic era, so that even during that era the Apostle Paul could warn the Corinthians against the “super-apostles” by urging, “Do not go beyond what is written” (1 Co 4:6). While the apostles were living, the churches were to “maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” (1 Co 11:2), “…either by our spoken word or by our letter” (2 Th 2:15). There were indeed written and unwritten traditions in the apostolic church, but only those that eventually found their way by the Spirit’s guidance into the New Testament are now for us the apostolic canon. The apostles (extraordinary ministers) laid the foundation and after them workers (ordinary ministers) build on that foundation (1 Co 3:10). The apostles could appeal to their own eye-witness, direct, and immediate vocation given to them by Christ, while they instructed ordinary pastors (like Timothy) to deliver to others what they had received from the apostles. As Calvin noted, Rome and the Anabaptists were ironically similar in that they affirmed a continuing apostolic office. In this way, both in effect made God’s Word subordinate to the supposedly inspired prophets and teachers of today.
3. Just as the extraordinary office of prophets and apostles is qualitatively distinct from that of ordinary ministers, the constitution (Scripture) is qualitatively distinct from the Spirit-illumined but non-inspired courts (tradition) that interpret it. Thus, Scripture is magisterial in its authority, while the church’s tradition of interpretation is ministerial.
4. To accept these theses is to embrace sola scriptura, as the Reformation understood it.
5. This is precisely the view that we find in the church fathers. First, it is clear enough from their descriptions (e.g., the account in Eusebius) that the fathers did not create the canon but received and acknowledged it. (Even Peter acknowledged Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in 2 Peter 3:16, even though Paul clearly says in Galatians that he did not receive his gospel from or seek first the approval of any of the apostles, since he received it directly from Christ.) The criteria they followed indicates this: To be recognized as “Scripture,” a purported book had to be well-attested as coming from the apostolic circle. Those texts that already had the widest and earliest acceptance in public worship were easily recognized by the time Athanasius drew up the first list of all 27 NT books in 367. Before this even, many of these books were being quoted as normative scripture by Clement of Rome, Origin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and others. Of his list, Athanasius said that “holy Scripture is of all things most sufficient for us” (NPNF2, 4:23). Also in the 4th century Basil of Caesarea instructed, “Believe those things which are written; the things which are not written, seek not…It is a manifest defection from the faith, a proof of arrogance, either to reject anything of what is written, or to introduce anything that is not” (“On the Holy Spirit,” NPNF2, 8:41). Second, although the fathers also acknowledge tradition as a ministerially authoritative interpreter, they consistently yield ultimate obedience to Scripture. For example, Augustine explains that the Nicene Creed is binding because it summarizes the clear teaching of Scripture (On the Nicene Creed: A Sermon to the Catechumens, 1).
6. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the early Christian community in Rome was not unified under a single head. (Paul, for example, reminded Timothy of the gift he was given when the presbytery laid its hands on him in his ordination: 1 Tim 4:14). In fact, in the Roman Catholic-Anglican dialogue the Vatican acknowledged that “the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for papal primacy” and that they contain “no explicit record of a transmission of Peter’s leadership” (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6). So one has to accept papal authority exclusively on the basis of subsequent (post-apostolic) claims of the Roman bishop, without scriptural warrant. There is no historical succession from Peter to the bishops of Rome. First, as Jerome observed in the 4th-century, “Before attachment to persons in religion was begun at the instigation of the devil, the churches were governed by the common consultation of the elders,” and Jerome goes so far as to suggest that the introduction of bishops as a separate order above the presbyters was “more from custom than from the truth of an arrangement by the Lord” (cited in the Second Helvetic Confession, Ch 18). Interestingly, even the current pope acknowledges that presbyter and episcipos were used interchangeably in the New Testament and in the earliest churches (Called to Communion, 122-123).
7. Ancient Christian leaders of the East gave special honor to the bishop of Rome, but considered any claim of one bishop’s supremacy to be an act of schism. Even in the West such a privilege was rejected by Gregory the Great in the sixth century. He expressed offense at being addressed by a bishop as “universal pope”: “a word of proud address that I have forbidden….None of my predecessors ever wished to use this profane word ['universal']….But I say it confidently, because whoever calls himself ‘universal bishop’ or wishes to be so called, is in his self-exaltation Antichrist’s precursor, for in his swaggering he sets himself before the rest” (Gregory I, Letters; tr. NPNF 2 ser.XII. i. 75-76; ii. 170, 171, 179, 166, 169, 222, 225).
8. Nevertheless, building on the claims of Roman bishops Leo I and Galsius in the 5th century, later bishops of Rome did claim precisely this “proud address.” Declaring themselves Christ’s replacement on earth, they claimed sovereignty (“plenitude of power”) over the world “to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms.” At the Council of Reims (1049) the Latin Church claimed for the pope the title “pontifex universalis“—precisely the title identified by Gregory as identifying one who “in his self-exaltation [is] Antichrist’s precursor….” Is Pope Gregory the Great correct, or are his successors?
9. Papal pretensions contributed to the Great Schism in 1054, when the churches of the East formally excommunicated the Church of Rome, and the pope reacted in kind.
10. The Avignon Papacy (1309-76) relocated the throne to France and was followed by the Western Schism (1378-1417), with three rival popes excommunicating each other and their sees. No less than the current Pope wrote, before his enthronement, “For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form–the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 196).
11. Medieval debates erupted over whether Scripture, popes or councils had the final say. Great theologians like Duns Scotus and Pierre D’Ailly favored sola scriptura. Papalists argued that councils had often erred and contradicted themselves, so you have to have a single voice to arbitrate the infallible truth. Conciliarists had no trouble pointing out historical examples of popes contradicting each other, leading various schisms, and not even troubling to keep their unbelief and reckless immorality private. Only at the Council of Trent was the papalist party officially affirmed in this dispute.
12. Papal claims were only strengthened in reaction to the Reformation, all the way to the promulgation of papal infallibility at the First Vatican Council in 1870. At that Council, Pope Pius IX could even respond to modern challenges to his authority by declaring, “I am tradition.”
13. Though inspired by God, Scripture cannot be sufficient. It is a dark, obscure, and mysterious book (rendered more so by Rome’s allegorizing exegesis). An infallible canon needs an infallible interpreter. This has been Rome’s argument. The insufficiency of Scripture rests on its lack of clarity. True it is that the Bible is a collection of texts spread across many centuries, brimming with a variety of histories, poetry, doctrines, apocalyptic, and laws. However, wherever it has been translated in the vernacular and disseminated widely, barely literate people have been able to understand its central message. Contrast this with the libraries full of decreetals and encyclicals, councilor decisions and counter-decisions, bulls and promulgations. Any student of church history recognizes that in this case the teacher is often far more obscure than the text. It’s no wonder that Rome defines faith as fides implicita: taking the church’s word for it. For Rome, faith is not trust in Jesus Christ according to the gospel, but yielding assent and obedience unreservedly simply to everything the church teaches as necessary to salvation. There are many hazards associated with embracing an infallible text without an infallible interpreter. However, the alternative is not greater certainty and clarity about the subject matter, but a sacrifice of the intellect and an abandonment of one’s personal responsibility for one’s commitments to the decisions and acts of others.
14. Those of us who remain Reformed must examine the Scriptures and the relevant arguments before concluding that Rome’s claims are not justified and its teaching is at variance with crucial biblical doctrines. A Protestant friend in the midst of being swayed by Rome’s arguments exclaims, “That’s exactly why I can’t be a Protestant anymore. Without an infallible magisterium everyone believes whatever he chooses.” At this point, it’s important to distinguish between a radical individualism (believing whatever one chooses) and a personal commitment in view of one’s ultimate authority. My friend may be under the illusion that his or her decision is different from that, but it’s not. In the very act of making the decision to transfer ultimate authority from Scripture to the magisterium, he or she is weighing various biblical passages and theological arguments. The goal (shifting the burden of responsibility from oneself to the church) is contradicted by the method. At this point, one cannot simply surrender to a Reformed church or a Roman church; they must make a decision after careful personal study. We’re both in the same shoes.
15. Most crucially, Rome’s ambitious claims are tested by its faithfulness to the gospel. If an apostle could pronounce his anathema on anyone—including himself or an angel from heaven—who taught a gospel different from the one he brought to them (Gal 1:8-9), then surely any minister or church body after the apostles is under that threat. First, Paul was not assuming that the true church is beyond the possibility of error. Second, he placed himself under the authority of that Word. Just read the condemnations from the Council of Trent below. Do they square with the clear and obvious teaching of Scripture? If they do not, then the choice to be made is between the infallible writings of the apostles and those after the apostles and since who claim to be the church’s infallible teachers.
As I have pointed out in previous posts, the frustration with the state of contemporary Protestantism is understandable. I feel it every day. Yet those who imagine that they will escape the struggle between the “already” and the “not yet,” the certainty of a promise and the certainty of possession, the infallibility of God’s Word and the fallibility of its appointed teachers, are bound to be disappointed wherever they land. As Calvin counseled on the matter, Scripture alone is sufficient; “better to limp along this path than to dash with all speed outside it.”
It is not a matter of quantity, it is a matter of persevering, as Paul states:
Philipp 2:12 ... work out your own salvation with fear and trembling
By the teaching of the Church and its Scripture.
What if you come up short?
If you don't persevere to the end, you will have no salvation.
What kind of God do you serve who would leave you hanging like that in regard to your salvation and would let you come up short and send you to hell for it?
If you do not persevere, it is not due to the fault of God.
It is not a matter of integrity. I've reread your post and see now what you meant. The point is the same, the works are recorded in the book; we don't need to remind God.
metmom: Really?
Yes, really. It is not just intent. You have to do. Intending to pray for someone is not the same as actually praying. The Scriptures from Matthew and John you quoted are not talking about intent. Hating someone is something you've actually done.
Any works outside of the Law are sin. The Law DEFINES what good works are.
No, the Law is in the Torah - circumcision, food laws, festival laws, etc. that applies to the Jews and not the genitle.
If you don't realize that the Law really teaches what Jesus taught in the Beatitudes, you don't know the Law very well.
Jesus didn't teach us to sacrifice animals, etc. and what Jesus taught is for Jew and gentile.
Catholics really do misunderstand the Law.
I don't think it is the Catholics who misunderstand. The Law of the Old Testament is not the same as the beatitudes.
I haven't seen where a Catholic has claimed that non-Catholics don't do good works. We are just having a discussion about faith and works.
And, of course, they get to define what good works are and which ones qualify for entry into heaven.
The beatitudes are very clear.
What chutzpah.
Consider the premise of your post, yes, what chutzpah.
The Bible did not come complete with an index, telling us which books, and how many, are inspired writings and canonical or not. It was the bishops of the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture. The bishops were preserved from falling into error, as our Lord promised, on this important matter concerning the Holy Catholic Church. (Matt. 16:18; 28:18-20) (John 14,15, and 16) (1 Tim. 3:14-15) (Acts 15:28) They included Tobit, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees. Roman Catholics call these books deuterocanonical. Protestants call them Apocrypha. There are some additional passages in Daniel and Esther not found in Protestant Bibles.
The right way to deal with it is the way all others who were taken into heaven alive were dealt with; by a Scriptural reference. Not make up some story where Scripture is silent.
How can you ever talk about the idea of the incarnation without bringing her into the matter.
Because while Mary was the vessel, the Incarnation was a mighty act of God, not God and Mary. And the significance of that act of God goes beyond a virgin birth and thunders through history since God made Himself man to die for our sins as the only acceptable sacrifice of atonement. God and man are reconciled, by God's hand alone, not God with man's help. That's how.
A just God. There is no guarantee of salvation as can be seen by anyone familiar with the Scriptures:
Rom. 5:5 - this “hope” does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit. Our hope is assured if we persevere to the end.
Rom. 8:24 - this “hope” of salvation that Paul writes about is unnecessary if salvation is guaranteed. If salvation is assured, then why hope?
Rom. 10:1 - Paul prays that the Jews “may be saved.” Why pray if it’s guaranteed? Further, why pray unless you can mediate?
Rom. 12:12 - rejoice in your “hope” (not your certainty), be patient in tribulation, and be constant in prayer.
2 Cor. 3:12 - since we have a “hope” (not a certainty), we are very bold. We can be bold when we are in God’s grace and our persevering in obedient faith.
Gal. 5:5 - for through the Spirit by faith we wait for the “hope” (not the certainty) of righteousness.
Eph. 1:18 - that you may know what is the “hope” to which He has called you, what are the riches of His glorious inheritance.
Eph. 4:4 - there is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one “hope” (not the one certainty) that belongs to your call.
Eph. 6:10-17 – Paul instructs the Ephesians to take the whole armor of God, the breastplate of righteousness, and the helmet of salvation, in order “to stand,” lest they fall. Paul does not give any assurance that the spiritual battle is already won.
Phil. 3:11 - Paul shares Christ’s sufferings so that “if possible” he may attain resurrection. Paul does not view his own resurrection as a certainty.
Phil. 1:20 - as it is my eager expectation and “hope” (not certainty) that I shall not be at all ashamed before Christ.
Col. 1:5 - Paul refers to the “hope” (not guarantee) that Christ laid up for us in heaven.
Col. 1:23 - provided that you continue in the faith, not shifting from the “hope” of the gospel which you heard.
Col. 1:27 - to them God chose to make known His mystery, which is Christ in you, the “hope” (not the certainty) of His glory.
1 Thess. 1:3 - remembering before our God your work of faith and labor of love and steadfastness of “hope” in Jesus Christ.
1 Thess. 2:19 - for what is our “hope” or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you?
1 Thess. 5:8 - we must put on the helmet of “hope” (not of certainty) of salvation.
2 Thess. 2:16 - the Lord Jesus and God our Father who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good “hope” through grace.
1 Tim. 1:1 - Paul describes Christ Jesus as our “hope” (not our guarantee). We can reject Him and He will allow this.
1 Tim. 4:10 - Paul says we toil and strive because we have our “hope” (not our assurance) on the living God. This is not because God is unfaithful, but because we can be unfaithful. We toil and strive for our salvation.
1 Tim. 5:5 - she who is a real widow, and is left all alone, has set her “hope” (not her assurance) on God. Our hope is a guarantee only if we persevere to the end.
1 Tim. 5:15 – Paul writes that some have already strayed after satan, as God Himself tells us in 1 Tim. 4:1. They were on the right path, and then strayed off of it.
2 Tim. 2:10 - Paul endures for the elect so that they “may also obtain salvation.” This verse teaches us that even the “elect,” from the standpoint of human knowledge, have no guarantee of salvation.
Titus 1:2 - Paul says that he is in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life. Paul knows that his hope is a guarantee if he perseveres, but his ability to choose sin over God makes his attainment of eternal life less than an absolute certainty until it is actually achieved.
Titus 2:13 - awaiting our blessed “hope,” the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Titus 3:7 - Paul says we have been given the Spirit so we might become heirs in the “hope” (not the certainty) of eternal life.
Heb. 3:6 - we are Christ’s house if we hold fast our confidence and pride in our “hope” (not our certainty).
Heb. 6:11 - we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness in realizing the full assurance of “hope” (not certainty) until the end.
Heb. 6:18 - we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the “hope” (not the certainty) that is set before us.
Heb. 6:19 - we have a “hope” that enters into the inner shrine behind the curtain, where Jesus has gone before us.
Heb. 7:19 - on the other hand, a better “hope” (not certainty) is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
Heb. 10:23 - let us hold fast the confession of our “hope” without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.
Heb. 11:1 - now faith is the assurance of things “hoped” for (not guaranteed), the conviction of things not seen (heaven).
Heb. 12:1 – let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us.
Heb. 12:15 – see to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no root of bitterness spring up and cause trouble, and by it many become defiled.
James 1:12 - we must endure trial and withstand the test in order to receive the crown of life. It is not guaranteed.
1 Peter 1:3 - by His mercy we have been born anew to a living “hope” through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.
1 Peter 1:13 - set your “hope” (not assurance) fully upon the grace that is coming to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 1:21 - through Him you have confidence in God, who raised him from the dead so that your faith and “hope” are in God.
1 Peter 2:2 - like newborn babes, long for spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation. How can you grow up to something you already possess?
1 Peter 3:15 - always be prepared to make a defense to anyone who calls you to account for the “hope” that is in you.
1 John 3:3 - and everyone who thus “hopes” in Him purifies himself as He is pure. These verses teach us that we must cooperate with God’s grace and persevere to the end to be saved. We can and do have a moral certitude of salvation if we persevere in faith, hope and love.
Scriptures verses and commentary conveniently plagiarized from a post by MarkBsnr.
Let us look at those verses in context indeed. The very verses that you posted show that faith alone is not enough. Did you miss this part:
Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit. A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.Or:
Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.Faith alone, or crying out "Lord, Lord" is not enough. We must produce good fruit (good works) and do what our Lord commands.
They got saved out of that lifestyle and were saved. That doesn't mean that a believer who happens to fall into sin isn't saved any more.
And what happens to those who believe but continue to live in sin?
Believers sin and provision is made for forgiveness.
Yes, indeed. Notice that the passage that you quoted indicates that salvation is not unconditional based on faith alone:
But if we walk in the light…There is no provision for retaining sin and it doesn't affect one's salvation.
If we confess our sins…
Really?
Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.If you don't get saved by works, you don't stay saved by works.
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.”
Again, "works of the law" and "the Book of the Law" refer to the Torah or Law of Moses.
In that very same chapter of John our Lord also says,
Jhn 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.
Jhn 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.
Sorry, I'm not misrepresenting anything. My point is that the early church father BELIEVED in the Penal Substitution theory. The article that I linked to SAYS they believed in it but the Church evolved its beliefs. What you stated only confirms what I stated-the Church doesn't believe in what was taught by the early church fathers in the way of atonement. Calvin didn't go "beyond" Anselm. He went BACK to the early fathers.
The Church simply doesn't believe what the early church fathers taught. They believe what the Council of Trent and forward taught.
LOL!!! I simply report.
1Sa 2:3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
I think that you misunderstand the Catholic teaching on the relationship of faith and works. Works do not save us; the Cross of Jesus Christ does. Salvation, however, is not just the imputation of righteousness. It is the act, on God's part, of sanctification whereby we die to sin and grow in holiness, becoming more and more in the likeness of God. Works are a sign of growth in holiness and love of God. Thus our Lord instructs us on the need to keep the commandments:
Now someone approached him and said, “Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?” He answered him, “Why do you ask me about the good? There is only One who is good. If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asked him, “Which ones?” And Jesus replied, “ ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother’; and ‘you shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”Here our Lord mentions some of the 10 Commandments. But it goes deeper than that. The 10 Commandments themselves flow from an orientation of the love of God and the love of our neighbors because of the love of God. Thus:
(Matt 19:16-19)
When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”But even after our acceptance of Jesus we are still left with our free will and thus the ability to turn away from the love of God to love of self. Sin is the sign of this love of self. If great enough we separate ourselves from God. In essence we turn to God and say "I know how you want be to live but I choose to not to. So get out of my life and leave me alone." We thus choose ourselves over God and separate ourselves from Him. If this happens, there are no amounts of good works that can repair the breach; only the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross. After Baptism this is done by Confession where the priest exercises the power given by Jesus himself to forgive sins. All this is the work not of man but of God.
(Matt 22:34-40)
Yeah, let’s look at some of the problems with those books you claim were inspired by the Holy Spirit and who you say the Bishops were “under the guidance of the Holy Spirit that sorted out and decided the canon of Sacred Scripture.”
Tobit claims to have been alive when Jeroboam revolted in 931 B.C. and 210 years later when Assyria conquered Israel in 721 B.C. Then it says in Tobit 14 that he was 112 when he died. Oops!
In Judith we find an error of who Nebuchadnezzar was King of.
Judith 1:1 While King Nebuchadnezzar was ruling over the Assyrians from his capital city of Nineveh,
Nebuchadnezzar didn’t rule over the Assyrians he was King over Babylonia.
2 Kings 24:1 While Jehoiakim was king, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylonia invaded Judah
According to the two Books of Maccabees, which one of the three places did Antiochus Epiphanes actually die in? Did he actually die three different times in three different places?
Do you believe the following from Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)?
Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife's iniquity.
Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.
Do you believe a female birth is a loss to parents or do you believe what it says in Psalms?
Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.
Do you believe there is no hope for children born out of wedlock?
Wisdom 3:16-19 But children of adulterers will not come to maturity, and the offspring of an unlawful union will perish. Even if they live long they will be held of no account, and finally their old age will be without honor. If they die young, they will have no hope and no consolation on the day of judgment. For the end of an unrighteous generation is grievous.
Or do you believe the following?
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Wisdom 6:17 says, "The beginning of wisdom is the most sincere desire for instruction." but in Proverbs 9 it says this.
Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
Which is it?
Wisdom 6:24 says, "The multitude of the wise is the salvation of the world," but in Timothy 4:10 it says “For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.
Again, which is it?
Why would anyone rely on books with obvious errors? The Holy Spirit inspired books have never been shown to have errors. The Catholic Church uses books with obvious errors to try to prop up their own errors.
Here’s what the CC says about you not believing every word of the apocrypha since they say it’s part of the canon of the RCC.
If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts, as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema. [H. J. Schroeder, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Original Text with English Translation (St Louis and London: B. Herder, 1941), P 18.]
If the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of those books and then guided the Bishops why didn’t He catch those errors and inconsistencies? I’ll give you a hint. They aren’t inspired by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit didn’t guide the Bishops when they included them.
God will never cast us out but we can by refusing to love God and rebelling by choosing our sins over him.
Again, I notice here the Protestant tactic of completely ignoring those verses that contradict their a priori dogmas based on human tradition.
The subjective principle of Protestantism is the doctrine of justification and salvation by faith in Christ; as distinct from the doctrine of justification by faith and works or salvation by grace and human merit. Luther’s formula is sola fide. Calvin goes further back to God’s eternal election, as the ultimate ground of salvation and comfort in life and in death. But Luther and Calvin meant substantially the same thing, and agree in the more general proposition of salvation by free grace through living faith in Christ (Acts 4:12), in opposition to any Pelagian or Semi-pelagian compromise which divides the work and merit between God and man. And this is the very soul of evangelical Protestantism.10
Luther assigned to his solifidian doctrine of justification the central position in the Christian system, declared it to be the article of the standing or falling (Lutheran) church, and was unwilling to yield an inch from it, though heaven and earth should collapse.11 This exaggeration is due to his personal experience during his convent life. The central article of the Christian faith on which the church is built, is not any specific dogma of the Protestant, or Roman, or Greek church, but the broader and deeper truth held by all, namely, the divine-human personality and atoning work of Christ, the Lord and Saviour. This was the confession of Peter, the first creed of Christendom.
The Protestant doctrine of justification differs from the Roman Catholic, as defined (very circumspectly) by the Council of Trent, chiefly in two points. Justification is conceived as a declaratory and judicial act of God, in distinction from sanctification, which is a gradual growth; and faith is conceived as a fiducial act of the heart and will, in distinction from theoretical belief and blind submission to the church. The Reformers derived their idea from Paul, the Romanists appealed chiefly to James (2:17–26); but Paul suggests the solution of the apparent contradiction by his sentence, that "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love."
Faith, in the biblical and evangelical sense, is a vital force which engages all the powers of man and apprehends and appropriates the very life of Christ and all his benefits. It is the child of grace and the mother of good works. It is the pioneer of all great thoughts and deeds. By faith Abraham became the father of nations; by faith Moses became the liberator and legislator of Israel; by faith the Galilean fishermen became fishers of men; and by faith the noble army of martyrs endured tortures and triumphed in death; without faith in the risen Saviour the church could not have been founded. Faith is a saving power. It unites us to Christ. Whosoever believeth in Christ "hath eternal life." "We believe," said Peter at the Council of Jerusalem, "that we shall be saved through the grace of God," like the Gentiles who come to Christ by faith without the works and ceremonies of the law. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved," was Paul’s answer to the question of the jailor: "What must I do to be saved?"
Protestantism does by no means despise or neglect good works or favor antinomian license; it only subordinates them to faith, and measures their value by quality rather than quantity. They are not the condition, but the necessary evidence of justification; they are not the root, but the fruits of the tree. The same faith which justifies, does also sanctify. It is ever "working through love" (Gal. 5:6). Luther is often charged with indifference to good works, but very unjustly. His occasional unguarded utterances must be understood in connection with his whole teaching and character. "Faith" in his own forcible language which expresses his true view, "faith is a living, busy, active, mighty thing and it is impossible that it should not do good without ceasing; it does not ask whether good works are to be done, but before the question is put, it has done them already, and is always engaged in doing them; you may as well separate burning and shining from fire, as works from faith."
The Lutheran doctrine of Christian freedom and justification by faith alone, like that of St. Paul on which it was based, was made the cloak of excesses by carnal men who wickedly reasoned, "Let us continue in sin that grace may abound" (Rom. 6:1), and who abused their "freedom for an occasion to the flesh" (Gal. 5:13). All such consequences the apostle cut off at the outset by an indignant "God forbid."
To an outside spectator, especially to a Romanist and to an infidel, Protestantism presents the aspect of a religious chaos or anarchy which must end in dissolution.
But a calm review of the history of the last three centuries and the present condition of Christendom leads to a very different conclusion. It is an undeniable fact that Christianity has the strongest hold upon the people and displays the greatest vitality and energy at home and abroad, in English-speaking countries, where it is most divided into denominations and sects. A comparison of England with Spain, or Scotland with Portugal, or the United States with Mexico and Peru or Brazil, proves the advantages of living variety over dead uniformity. Division is an element of weakness in attacking a consolidated foe, but it also multiplies the missionary, educational, and converting agencies. Every Protestant denomination has its own field of usefulness, and the cause of Christianity itself would be seriously weakened and contracted by the extinction of any one of them.
Nor should we overlook the important fact, that the differences which divide the various Protestant denominations are not fundamental, and that the articles of faith in which they agree are more numerous than those in which they disagree. All accept the inspired Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith and practice, salvation by grace, and we may say every article of the Apostles’ Creed; while in their views of practical Christianity they unanimously teach that our duties are comprehended in the royal law of love to God and to our fellow-men, and that true piety and virtue consist in the imitation of the example of Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all.
There is then unity in diversity as well as diversity in unity. And the tendency to separation and division is counteracted by the opposite tendency to Christian union and denominational intercommunion which manifests itself in a rising degree and in various forms among Protestants of the present day, especially in England and America, and on missionary fields, and which is sure to triumph in the end. The spirit of narrowness, bigotry and exclusiveness must give way at last to a spirit of evangelical catholicity, which leaves each denomination free to work out its own mission according to its special charisma, and equally free to co-operate in a noble rivalry with all other denominations for the glory of the common Master and the building up of His Kingdom. The great problem of Christian union cannot be solved by returning to a uniformity of belief and outward organization. Diversity in unity and unity in diversity is the law of God in history as well as in nature. Every aspect of truth must be allowed room for free development. Every possibility of Christian life must be realized. The past cannot be undone; history moves zig-zag, like a sailing vessel, but never backwards. The work of church history, whether Greek, Roman, or Protestant, cannot be in vain. Every denomination and sect has to furnish some stones for the building of the temple of God.
And out of the greatest human discord God will bring the richest concord. (http://www.ccel.org/a/schaff/history/7_ch01.htm
Meant to ping HarleyD to #196
Because while Mary was the vessel, the Incarnation was a mighty act of God, not God and Mary. And the significance of that act of God goes beyond a virgin birth and thunders through history since God made Himself man to die for our sins as the only acceptable sacrifice of atonement. God and man are reconciled, by God's hand alone, not God with man's help. That's how.
WOW.......
That puts salvation solidly in the works camp.
We are new creatures in Christ (2 Cor 5:17) having been transferred into the kingdom of the son He loves ( Colossians 1:13-14 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.)
Colossians 2:20-23 20 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— 21 “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” 22 ( referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? 23 These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
We are saved for one simple reason.....Colossians 3:3 For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
It's GOD who works in us to will and to do. He requires perfection from us and then goes on to fulfill it in us through faith.
He saved us. He'll keep us.
I am always amazed at how some people simply WILL NOT accept that being saved, being justified in Christ so that we CAN be saved, is NOT something we have the capability to accomplish. They toss out snippets of verses such as, "work out your own salvation", "faith without works is dead", or the "sheep and goats" story as if they can trump ALL the other passages of Scripture that make it clear we are not justified by anything we do, except receiving what Christ has done for us - belief, faith, trust. They are, in essence, saying they have, or will, merit heaven because they have been baptized and they are in the "right" church and they go to Mass and receive the Eucharist and, and, and... Sure, they'll say they have faith, too, but it really has been pushed in the background as far as being salvific is concerned, because unless they have all these works to show, faith is not enough. Yet, they ignore that Scripture says - and always HAS said - that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins and the wages of sin is death.
They completely ignore all that has been said here about the place of good works in a Christian's life and want to imply that we are saying God doesn't care what we do after we "get saved". No matter how many times that false construct is disputed, it is still there, it is STILL what they are saying. But we already KNOW why this argument keeps being repeated. The enemy of men's souls does not want anyone to grasp the truth of grace - neither before salvation or after. But all we can do is to keep speaking it, keep showing God's word, keep presenting what is the truth. And we know that it is the Holy Spirit who will cause this truth to not come back void, it WILL reach into someones heart though we may never know who or when. That's not something we need to be concerned about. We aren't trying to convert someone to or away from whatever their religion is into "ours". That is not the motive. It is to be God's voice for this time, on this outlet, to God's choice of ears. All we can do is speak the truth in love and let God get the increase.
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.